For four years, the City of Aiken has pursued an unwritten policy of opaqueness regarding the disclosure of information related to Project Pascalis; and for that matter, the Pascalis project properties that the city still owns and is seeking to sell.
Throughout most of 2021, project details and progress were kept secret or obscured via multiple closed-door Executive Sessions.
In August 2021, Aiken City Council’s approval of a $10 million general obligation bond to fund the Aiken Municipal Development Commission’s (AMDC) purchase of Project Pascalis properties failed to identify any specific properties. Instead, the bond issuance was tied to purchases of any parcels in “the Parkway District” as part of a “land bank.” However, it was known to some, if not all, Council members that the properties in question were for the AMDC’s downtown Pascalis demolition and redevelopment project.
As reported in City of Aiken Information Games, obstructionism of citizen efforts to learn details of the project began in March 2022 when city officials issued identical, exorbitant** $5,312 fee determinations to two distinct and separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requestors.*** Two months later, an identical fee determination letter was issued in reply to a third FOIA request; one bearing no similarity to the first two. None of the requestors became aware of this malfeasance until six months later.
In August 2022, City officials went further in their efforts to deter public inquiry by levying a charge of $48 per hour for time spent redacting Freedom-of-Information-released documents—but only for Pascalis-related queries. This tripling of FOIA fees was implemented under the justification that “high volumes” of requests were being filed.
That same month, officials attempted to redact project invoices that had previously been publicly disclosed. This trend would continue with the attempted redactions of legal invoices that were also already a matter of the public record; an effort that went as far as redacting the very term “Project Pascalis.”
As reported in Three Missing Pages, an arguably fraudulent $599 FOIA fee determination was made in April 2023 for a request pertaining to the Pascalis properties; one that ultimately led to a response involving only a single three-page document.
Sometime during the Summer of 2024, the City took down the AMDC’s website, aikenmdc.org, and in the process erased the history of the Pascalis project as viewed from the AMDC’s perspective.
Finally, in the case of Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al, in January 2025, a Judge ordered the City to produce requested records to the Plaintiffs by March 10, 2025–by this time, the City was claiming there were approximately 120,000 emails that met the discovery criteria.
There was a catch. The judge allowed a “clawback” of any documents the city deemed, within ninety days of the production of records, to fall into the privileged records category. The Plaintiffs, who had to commit to a nondisclosure agreement, then would have seven days to challenge the City’s assertions of privilege. All documentation is to be treated as confidential until a final determination is made on whether a document falls under the privileged category.
In May of this year, the City denied access to any property appraisals of its downtown Pascalis properties, citing the FOIA exemption for documents related to the sale or purchase of a property. Such knowledge earlier in the process would certainly have sullied the City’s proud announcement on June 9th of a new developer for the properties. (Seven weeks later, the appraisal was released. It showed the remaining six properties to be worth only $2.5 million, meaning a potential $5 million loss for the City.)
A few weeks later, City Solicitor Laura Jordan responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the Pascalis lawsuit discovery documents with a $45,000 fee determination (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Response and fee determination to City of Aiken FOIA Request 129-2025. The documents in question have already been turned over, in part or in whole, to the Plaintiffs in the Blake et al. vs. City of Aiken et al lawsuit. Therefore, there are no search and retrieval costs.
While this beyond-exorbitant fee would never be paid, even in part, it has clear implications for city taxpayers who have already footed legal costs exceeding $200,000 (Figure 2).
The redaction fees cited in the FOIA response reflect the potential legal costs to the City of determining which of the reportedly 120,000 emails contain privileged information. But at a rate of $180-250 per hour, four times that quoted in the FOIA response, even a fraction of the total time dedicated to reviewing for privilege could yield costs similar to the $45,000 FOIA fee.
Figure 2. Memorandum to City Council with update on Project Pascalis lawsuit costs to date.
Finally, the City took more than six weeks to even reply to FOIA request 166-2025, filed on May 21, 2025, for a series of emails from Keith Wood and Chris Verenes. The statutory response time is only ten days.
For this request, the City charged $365 for redaction fees for a relatively meager 1,300 pages of records. In a separate email, the City made the spurious claim that the request that yielded a $45,000 fee “is duplicative of 166-2025 and the response will be issued through request 166-2025.” The City then canceled the $45,000 FOIA request.
Thus, according to the City of Aiken’s legal department, a request that involves an alleged 120,000 emails and requires a $45,000 fee to process is “duplicative” with a request that involves 1,300 pages that requires $365 to process.
As reported in Which Project Pascalis Records Remain Hidden from Public View, City Council members are on the record supporting the release of all Pascalis project records. Yet, nine months after Keith Wood and Chris Verenes revealed the presence of 120 emails that are in a “privilege log,” and four months after a judge ruled that any pre-July 2022 emails from the pair should be released, the privilege log documents remain a secret; although one that might be unlocked, at least in part, through a deposit to the city coffers.
To this day the City of Aiken continues to obfuscate and erect detours obstructing information access to Pascalis project records, whether it be exorbitant FOIA fees, nondisclosure agreements for discovery records, or excessive redactions.
This is not just a matter of withholding documents; it is a matter of withholding the basic facts as to whether city officials unwittingly violated state law or did so knowingly. Without a full accounting of the project, how can elected officials and city administrators arrive at any real lessons learned?
Footnotes
* In July 2022, AMDC Chair Keith Wood wrote, in a letter to the Historic Aiken Foundation, that the AMDC had purchased the Pascalis properties “at the behest” of City Council.
** According to South Carolina law (Section 30-4-30(2)(B)), public bodies “may establish and collect fees…reasonable fees not to exceed the actual cost of the search, retrieval, and redaction of records…the records must be furnished at the lowest possible cost to the person requesting the records… Fees may not be charged for examination and review to determine if the documents are subject to disclosure.“
In the case of the $45,000 FOIA fee determination, the City of Aiken charged unreasonable fees in two manners:
First, by inappropriately charging for review time to determine if documents needed redaction; whereas SC FOIA only allows for actual redaction time and explicitly states that fees may not be charged for examination and review time. Notably, the City also made the same mistake in 2022 for the $5,312 fee determination described in City of Aiken Information Games.
