Post-Publication Redaction of the AMDC/RPM Contract
by Don Moniak
November 21, 2022
Within twenty-four hours of the publication of “Downtown Aiken Half Priced Sale,” the December 3, 2021 Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) between the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) and Project Pascalis developer RPM Development Partners, LLC (RPM) was removed from City of Aiken’s document repository. The withdrawal of the document from public view occurred in spite of the agreement —which was amended as late as June 2022 — being terminated by RPM on September 14, 2022 and rendered null and void two weeks later by the AMDC.
The December 3, 2021 agreement was publicly available, within a file titled “11302021 RES Municipal Dev. Com,” between October 21 and November 10, 2022. The file was within an AMDC folder called “other records” in the City of Aiken’s Laserfiche/Ecodocs records repository. Amendments to the agreement remain an AMDC secret.
The file contained both the AMDC resolution to sell the properties and the Purchase and Sale Agreement. At 9:41 a.m. on November 11th the file was removed from view, less than one day after its availability had been publicized in The Aiken Chronicles.
“113022021 RES Municipal Dev. Com” was made publicly available on 10/21/22 and removed 11/11/22
The document detailed the conditions for the sale of the commission’s seven Pascalis project properties. The proposed sale price of $5 million was nearly half of the $9.5 million the commission paid on November 9, 2021.
The contract also allowed for a fifty percent cost reimbursement for project design; and set a price of $3 million for an AMDC buyback of the proposed city-owned conference center and parking garage:
“Seller, or its designee, shall be required to purchase the parking garage and conference center components thereof upon completion of the Redevelopment Project for a purchase price calculated based on ( i) Three Million and 00/ 100 Dollars ($ 3,000, 000. 00), representing the portion of the Purchase Price hereunder allocated to the land for the parking garage and conference center, plus (ii) the actual design, permitting and construction costs ( pursuant to a fixed price agreement therefore) of the parking garage and conference center and a development fee to Purchaser equal to 5% of such costs.”
A $3 million AMDC buyback meant a net cost to the developer of $2 million for the purchase of the Hotel Aiken, the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens Street, and the portion of other properties dedicated to an apartment complex.
The AMDC signature page was signed by commission chairman Keith Wood. The RPM signature page was signed by RPM investor and legal agent Ray Massey, who is one of Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith’s partners.
The commission obtained the money via a grant from the City of Aiken, which in turn raised the funds by borrowing it via a municipal bond issuance approved by ordinance on August 23, 2022. Gary Smith, acting as City Attorney and council parliamentarian during the bond issuance, was responsible for preparing the ordinance, and signed his approval.
The signature page for the $10 million bond issuance ordinance.
The day before the contract with RPM was signed, Wood expressed concern in an email to other commissioners about having Smith’s name on a news release announcing the agreement, writing,
“Do we have to mention the Massey law firm as written? I think having Smith’s name in the news release will raise unwanted questions.”
No justification has been given for the post-publication redaction. RPM terminated the agreement on September 14, 2022; and the commission voted unanimously on September 29, 2022, to declare the contract “null and void.”
No other known purchase and sale agreements involving city property are considered too sensitive to publicly disclose—-even if that were an option. Examples of questionable real estate deals that were public knowledge before closing, and were open to public debate, include:
The agreement to sell the city’s Mattie Hall property to Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes law firm associate Scott Patterson. As reported in The City of Aiken’s Mattie Hall Property, the land the city sold for $150,000 was placed on the market for $700,000 two weeks after closing.
The agreement in January 2020 to sell the city’s Finance Building at 135 Laurens Street and the associated parking lot at 130 Pendleton St, SW for a collective $1.3 million to local investor Weldon Wyatt. As reported in The Cleaners, Wyatt then sold 135 Laurens St, SW one month later to SRP Credit Union for $1.3 million, and the parking lot a year later to R&O, LLC (Agent: Rick Osbon) for $500,000.
The only previous justifications for keeping the RPM contract sealed, and for continuing to withhold Project Pascalis procurement records, are two South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions.
Exemption five states the government may withhold documents “Incidental to proposed contractual arrangements and documents of and documents incidental to proposed sales or purchases of property.” (SC 30-4-40(5)).
Although the exemption ends “once a contract is entered into or the property is sold or purchased,” the law also allows for continued exemption “until the deed is executed, but this exemption applies only to those contracts of sale or purchase where the execution of the deed occurs within twelve months from the date of sale or purchase.”
As reported on October 24, 2022, former AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant (1) argued that since the deed was never executed, the contract remained exempt from disclosure. Since November 1, 2022, AMDC Chairman Keith Wood (2) has declined to answer requests to review commission records.
Exemption nine states the governmment may withhold “Memoranda, correspondence, documents, and working papers relative to efforts or activities of a public body and of a person or entity employed by or authorized to act for or on behalf of a public body to attract business or industry to invest within South Carolina.” (SC 30-4-40(9)).
These records are not exempt after the offer to attract an industry or business is accepted and the “public announcement of the project or finalization of any incentive agreement, whichever occurs later.”
The AMDC is relying upon the strictest interpretation of the state’s open records law to continue to withhold key information pertaining to Project Pascalis. But by any reasonable assessment, the continued secrecy surrounding the December 3, 2021, RPM Purchase and Sale Agreement, and subsequent amendments, is another indication that the AMDC plays by its own set of rules. After spending more than than $10 million of taxpayer funds to pursue Project Pascalis, the commission is essentially arguing that Project Pascalis contracts and procurement records are exempt from public disclosure because their project failed.
_______________
Footnotes
(1) Tim O’Briant was as an editor at the Aiken Standard from 2000-2016 and once testified to the South Carolina General Assembly on behalf of FOIA reform. After spending a year as an editor with The Brunswick News, in 2017 he was hired by the City of Aiken as its Communications Manager; and in 2019 was promoted to Director of the City’s new Economic Development Department. In November, 2021, he received a certification as an Economic Development Professional from the SC Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Institute.
From March 2021, to September 2022 he was the face and spokesperson for the Pascalis project, and was one of two people authorized to negotiate with developers and sign checks for commission expenditures.
