Is the City of Aiken ignoring local and state laws regarding an unnamed committee formed to advise the City in its sale of the ill-begotten Project Pascalis properties?
by Kelly Cornelius
April 23, 2025
The Unnamed Committee
One would think that City of Aiken administration would change their ways after the lessons learned from the failed Project Pascalis, which left in its wake a train wreck of debris including:
- A decommissioned Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC)
- A defunct Economic Development Department
- An economic development director fired or resigned depending on whom you ask
- An incumbent Mayor shown the door by voters
- A stain on the community and a loss of public trust over the secrecy that continues to define the history of Project Pascalis.
However, recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) results reveal what appears to be an ongoing disregard for local municipal code and state FOIA laws in the business of the recently-formed, unnamed committee to advise the City in its disbursements of the ill-begotten Pascalis properties.
Why Did Project Pascalis Fail? A Brief Recap
Project Pascalis was the public purchase of seven properties, including historic properties, in the heart of downtown by the city-derived Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC). The purchase was funded by a $9.6M Bond procured by the city under the guise of “blight” and was made without so much as even an appraisal for the properties, which were worth roughly half of what the City paid. In a series of secret meetings, the City hatched a plan to demolish these seven properties to make way for the usual fare of a convention center, new hotel and parking garage.
When Aiken citizens finally learned of the plot in March 2022, they fought back with huge turnouts in City Council meetings, a petition drive, a sign campaign, three lawsuits, numerous FOIA requests, and a series of citizen-researched articles published to inform the public about the project. Revealed in this research was the appearance of ethics, FOIA and redevelopment law violations. Also uncovered by citizens was that the winning developer was publicly announced ten days before the actual Request for Proposals was published. That winning developer also just happened to be led by the City Attorney’s law partner.
The project officially derailed on September 29th, 2022 but one of the three lawsuits filed against the city is still ongoing, the biggest issue being the release of information by former AMDC officials. A judge recently ruled that the city had to produce the information to the plaintiffs albeit with a clawback provision.
For more on this history, read;
The Pascalis Attorneys
Keeping Up Appearances
The City of Aiken’s Information Games
History Repeating
Despite the lessons of Pascalis, the secrecy and disregard for local and state laws appear to persist. Today, the story revolves around the sale of the Pascalis properties and the committee formed to advise the City on this sale. In March of 2024, the City Council chose Colliers International to market the properties and by January of 2025, City Manager Bedenbaugh was quoted in the local paper describing some of the members of an eight-person group formed to make a recommendation to the city council over the fate of the public purchase. When the City was asked, via FOIA request, for a complete list of the names in the group and a record of how it was formed, the City responded:
“There are no records documenting the formation of this group. The group/committee members are: City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, Assistant City Manager Mary Tilton, Mayor Teddy Milner, Mayor Pro Tempore Ed Girardeau, Tommy Tapp, Colliers Representative, Alia Bostaji, Colliers Representative, Barbara Price, Architect with McMillan Pazdan Smith, Mark Chostner, Project Manager .”
The city’s municipal code has regulations regarding the formation of and minutes kept by committees, yet it appears these were not adhered to when it comes to this noname advisory committee.
- Sec. 2-38. – Powers with respect to offices, boards, commission, etc.(a)The council, by ordinance, may create, change and abolish offices, departments, boards, agencies and commissions.(b)The council may appoint and remove all members of the municipal boards, agencies and commissions established by the council, state law or constitution, except as otherwise provided by state law. Such boards and commissions shall serve as advisory bodies to the council and shall not exercise administrative responsibility, except as may be otherwise provided by law. Terms of the board, agency or commission members shall be as provided by ordinance, state law or constitution.(Code 1980, § 2-21)
- Sec. 2–69. – Hearings by special committees. The city council may appoint a special committee to assist in or hold a public hearing for the council at any time upon any matter pending before it. Minutes or reports of hearings held by special committees shall be filed with the city clerk as public records.(Code 1980, § 2-39)
Additionally, the State of South Carolina state Freedom of Information Act laws when it comes to public bodies and public meetings:
SECTION 30-4-20.Definitions.
(a) “Public body” means any department of the State, a majority of directors or their representatives of departments within the executive branch of state government as outlined in Section 1-30-10, any state board, commission, agency, and authority, any public or governmental body or political subdivision of the State, including counties, municipalities, townships, school districts, and special purpose districts, or any organization, corporation, or agency supported in whole or in part by public funds or expending public funds, including committees, subcommittees, advisory committees, and the like of any such body by whatever name known,
Key Points and Questions on the Committee
- As half of the eight-member committee are paid public employees or paid elected officials, the group appears to be funded, in part, by public funds which appears to make this committee a “Public Body”.