Second, by failing to acknowledge that the records requested were already in bulk files that had been released to the Plaintiffs in Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al. As such, the records were already reviewed for privileged and confidential legal status.
*** The City and AMDC did take the opportunity to create an illusion of openness by releasing information that was mostly already publicly available—i.e., news releases, AMDC resolutions, meeting minutes and agendas—on a new website, aikenmdc.org. Some of the new information did include spending receipts and banking information (the books), but very few pertinent records were released unless prompted by a FOIA request.
(An update to Development Road, which reviewed the various agreements between the City of Aiken and large landowners in the area between Powderhouse Road and Whiskey Road, and the associated potential for growth. This update focuses on the more definitive plans that have emerged since that time).
by Don Moniak June 11, 2025 (Updated July 7, 2025, based on June 2025 City of Aiken Engineering and Utilities Development Report, pages 433-434 of City Council agenda packet.
Update, August 22, 2025: According to meeting minutes of City Council’s August 11, 2025 work session, the proposed subdivision adjacent to Thoroughbred Run (Summerall-Ware tract, #9 on the map) has been withdrawn by the developer due to “stormwater matters.” )
A groundbreaking ceremony for the long-planned Whiskey Road to Powderhouse Road Connector Project (Figure 1) was held in late February 2025. Phase 1, a new 1.0 mile road connecting Whiskey Road to Corporate Parkway and Centennial Avenue, will be completed first; there remain some right of ways to procure for the 1.7 mile Phase II. (1)
In addition to the long-stated goal of traffic congestion relief, the Connector roads will also facilitate the development of approximately 1,500 to 1,700 new housing units (2) across ~325 acres, and 24 acres of commercial development; including a 160-room, four-story hotel. All of these parcels either have been, or will be, annexed into the City of Aiken (Figure 2).
(For a point of comparison, Trolley Run Station northwest of Aiken presently has about 1,100 residences.)
Figure 1. Proposed routes of Whiskey Road-Powderhouse Road Connector project. Figure 2: Areas to be developed along Whiskey Road-Powderhouse Road Connector(s). 1. New 160-room, 4-storyHampton Inn, approved and under construction. 2. City of Aiken right of ways obtained to date;with black arrows indicating general location of right of ways that remain necessary to obtain. 3. Fry/McClean property. No plans presented to date but the City has promised sewer capacity for up to 600 homes. According to the June 2025 Development Report, a 461 “mixed” housing unit development is in the “concept stage” of approval; and a complex of a 90-unit Senior Living and 35-unit Memory Care development is in the “pre-concept stage.” 4. Clifton Place, annexed in 2024, with no concept plan submitted to date but a 161-townhomes development is in the “review stage.” (To the right (east) is The Sanctuary, a nearly completed subdivision of 125 single-family homes.) 5. Future City of Aiken regional detention pond and park. 6. Summerall (former Watson property). Concept plan approved for 124 single-family homes (eastern half). Up to 350 apartments are planned in western half. 7. Summerall (Watson property) commercial district. 8. Summerall (Watson property), where 130 townhome units are in the planning stages. 9. Summerall (Ware property) . Annexation request and Concept Plan for 330 housing units–167 single-family homes 163 townhomes) submitted this past month and approved by the Planning Commission. This proposal has since been withdrawn, but the property remains available for development. (click to enlarge)
Approved, Proposed, and Pending Developments to Date
The Hampton Inn
The 160-room, four-story Hampton Inn hotel is currently under construction on what will be the far west end of the Connector Road.
The 8.0-acre parcel, of which three acres is dedicated to the hotel, was annexed in October 2022. City Council then approved a concept plan for the hotel in April 2023 (pages 105-125). Although accessible from Whiskey Road, one driveway for the Hotel will be via the Connector Road; whose future presence substantially influenced the location.
Summerall Place: The Watson Tract
Annexation of 125.35 acres of forested land formerly known as the Watson Tract and soon to be known as Summerall Place was approved by Aiken City Council in February 2024. This was divided into 16 acres for commercial use and 109 acres for residential use.
At the same time, Council approved the Planned Commercial Concept Plan for the 16 acres of commercial space, and the Planned Residential Concept Plan for Phase One of the residential portion—which is perhaps the most thorough, thoughtful, and extensive housing plans to be submitted in recent years (pages 70-216). For example, the developer expressed its intention to leave any lands with slopes greater than 15% untouched, stating that these conditions are too costly, in both financial and environmental terms, to develop.
Phase One is for 124 single family homes, while the subsequent phases involve 350 apartment units and 103 townhomes, producing a total of 577 new housing units.
Summerall Place: The Ware Tract
In January 2025, a proposal known as Thoroughbred Landing, located on what is now referred to as the Ware tract and involving 480 housing units (221 townhomes 259 single-family homes), was brought before the Planning Commission. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend that City Council deny approving the development . The developer then opted out of the project.(3)
This month, the Summerall Place developer, CSRA Development Company, had an application (pages 58-134) before the Planning Commission to extend its planned residential community from the Watson tract onto the Ware tract. Instead of 480 housing units, CSRA proposes 330. The Commission unanimously approved the annexation and concept plan on June 10th. City Council gave its first round of approval on June 23rd.
Across the Watson and Ware tracts, CSRA Development is proposing to leave 81 of its total 220 acres in various renditions of open space—including small parks, amenity areas, and greenspace on steeper slopes. The development will also benefit from the City’s investment in a park surrounding its new detention pond.
Clifton Place
Clifton Place will be situated on 37 acres of forest and farmland southeast of the Summerall Place development. The property was annexed in October 2024, but no concept plan has been submitted. The annexation request included a reference to 300 new residents, indicating 75-100 new home units. However, the June 2025 Engineering and Utilities Development report (4) shows a 161-unit townhomes development in the review process at the Planning Department. It has yet to be submitted to the Planning Commission.
The Fry/McLean Property
The Fry/McLean Parcel, located on 72 acres of farmland, has yet to be annexed and no concept plans have been made public. The owners’ sewer access agreement with the City of Aiken allows for up to 600 housing units.