O’Briant is no longer listed on the list of AMDC staff at aikenmdc.org. His unannounced removal from the commission’s staff followed unproven accusations by AMDC members Keith Wood and Chris Verenes that unnamed staff had deceived Wood into signing the December 3, 2021 contract with RPM prior to the release of a Request for Proposals. Details on this series of events can be found in The Project Pascalis “RFP.”
He reportedly remains employed as the City of Aiken’s Economic Development Director. As detailed in Part One of The City of Aiken’s Information Games, in that capacity he led efforts to obstruct access to Project Pascalis records.
(2) Keith Wood is an original AMDC member. He was appointed to the AMDC in early 2020 and has served as the Chairman of the AMDC since September, 2020. Along with Tim O’Briant, he was one of two people authorized to negotiate with Project Pascalis developers and authorize expenditures.
Wood is employed by Amentum Corporation as Vice President of Marketing and Communications in the company’s Nuclear Security Group.
AMDC Agreed to Sell Pascalis Properties for $5 Million.
by Don Moniak
November 10, 2022
Without any public notice, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) has finally made public (1) its December 3, 2021 Purchase and Sale Agreement(PSA) with RPM Development Partners, LLC (RPM). However, the AMDC has yet to release the amended version of the PSA that was completed in June, 2022.
The AMDC purchased the seven Pascalis properties on November 9, 2021 for a total of $9.5 million, using a grant from the City of Aiken from its August, 2021, $10 million municipal bond issuance. The PSA with RPM was signed on December 3, 2021 by AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, and RPM authorized agent Ray Massey.
The AMDC refused to disclose the proposed sale price for the properties and denied Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the PSA as recently as September 13, 2022–one day before RPM terminated the agreement. The AMDC also refused to release the PSA in early October, stating the process was ongoing.
According to the PSA, the AMDC proposed to sell the Berkman Building on Laurens Street, the Hotel Aiken, the Holley House, Taj Aiken Restaurant, the McGhee Building, Warneke Cleaners, and Newberry Hall for a collective $5 million— a 47% discount from the AMDC purchase price that would have resulted in a $4.5 million loss to the City of Aiken.
Other portions of the PSA included requirements that:
The City of Aiken perform all changes to Newberry Street at no cost to RPM; including removal of parking spaces, relocation of southbound traffic lanes and stormwater drainage and other utilities. If the City of Aiken failed to agree to these terms, RPM had the right to require the AMDC to repurchase the properties for $5 million.
The AMDC maintain insurance policies on all the properties and “manage and operate the Property in accordance with past practices and maintain the Improvements and the tangible Personal Property in substantially its current condition and repair, ordinary wear and tear excepted, to be delivered in a broom clean condition at Closing.”
A Master Development Agreement be completed prior to closing that defined the purchaser’s requirements and set a repurchase price for the garage and conference center at $3 million.
As reported in Portions Rescinded, But No Cancellation, RPM terminated the agreement on September 14, 2022, although that action was not publicly disclosed by the AMDC at the time. On September 29, 2022 the AMDC voted to render the agreement null and void, and commission members Keith Wood and Chris Verenes pinned blame for violations of South Carolina Community Development Law on unnamed “staff.” Since that time, longtime AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant was removed from the list of staff on the AMDC website.
In May 2022, the AMDC admitted that a “sole, one-time, financial incentive [for the developers] will be a discounted price for the property upon which they will build the hotel and apartments.” In light of the revelation that the discount was nearly a half-price sale, that statement might qualify as the top understatement of 2022 from the City of Aiken.
(1) The document appears to have been posted at the City of Aiken’s Laserfiche ecodocs document repository on October 21, 2022; filed under “other documents” in the AMDC folder.
The City of Aiken has yet to respond to the following FOIA request, filed on September 29, 2022:
“A copy of the unredacted version of the attached document, Pascalis offers comparison_Redacted, located at: https://aikenmdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Pascalis-offers-comparison_Redacted.pdf 2. A copy of all documents related to “Pascalis proposal solicitation and RFP scoring“ not presently at https://aikenmdc.org/2022/03/29/project-pascalis-public-records/; including, but not limited to: a. All emails or other correspondence to prospective developers that accompanied the RFP package; b. All memorandums describing proposals; and c. All submitted proposals. Under SC Community Development Law, all records of the AMDC are to be made available for inspection. I am willing to inspect the files as is to reduce and eliminate search and retrieval time. SECTION 31-10-160. Availability of commission’s books, records, bylaws, rules, and regulations for public inspection; annual report of commission’s activities. (a) The books and records of a commission are at all times open and subject to inspection by the public.”
Excessive Fees, Double-Billing, and the Suppression of Public Inquiry
by Don Moniak October 4, 2022
Recently obtained information (1) has revealed serious irregularities in the City of Aiken’s response process to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The information denials were mostly related to the city’s $100 million demolition and redevelopment project known as Project Pascalis. City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, who also serves as the custodian of records, has thus far refused to reply to a letter regarding infractions that function to illegally deny access to public records.
Specifically, officials responsible for complying with South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act:
Issued exorbitant search, retrieval, and redaction fees that suppressed public inquiry into government operations by maximizing costs for access to public records;
Issued identical FOIA fee determinations of $5312 involving exactly 332 hours of labor in response to three distinct, separate FOIA requests over a two month period from March 18 to May 12, 2022.
Issued identical FOIA fee determinations of $443 involving eight hours of labor at an increased rate of $48 per hour—triple the previous rate— in response to two distinct, separate FOIA requests on August 10, 2022;
Responded to requests involving Project Pascalis in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner at odds with SC FOIA response requirements; and
Cannot document whether searches for responsive records, upon which some fee determinations are based, actually occurred; suggesting the probability of fraudulent fee determinations.
The Fundamentals of Openness: When in Doubt, Disclose
A fundamental aspect of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is the powerful encouragement to disclose information and an equally strong discouragement to keep information secretive. Openness is the standard, not the exception.
South Carolina FOIA is characterized by frequent use of the word “may” that favors meetings open to the public and disclosure of records produced by government bodies. Conversely, use of the word “must” is infrequently applied to compel the sealing of documents and the closing of meetings to public view and input.