- According to information obtained via FOIA on the City’s contract with Colliers (the firm selected to market the properties) the firm will be paid in commission for their services upon the sale of the properties.
- Committee member Mark Chostner, listed as ‘Project Manager” in the group was also involved with Project Pascalis and paid for his services. Are taxpayers paying for his services on this committee, or is he working on a volunteer basis? A FOIA request has been submitted for any invoices on this project. 4/24/25 Update: The City of Aiken has determined that there are no invoices from the period of April 2024 to the current date from Capstone Services for services regarding the sale of the Pascalis properties.
- Committee member Barbara Price, architect with McMillian Pazdan Smith, (the same firm involved with the City’s “Mixed Use Project”) could also be paid for her services. A FOIA request was made for any invoices submitted regarding this project and The City of Aiken has determined that there are no invoices for services from McMillan Pazdan Smith from the time period of April 2024 to the present.
If the unnamed advisory committee is deemed a public body according to Section 30-4-20 then it would also appear to be subject to FOIA laws according to Section 30-4-90 (those laws can be viewed in entirety here). According to South Carolina FOIA law:
SECTION 30-4-90.Minutes of meetings of public bodies.
(a) All public bodies shall keep written minutes of all of their public meetings. Such minutes shall include but need not be limited to:
(1) The date, time and place of the meeting.
(2) The members of the public body recorded as either present or absent.
(3) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided and, at the request of any member, a record, by an individual member, of any votes taken.
(4) Any other information that any member of the public body requests be included or reflected in the minutes.
(b) The minutes shall be public records and shall be available within a reasonable time after the meeting except where such disclosures would be inconsistent with Section 30-4-70 of this chapter.
No Public Notice, No Agendas, No Meeting Minutes
When the City was asked, via FOIA request for meeting notices, meeting agendas and meeting minutes the city responded by saying:
“The meetings were not public meetings, so notice was not required and no agendas were created. Additionally, there were no minutes taken of the meetings. “
So, in addition to ignoring municipal code on committee formation, the city feels their private meetings are not subject to SC Freedom of Information Act rules on meetings or notices of meetings.
City Solicitor Laura Jordan was asked by this writer if she could explain why the city believes this committee is not subject to local municipal code or FOIA laws but at the time of this publishing, no reply has been received.
A January 25, 2025 email to the Mayor from citizen Don Moniak also inquired about the “unnamed committee” asking if the committee intended to follow SC FOIA requirements. This email went unanswered until Mr. Moniak sent a follow-up on March 10th, wherein he also suggested the unnamed committee was operating in violation of both state FOIA laws and city municipal code. Mayor Milner responded via email on March 10th saying she would get an answer to Mr. Moniak’s concern. At the time of this publishing, no answer has been forthcoming.
Small Businesses in the Crosshairs, Citizens on the Hook, and a Public in the Dark
The City’s ongoing, high-stakes development plots have left the hard-working, small businesses housed in the Pascalis properties dangling in the crosshairs, their month-to-month fate unknown. One such business is the restaurant Taj of Aiken, a tenant in one of the Richland Avenue buildings. Restaurant owner Alok Kumar Aske went on the record at the April 14th, 2025 City Council meeting requesting the option to purchase the building or sign an extended lease — options he has actively pursued with the City each month the past year, options that have been afforded to other other Pascalis tenants but not to Taj of Aiken.
Citizen Jacob Goss Ellis followed with a strong endorsement of Kumar and the Taj crew, calling the establishment a “pillar of the community” and “an Aiken institution,” for their extraordinary community generosity, especially in times of crisis. Councilwoman Gail Diggs spoke of his generosity as well. However, no one on Council followed-up with a discussion of Kumar’s request.
Aiken citizens have been likewise kept in the dark regarding the fate of these publicly-owned properties, their input unsolicited and, at times, even made to feel unwelcome by those officials empowered to represent the people’s interests. As evidence of the latter, there is the comment made by City Council member Ed Girardeau, also a member of the unnamed advisory committee, who recently described the public as “idiots” to a hot mic at a recent City Council meeting.
Regarding the anticipated recommendation from this unnamed advisory committee, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh was quoted in a March 11 Aiken Standard article as saying: “The city council can accept the recommendation; reject it and pick another proposal; or reject it and all the other proposals and start the process again.”
Might we recommend starting the process by following municipal code and state FOIA laws and asking the citizenry what they would like done with these publicly owned assets?