According to the June 2025 Engineering and Utilities Development Report (4), a 461-unit “mixed” development is in the “concept” stage and a medical/residential center of 90 Senior Living units and 35 Memory Care units is in the “pre-concept stage.”
Totals
The collective, tentative total for the area is now estimated at 1500-1700 housing units. The mix of housing types will be unknown until the 451 housing unit types in the Fry/McLean property plans are revealed. Outside of those 451 units, 291 single-family homes, 327 townhomes, and 475 apartments (including 125 senior living and memory care units) are in various stages of planning and review.
Congestion Relief or More Customers for Whiskey Road Businesses?
While Powderhouse Connector will provide some congestion relief for the Whiskey Road corridor, developing subdivisions for upwards of 1,500 to 1,700 new housing units will, quite obviously, simultaneously increase traffic and congestion on the busiest section of the Whiskey Road commercial strip. This section is expected to grow busier as the new Aiken Towne Center gradually is finalized on the former Aiken Mall site.
An April 2023 email (Figure 3) between former Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant and National Retail Strategies representative Matt Jaeger illustrates this reality. In it, O’Briant asked for data regarding the attraction of the redeveloping former Aiken Mall area to future renters and home owners occupying the probable Powderhouse Connector residential developments.
The question made good sense, as the only nearby grocery option north of the Connector on East Pine Log Road are dollar stores. As for other retail and dining options, Whiskey Road will remain a center of commerce for the foreseeable future. The developments along the Connector are, quite simply, viewed as an economic stimulus for the Whiskey Road area.
Figure 3: April 2023 email exchange regarding the economic potential of future Powderhouse Connector developments. (click to enlarge)
Footnotes:
(1) According to a memorandum from the Augusta Regional Transportation Study’s (ARTS) South Carolina Policy Subcommittee, the current project costs are $38 million. The memo states the intent of the project is to “provide relief to the congested Whiskey Road corridor by opening additional routes to East Pine Log Road and Centennial Parkway.”
A City of Aiken memorandum released in September 2023 states that funding for purchasing road right of ways is derived from Capital Project Sales Tax revenues which are allocated for “Whiskey Road Corridor improvements and congestions relief.” (Aiken City Council Agenda Packet for September 11, 2023, page 412).
The tens of millions of dollars to be spent on Whiskey Road congestion relief will also provide access through nearly 400 acres of undeveloped farm and forest land in unincorporated Aiken County; where upwards of and to those eventual, multiple residential developments. Any developments in unincorporated areas which utilize city water and sewer services will eventually be annexed into the City of Aiken.
In addition, the City of Aiken intends to subsidize development by constructing and maintaining two major stormwater retention or detention reservoirs, and installing essential sewer and water infrastructure to insure adequate capacity for planned residential neighborhoods.
(2) These figures do not include the nearly completed 125-home subdivision known as “The Sanctuary” along Powderhouse Road, across from and east of the future “Clifton Place.”
(3) The Thoroughbred Landing development faced an uphill battle, with the City’s Planning Commission taking the unusual step at its January 14, 2024 meeting of unanimously recommending that City Council deny the application (2:37 to 3:30 of meeting).
During the contentious meeting, Chairman Ryan Reynolds informed the developer that “there is more work to be done here.” That was before area residents came forward to raise concerns about the original plan to build 259 single family homes and 221 townhomes, raising concerns about heavy traffic impacts, stormwater runoff, and effects on the quality of life of nearby residents.
The developer withdrew from the project rather than submit it to City Council. As a result of the Planning Commission’s actions, a less dense and less intrusive proposal to extend the Summerall development was forthcoming.
(4) The June 2025 Engineering and Utilities Development Report (click to enlarge)
Project Pascalis was first announced in March 2021. The City of Aiken secretly gained control of the Pascalis project properties in May 2021. Since May 2021, there have been three redevelopment proposals that failed to move forward on the downtown properties. The City of Aiken is due, in the next few weeks, to announce a selection of a new developer.
by Don Moniak
May 27, 2025 Updated June 11, 2025
In May 2021, Aiken city officials secretly decided to gain control, via the use of the Chamber of Commerce as a surrogate holding company, of the seven downtown properties that formed the footprint of the $75 to $100 million demolition and redevelopment plan known as Project Pascalis.
Four years later, only one of the properties, Newberry Hall, has been resold; but a major announcement is pending on the fate of the six remaining Project Pascalis properties (Figure 1) that have been offered for sale and redevelopment as a single block. At the present time, the future alternative plans for the properties are officially known only to an unofficial selection committee; as Aiken City Council has not announced any recent closed-door Executive Sessions to discuss the findings of the committee.
Also in question is the future of any sales proceeds, which include the $1.15 million already earned through the sale of Newberry Hall. The properties were acquired through a $9.6 million general obligation bond, and that bond was paid for by SRS/Plutonium Settlement funds legislatively allocated to “Downtown Aiken and Northside Hwy 1 Corridor Redevelopment and Development Funds.” Rightfully, any sales proceeds would be returned to their original purpose.
This upcoming decision will constitute the sixth major announcement involving the properties since March 2021.
Figure 1: The six Pascalis project properties offered for sale in December 2024. They are, in order, the Hotel Aiken, Beckman Building, Holley House motel, Taj Aiken Restaurant, McGhee Building (5 and 6), and Warneke Cleaners. Newberry Hall was the only property to be sold separately, as the business’s owner had the right to purchase in their long-term lease.
March 15, 2021: The First Pascalis Announcement
The existence of a Project Pascalis was announced by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) with some fanfare but few details in mid-March of 2021.
During that same month, City Council approved the Strategic Economic Development Action Plan, aka The AECOM Plan, which contained this justification for the Pascalis project:
“One of the major barriers to new development/redevelopment in downtown Aiken are the small parcel sizes and fragmented property ownership. This makes it difficult for both public and private entities to assemble land for larger-scale redevelopment.“
The project was described as a public-private partnership involving an “experienced and well-capitalized” private developer that was “recruited and identified” by the AMDC. Though not disclosed until nine months later, the Pascalis effort began with negotiations by WTC Investments, LLC to sign contracts to purchase six properties owned by the Shah family—and later one property (Newberry Hall) owned by the Anderson family.