This legislative urge towards openness is exemplified by two simple statements in SC FOIA law:
“A public body may but is not required to exempt from disclosure the following information:” (SC 30-4-40 (a)); and
“A public body may hold a meeting closed to the public for one or more of the following reasons:” (SC 30-4-70 (a))
The State’s top officials have strongly endorsed this fundamental path towards openness. In 2016 South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster wrote, on behalf of the South Carolina Press Association (SCPA):
“As public servants we should always endeavor to maintain the public’s trust and confidence in their government. In that spirit, I hope you will remember ‘When in doubt – disclose.’”
When in doubt, post the time, place, and purpose of the meeting
When in doubt, open the meeting to the public
Records and public meetings pertaining to Project Pascalis do not fall under any category mandating non-disclosure or closed meetings. Yet, time and again city officials have acted against the spirit of openness as expressed by South Carolina FOIA by denying information access, falsely claiming exemptions for non exempt information, excessively gathering in closed-door executive sessions, and charging exorbitant fees to deter inquiry.
This story is about the latter example, the levying of excessive FOIA processing fees that deters inquiry. It is a story that has been reported for other jurisdictions; but prior to the advent of Project Pascalis the City of Aiken had never resorted to such obstructionist tactics.
The City of Aiken’s Excessive Fee Formulas
South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) calls for the law to “be construed so as to make it possible for citizens, or their representatives, to learn and report fully the activities of their public officials at a minimum cost or delay to the persons seeking access to public documents or meetings.”
Between March 29, 2022 and May 12, 2022, City of Aiken Economic Development Director and designated Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer Tim O’Briant issued identical FOIA fee determinations in response to three distinctly separate FOIA requests (2) from three different citizens. Each fee determination was exactly $5312 due to an estimated 332 hours of labor to search, retrieve, and redact (if necessary) records related to Project Pascalis.
Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant sent this identical FOIA fee determination in response to three separate FOIA requests; with two being sent on March 29th, 2022; and one being sent on May 12th, 2022
The response to the first two FOIA requests were preceded by a
a billing of 4.0 hours from Aiken Municipal Development Association (AMDC) attorney Gary Pope ($350/hr), in part for “Emails re FOIA to Tim O’Briant”
a billing of 0.5 hours by Pope Flynn associate Sara Weather ($225/hr) for “communications with Gary regarding overly broad FOIA requests and research of prior language.”
Invoices to AMDC from Pope-Flynn law firm for the month of March, 2022.
These legal discussions surrounding FOIA requests cost taxpayers as much $1500 in legal fees before the city even responded to two requests.
In a response to another FOIA request (3) made on September 9, 2022, City of Aiken Solicitor Laura Jordan explained that no records of “initial searches” for information are kept. There is no evidence to date that the “initial searches” that led to thousands of dollars in FOIA processing fees were ever conducted.
On August 10, 2022, Ms. Jordan issued two more identical fee determinations for two separate and very different FOIA requests. The fee determinations involved eight hours of “economic development” labor at a rate of $48 per hour. As the city’s Economic Development Director, Mr. O’Briant was being tasked with reviewing information from his own department for possible redactions.
South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act does allow government bodies to:
“Establish and collect reasonable fees not to exceed the actual cost of the search, retrieval, and redaction of records. The public body shall develop a fee schedule to be posted online. The fee for the search, retrieval, or redaction of records shall not exceed the prorated hourly salary of the lowest paid employee who, in the reasonable discretion of the custodian of the records, has the necessary skill and training to perform the request.”
SC FOIA also allows for fees to be waived if the information is in the public interest:
“Documents may be furnished when appropriate without charge or at a reduced charge where the agency determines that waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest because furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public.”
The $48/hr fees for information pertaining to Project Pascalis were instituted on August 4, 2022 and coincided with publication in The Aiken Chronicles of incriminating and embarrassing AMDC emails obtained via FOIA. The $48 per hour fee is triple the only published rate of $16 per hour on the city’s legally required FOIA online fee schedule page.
Since being informed of these particular findings on September 12, 2022, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, who also serves as Custodian of City Records, has refused to address the issues.
Following is the letter to Mr. Bedenbaugh detailing these particular violations of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act.
Mr. Bedenbaugh,
I recently submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the tracking spreadsheet for the city’s FOIA system. In it I found two interesting situations that warranted further investigation. Here are the results.
1. Summary:
Case 1: Three individuals charged identical amounts ($5312) for identical labor estimates (332 hrs) for three different requests. In Case #1:
a. Why was there first a double-billing of $5312 in FOIA fees?
b. Why was there a third identical billing while one of the original requests remained open?
c. What evidence is there that an “initial keyword search” actually occurred in response to any of these FOIA requests?
d. How would the City of Aiken defend itself against an attempted fraud complaint?
Case 2: Two individuals charged identical amounts ($443.98) for identical labor estimates (8 hours of “Economic Development Time” and two hours of IT staff time) for two very different FOIA requests. In Case #2:
a. Why was there no “initial keyword search” reported for a FOIA request that generated a 10 hour labor estimate?
b. Why was an identical fee determination issued for one request within twenty minutes of another request; and only 1.25 hours after the request was filed?
c. How would the City of Aiken defend itself against an attempted fraud complaint?
2. Double Billing and Fraud
Double billing in legal parlance refers to charging an hourly rate to two clients for the same time spent, or to bill different accounts for the same charge. It is a serious problem in the legal and health professions.
“any activity that relies on deception in order to achieve a gain. Fraud becomes a crime when it is a ‘knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment’ (Black’s Law Dictionary). In other words, if you lie in order to deprive a person or organization of their money or property, you’re committing fraud.”
Public records are public property.
