Tag Archives: Project Pascalis

In the Demolition Zone, January 2023, Project Pascalis 2022

Aiken City Council Stumbles on AMDC

3 Comments

Council Calls Special Meeting to Vote on Future of its Municipal Development Commission Three Days After Dropping Agenda Item.

by Don Moniak

January 12, 2023

Aiken City Council announced today a “Special Meeting” for Tuesday, January 17th (1) at 5 p.m. to consider “an ordinance amending Section 11-2 of the Aiken City Code regarding the membership of the (Aiken) Municipal Development Commission.” (AMDC) The proposed re-organization of the AMDC involves returning it to its original composition of six appointees and three ex-officio voting members from City Council. That structure was amended in September 2020 after then ex-officio members Ed Woltz, Ed Girardeau, and Lessie Price chose to abstain from voting on issues that could arise during Council business.(2)

At least five of the nine commission members are required to be present to conduct business.  The commission officially holds title to ten properties, including the seven properties in the Project Pascalis demolition and redevelopment proposal. The absence of a quorum and inability to act leaves the future of these properties highly uncertain.

The nine-member AMDC was reduced to six members in June 2022, after three members were found to reside outside of the City—a violation of AMDC membership requirements defined in City code.  The commission was further reduced to two members after protest resignations in early December by Keith Wood and Chris Verenes; which were followed by resignations from David Jameson and Doug Slaughter. (Slaughter had also missed four of the six regular AMDC meetings in 2022, which warranted automatic removal under city code; making his resignation more symbolic than real.)

As reported on January 7th, in Pascalis Properties on Aiken City Council’s Closed Door Agenda, “placing three ex-officio voting members from City Council onto the AMDC would provide the necessary quorum for the commission to publicly meet, conduct business, and act to sell the property to the City of Aiken.” Councilman Ed Girardeau, who proposed the ordinance (3), appeared to confirm this motive when he told the Aiken Standard:

“Since we have only two members left, we need to complete some business for the Commission and the easiest way to move forward is to have three members to have a quorum.” 

The vote Monday night to drop the AMDC ordinance from the agenda was expected to be unanimous, but Councilwoman Andrea Gregory silently dissented. At the three minute mark of the meeting, Councilman Ed Woltz introduced a motion to change the agenda, without explanation or a description of the agenda item in question:

Councilman Ed Woltz: “Everything stands on that agenda with the exception of item number four we will be pulling item number four on our new business and with that change I will make a motion for approval. 

Mayor Rick Osbon: Very good thank you sir. We have a motion. Is there a second? (Councilwoman Price seconds). We have a motion. All those in favor of the agenda with item number four in our new business pulled please raise your hand and that’s unanimous thank you oh no. 

It’s not all all right. Uh, that’s um it’s all in favor …Councilman Woltz, Councilwoman Price, the Mayor, Councilwoman Diggs, Councilwoman Brohl, and Councilman Girardeau. All those opposed. Okay Councilwoman Gregory. The motion carries.” (2)

The next day, Councilwoman Gregory broke her silence and shared her thoughts with the Aiken Standard, stating that it was time to move forward and quit debating the issue: 

“We just need everybody to agree this just doesn’t work. It needs to get dissolved. We need to assume the properties under the city and we need to move forward.’” 

She reportedly added that “dissolving the AMDC is what the community wants,” probably referring to the fact that more than 3,000 signatures have been acquired for a petition that seeks, in part, to abolish the AMDC. If so, it was a departure from previous positions, as just three months ago Gregory described opponents to Project Pascalis as a “very small group” to the Aiken Standard; and referred to the litany of legal violations as “hiccups.”

But the future of the AMDC goes beyond the Pascalis properties to which it owns title. The commission also owns three properties on Williamsburg Street across from the Farmer’s Market, known as the Jackson Petroleum property, which it purchased in March, 2021, for $175,000.  Since that time the commission has sought to redevelop them into multi-family housing as part of the Williamsburg Street redevelopment effort. 

Like Project Pascalis, the Williamsburg Street effort lacks a redevelopment plan that was subjected to a public hearing and approved by City Council; and there has been no publicly advertised RFP for sale and redevelopment. 

The Williamsburg Street properties further complicate the AMDC’s future due to potential conflict of interests held by City Council members Ed Woltz and Ed Girardeau. Mr. Girardeau is the Broker/Owner for the Re-Max/Tattersall Group, which listed the property and represented the seller during negotiations with the AMDC.