By mid-April 2021, a redevelopment concept plan was completed that included properties in The Alley— but that plan was never made public by city officials.
Instead, this first rendition of Project Pascalis collapsed during the first week of May 2021 when the experienced and well-capitalized developer backed out of the project. During the next two weeks, city officials scrambled to preserve the project by gaining control of the seven properties. After that, an effort was made through an informal Request for Letters of Intent process to secure a developer for the properties and salvage Project Pascalis. The general public remained in the dark.
Three months later, Aiken City Council approved a $10 million general obligation bond issuance on behalf of the AMDC. At that time, it was known by numerous city officials, but not the general public, that the properties in question were the Shah and Anderson parcels. However, the City Manager’s supporting memorandum masked that fact by describing the bond as supporting purchases of properties within the much larger “Parkway District.”
After the AMDC failed to find a buyer for the property, and with the deadline for purchase nearing, the Commission, with the general obligation bond funds in hand, purchased the seven properties on November 9, 2021, for $9.5 million. A public announcement was made and the second rendition of Project Pascalis finally began in public view.
In a February 2022 email from AMDC Commissioner David Jameson to other AMDC members and staff, he implied that the city admittedly paid a higher than market value in order to “keep the project alive.” (Figure 2)
Figure 2. The email was in reference to a proposal to pay the tenants of the Newberry Hall property to forego their right of first refusal if, or when, the building was sold to RPM Development Partners.
December 4, 2021: The Purchase and Sale Agreement with RPM
Ten days after the contract was signed, the AMDC released an RFP (Request for Proposal) for the properties, a post-dated act that eventually was a contributing factor, if not a root cause, to the cancellation of the project.
Two amendments to the Purchase and Sales Agreement (PSA) were made in 2022, that added a penalty clause of up to $150,000 if the AMDC withdrew from the contract without good cause.
September 29, 2022: Cancellation of Project Pascalis
Over the next three months, the AMDC and City of Aiken received several letters expressing interest in the Hotel and other Pascalis properties. These included a letter from Tommy Tapp of Colliers Real Estate to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh expressing an interest to market the property.
January 22, 2023: The National Lab Announcement
Within a month of the Project Pascalis cancellation, the City Manager and Economic Development offices secretly moved forward with a salvage effort for some of the properties. This effort involved locating a T-shaped, $20 million workforce development office building for the Savannah River National Laboratory on two of the properties—Warneke Cleaners and the Holley House motel. At that point, any effort to redevelop the Hotel Aiken was put on hold; and stayed on hold.
After holding two closed-door meetings in December and early January, City Council waited until late January 2023 to announce the new plan, albeit without any catchy project name. During the same “State of the City” public address, Mayor Rick Osbon promised that a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Hotel Aiken would be forthcoming within a few months. A draft RFP was completed by April, but it was never issued.
For the next eight months, the future of the properties was held hostage by the lack of decision-making on the lab project. In September 2023, the Aiken Corporation recommended locating it on their property on Newberry Street, NW. After Aiken City Council declined to formally approve the location, the recommendation stood as a decision. By this time, the project was termed the “Aiken Mixed-Use Building,” a bland moniker that has remained to this day and continues to indicate the project is more of a “spec” building for the Aiken Corporation (built with no specific buyer or lessee in hand) than a facility for SRNL’s contractor.
December 2023: The Divestment Decision and the Ensuing Colliers Contract.
As reported in City of Aiken to Move Forward on Pascalis Properties, on December 2023, City Manager Bedenbaugh sought approval for a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for real estate and marketing services for four of the properties- the Hotel Aiken, Holley House, Taj Aiken, and McGhee Building (old drugstore). Warneke Cleaners was added to the mix at the behest of Council.
Bedenbaugh’s proposal had one caveat: that if an entity sought ownership of the Hotel and motel only, that would be acceptable. That caveat was absent, however, in the RFQ that was issued just one week later by the city’s procurement department. (Figures 3 and 4). Thus, the AECOM Plan’s recommendation to consolidate properties and avoid small downtown inholdings continued to guide the process.
(Figures 3 and 4 above. Proposed offering presented to City Council and public (left) vs proposed offering in RFQ. Click to enlarge)
The City received two responses to the RFQ, and in April 2024 City Council approved the Colliers’ contract (pages 110-116) to serve as the city’s realtor for the Pascalis properties.
Colliers then began to market the properties as a single entity. Anybody wishing to purchase only a portion of the properties, such as the Hotel Aiken, was told that only bids for all the properties would be accepted.
Meanwhile, in January 2024, the City Manager’s office brought forth to Council a proposal for a five-year lease for the three tenants in the Beckman Building. The first lease proposal included a right to purchase clause, but this option was shot down by Council. Two months later, Council approved the leases.
In June 2024, the City Manager’s office announced to Council that Colliers had requested that the Beckman Building also be added to the sale package. Council agreed to the request.
For the next several months, Colliers interviewed and hosted tours for prospective buyers. Appraisals were made, but the City has declared them to be exempt from disclosure under FOIA (Figure 5)
Figure 5: FOIA request response from City of Aiken pertaining to appraisals of the Pascalis properties.
In November 2024, Colliers representative Tommy Tapp provided a status update to Council; he described how more than twenty parties had expressed interest, and eleven tours of the properties for highly interested potential buyers and developers had been completed.
According to the meeting minutes, Tapp stated that, of the twelve parties that were interested enough to request tours, half were hotel developers, and half were apartment/condo developers; with all of them interested in harvesting historic tax credits. He told Council that the prospect of tax credits “is what is driving the project and the numbers.” (At the time, Congressional appropriations of historic tax credit funds did not appear to be in jeopardy, as they are now .)
Tapp added that “one of the common questions, even from phone calls, is about parking in Aiken. The number one question that everybody has—what about parking and how much parking is available…Everybody is interested in talking about parking garages. That is a common theme that has come up.”
A Request for Offers was then issued by Collier’s, and offers were due on December 23, 2024. According to Tapp, he would “collect the offers and review them to see if there is anything significantly missing or anything confusing and ask for clarification.” Once done, he would turn those over to the City Manager, with the offers being specified as “for the city’s eyes only.”