SC FOIA allows for fees to be charged for the search, retrieval, and redaction of records:
“The public body may establish and collect reasonable fees not to exceed the actual cost of the search, retrieval, and redaction of records. The public body shall develop a fee schedule to be posted online. The fee for the search, retrieval, or redaction of records shall not exceed the prorated hourly salary of the lowest paid employee who, in the reasonable discretion of the custodian of the records, has the necessary skill and training to perform the request. “
3. Case 1: Three fee estimates for exactly $5312 for three different requests from three different individuals.
March 16, 2022: Citizen 1 files a detailed, two-page Freedom of Information Act request for a wide range of records, broken down into sixteen categories, related to Project Pascalis. It is designated FOIA #49-2022 by the City of Aiken’s FOIA response system.
March 18, 2022: Citizen 2 files a one paragraph FOIA request for a wide range of records related to Project Pascalis. It is designated FOIA # 54-2022.
March 18, 2022: AMDC contract attorney Gary Pope, Jr. bills the AMDC for 0.5 hrs to discuss “overly broad FOIA requests” with “Gary,” who is assumed to be Gary Smith, Aiken City Attorney. (Correction, 10/4/22: This is now believed to be a discussion between Gary Pope and Pope-Flynn associate Sarah Weather).
March 29, 2022: Citizen 1 receives a five-page response (2) to request #49-2022, with citations to information already publicly available, and a fee determination of $5213 for 332 staff hours to complete the request. Most of this The fee determination reads:
“In order to comply with this broad and extensive request, considerable staff time will be involved. For instance, an initial keyword search of the City email archive returned 32,000 individual results that must be reviewed for exemptions, attorney-client privilege, relevance, etc. If an average of 30 seconds is spent reviewing each of those mail items that will involve a minimum of 267 hours. The other records involved will require an additional estimated 65 hours from multiple staffers and from various departments to research and fulfill the request. The City of Aiken’s FOIA fee schedule provides for an hourly charge of $16 for such research and collection, therefore the charge to complete the request as stated would be $5,312. Staff will be assigned to begin the compilation of the requested records following the payment of a $1,328 (25%) initial payment. Once the deposit is paid, the City of Aiken would make the documents available within 30 calendar days as required by the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, §30-4-10. Prior to release of the collected records, the remainder of $3,984 would become due and payable.
Sincerely, Tim O’Briant”
The request is kept open, pending payment.
March 29, 2022: Citizen 2 receives a response to request #54-2022. In it, Tim O’Briant wrote:
“Your request is substantially similar to one received just days prior to your own submission. That being the case, I have included the response that request here along with links to many of the records and information requested. See below.”
A carbon copy, cut and paste version of the detailed letter and the Hotel Aiken Historic Registry attachment for #49-2022 followed; including the exact same fee determination.
Citizen 2 accepts the response and their request is cancelled.
May 12, 2022. At 12:14 a.m., Citizen 3 filed a FOIA request for correspondence “between Weldon Wyatt or any LLC associated with the Wyatt family, and the Aiken Economic Development Commission and the Mayor of Aiken, between January 1, 1999 and January 1, 2022, regarding Project Pascalis, Downtown Redevelopment, the Hotel Aiken, The Johnson Drug building, and any properties purchased by the AMDC in November 2021. All details of this correspondence can be placed online via the AMDC transparency page.” The FOIA is designated #89-2022.
May 12, 2022. At 8:18 a.m., Tim O’Briant responds to #89-2022. Unlike #49-2022 and #54-2022, no additional information is provided—such as the information provided in the five page letter to Citizen 1.
Even though Request #49-2022 remains open and involves much of the same information requested in #89-2022, a fee determination of $5312 for 332 hours of search, retrieval, and review time is provided. The entire paragraph detailing costs is cut and pasted from the response to Citizen 1 for #49-2022; just as it had been for Citizen 2 for #54-2022. (See Table 1).
June 13, 2022: An attempt to narrow the scope of FOIA #89-2022 is denied by Tim O’Briant, and Citizen 3 is asked to file a new request. O’Briant then cancels the original request.
A new, narrower request is filed, resulting in an $80 fee determination.
Table 1: Identical FOIA Fee Determination Requests. March 16 to May 12, 20222.
FOIA #49-2022
FOIA #54-1022
FOIA # 89-2002
Date of Request
3/16/22
3/18/22
5/12/22
Date of Response
3/29/22
3/29/22
5/12/22 (1)
Time Estimate Hrs
332
332
332
Cost Estimate $
5312
5312
5312
Number of Results in Initial Search
32,000
32,000
32,000
Hourly Charge
$16
$16
$16
Day Cancelled
5/31/22
3/29/22
6/13/22 (2)
Number of Results
32,000
32,000
32,000
(1) Time of Request
12:14 a.m.
Time of Response
8:18 a.m.
(2) Cancelled by City which requested a new request instead of a narrowing of the request.
Case 2: Another identical billing: $443.98 for eight hours of “Economic Development” labor and 2 hours of IT labor at $16/hr.
August 10, 2022: 8:45 a.m. In response to FOIA Request # 185-2022, Citizen 3 charged $443.98 for eight hours of “Economic Development” labor at $48/hr; and 2 hours of IT labor at $16/hr.
Request #185-2022 was filed on August 1, 2022, for “Copies of all emails from to and from Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant’s private email account tim.obriant@icloud.com. for the periods May 1, 2021 to June 30th, 2021 and December 1, 2021 and January 15th, 2022.”
The first response to this FOIA request included a suggestion by Ms. Jordan to narrow the search due to the volume of emails, estimated at 6,000 for the 3.5 month period in question; which would yield a minimum of 6,000 pages of paper copies at a cost of more than $9,000. Subsequently, IT determined that the emails could be downloaded and provided in an electronic format, resulting in the current, excessive $443.98 charge.
Fee Determination for FOIA # 185-2022.
August 10, 2022: 9:04 a.m. In response to FOIA request #203-2022, Citizen 4 was also charged $443.98 for eight hours of “Economic Development” labor at $48/hr; and 2 hours of IT labor at $16/hr.
The request was sent on August 10th at 7:45 a.m. for: “Emails to or from anyone from the firm Smith Massey Brodie Guynn and Mayes to any members of The AMDC, the Aiken City Council, The DRB and any city of Aiken staff from the time period of Jan 2021 – present.”
This request was for a 19-month period, yet there was no estimation of total records volume and no report of an “initial key word search.” This means the cost estimate was established within one hour and twenty minutes, and only fifteen minutes after the identical cost estimate for #185-2022.