Jackson Petroleum Property before sale to AMDC. Photo by Kelly Cornelius

Mr. Woltz owns the neighboring properties where he operates Sutton Marine. Both have recused themselves in the past two years from discussion and voting on Williamsburg Street issues. 

Mayor Osbon recused himself from discussion of the Pascalis properties on December 12, 2022, due to the presence of Warneke’s Cleaners—which competes with Osbon Cleaners—as one of the properties. The AMDC is also presently Warneke’s Cleaners’ landlord.

Tuesday’s meeting, at 5 p.m. in City Council chambers at 111 Chesterfield Street, is open to the public and citizens comments of up to five minutes per speaker will be accepted. 

January 13, 2023: Aiken City Council Revises AMDC Ordinance


Footnotes

(1) The meeting annoucement:

(2) The meeting minutes for the AMDC’s August 4, 2020 meeting state:

“The Commission came out of executive session and continued discussion on the Hotel Aiken and the concerns about the condition of the building and how it affects looks of the downtown.

Mr. Gillam stated he would like to make a motion that a letter be addressed to City Council with the recommendation that the city address the owner of the Aiken Hotel with the request that the hotel be brought up to the building standards, and also request Council to remove the hotel from the Aiken Historic Register as an historic building. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood.

The Commission discussed the motion. Mr. Dangerfield stated the motion is that the Municipal Development Commission write a letter to City Council asking them to take the Aiken Hotel off the Aiken Historic Register and address the condition of the Aiken Hotel and its renovation.
After discussion it was noted that the three Councilmembers would abstain from voting because they felt it might be a conflict of interest.

Also, Mr. Verenes stated he would abstain from voting because he has a conflict of interest. It was pointed out that one member was absent so with four members abstaining from voting, that would only leave four members to vote on the motion and a favorable motion would require the vote of five members in favor of a motion.”

At their next meeting, the AMDC passed a motion to recommend changing the commission membership to nine appointees.

The August 4, 2020 Executive Session was arguably illegal. There are no exemptions in SC FOIA’s Open Meeting rules that allow a closed-door session merely to discuss the condition of a building and the city’s building codes.

By the end of September, 2020, Mr. Dangerfield had resigned from the AMDC because he already was a member of another public body, and therefore was not legally qualified to hold a position on the commmission.

(3) The proposed ordinance amendment as it appeared in the January 9, 2023, City Council meeting agenda packet.



City Government, In the Demolition Zone, January 2023

Pascalis Properties on Aiken City Council’s Closed-Door Agenda?

4 Comments

by Don Moniak

January 7, 2022

Aiken City Council is scheduled to meet in closed-door Executive Session prior to its regular public meeting on Monday, January 9, 2022. A “potential purchase of real property located in downtown Aiken” is the first item on the Executive Session agenda. (1)

Based on the following information, the downtown property in question is believed to be the seven properties owned by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) that collectively formed the basis for the commission’s second Project Pascalis effort; and which were referenced in the singular tense as “The Property” in the commission’s cancelled Purchase and Sale Agreement with RPM Development Partners, LLC.

1. For the second consecutive Council meeting, a planned, closed-door Executive Session will feature these identical items:

  • “Potential purchase of real property located in downtown Aiken.
  • A proposed contractual arrangement to lease property in downtown Aiken. “(2)

The previous discussion occurred prior to Council’s December 12, 2022, regular public meeting.

2. According to draft meeting minutes, the following attendees reportedly attended the two-hour long session on December 12th:

  • Councilmembers Kay Brohl, Gail Diggs, Ed Girardeau, Andrea Gregory, Lessie Price and Ed Woltz.
  • City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, City Attorney Gary Smith, City Clark Sara Ridout, Assistant City Manager Mary Tilton, AMDC member David Jameson, Attorney Daniel Plyler, City Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, AMDC Ex-Officio member and Aiken Corporation CEO Buzz Rich; and Dr. Vahid Majidi and Sharon Marra of the Savannah River National Laboratory.

3. Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon recused himself from the December 12th proceeding: 

“Mayor Osbon recused himself from participating in the executive session discussion because the discussion may involve one of his direct economic competitors.”  (Page 7)

Rick Osbon co-owns and operates Osbon Dry Cleaners on Pendleton Street in downtown Aiken. Their only competitor in the downtown area is Warneke’s Cleaners on Newberry Street. Warneke’s Cleaners is on one of seven properties purchased by the AMDC in November, 2021, to become part of the proposed Project Pascalis demolition and redevelopment zone. The properties are owned by the AMDC, but acquired with a $9.6 million grant from City Council from borrowed taxpayer funds.