Tapp had also stated, at the 16:40 mark of the meeting, that this need for discretion was due to “another concern, is their bid going to be kept secret? They don’t want it shopped around in the press or made public because one of the criteria is ingenuity and creativity, and what they can do with the project.”
Six offers were submitted by the December 23rd deadline, and the committee of unknown origin was formed to select a preferred developer; no effort has been made to adhere to Freedom of Information Open Meetings provisions.
According to the Colliers’ offer package, the submissions would be evaluated based on eight criteria (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Selection Committee criteria in Collier’s 22-page prospectus.
However, according to information obtained via a FOIA request, the interview portion of the selection process was based on a somewhat different set of evaluation criteria and rankings, one which added purchase price and parking plans as concrete criteria (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Interview “scoring rubric” used by the Selection Committee during interviews. Obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request. Interview questions
In addition, the committee used a set of nine interview questions to help formulate the rankings (Figure 6).
In mid-April, the City announced that the six developers had been reduced to two finalists; who were then charged with updating their proposals by April 30th.
On May 16th, the selection process took a turn for the strange when one of the spurned developers, Winter Colony Development Group, issued a public plea for support, stating in the comment section of a You Tube video that:
”City Hall is about to vote to turn the historic Aiken Hotel into a budget hotel without enough parking. If you prefer the alternative of Downtown Family Living with Shopping, Dining and Live Outdoor Entertainment, call Aiken City Hall at 803 642 7600 and demand the Winter Colony Proposal be chosen. Thank you for your support, and tell your friends!”
A second You Tube video, this time a musical arrangement, was circulated on social media that directly appealed to the citizenry of Aiken, stating in a twangy song, “if it speaks to what you feel, call the City. Let’s make it real.”
On May 19th, the City informed the Aiken Standard that the Winter Colony group’s proposal was no longer under consideration.
The June 9, 2023 Announcement
On June 9, 2025, Aiken City Council held a 1.5 hour closed-door Executive Session to discuss the proposed sale and redevelopment of the group of properties.
Following the Executive Session, Council voted 6-1, with Councilwoman Andrea Gregory in dissent, to approve a Motion “that the staff and City Attorney work with the Oliver Group for the sale and redevelopment of the Hotel Aiken and adjacent downtown properties.” (25 minute mark)
Interestingly, the vote came four years and one day after another Executive Session regarding the same properties, one in which the potential developer remained a secret.
On June 8, 2021, following an Executive Session, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) unanimously voted, in regard to Project Pascalis, to “authorize the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Municipal Development Commission to enter into negotiations with a potential developer related to Project Pascalis. The motion was unanimously approved.” (Page 5 of Meeting Minutes)
That negotiation process took six months before a tentative agreement with the AMDC’s “preferred developer,” RPM Development Partners, was reached in early December 2021.
Four months into that process, City Attorney Gary Smith unofficially stepped aside due to possible conflict of interest due to his law partner’s involvement in the project; and was replaced as the AMDC’s attorney by the law firm of Pope and Flynn. Since there is no real or perceived conflict involving the Oliver Group, Smith will again play an active role in the sale and redevelopment process.
There is no timeline for the upcoming negotiations. If an agreement is reached with the Oliver Hospitality group, there will be a seventh major announcement–likely one involving a conceptual plan and purchase price. At a minimum, City Council will then have to conduct two public hearings to approve any property sales, and the city’s Design Review Board will have to approve any proposed demolition and all concept plans.
(Update, June 27, 2025: Th e City publicly disclosed an April 2025 appraisal completed by Colliers)
If all proposals come to fruition, seventeen housing developments between Richland Avenue and Interstate 20, within the City of Aiken’s water and sewer district, could result in 4,492 new housing units and more than 10,000 new residents to the area. The combined population of the two Northside City Council districts could grow by 50 percent.
by Don Moniak
May 25, 2025
Since 2020, Aiken City Council has been presented with, and approved, fifteen new housing development applications located between Richland Avenue and Interstate 20 that are within the City’s Sewer and Water District. Nearly every vote has been unanimous. Two more development applications that are currently pending have been recommended for approval by the city’s Planning Commission, and face almost certain unanimous approval by City Council.
In total, the seventeen developments* span 1,327 acres, involve twelve different developers, four large property annexations, and, if completed in full, will provide a total of 4,492 new housing units—2,994 single family homes, 796 townhouses, and 752 apartments (Table 1).
Only three apartment complexes comprising 416 units have been described as “affordable housing.” Much of the remainder has been described as “work force” housing on small lots (predominantly 0.125 to 0.2-acre lots), with purchase price quotes being most frequently in the $225 to $275 thousand range. Only Woodhaven and Coopers Place will have larger lot sizes and prices closer to $350-500K.
Just under half (2,158 units) of the total units are now within city limits or on lands recently, or soon to be, annexed. The remainder are situated on unincorporated county lands, but will be subject to annexation if the subdivisions become contiguous to the city (Table 2).
Using the 2020 census’ average household size of 2.4 people per home, the increase in population within the city’s Sewer and Water district–in the area between Richland Avenue and Interstate 20–from these developments alone could number about 10,780 new residents. In the short run, the population growth within the City of Aiken’s, due to both infill and annexed developments, could be around 5,200 new residents. All of this growth will be in Council Districts 1 and 2; where the combined existing population is reportedly 10,610.
While numerous individual traffic studies have been completed, there has been no cumulative traffic effects analysis. However, it is fair to assume that, if all developments move forward, University Parkway, York Street, Rutland Drive, Highway 19N, Wire Road, and Hwy 1 North will all experience heavy increases in traffic.
(*In terms of new housing between Richland Avenue and I-20, these figures do not include growth of another thousand homes or more planned in Trolley Run Station, which is in the Valley Public Service Authority Sewer and Water District and not subject to annexation inside the City of Aiken. This will add another ~2,500 more people to the Aiken area.)
Table 1: Developments by number of units, acreage, type housing (click name to view property data and property purchase price paid by developer, if available).