The JustFOIA fee notification stated:
“The requested records for 203-2022 have been processed and will be released pending payment of the issued fee.”
Fee Determination for FOIA Request 203-2022. The invoice is identical to FOIA Request 185-2022 .
While this would be considered a broad request in terms of the time span, there was no apparent initial search—which is routine in some cases and absent in others, as indicated in Case 1 above. A few more examples illustrate this inconsistency:
For FOIA #79-2020, filed in July 2020, then City Solicitor Leigh Staggs wrote, in response to questions about the $48 fee estimate (3 hrs at $16/hr):
“Dear Mr. Moniak,
There are over five hundred emails that will need to be reviewed to determine which ones meet the criteria for the information you’ve requested.
Best,
Leigh Staggs City Solicitor.”
For FOIA’s 193-2022, 194-2022, and 195-2022, the initial fee determination included an estimate of 300-325 pages for each request.
Yet, for 203-2002 there was no reported initial search and no estimate on volume of reviewable records; and both (fee determinations) contained the odd “IT Staff KH” labor cost of $35.99/hr.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this very serious matter.
Donald Moniak
__________________
Footnotes and References
(1) In FOIA Request #230-2022, the following was requested:
“A copy of a listing of all FOIA requests since January 1, 2022 to the City of Aiken. Since this system is very well organized and systematic, I believe there should be a spreadsheet, database, table, or other document, on paper or electronic, that provides a listing of all FOIA requests by number, date of final response, fee determinations, fee collection, and any other information the City of Aiken finds pertinent. I believe this should take less than 15 minutes as this is a living document being updated on a regular basis.”
(2) Here are the three FOIA responses described in Case #1:
FOIA #49-044
Request Date: 3/16/22
Response Date 3/29/22
“In order to comply with this broad and extensive request, considerable staff time will be involved. For instance, an initial keyword search of the City email archive returned 32,000 individual results that must be reviewed for exemptions, attorney-client privilege, relevance, etc. If an average of 30 seconds is spent reviewing each of those mail items that will involve a minimum of 267 hours. The other records involved will require an additional estimated 65 hours from multiple staffers and from various departments to research and fulfill the request. The City of Aiken’s FOIA fee schedule provides for an hourly charge of $16 for such research and collection, therefore the charge to complete the request as stated would be $5,312. Staff will be assigned to begin the compilation of the requested records following the payment of a $1,328 (25%) initial payment. Once the deposit is paid, the City of Aiken would make the documents available within 30 calendar days as required by the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, §30-4-10. Prior to release of the collected records, the remainder of $3,984 would become due and payable.”
FOIA #54-2022
Request Date: 3/18/22
Response Date: 3/29/22
The response was cut and pasted from #49 to #54 because they were “similar in nature.”
“In order to comply with this broad and extensive request, considerable staff time will be involved. For instance, an initial keyword search of the City email archive returned 32,000 individual results that must be reviewed for exemptions, attorney-client privilege, relevance, etc. If an average of 30 seconds is spent reviewing each of those mail items that will involve a minimum of 267 hours. The other records involved will require an additional estimated 65 hours from multiple staffers and from various departments to research and fulfill the request. The City of Aiken’s FOIA fee schedule provides for an hourly charge of $16 for such research and collection, therefore the charge to complete the request as stated would be $5,312. Staff will be assigned to begin the compilation of the requested records following the payment of a $1,328 (25%) initial payment. Once the deposit is paid, the City of Aiken would make the documents available within 30 calendar days as required by the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, §30-4-10. Prior to release of the collected records, the remainder of $3,984 would become due and payable.”
The actual invoice listed the total time for search, retrieval, and review as 83 hours; and a cost of $1325 at a rate of $16/hr. There is no invoice for $5312 with a request for 1/4 deposit.
FOIA #89-2022
Request Date 5/12/22; Request Time 12:14 a.m.
Response Date 5/12/22. Response Time 8:18 a.m.
The City of Aiken has determined that in order to comply with this broad and extensive request, considerable staff time will be involved. For instance, an initial keyword search of the City email archive returned 32,000 individual results that must be reviewed for exemptions, attorney-client privilege, relevance, etc. If an average of 30 seconds is spent reviewing each of those mail items that will involve a minimum of 267 hours. The other records involved will require an additional estimated 65 hours from multiple staffers and from various departments to research and fulfill the request. The City of Aiken’s FOIA fee schedule provides for an hourly charge of $16 for such research and collection, therefore the charge to complete the request as stated would be $5,312. Staff will be assigned to begin the compilation of the requested records following the payment of a $1,328 (25%) initial payment. Once the deposit is paid, the City of Aiken would make the documents available within 30 calendar days as required by the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, §30-4-10. Prior to release of the collected records, the remainder of $3,984 would become due and payable.
(The following was added to #89-2022)
Bear in mind that much of the material you seek will not be disclosed as it is exempt from disclosure. As related to the proposed sale of the referenced properties, FOIA provides that a public body may exempt from disclosure “documents of and documents incidental to proposed sales or purchases of property,” as well as correspondence “relative to efforts or activities of a public body and of a person or entity employed by or authorized to act for or on behalf of a public body to attract business or industry to invest within South Carolina” S.C. Code Section 30-4-40(a)(5), (9). The City has reviewed the FOIA Request and determined the Requested Correspondence is subject to exemption as it relates to the sale of the property and efforts to attract investment. In light of the foregoing, the City has determined to exempt the Requested Correspondence from disclosure and will not produce any documents responsive to that portion of the FOIA Request.
3) FOIA Request #243-2022 was for:
“1. A copy of any and all City of Aiken Freedom of Information Act policy, protocols, or any other document detailing standard procedures to comply with all South Carolina Freedom of Information Act requests; for the period January 1st, 2022 to present.