4. David Jameson resigned from the AMDC two days later, on December 14th, and began his resignation letter by writing:

“Thank you for allowing me to hear the legal briefing concerning the mechanics of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) Monday night. My understanding is that the Commission’s ability to function is being held hostage by our bylaws—essentially the quorum issue. With our current membership of three, we can meet but we cannot act.” 

5. During the public comment period for non-agenda items, Historic Aiken Foundation President Linda Johnson offered the following comments and questions:

“Partly because of some past events, Historic Aiken Foundation is especially interested anytime anything comes up about downtown.  So I understand that buying properties is something that you really have to talk about in executive session, but I was wondering is there anything you can share about what property this is, what you’re planning to do with it, and what’s going on with this potential purchase?” (22:30 mark of Meeting)

Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith—who has apparently chosen to stop recusing himself from the Pascalis process since the reported project “cancellation” by the AMDC— responded:

“The properties are located downtown, that’s really all we can tell you at this point. Before city council can do anything with acquiring the property there would have to be a public discussion. There would have to be a notice given to everybody and so you will get that information if that transaction actually goes forward.”

In response to a related followup question (3), Smith further stated:

I think that’d be fair to say the the transaction is such that all of the parties involved aren’t prepared for the public to be aware of what the transaction is. That’s why City Council is not allowed to discuss it at this point, okay, whereas a year ago both parties were there at the table.”

As described in Jameston’s resignation letter, the AMDC is currently not prepared for the public because it lacks a quorum. Since the AMDC technically owns the properties, City Council might believe the commission must be prepared to act on any sale of the properties.

6. Item #4 under new business for Council’s regular January 9th meeting is the “First Reading of an Ordinance Regarding the Membership of the Municipal Development Commission:”

According to the supporting memorandum from City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh:

“Councilmember Girardeau has asked to bring forth an ordinance amending the membership section, which would have three of the nine-member board be City Council members serving as voting ex-officio members. Six members would continue to be citizens of the City of Aiken appointed by Aiken City Council. For Council consideration is an ordinance amending Section 11-2 of the Aiken City Code regarding the membership of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission.”

Placing three ex-officio voting members from City Council onto the AMDC would provide the necessary quorum for the commission to publicly meet, conduct business, and act to sell the property to the City of Aiken. Whether Council plans to dissolve the commission after such an actios—as suggested in AMDC member Doug Slaughter’s resignation letter—or maintain the latest proposed form of the AMDC is unknown.

The January 9th meeting will be City Council’s the eighth closed-door session (4) involving Project Pascalis since June 1, 2022. These were not all legal briefings. For example, on June 13 Council met with the developers—under the pretext of an Open Meetings exemption—to hear from them as a group for the first time, a lack of governmental oversight identified by Ed Woltz on May 9, 2022:

 “I would like to have a meeting with the builders for the project. Council as a whole has not done that. Some people individually have. The Mayor had spoken to them more than once, but as a Council we have not talked to the builder.”

With the exception of the repeal of the Newberry Street privatization ordinance, Aiken City Council has not held a public discussion regarding the Pascalis project or the AMDC properties since May 9, 2022. Even though it is increasingly evident that transfer of the properties from AMDC control to City of Aiken control is being contemplated and perhaps moving forward, Aiken City Council is choosing to continue its policies of secrecy and obfuscation even as it attempts to clean up after its $100 million plus Pascalis project failed; a failure due in part to a penchant for secrecy.

7:10 p.m. on December 12, 2022 when Aiken City Council closed-door meeting ran late.


For followup story, see January 12, 2023, Aiken City Council Stumbles on AMDC

Footnotes:


(1) The Executive Session Announcement:

2) The “proposed contractual arrangement to lease in downtown Aiken” likely involves a lease of City property to the Savannah River National Laboratory—possibly the former Municipal Building at 214 Park Avenue. This is based on the fact that December 12, 2022, Executive Session attendees included Dr. Vahid Majidi and Sharon Marra, who are the Director and Deputy Director of Operations, respectively, at the lab.

This appears to be the latest step towards an even stronger presence of Savannah River Site contractors in downtown Aiken, this time as part of an “Innovation District.” This began with the AECOM plan, which was referenced in Mayor Rick Osbon’s December 20, 2020 letter to Aiken County Council and the Aiken County legislative delegation. In his letter, Osbon included a $20 million request from Plutonium Settlement funds for an “Innovation District that involves the Department of Energy and USC-Aiken:

The Aiken Innovation and Impact District: The AECOM study released in December discussed catalytic investments to establish an innovative district near USC Aiken. This would be an opportunity to foster the clustering of businesses related to advanced manufacturing, software/ information technology and take advantage of synergies in the region. The district would be mixed use in nature, providing access to retail, dining, housing and other amenities, in support of new research and production facilities operated by the private sector/ universities.