Development
Developer
Location
Jurisdiction
Lokey Lane
Taft Mills Group
Gregg Hwy
In City
Parker at Aiken
Parker-Aiken LLC
Gregg Hwy
Annexation
Highlands Bluff
Highland Bluff LLC
University Parkway
County
University Townhomes
Southern United Development
University Parkway
Annexation
Rutland Place
VIP Riverside
Rutland Avenue/Hwy 19
In city
Portrait Hills
Great Southern Homes
Hwy 19 North
Annexation
Rivers Crossing
KD Owner 3 LLC
Hwy 19 North
County
Bridge Creek
D&M Partners
Hwy 19 North
County
Sundy Avenue
Ulysses
Sundy Avenue
In city
Fox Ridge Trace
Tafts Mill Group
Rutland Avenue
In City
York Street
QOZB2 LLC/MK Land Development
York Street
In city
Palomino Oaks
Great Southern Homes
York Street
In city
May Royal Drive
Midland Valley LLC/Ivy Homes
York Street
Annexation
Woodhaven
Beazley Homes
Wire Road
County
Cooper’s Place
Georgia Southern
Wire Road
County
Bedford Place
Beazley Homes
Hwy 1N /Airport
County
Creighton Mdws
H & A Development
Hwy 1N /Airport
County
Table 2: Developments by Developer, Location, and Jurisdiction.
Notes on Individual Developments
Area 1: Gregg Highway
Figure 1. Gregg Highway developments. 1. Parker at Aiken apartments. 2. Lokey Lane apartments
Lokey Lane/Gregg Highway
This affordable housing apartment complex was approved by Aiken City Council on April 8, 2024. (see page 140-160 for more details). The target tenants are residents earning less than the area median income. No action has yet been taken. The developer has until June 2025 to close on the property before the concept plan expires.
In June 2024, City Council also voted to award the developer/investor an economic incentive for up to $90,000 to cover half the costs of The permit fees, business license fees, and water and sewer tap fees paid to the city.
This luxury apartment complex is under construction (Figure 2). City Council approved annexation and a concept plan in January 2023; after the Planning Commission granted a waiver on open space requirements in order to mandate more parking spaces. The area was most recently dominated by Longleaf Pine forest. The developers left undisturbed approximately 3 acres of loblolly pine wetland (Figure 3).
Figure 2: Ongoing construction at Parker at AikenFigure 3: Parker at Aiken, 2023 (Aiken County Land Database)Parker at Aiken 2025 (Google Earth)
Area 2: University Parkway, Hwy 19N, Rutland Drive, York Street, May Royal Road
Figure 4: 1. Highland Bluff ; 2. University Parkway Townhomes; 3. Bridge Creek; 4. River Crossing; 5. Portrait Hills; 6. Rutland Place; 7. Palomino Oaks; 8. May Royal Drive; 9. Guildford; 10. Sundy Street Apartments; 11. York Street 12. Fox Ridge Trace
Highland Bluff remains in the site preparation, utilities installation, and road building stage. Aiken City Council approved water and sewer services in May 2022. The area was formerly forested with a loblolly pine/hardwood mix (below). It is 1.3 miles from the City limits. For more information, seeA Stormwater Story.
Highland Bluffs, 2023Highland Bluffs, 2025
University Townhomes
Annexation and the concept plan were unanimously approved in May 2022.
Some controversy over its access affected the project. The project is divided into two areas by Lincoln Avenue (Figure 7), which is an unpaved County-owned road. The developers therefore sought two distinct subdivisions with two separate entrances for the gated community—one from University Parkway and one through the Kennedy Kolony subdivision via Tennessee Avenue.
However, long-time area residents objected to this intrusion, and during a community meeting they managed to win a concession—the developer would seek an entrance via Lincoln Avenue, and not Tennessee Avenue. (This option involved lobbying County government to pave the road, and the status of this lobbying effort is unknown. Thus only the northern half of the project is under development.)
The University Parkway side of the project is in the site preparation stages. Because part of the project area is too steep to develop, approximately one-third of the site will remain forested.
Figure 7. University Townhomes property, within red outline. The area north of Lincoln Avenue is under development. The area north of Lincoln Avenue is temporarily on hold due to access issues after neighborhood objections to the proposed entrance via Tennessee Avenue.
Bridge Creek
This proposed 705-home subdivision on 212 acres was unanimously approved, with minimal discussion, for sewer and water service by Aiken City Council in January 2025. The development still requires approval by the County Planning Commission—no application has been forthcoming to date. The land was clearcut in the early 2010s and never reforested. The property is only 0.6 miles miles from the city limit. For more details, see More Development, More Congestion Enroute for Highway 19 North.
Rivers Crossing
City Council approved water and sewer services in May 2021. The County Planning Commission approved the site plan in 2022. SC DOT and the County required the developer to install turn lanes on Highway 19 in order to access the property.
Surveying of new lots is complete and home construction is nearly half completed (Figure 8). Numerous homes have already sold for $270 to $290 thousand; and are being advertised as starting in the mid $200s K (Figure 9).
The area was originally primarily open field/farmland with a few small patches of timber. There are no rivers or creeks on or nearby the development.
The site is only ~700 feet and three small properties away from city limits; meaning annexation is a probability in the not distant future.
Figure 8; Rivers Crossing new home constructionFigure 9
Portrait Hills.
Aiken City Council approved annexation and the concept plan in 2021, and approved an economic incentive in 2022. Surveying of new lots is complete and home construction is well underway. Numerous homes have already sold for $270 to $295 thousand. For more information, see Dust Storm in an Incentive Zone.
Figure 10: Portrait Hills new home construction
Rutland Place.
City Council approved the concept plan in July 2025; which also included an adjacent plan for six acres of commercial development where a Tractor Supply store is envisioned as an anchor retailer. Both the commercial and residential projects remain in the predevelopment and planning stages—no ground has been disturbed to date. The area is approximately 75 percent open field and 25 percent loblolly pine dominated forestland. (Figure 11).
A highly controversial aspect of the project was a waiver request for tighter spacing between buildings; a request to which Aiken Public Safety and the Planning Commission objected. Aiken City Council, with the exception of Mayor Teddy Milner and Councilman Ed Woltz, voted to override the objections of their public safety department and Planning Commission.