2. A copy of any and all records from the City’s IT department or other sources pertaining to the “initial search” for records for the following FOIA requests. a. FOIA # 89-2022, submitted at 12:30 a.m. on May 12, 2022; with a response at 8:18 a.m. on the same day. This search request resulted in a fee determination of $5312 with an estimate of 332 hours of search, retrieval, and review time. b. FOIA #49-2022, submitted on May 18, 2022. According to the City’s FOIA tracking spreadsheet, this FOIA resulted in a fee determination of $1328. c. FOIA # 54-2022, submitted on March 18, 2022. According to the City’s FOIA tracking database, this FOIA request resulted in a fee determination of $1328.
The September 15, 2022 response from City Solicitor Laura Jordan read:
“As to No. 1 of your request, the City employs the text of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, Title 30, Chapter 4, of the S.C. Code of Laws Annotated. A copy of S.C. Code Ann. 30-4-10, et. seq., cited as the Freedom of Information Act, has been uploaded to the JustFOIA portal. The City, as required by the Freedom of Information Act, employs a published fee schedule describing how charges will be calculated. That schedule is publicly available at the following Website URL: https://www.cityofaikensc.gov/government/freedom-of-information-fee- schedule/
As to No. 2 of your request, no records are generated by the City’s IT Department pertaining to the “initial search” of records for emails. Specifically, no records were created by the IT Department or any other department pertaining to the “initial search” for records for FOIA Requests #89-2022, #49-2022, and #54-2022. FOIA obligates the City to disclose “public records” which by definition only include items in the possession of, or retained by the City. Accordingly, to the extent the body does not have a record conforming to your request, the City is under no obligation to create a public record and has not done so with respect to this item in your FOIA Request.”
In the past few days a few symbolic Pascalis project changes have taken place:
The small tree growing from a second floor window above Beyond Bijou was removed; and
Somebody in the City of Aiken overrode the decision to redact a project manager’s work descriptions from their submitted invoices.
While the changes are not monumental, they are notable.
A Tree No Longer Grows From a Window In Downtown Aiken
The Chinese elm sapling growing from the second floor window above Beyond Bijou at 106 Laurens Street, SW is gone. The tree was portrayed as one of many symbols of blight by the Aiken Municipal Development Association (AMDC) when it announced its $9.6 million purchase of the building and six other properties—money funded by an August, 2021 City Council approved bond issuance that failed to identify the involved properties.
The AMDC exploited the scene to make its dubious case that:
From every angle, the area of Downtown that makes up the Project Pascalis footprint is in need of a refresh. This highly visible block of the central business district has fallen into disrepair… (1)
This statement was made in spite of the fact that nine existing businesses were in the “footprint,” and only two of the seven properties were vacant.
But for the next ten months the new landlord of these properties (AMDC) failed to remove the tree, defying city codes and state of South Carolina landlord-tenant laws. The tree evolved from a public relations ploy to present downtown as “suffering from disuse and deterioration” (2) into a genuine symbol of landlord neglect.
On August 26th, the following letter pertaining to the tree and general upkeep of AMDC properties was sent to AMDC Chairman Keith Wood:
Chairman Wood,
The City of Aiken‘s Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) is a landlord. South Carolina’s Landlord and Residential Tenant act applies to properties owned by the AMDC:
(a) A landlord shall: comply with the requirements of applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and safety;
(2) make all repairs and do whatever is reasonably necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition;
(3) keep all common areas of the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and, for premises containing more than four dwelling units, keep in a reasonably clean condition;” https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t27c040.php”
While the AMDC could argue that the hotel is vacant and currently unfit for habitation, the Holley House and the AMDC’s five other properties are occupied.
My questions for today are:
1. The AMDC continues to collect $11,000 to $15,000 per month in rents. Why is some of that money not going to basic upkeep of buildings? For example, why is the tree sapling still growing through the window of the 2nd Floor of the Berkman Building/Palmetto Block at 106 Laurens St, SW?”
Chairman Wood has yet to answer the letter.
On August 29th, “A Project Pascalis Update” (3) was published that featured two photos of the tree—one by the AMDC in November 2021, and one from late July of 2022.
Whether these letters and negative publicity had any impact, or a call to the city from a concerned citizen did the trick, is unknown. There is no longer a tree growing from the window, and the building now looks more presentable for the three successful businesses (Beyond Bijou, Vampire Penguin, and Ginger Bee) below it.
Tree in window, July 6, 2022 (left); tree disappeared, September 1, 2022 (right).
A Project Management Work Description Reappears
As reported in “A Project Pascalis Update,” sometime between August 23rd and August 26, 2022, the AMDC added “Project Timesheets” from its project management contractor, Capstone Services, LLC, into its “AMDC Financial Binder” file on the commission’s “Transparency” webpage. (4) This action was taken in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
However — even though, in March 2022, three of the timesheets had been disclosed, along with all other AMDC billings and invoices — this time the “Description of Work” column was completely redacted from every timesheet.
To make a long story short, after an appeal to City Solicitor Laura Jordan and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh (who is also the City’s custodian of records), the unredacted versions and two missing timesheets are now in an updated version of the AMDC’s “Financial Binder” file.
Excerpt from February 2022 Capstone timesheet redacted/unredacted
Conclusions: These two stories illustrate a few trends regarding the $100 million plus downtown Aiken demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis.
First, City of Aiken officials from the Mayor on down tolerated a flagrant violation of City codes for nearly a year, allowing an obvious indicator of impending blight to remain on what is essentially city owned property.
Second, City of Aiken officials from Records Custodian and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh to City Solicitor Laura Jordan have tolerated flagrant, egregious violations of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, allowing AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant to redact harmless information from commission documents; including the facts that a contractor was paid $100 per hour to attend AMDC public meetings, review environmental documents, and meet with developers—a basic project management function. No explanation has been provided for this lapse in openness by officials who are on the record claiming “transparency is key.” (5)
No new information has been proactively posted to the page since at least early June, and it is unknown how much was ever proactively posted to the page absent a FOIA request. The Transparency Page appears to have been a response to what was termed “overly broad FOIA requests” submitted in mid-March, 2022; and not an informational philanthropic acton on behalf of the AMDC.
The reference to “overly broad FOIA requests” can be found at page 160. There is no definition of “overly broad” in South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act; but it is a common bureaucratic term that functions to deter public inquiry into government actions and practices.
