by Don Moniak
September 22, 2025
(Update September 27, 2025: Mr. Bedenbaugh’s contract extension and amendment was approved by a vote of 5-0. The sale of the Pascalis properties to the Oliver Group was also approved, on first reading, by a vote of 5-0. The second and final vote is tentatively scheduled for October 13, 2025).
The City Manager’s Contract
Stuart Bedenbaugh has served as Aiken City Manager since 2018. His current three-year contract does not expire until August of 2026.
Aiken City Council is now poised to extend that contract for another three years, through August 2029. The new contract provides a 6% raise to a $178,984 annual salary, and a one-year severance package in the event of being terminated without cause (figure 1).
Essentially, Council will consider a four-year contract during the Petitions and Requests portion of its regular meeting tonight, just two months before three new Council members will take office. The agenda item is open to citizen comments.

Bedenbaugh was promoted from Assistant City Manager to Interim City Manager in February 2018 following the departure of former City Manager John Klimm; and was promoted to the position in June 2018 when City Council approved a one-year contract. At the time, the contract included a two-month severance package if City Council dismissed him without cause.
Two years later, his year-to-year status ended, and a three-year contract was approved in June 2020 at an annual salary of $146,224, with a provision for $20,000 in “unused sick leave” if he were terminated without cause. That particular vote came after a closed-door Executive Session—it was not an agenda item subject to public input. (Pages 13-14)
Another three-year contract running from July 29, 2023 to August 7, 2026 was approved in June 2023, when his annual salary was raised to $162,840. (By comparison, North Augusta City Manager James Clifford’s salary was $185,891 as of early 2024). The June 2023 decision occurred during the Petitions and Requests portion of the agenda and was open to public input. One citizen spoke in favor of the contract, nobody spoke against. (Pages 11-12)
This will be the second time for the contract to be on the agenda. It was pulled from the August 25th agenda for unexplained reasons. In the leadup to the August 25th meeting, Council discussed the contract in closed-door Executive Session on both July 14th and August 11th.
The Pascalis Properties Sale.
The vote on Bedenbaugh’s longer-term contract will occur tonight following four public hearings, one of which includes the proposed sale of the six remaining downtown “Pascalis Properties” to the Oliver Group of Tennessee for $2.5 million—one-third the price paid by the City’s Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) in November 2021. Oliver Group was chosen on the basis of their overall bid–even though one other bidder made an offer of $5 million (Page 128). They have 150 days to conduct due diligence before sale closure.
The six properties at issue tonight, commonly known as the “Shah property,” were obtained for $7.5 million. Another $2 million was spent purchasing the Newberry Hall property; bringing the total sales price in 2021 to $9.5 million.
According to an April 2025 appraisal, these high prices were offered because “the city wanted control of how the property was to be redeveloped based on a much longer view and in the public’s best interest.” (Page 127)
The main problem with that Collier’s statement is that the public was never consulted in May 2021 about that “longer view” and its interests. The decision to gain control of the contracts was made behind closed doors at an unofficial and unannounced meeting of city officials; the public hearings for the $9.6 million bond issuance made no mention of specific properties; the AMDC held no formal public hearing prior to purchasing the properties in November 2021; .
Combined with the $0.85 million loss incurred through the sale of the Newberry Hall property in 2024, the total loss from the property sales is $5.85 million.
However, the sales contract with the Oliver Group includes two provisions that will further lower sale revenues.
First, a yet-to-be-determined amount will be deducted from the $2.5 million to facilitate the transfer of property housing a future parking garage; meaning the City plans to own and operate a public/private parking garage:
“The Purchase Price shall be reduced on a pro rata basis for any portion of the property excluded from the purchase and sale in this Agreement (such portion of the Property to be determined by Buyer and Seller) and retained by Seller at Closing for the purpose of the development, maintenance, and operation of an integrated public/private parking deck structure….” (Pages 100-101).
Second, the City has agreed to pay up to $200,000 for project design costs:
“From and after the Effective Date until the Closing Date, Seller shall pay all architectural and design fees incurred in connection with preparing the property for Buyer’s proposed, Intended Use…up to a maximum aggregate amount of…$200,000.”
Add to this the $100,000 cost in 2021 of securing the bond and paying closing costs, and the approximately $100,000 brokerage fee to be paid to Collier’s, and the total loss from these downtown real estate transactions easily exceeds $6 million.
The City Manager’s Role in Project Pascalis.
The public hearing for the sale proposal is being held just one week after Plaintiffs in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit released depositions that revealed more of the role Mr. Bedenbaugh played in the failed Pascalis project.
His pivotal role should come as no surprise. He is the City Manager and is expected to closely monitor, if not oversee, major projects in addition to the daily operations of city government. He was also an ex-officio member of the AMDC.
Bedenbaugh was reportedly involved in the fateful and secret decision made in May 2021 for the Aiken Chamber of Commerce to act as a holding company and take assignment of the properties while the City sought financing; a decision attributed to “city staff.” (Keith Wood Deposition, Page 64).
Once the City and AMDC began to pursue a modified Project Pascalis in the wake of the Chamber of Commerce contract assignment, he participated to an unknown extent in negotiations, would weigh in on important issues, and lead the effort towards project financing.
For example, in early June 2021, after former AMDC Chair Keith Wood raised an ethical question involving City Attorney Gary Smith’s role in the process and requested a “firewall,” Bedenbaugh subsequently dismissed the concern by writing that these issues had arisen before and Smith was obligated to honor attorney-client privilege—but failed to address the issue of a recusal.
Then, in August 2021, Bedenbaugh shepherded City Council approval of a $10 million bond package (later reduced to $9.6 million) to purchase unidentified properties in the “Parkway District;” even though it was internally well known which downtown properties were under contract with the Chamber of Commerce. Ultimately, a bond issuance of $9.6 million would pay for the AMDC’s purchase of the seven properties.
Just one week after the AMDC bought the properties on November 9, 2021, Bedenbaugh threatened to directly intervene in the AMDC’s negotiation process with RPM Development Partners (figure 2), following hesitation by Chairman Wood to meet with RPM prior to having a meeting with the entire AMDC.