Homes are expected to sell in the $225 to $275 thousand range.
Figure 11. Rutland Place site. Residential area is property outlined in red. Commercial lots are between residential and Rutland. Aiken High School is south of Rutland Dr.
Concord Hill and Maple Green Development at York Street and Rudy Mason Parkway
City Council unanimously approved rezoning to planned residential and a concept plan in April 2025. As with the Rutland Drive development, a waiver on building spacing was sought and approved by Council.
The development consists of two properties, both of which were already cutover, that were combined into one development. The project is in the design stage.
Homes are expected to range from $225 thousand to $275 thousand.
City Council approved the concept plan in 2021. As described in The Realtor Association’s Unreality, Aiken City Council approved a $247,000 economic incentive– to pay for half of work permits and utility connections costs– for Great Southern Homes in 2022.
Site preparation and utilities are completed (Figure 13), but home construction has yet to begin (see below). Prior to 2023 the property was a loblolly pine/hardwood forest, and approximately one-quarter of the forestland has been retained; mostly along the northern boundary.
Figure 12Figure 13: Status of site
Sundy Street Apartments
The first rendition of the Sundy Street affordable housing development was approved in March 2023. That developer did not move forward, and a second developer has taken over the project. The city’s Planning Commission unanimously recommended, on May 13, 2025, that City Council approve the current development (see Page 123 for more details).
The site is forested and has a wetland component that appears to be limiting development to about half of the 17-acre property.
Fox Ridge Terrace Apartments.
The city’s Planning Commission unanimously recommended, on May 13, 2025, that City Council approve this affordable housing development.
The site is entirely forested and also has a wetland component; the plan (see Page 99 for details) shows approximately one-quarter of the forestland will remain in place.
Figure 14: Fox Ridge Terrace layoutFigure 15: Fox Ridge Terrance
May Royal Drive
The first rendition of the May Royal Drive development (yet to have a neighborhood name) was laced with controversy. Concerns regarding quality of life, noise and light pollution, traffic, property values, and the threat of annexation were raised by neighbors residing in the unincorporated county. A flawed traffic study actually considered a left hand turn into a left hand turn to be a traffic mitigation measure.
The pressure from neighbors resulted in some concessions from the developer: a 75 ft buffer between existing homes, no access from Osbon Drive, and a perimeter fence (Figure 16).
However, the developer never closed on its property purchases and the concept plan that was approved by City Council in April 2024 expired.
Another concept plan was brought forth, with Ivy Homes as the builder, and pared down to 52 acres (from 90). This time, despite the same concerns there were no concessions, and City Council approved the plan in March 2025.(Figure 17)
Figure 16: Final plan for first May Royal proposal approved by City Council in 2024; when the developer agreed to a lower housing density and a 75-foot buffer between new homes and existing neighbors who lot sizes range from one to four acres. That concept plan expired when the developer reportedly could not complete its purchase of the project properties. In the subsequent project design, the same developer only agreed to a 25-foot buffer buffer (the minimum buffer size in the Zoning Ordinance is a mere 10 feet).Figure 17. Second rendition of the May Royal Drive development. First proposal in 2024 initially included parcels “A” and “B,” and parcel B was removed. The development approved this year also excluded parcel. The developer indicated that Parcel A will become part of the subdivision at some future date.
The City approved water services, but not sewer, in October 2024. This was a done deal since, in March of 2023, City Council approved a cost-sharing agreement for a water line extension to the property. The City would pay two-thirds of the cost up to $670,000, with the developer (Beazley Homes) paying at least one-third.
According to the City Manager’s supporting memorandum (page 101), the waterline extension was one facet of an overall scheme to extend water service as far as Exit 29 along Interstate 20:
“The initial phase of 9,100 linear feet of 12-inch water line extends service to the proposed residential development. The next phase extension of 8,625 linear feet water line provides an extension to existing facilities that the city has on Beaver Dam Road. Additional phases could extend water service to Interstate 20 Exit 29. The availability of water and larger tracts and providing services to this exit could further expand the city’s water district and provide opportunities for further growth to the north of Aiken.”
The site is still in the predevelopment stage.
The development is expected to be more upscale, similar to the adjacent Summer Lakes neighborhood, with lot sizes of 0.98 acres. Unlike Summer Lakes, the only access to Woodhaven will be from Wire Road. The City is not providing sewer services, so the homes will be on septic systems. The property is nearly 2 miles from the city limits, and is unlikely to be annexed in the near future.
Coopers Place
City Council unanimously approved water service on January 27, 2025; the same day it approved utilities service for Bridge Creek and Bedford Place. The Aiken County Planning Commission had already approved the site plan in October 2024; over the objections of numerous area residents.
On March 10, 2025, the Aiken City Council unanimously voted to approve an agreement with Georgia Southern Homes to extend the city’s drinking water system another 3,000 feet north along Wire Road. The deal is for Southern Homes to build the line to their proposed 157-home subdivision; with the City shouldering up to 2/3rds of the cost of the $500,000 project.
Bedford Place
City Council approved water and sewer service for this high density development on January 27, 2025. The first phase of the project site plan was approved, with contingencies such as engineering and traffic study approvals, by the County Planning Commission at its April 2025 meeting.
The property along Hwy 1 North and Beaverdam Road is presently forested with loblolly pine and has been managed as a tree farm for decades. The site is four miles from the City limits. A portion of the property is within the Aiken Airport overlay district.
Creighton Meadows
Aiken City Council approved water and sewer service in August 2024 (see pages 123-137). The only objection to the application for utility service came from Will Williams of the Western South Carolina Economic Development Partnership. In a letter to Council, Williams raised concerns about developing housing adjacent to the Shaw Industries plant on the Frontage Road.
The site, which was also was the preferred location for the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing facility that was rejected by Aiken County Council in April 2024, was clearcut in 2023. A portion of the property is also in the Aiken Airport overlay district. It sites 5.1 miles away from Aiken city limits and is highly unlikely to be annexed under current rules.
The Aiken County Planning Commission approved the site plan in June 2024.
GuildfordTownhomes: Rejected for Now.