The Aiken Innovation and Impact District would include a partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative, the South Carolina National Guard Dream Port, and USC Aiken. The growth and success of the original partners will create opportunities for new public and private partnerships over time. In a rich, collaborative environment, businesses, entrepreneurs, investors, researchers, students and residents alike would be inspired to connect more, engage more and create more. The vision would be to recharge Aikens economy by attracting technologyand innovation-based companies. $20M is needed.

In December 2021, the AMDC and SRNL began discussions on locations with SRNL for a portion of an “Innovation Park.”

In June 2022, disbursement of the plutonium settlement was finalized and included $20 million for “Offsite Infrastructure SRS/National Laboratory” (Innovation District), and $10 million for the National Guard “Dream Port” cybercommand scheduled to be relocated from Columbia and expanded to network with cyber-defense capabilities at Fort Gordon.

Around the same time, a Ground Lease Survey Appraisal was completed for 214 Park Avenue that determined a long-term ground lease value of $2 million for the property. While the appraisal appears to have been commissioned to determine a price for leasing the facility to Newberry Hall after conversion to a conference center, it also could be applied to any other interested party with $20 million in plutonium funds.

At its last public meeting on June 13, 2022, the AMDC discussed locating the Innovation District downtown. According to the meeting minutes:

“Mr. Jameson stated he is the chairman of the Innovation District Committee. In the last few months the committee has met several times. It was to do research about what an Innovation District could and should look like and to understand how to move forward. He pointed out a request had been made for funds from the Plutonium Settlement to support the Innovation District and $20 million had been allocated for it. He said the committee began the conversations with where should we begin. Where should a building be located? What would make it the most successful? What would be the best location? They talked about the University area and downtown. The conclusion was that downtown Aiken would be the best location for the building. In collaboration with the center at USC-Aiken and the Site, there could be some permanent crew or revolving office crew in the downtown.”

  1. (3) At the 24 minute mark of the meeting, Don Moniak commented: 

“The Freedom of Information Act does say you may release information and you may discuss information in public as well. So what what is the big secret about this particular property, whereas a year ago at this time… there was another piece of property downtown that the city was considering selling. It was the Brinkley building, part of the Old City Hall, and you did meet an executive session to discuss it. But that was on the agenda as well as a Purchase and Sale agreement associated with that. Was it just further was along at that point? Why was that public but this one not public?” 

Gary Smith: “ I think that’d be fair to say the the transaction is such that all of the parties involved aren’t prepared for the public to be aware of what the transaction is. That’s why City Council is not allowed to discuss it at this point, okay, whereas a year ago both parties were there at the table.” 

The parties at the table for the Brinkley building included Smith’s law partner Ray Massey. Smith did not recuse himself from that meeting involving the sale of city property at a financial loss to CTR, LLC, a company represented by, and invested in, by Massey. In the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, this incident is described as follows:

“The CTR Sale was documented in a fully negotiated Purchase and Sale agreement dated December 21, 2021, initialed on every page by, and signed by, Ray Massey and ready for City signatures. The Ordinance had signature blocks for Rick Osbon as Mayor, Gary Smith as City attorney, and Sara Ridout as City Clerk.”

As noted in The Pascalis Attorneys, members of the law firm of Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes were involved in early 2021 with Project Pascalis property acquisition efforts on behalf of Weldon Wyatt’s WTC Investment, LLC; and Ray Massey’s Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC owns property that was involved in both Pascalis efforts.

(4) Aiken City Council has met in closed-door Executive Session to discuss Project Pascalis on the following dates in 2022:

June 13, in a joint session with the AMDC and the Pascalis project developers for two hours.
June 27 for one hour.
July 11 for two hours with Attorney Daniel Plyler to receive legal advice following the filing of the the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit.
October 10 for 1.5 hours to receive legal advice.
October 24 for one hour to receive legal advice.
November 21 for nearly two hours with the AMDC.
December 12 for two hours to discuss “purchase of downtown property” and a lease of property.