Five days later was the now controversial Prime Steakhouse meeting where the decision was made to forestall a formal and legal Request for Proposals; a process that had been neglected until that point. According to Wood’s sworn deposition, Bedenbaugh was not at that meeting but he did learn about it and “regretted” not doing anything about it (figure 3). Actions taken at that meeting ultimately led to the failure of the project, which today, some four years down the road, continues to cost the city.


Figure 3. Keith Wood deposition transcript. (click to enlarge) . Both his and former AMDC Vice-Chair Chris Verenes’ sworn depositions are available through The Project Pascalis Depositions.
Check this out: file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/f1/01/A7531AE4-8812-4B23-BC73-2F524A25479B/IMG_3309.jpg
He’s had his hands in all of these failed or questionable projects costing city residents millions of dollars and they want to extend his contract. He’s shown his true colors. and unethical behavior with this latest scheme with Dominion Energy. I think the new city council members should be able to vote on his contract and not be saddled with Stewie. They could also vote on a new City Attorney.
let me guess: his contract will be extended.
clown car.
Voting on this contract needs to be tabled until after the upcoming election. There is no reason to saddle what is going to be a much different City Council with four more years of this abysmal excuse of a City Manager.
This stinks as to the timing, a year on the current contract and an election coming up not to mention the board and the city manager have not really done a stellar job as speculators and urban developers. Maybe we need a new team running the city that doesn’t think they are another version of the chamber of commerce?
What is the goal here? Do we want Aiken to become a mirror image of Augusta? More traffic, more crime, more taxes, more more more that only degrades our experience here in a charming southern town. Limited growth and no annexation stunts is a way forward.
Let the new Council decide Mr. Bedenbaugh’s future employment.
Here we have another very fine exposition by Mr. Moniak on what appears to be very suspicious behavior (again) on the part of the current City Council members. Why is there this urgency to renew a contract when the old one has 11 months more to run?
Typically, such employment contracts are extended far in advance of the expiration date only when the employee has demonstrated exemplary performance; and/or there is some concern that if that action is not taken, the employee may seek greener employment pastures elsewhere. Neither of those reasons applies here. Mr. Bedenbaugh and his subordinates (and all of the city council members) have their fingerprints all over the Project Pascalis debacle, including the loss of ~ $6 million. That alone should be reason enough for not prematurely extending the contract.
Finally, four of the seven current city council members will be replaced in November 2025. Those four will have to live with the consequences of this inappropriate action, yet will have no vote on the proposal.
Spot on elmer. There is no compelling reason to proceed now.
The ‘Good Ol Boy System’ is alive and well in Aiken and in the rest of many cities and counties in South Carolina. It is not public benefit that matters – it is who your ‘friends’ are and what private deals will be protected or. hidden from the public . It is a system that is historically deeply entrenched in the south especially in Old Aiken. There are many secrets in Aiken hidden behind closed doors and Gentleman’s Agreements.
AMEN!
What is the Aiken Training Track failure this article refers to??
Stewie… you’ve been a bad boy
why the rush to extend the contract for which the term is another year. There are still too many things to prove success or failure…. ie, the Aiken Training Track failures, the S.atan’s Matchstick issue, etc
The New Council members should certainly be the ones to extend or not extend the City Manager contact based upon performance….. not the existing coalition of outgoing members.
why the rush to extend the contract for which the term is another year. There are still too many things to prove success or failure…. ie, the Aiken Training Track failures, the S.atan’s Matchstick issue, etc
The New Council members should certainly be the one to extend or not extend the City Manager contact based upon performance….. not the existing coalition of outgoing members.
And the City Manager continues to allow Gary Smith to be the City Attorney?
Anonymous. The City Attorney works for City Council and not the City Manager
Look at the public notice in today’s Aiken standard asking for city council to name the old Farmers and merchants building as a former textile mill so developer can get tax credits. That property was not a textile mill.
Unless the wording provides ‘anything’ can be named a textile mill if the building is a certain age, then this looks fraudulent to me.