A public hearing on the application to annex a 24-acre parcel and build 188 townhouse units, called the Guildford, along Wire Road (see Page 68) was held by the city’s Planning Commission on May 13, 2025. After hearing from numerous local citizens, and failing to obtain answers on several issues from the developer’s representative, the Commission recommended denying the application for annexation and concept plan. (See 0:35 to 1:30 mark of meeting video).
At least eight nearby residents, mostly along Wire Road, rose to speak against the subdivision; all of them citing traffic and quality of life concerns as reasons to deny the application. Among the statements were:
“It will be a really ugly little crowded neighborhood.”
“I already can’t get my mail“ (which is across the road for many residents) due to fast and heavy traffic
“We feel blindsided by this“ and “there are no guardrails against this kind of development.”
This is not compatible with that area of North Aiken, which remains rural and dominated by larger lots.
People already have trouble navigating Wire Road during peak hours.
For their part, the Planning Commission at times ripped into the application, stating, among other things that:
There were too many unanswered questions remaining (in fact the developer could not answer many questions).
“This is exactly what makes a horrible development…It is Exhibit A of what not to do.”
“The concept plan is not at all compatible and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
The developer can still take their case to City Council, or they can withdraw their application and regroup—-which would be the practical thing to do given the complete lack of support and substantial opposition to the project. But given the fact that Beazley Homes has purchased the property, it is likely to be developed for housing.
Guildford was the second subdivision in North Aiken to be rejected in the 2020s. In September 2023, the proposed 212-unit Henderson Downs along East Richland Avenue faced unanimously opposition from the Planning Commission after the Aiken Steeplechase Foundation and other neighbors on all sides voiced objections to the subdivision. No further action has been taken to develop the property.
The leadup to this moment in the saga of the downtown Aiken’s Pascalis Properties is summarized in Local Politics and Planning in 2025. As reported there, in November 2024 Colliers representative Tommy Tapp informed Aiken City Council that, in reference to potential bidders for the property:
“Another concern, is their bid going to be kept secret? They don’t want it shopped around in the press or made public because one of the criteria is ingenuity and creativity and what they can do with the project.”
Six months later, one of the six bidders, known as the Winter Colony Development Group, has taken the odd and unusual step of urging Aiken citizens to lobby “Aiken City Hall” on their behalf; in large part by shopping their creative ideas on Facebook.
The lobbying and public relations effort involves two videos.
First, there is the video titled Winter Colony Development Group’s Proposal for the City, released this weekend and already enjoying 1,000+ views. (It is the same video as the one titled Final 2 Winter Colony Development Group that can be found on the group’s You Tube Channel 256. That video was provided to Colliers and the City of Aiken four months ago—but not publicized. It has 173 views.)
The proposal video presents the group’s vision for the Pascalis properties: “reimagining” the Hotel Aiken into fourteen luxury condominiums, two restaurants on the ground floor, thirteen townhouses replacing the motel on Bee Lane, a 56-spot parking garage behind the Warneke Cleaners property (with no indication of the future of that historic business), and an assortment of retail space along Richland and Laurens.
In the comment section of the latest popular release, the group wrote:
“City Hall is about to vote to turn the historic Aiken Hotel into a budget hotel without enough parking. If you prefer the alternative of Downtown Family Living with Shopping, Dining and Live Outdoor Entertainment, call Aiken City Hall at 803 642 7600 and demand the Winter Colony Proposal be chosen. Thank you for your support and tell your friends!”
The latest version also urges citizens to link to a music video titledAiken Downtown Family Living; in which the group further disparages an undisclosed competitor’s proposal. The video features a folksy country song with the refrain “if it speaks to what you feel, call the City. Let’s make it real.”
The song is an advertising gimmick concocted by one of the group’s partners. That partner is the Ransom Company, whose website features a dozen product “jingles” by branding expert Tim Ransom. The Aiken Community Downtown Family Living video “jingle” is described on the site as a “Social Media PSA.”
Now compare the folksy Aiken Community Downtown Family LivingPSA to a third related Channel 256 video, called RH Winter Colony; which was produced six months ago and has 27 views. RH Winter Colony is a sales pitch for potential investors, and the pitch is the history of Aiken and American elites as embodied by the Aiken Winter Colony. The “RH” brand is described as capturing the “American Recreational Spirit” of both the Winter Colony era and today.
Do watch both videos, RH Winter Colony and Aiken Downtown Family Living, back to back for a sales pitch dichotomy lesson. The former pitches elitism, exclusivity, 5th avenue, Rodeo Drive, luxury, and the planned, stylistic poses of unsmiling recreationists; a vision without children, and without family.
The latter pitches down to earth folksiness, images of Aiken’s common, humble, and popular places; smiles and spontaneity among both local children and adults. It has family.
RH Winter Colony seeks to lure financial investors; Aiken Downtown Family Living seeks investments of public opinion.
The two videos are the two faces of the Winter Colony group’s brands, both presented by the creators of the “iconic” brands for Fruit of the Loom/Star Wars boys underwear, Saranac Lake beer, Grizzly smokeless tobacco, and Lotrimin fungal cream; among others.
Why?
Why did Winter Colony Group choose to participate in a secret selection process up until the moment it appeared the process was leading to the selection of another bidder? Given the fact that one requirement in Request for Offers was to divulge the bidders’ financial sources, would Winter Colony publicly disclose that information–along with its proposed purchase price, portfolio, and more complete concept plans?
It could be that the Winter Colony Group is exactly what Aiken wants and needs. The group has arguably performed a service by reminding citizens that a competition is ongoing. But the manner in which it has pursued its goals and attempted to manipulate public opinion leaves more questions than answers.
The entire spectacle, and all the intrigue, might be resolved if other bidders were to follow suit and trot out summaries of their offers, whether it be promotional videos or a power point program. City Council could also release a summary of all six offers without divulging names. Some, if not all, of the secrecy could be lifted.
But at this point, one competitor’s proposal has merely been branded as a “budget hotel without enough parking” by a branding expert who has only provided a few minutes of details about its own plans. The owners of the Pascalis properties, the citizens of Aiken, deserve more than more stumbling by many of the same parties—City Council and the City Manager—who helped bring Project Pascalis to the table more than three years ago.