“

December 2022, Laws & Bylaws, Project Pascalis 2022

Chamber President Blames State Law for AMDC Failings

3 Comments

“Riddled With Contradictions and Nearly Insurmountable Obstacles.” 

by Don Moniak

December 22, 2022

J. David Jameson submitted his resignation (1) from the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) on December 14, 2022.   Jameson, who was was first appointed to the commission in September, 2020, remains in his position as President of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce. (2).

The resignation came five days after half of the remaining commissioners—Keith Wood, Chris Verenes, and Douglas Slaughter (2)—resigned; and two days after a previously unreported closed-door legal briefing “concerning the mechanics of the AMDC.” 

In his resignation letter, Jameson lambasted South Carolina’s Community Development Law, writing the “statute that governs the actions of the AMDC is riddled with contradictions and nearly insurmountable obstacles,” but did not provide any specific examples. 

According to former AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, the AMDC was not fully briefed on the governing statute until this past June. Neither Wood nor Verenes chose to criticize state law in their December 9th resignation letters or public statements of September 29, 2022; choosing instead to insist the law must be followed.  The September 29th statements came twenty days after Jameson forced an amendment to, and delay of, an AMDC motion to cancel Project Pascalis—-the first visible sign of a division on the commission.

Jameson also blamed the commission’s own bylaws for holding it “hostage,” claiming “with our current membership of three, we can meet but we cannot act.” But according to the AMDC’s governing statute, the SC Community Development Law, five members are required to hold a meeting and act, and no set of bylaws can override state law: 

“A commission may be governed by the members of the governing body of its parent municipality serving ex officio or by not less than five nor more than nine commissioners selected by the governing body of the municipality.” (SC 31-10-40). 

Jameson’s resignation letter also raises questions about the most recent Aiken City Council closed-door Executive Session, held on December 12, 2022. According to the public notice, the closed-door session was specifically to discuss: 

“1.Potential purchase of real property located in downtown Aiken.

2. A proposed contractual arrangement to lease property in downtown Aiken.”

The relationship of the “mechanics of the AMDC” and the proposed purchase of property is unknown. But considering the AMDC owns the seven downtown Pascalis project properties, and that these were packaged as a single property in its cancelled agreement with the Pascalis project developer,  it is possible the discussion involved not a purchase of property, but a transfer of the entire property from the AMDC to the City of Aiken. 

Upon questioning, City officials declined to name the property under secret discussion that evening. City Attorney Gary Smith stated “it is a downtown property, no information can be released if not all parties are ready to discuss it.” 

Not surprisingly, Jameson’s objections to state law come one year after he took the lead in organizing secret, invitation-only Pascalis project “influencer” meetings, in violation of the state’s Open Meeting statute prohibiting “circumvention of the spirit of (the law)” through a “chance meeting, social meeting, or electronic communication.”

Jameson was also instrumental in the decision to have the Chamber secretly take assignment of the Pascalis properties on behalf of the AMDC when the project’s first developer, Weldon Wyatt, exited the project in May, 2021.  The latter action set off a long domino effect of legally questionable behavior. Eventually, dozens of violations of state law were alleged in the July 5, 2022,  Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit that brought the sputtering Pascalis project effort to a standstill.  

Footnotes

(1) The previously unannounced resignation letter was obtained via a Freedom of Information Request by Aiken resident Kelly Cornelius. The full text of all five resignation letters obtained provided below. 



As reported in Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chair Chris Verenes Resign, Slaughter’s resignation was unnecessary and duplicative: 

“Since he is in violation of city attendance rules for appointed officials, having missed four of six regular meetings this year, Reverend Slaughter will be automatically removed as a commissioner on January 1, 2023.”

Stuart MacVean missed more than 1/2 of regular commission meetings in 2021. Despite continuing to attend a few meetings in 2022, according to the City Ordinance governing appointed positions, he was automatically removed on January 1, 2022.

(2) Jameson is one of two AMDC members who publicly commented on Project Pascalis during public meetings, but declined to identify their affiliation with the commission.

On April 20, 2022, Jameson spoke on behalf of the Chamber without disclosing his AMDC membership or the joint role the Chamber played in pursuing the project in 2021.

On May 9, 2022, Commissioner Philip Merry spoke as a private individual in favor of privatizing Newberry Street, but failed to disclose his AMDC membership.

December 2022, Laws & Bylaws, Project Pascalis 2022

AMDC Resignations

4 Comments

Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chair Chris Verenes Resign

by Don Moniak

December 9, 2022

Keith Wood and Chris Verenes are original members of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), having attended every public meeting since May 20, 2020. Wood was elected Chairman in September 2020, and Verenes was the first and only Vice-Chair. Together with AMDC Treasurer J. David Jameson, they formed the commission’s Executive Committee, a three-person panel that, while ill-defined, functioned as a pre-decisional deliberative body addressing commission business. Along with AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant, they orchestrated much of the effort to pursue the $100 million plus downtown Aiken demolition and redevelopment plan known as Project Pascalis.