(4) “Development exec promises transparency as commission moves on Hotel Aiken, other land.” Aiken Standard, November 5, 2021.
“‘At this point, we can come out and tell you what we’re doing,’” Tim O’Briant said at the Aiken Chamber of Commerce’s monthly breakfast forum. “‘We want the community to be involved.’”
Following is an update since June 13, 2022 on various aspects of the City of Aiken’s $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis. For information prior to that time, see A Project Pascalis Timeline.
Four developments and trends are notable:
A major lawsuit featuring nine plaintiffs and twenty-seven defendants was filed on July 5, 2022 seeking an injunction to halt the project.
The “Do It Right Alliance” amassed more than 2,000 signatures for a petition to overturn two City of Aiken ordinances; the 2022 ordinance allowing partial privatization of Newberry Street; and the 2019 ordinance establishing the AMDC.
Progress on Project Pascalis appeared to stall, and was likely in a process of reorganization prior to the lawsuit. A June 2022 billing invoice from the law firm of Pope-Flynn to the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) indicated work on a new redevelopment plan, a new “omnibus ordinance,” and a project “pivot.” No final Master Development Agreement has been reached that would trigger demolition work and the privatization of a portion of Newberry Street.
Increased secrecy surrounded the project. Only closed-door meetings regarding the project occurred since June 21, documents containing basic information were partially redacted, an increase in denial of documents occurred, and officials have declined comment due to pending litigation—even when the issue is outside the scope of the litigation.
Timeline Since June 21, 2022
June 13: The AMDC and City Council spend two hours in a joint closed-door Executive Session to discuss “to discuss Project Pascalis with City Council and the developers.” City Council cites the following open meeting exemption to justify closing the doors “pursuant to Section 30-4-70(a)(2) for consideration and discussion of matters related to development of Project Pascalis regarding negotiations incident to proposed contractual arrangements related to Project Pascalis and receipt of related legal advice.”
Prior to the workshop, AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. meets with AMDC to “work on a new direction and how to get there.” (2)
The AMDC checking account has a balance of $101,195.30
June 22: AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. works on an “omnnibus ordinance,” and “revising the redevelopment plan,” for 3.0 hours. Details are unknown. (2)
Gary Pope, Jr. also spends two hours reviewing South Carolina’s “Community Development Corporation Act, schedule, and proposed revisions to Project Pascalis plan.” (Community Development Corporation Act allows for the creation of non-profit corporations with “a primary mission of developing and improving low-income communities and neighborhoods through economic and related development,” and community development financial institutions to assist with credit and capital.
Page 1 of June invoice to AMDC from Pope-Flynn. Click to view full size.Page 2 of June invoice to AMDC from Pope Flynn. Click to view full size.AMDC payment of June invoice. Click to view full size.
June 24: The City of Aiken posts forty-five Demolition Application notices for a July 5th hearing in front of Newberry Hall, Warneke Cleaners, the former State Farm building on Newberry Street; the McGhee Building (historic CC Johnson Drug Store, On Board Realty, Security Finance), Taj Aiken Restaurant, and the former Holley House motel on Richland Avenue.
Two of the 45 Demolition Application notices posted by the City of Aiken on 6/24/22
AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. works on “redevelopment plan and necessary items to pivot project” for 5.5 hours.
June 27: Pope-Flynn staff work 12.2 hours to “prepare for meeting at City of Aiken. Participate in Executive Session.”
Aiken City Council votes unanimously to enter into closed-door, Executive Session “to discuss negotiations incident to proposed contractual arrangements relating to Project Pascalis and receipt of related legal advice.” The closed-door session lasts one hour, and there is no further discussion of Project Pascalis during the subsequent open meeting.
June 29: Demolition Application from RPM Development Partners, LLC to the Design Review Board to demolish motel iswithdrawn Current status of demolition plans is unknown.
”Withdrawn” stickers applied to Demolition notices on 6/29/22. Click individual images to view full-size
July 5:Lawsuit filed on behalf of nine plaintiff’s seeking injunction to stop project; citing violations of City of Aiken ordinances and laws governing South Carolina community development, local government comprehensive planning, ethics and conduct of public officials, freedom of information, and local government planning.
Plaintiffs seek to stop Project Pascalis by asking for “a declaration from the Court that certain actions of the City and certain municipal bodies are null and void and incapable of being implemented, in whole or in part” and “injunctions preventing the continued implementation of the null and void acts.” Plaintiffs do not ask for damages.
Court Filings to date in Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al; from most recent.
July 9: The law firm of Pope-Flynn submits $20,546.03 bill to the AMDC for fifty-nine hours of work completed in June, 2022.
July 11: Aiken City Council meets in closed door executive session with Attorney Daniel Plyler for two hours to discuss legal matters related to the lawsuit, but a Joint executive session with the AMDC is cancelled.
Aiken City Counciltables amendmentto amend AMDC establishment ordinance to correspond to by-laws written by the AMDC that allows non-residents of the city who have “vested business interests” to serve as AMDC members. No questions pertaining to the tabled amendment are allowed by Presiding Officer Mayor Rick Osbon.
July 12: AMDC Property Manager On Board Realty deposits $11,205.00 in rent payments to the AMDC checking account.
AMDC cancels monthly meeting, reportedly due to quorum issues.
July 13-14. In response to a citizen alert to the City of Aiken, the AMDC removes dozens of files from its “Transparency Page” at aikenmdc.org. The files contained copies of AMDC checks and personal business information that was not properly redacted.
July 22: Historic Aiken Foundation sends letter to AMDC Chairman Keith Wood requesting increased safety and security measures at the Hotel Aiken.
July 25 to 31: City of Aiken code enforcement begin removing “Say No to Project Pascalis” signs from the right-of-ways in front of private residences, citing the city’s complex sign ordinance.
July 26: Chairman Wood replies to Historic Aiken Foundation, denying all issuesraised.
AMDC checking account has balance of $53,014.41
July 28: Aiken Public Safety conducts first fire inspection at Hotel Aiken since March, 2021.
August 4: City of Aiken begins to routinely triple the fees for some Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests; increasing the rate for document “search, retrieval, review, and redaction” from $16/hr to $48/hr.