_________________________
Having been to a great many City Council meetings in the past two years I have felt that the public input has been disregarded and discouraged at every juncture and the recent moving of the public comment segment of the city council meetings for items not on the agenda is yet another way to thwart listening to the citizens they are supposed to represent. That said, Kelly has illuminated the disfunction of the administration and the secrecy with which it “rules”. I think the new mayor was ill prepared for the way things are done here in Aiken and those in power prior to her arrival have preyed upon her relative naïveté. It is not an excuse or justification but simply an observation and she has allowed this to continue to happen ostensibly because she has trusted that they are making decisions that she might disagree with (the Hitchcock Stables designation as a non-contributing structure as an example) but fails to speak up on the record or pull the council into executive session and read them the riot act. Things need to change or the face of Aiken will forever bare the scar of those
who believe they can disregard the laws set forth to prevent this. Thank you Kelly, for your research and to the Aiken Chronicles for publishing this important information.
Thank you Lee for your efforts to preserve and protect what many of us believe makes Aiken so special.
Thank you, Kelly Cornelius, for your excellent work in bringing the facts of this latest plot to light. Reading this history and reflecting on the history of the past decade, it becomes all the more clear — the secrecy, the squandering of public money, the disregard for local codes and state FOIA laws, the ghosting of citizens, the disregard for public input, and the shuttering of public participation in decision-making — these are not bugs, they are features!
Equally important to the election of new Council members is the need to, yes, pay attention to the man behind the curtain! In other words, we should demand accountability, openness and transparency from our unelected officials, as well. Reviewing the histories of the 2018 Renaissance, then Pascalis, Williamsburg, Smith Hazel, and now the Unnamed Committee, it seems much of the business of the City is transpiring out of earshot of Council, FOIA law and, thereby, the public ear. We need Council members who can bring more than compliance to this equation, more than votes that merely serve to ram unpalatable decisions down our throats.
New mayor but nothing changes. Apparently she can’t even answer her mail. The committee should consist of only government employees and they could take advice from experts and outside (all potential conflicts of interest to be vetted and published) but those paid or volunteering should not have member status. The City needs a fully independent law firm handling most of this because they have proven themselves incapable of handling or vetting interests.
Is anyone willing to accept that this is not only about preservation but about what would be best for Aiken? And is anyone willing to accept that, if we made it a free-for-all process, we would fighting among ourselves for years? How about letting the city do its work and, if the majority are dissatisfied, there is a well known cure.
Is that “well-known cure” to elect new figureheads to sit on the Monday night dais and unanimously rubber-stamp decisions made behind closed doors by unelected officials?
Thank you for your comments. I do think this is about much more than preservation, I believe it is about accountability to both the public and the small businesses that the city’s actions during Pascalis have affected.
So, according to you we have two choices?
A free for all or a non representative government?
Are you really advocating for a government free from FOIA laws that must be allowed to act secretly to be effective?
Thank you Kelly Cornelius and Aiken Chronicles for this factual unbiased report. Accurate information takes time and knowledge to put together like this. You are providing a great service to Aiken.
Thank you Lisa Smith for your tireless efforts during Pascalis, your efforts to save the trees at Smith Hazel and the historic oops, I mean “non contributing” Hitchcock Stables while informing the public along the way.
During the Mayor’s “listening tour”, on 2/23/25, I asked Mayor Milner who was serving on the unnamed committee and what the decision making criteria for choosing a buyer for the City’s remaining Pascalis Properties was?
I was curious if historic charm and preservation, existing small businesses, future small business, expediency, profit (or minimizing our loses), affordable housing, parking, or exactly what was being considered by the unnamed committee while they eliminated buyer after buyer (reportedly from six to two candidates).
I’m told that Mike Bedenbaugh’s ( formerly of Preservation South Carolina and currently involved in Edgefield’s historic renovation project among many others) has been eliminated as a potential buyer.
Mayor Milner was somewhat confused by my question and I did not receive a clear answer.
I haven’t asked, but do wonder how and why the decision was made to sell and to lease parts of the block of Pascalis properties individually and then to market the rest only as a block. If Taj Aiken or The Vampire Penguin or Warneke Cleaners would like to buy their building they would be currently required to buy all of the remaining properties including the Hotel Aiken. Newberry Hall was purchased by the City, then after Pascalis and the City’s Municipal Development group failed it was sold back to the original owners at a $850,000 loss to taxpayers, so, it may be a good idea for all of us to ask some questions before the city makes another real estate blunder that cost us millions, and small businesses like Taj, and Warneke.
How is Teddy working out for you?
Well, at least she did not get us into this mess
To “Anonymous:” My answer to your question, at this juncture, would be “So far, much better than her predecessor — on whose watch the horrendous Project Pascalis fiasco was perpetrated.”