Chairman Wood was one of two people authorized to sign AMDC checks and negotiate with developers; the other being recently removed AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant. In July 2021, he authored a key letter to City Council requesting $10 million in funding for AMDC purchases of “Parkway District” properties.

On September 29, 2022, following approval of a motion to cancel downtown Aiken’s Redevelopment Plan One and the Purchase and Sale Agreement for AMDC-owned downtown properties between the AMDC and RPM Development Partners, Wood and Verenes issued statements blaming unnamed city staff for misleading the commission during the Project Pascalis procurement process.

Both Wood and Verenes demanded that the truth be made public as to why the project effectively ceased on June 23, 2022; twelve days before a major lawsuit was filed seeking an injunction of the project. Since the Blake et al vs City of Aiken lawsuit was filed, fourteen lawyers from eight different law firms have represented the various city officials and public bodies named as defendants in the suit. As previously reported in Cancelled, Stopped, On Hold, Terminated, or Ongoing, the abundance of legal counsel has led to confusion over the actual project status.

Today, Wood and Verenes emailed resignation letters (1) to Aiken City Council and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. The resignation was confirmed by an unnamed source.

Both commissioners expressed alarm at City Council’s refusal to publicly reveal the reasons for the failure of Project Pascalis, and voiced strong protests against signing a “Joint Defense Agreement” (JDA) that would inhibit “open, frank, and complete information.”

In his resignation letter, Wood also appeared to disagree with the AMDC’s attorney in regard to the JDA drafted prior to a joint, closed-door Executive Session with City Council on November 21, 2022:

“David Morrison, AMDC attorney, working in tandem with Daniel Plyler, City Attorney, prepared and forwarded a Joint Defense Agreement (JDA) for all participants of the meeting to sign prior to our meeting. In our view, the JDA restricts any Commissioner’s ability to disclose information that could be shared with you. Any meeting restricting open, frank, and complete information would be a disservice to City Council, AMDC, and the citizens of Aiken.”

Chris Verenes wrote, in regard to the same issues:

“It is important to note that Mayor Pro Tem Ed Woltz and Councilwoman Lessie Price relayed to me that they were in favor of meeting with no preconditions, restrictions, or legal agreements. The Chairman and I were concerned that the joint defense agreement might limit what we would be allowed to say in a public forum. We determined that we will not agree to any restrictions being placed on us as to what could be disclosed to the public.”

Verenes also referenced a joint email (2) from both he and Chairman Wood, in which they wrote:

“Our recommendation is to have discussions without any predetermined restrictions which may impede the truth. This is based on our belief that the public expects and deserves the highest standard of ethical conduct and transparency from all appointed and elected officials.”

The resignations leave only four AMDC commissioners—David Jameson, Philip Merry, Marty Gillam, and Douglas Slaughter. Since he is in violation of city attendance rules for appointed officials, having missed four of six regular meetings this year, Reverend Slaughter will be automatically removed as a commissioner on January 1, 2023. Even with Slaughter, the AMDC does not have a quorum of members and cannot make decisions or take actions.

The AMDC has not met in a regular public meeting in six months, having cancelled every regularly scheduled meeting since the July 5, 2022 lawsuit. The commission has also refused to allow public inspection of its records, with former Executive Director O’Briant stating in early October that information will be withheld until a judge orders otherwise.

Next: The David Jameson resignation in Chamber President Blames State Law for AMDC Failings.

________________

Footnotes.

(1) Resignation letters of Keith Wood and Chris Verenes.

2. November 21, 2022, email from AMDC Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chair Chris Verenes to Aiken City Council .

In the Demolition Zone, Money Trails, November 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

Downtown Aiken Half Price Sale

5 Comments

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.

From December 3, 2021 Purchase and Sale Agreement Between RPM Development Partners, LLC and the AMDC


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.

From the Purchase and Sale Agreement between RPM and AMDC, December 3, 2022.

Feature Photo is taken from Exhibit A on Page 29 of the PSA.

Exhibit A. Page 29. PSA between RPM and AMDC, December 3, 2022.
Also Available at: https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2762415&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

Followup story: The PSA is Removed from the City’s Document Repository.

FOOTNOTE:

(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.”