(An update to Project Pascalis Legal Costs)
(Update, November 13, 2025: Response to FOIA request 341-2025 provides a July 14, 2022 letter from the City’s Insurance and Risk Fund denying a claim, and the City’s tally of legal expenses through early June of 2025).

by Don Moniak
September 13, 2025

The City of Aiken and numerous other entities and individuals were sued on July 5, 2022. In Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al; or the Pascalis lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that the City of Aiken, its Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), Design Review Board (DRB), and City Attorney violated numerous state laws while pursuing the $75-100 million demolition and redevelopment project known as Project Pascalis.

When the lawsuit was filed, there was an expectation among City officials that the City’s insurance would cover legal costs; and in fact the City filed a claim.

For example, on June 29, 2022, in response to concerns that any cancellation or restart of Project Pascalis could result in legal action by the preferred Pascalis developer, RPM Development partners, City of Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant wrote to AMDC members that:

“Each commissioner is fully covered by the City of Aiken’s policy with the SC Municipal Insurance Reserve Fund.” (sic; In actuality, it is the South Carolina Municipal Insurance and Risk Fund, or SCMIRF).

O’Briant would also write on July 5th (Figure 1) to commissioners, after the Pascalis lawsuit was filed, that “please be assured that the City’s tort insurance fully covers each of us named in the suit as a group and individually.”

That same evening, AMDC attorney Gary Pope Jr. wrote to AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, stating his belief that SCMIRF would be assigning counsel “fairly shortly.” (Figure 2)

No such coverage or counsel has occurred, or is expected to occur. A claim was filed in July 2022 and was under review for at least two months. Ultimately, the claim was apparently denied–a FOIA request for that denial letter is pending. (Update: The denial letter and City’s tally for legal costs can be viewed via FOIA 341-2025).

The City’s contract with the South Carolina Municipal Insurance and Risk Fund (SCMIRF) calls for SCMIRF to cover many, but not all, legal actions filed against the city. The insurance policy states:

“SCMIRF has the right and duty to defend any Suit asking for covered Money Damages….SCMIRF will only defend any action or suit seeking Money Damages brought against the Member or Covered Person.”

The Plaintiffs in the Pascalis lawsuit did not ask for monetary damages, they only asked the Court for injunctive relief (stop the project) and declaratory relief (find violations of the law and instruct remedies.)

The policy also states that SCMIRF will not defend against claims involving “Dishonest or Criminal Acts,” and exempts “Any claim or liability arising out of fraudulent, dishonest, or criminal acts, including without limitation the willful violation of a penal statute or ordinance, committed by or with the consent of the Member or by a Covered Person.”

The Pascalis Lawsuit did not openly allege the willful violation of state law, but did infer the possibility of such actions.

These are two possible reasons why SCMIRF denied the City’s claim and is not defending the City; which in turn is bearing all of the costs of the lawsuit.

Table 1 shows the costs through May of this year. Since that time, there has been a costly deposition of two AMDC Commissioners; which was attended by at least five of the defendants’ lawyers.

As reported in Project Pascalis Legal Costs, only the City of Aiken can provide the most up-to-date and precise figures.

Table 1: Project Pascalis Litigation Costs Incurred by City Taxpayers, as of June 1, 2025.

Law Firm	Client	Billings
Smith Robinson et al	City of Aiken	$78,051
Morrison	AMDC	$29,775
Holley	DRB	$30,593
Lindemann	DRB	$23,154
McCants	City Attorney	$20,087
Albee	Keith Wood and Chris Verenes	$38,726
Davidson and Wren	Tim O’Briant	$9,789
Total		$230,176