August 9: AMDC cancels monthly meeting for second straight month due to lack of a quorum.
August 10-11 In response to a FOIA request, the AMDC reposts most of the invoices previously removed in mid-July, and invoices since April 1, 2022, within a file named “AMDC Financial Binder” is posted to the commission’s “Transparency Page,” https://aikenmdc.org/2022/03/29/project-pascalis-public-records/. The unannounced posting marks the first change to the AMDC website since the records were removed.
August 15: In Blake et al vs. City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for the City of Aiken file:
“Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Defendants Osbon, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz.”
“Answer on Behalf of Defendants City of Aiken, Osbon, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz.” (3. Comments on Motion and Answer)
August 18: In Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for the Plaintiff file discovery questions and requests for information:
First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Rick Osbon
First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Rick Osbon
First Set of Interrogatories to All Members of Aiken City Council
First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to all Members of Aiken City Council.
August 22: In Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for the City of Aiken file: “Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order on Behalf of Defendants Osbon, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz;” in response to August 18th discovery issuance.
August 23-26: AMDC adds thirteen pages of partially redacted documents to its “AMDC Financial Binder.” Four of the documents had been already disclosed by the AMDC prior to mid-July; those copies contained no redactions.
Project Time Sheet from December 2021, formerly posted on AMDC website (left image), now redacted (right image).
Status as of August 28, 2022
As of August 25, no answer has been forthcoming from attorneys representing the Design Review Board or the Aiken Municipal Development Association.
The Master Development Agreement (MDA) necessary for any future work appears to be still in negotiation, and time is running short. On December 3, 2021, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) wrote:
The initial Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) announced today gives the AMDC and RPM until no later than Summer 2022 to come to terms on a mutually beneficial Master Development Agreement. (4)
No such agreement has been announced, and the AMDC has not replied to a letter asking for the exact deadline date on the PSA, even though this date is not pertinent to the lawsuit.
No announcements on the status of the MDA, the second demolition application, or any other aspect of the project such the “omnibus ordinance,” a new redevelopment plan, or the possibility of a non-profit corporation to replace the AMDC has been forthcoming from the City of Aiken.
The tree growing out of the window on the second floor of the Berkman Building on Laurens Street, above Beyond Bijou, remains. A photo of this tree was first used by the AMDC on November 9, 2021 to illustrate the “blighted status” of its new downtown properties. The AMDC has not acted to remove the tree since that time.
A Tree Grows in Aiken, November 2021A Tree Grows in Aiken, August 2022LEFT: Photo of tree sapling growing out of the 2nd story window above the business, “Beyond Bijoux” — one of three AMDC tenants at 106 Laurens Street, a building targeted for demolition with Project Pascalis. This photo was featured in the AMDC’s Nov. 2021 montage: “Project Pascalis: The Bold Plan for Aiken’s Future!” https://aikenmdc.org/2021/11/08/293/
RIGHT: Photo of the same tree, August 2022, representative, perhaps, of the level of upkeep exercised by the Aiken Municipal Development Corporation (AMDC), the landlord of this property. (Photo courtesy of Jacob Ellis)
__________________
References and Notes
(1) This information is contained in the Pope-Flynn law firm’s June 2022 billing invoice to the AMDC, found on Page 161-162.
(2) Comments on August 15, 2022 motion and answer:
In the motion to dismiss Mayor Osbon and individual members of City Council, the city’s attorneys cited the South Carolina Tort Claims Act to argue that only a government entity must be named. They argue that individuals are “not proper parties” and “must be dismissed as they are already represented through defendant City of Aiken;” while admitting the City of Aiken was “correctly named the governmental entity” to which the Mayor and City Council belong. In other /words, they argue the City of Aiken can be sued in whole but individuals representing the city are exempt, under Tort law.
Torts are, by definition, “an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability.”
Since the lawsuit is not a tort action and not a liability case, and no damages are being sought, it is unclear why the City’s attorneys are making this argument.
In the “answer on behalf of defendants,” City attorneys cite the motion to dismiss by arguing, “Defendants are simply the alter-ego of the City of Aiken, and therefore said Defendants must be dismissed.” The South Carolina Tort Claims Act is cited again, even though the word “Tort” is absent from the July 5th Summons and there is no request for damages, only injunctive relief.
In total, City attorneys offered sixteen defenses but provided minimal to zero substance for the various defenses; and denied nearly every allegation beyond the fact the City of Aiken is a municipality.
(3) Comments on “Requests for Production of Documents” and the “Motion for a Protective Order” to exclude individual defendants from discovery.
The requests for documents is the first basic phase of discovery. It is a request casting a wide net for documentation relating to the project, and includes a request for:
“Any and all documents and other things, including letters, e-mail, texts, entries in social media, journals, photos, recordings, sketches, videos, logs, diaries, notes, or other written material of any kind in any media in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant or its counsel which relate in any way to the claims or defenses alleged in this action. If Defendant is asserting a privilege, please provide a privilege log.”
The defendant’s lawyers responded to the plaintiff’s request for the production of documents by arguing that individual city council members and the Mayor
“should not have to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests until a ruling has been made on their pending Motion to Dismiss.”
If the Motion to Dismiss the individual council members and the Mayor is denied, then the individuals will be subjected to the rules of discovery. If the motion is approved, any official business conducted by city council members and the Mayor will remain subject to the rules of discovery, because the City of Aiken will remain a defendant.
(4) The AMDC announcement from December 3, 2021 also reads:
“The agreement will include complete designs, engineering and permitting required to move forward with Project Pascalis. Any such development agreement would establish, among other things, the price the developer would pay for the property, and the amount the developers would be required to invest in the proposed privately funded, owned/operated hotel and residential portions of the project. The AMDC also intends for the agreement to hold the project to strict completion deadlines that will ensure it moves at a deliberate pace and avoids potential delays. The Master Development Agreement being negotiated would also establish fixed pricing for the proposed conference center and parking facility that would be purchased by the City of Aiken upon completion.”
From: AMDC begins Development Agreement negotiations Dec 3, 2021
