False Premises, Misdirection, and Dismissal of Public Input Characterize Aiken’s Master Economic Development Plan. 

Recently obtained information (1) has revealed that the City of Aiken’s Master Economic Development Plan, also known as “The AECOM Plan,” (2) was formulated, in part, on the basis of a “stakeholders workshop” that involved a single non-governmental group: The Aiken Chamber of Commerce.

The only other participants in the February 24-25 “stakeholder workshop” conducted by the AECOM Corporation’s Planning and Consulting Division were city employees. One City Council member attended each day; Mayor Osbon attended on the first day, but not the second. No local media were invited and there was no public notification of any meeting to discuss Aiken’s economic future.

The AECOM Plan, formulated in the total absence of public input, was eventually approved and adopted by Aiken City Council under a false premise, and the report provided to City Council lacked eighty percent of the information found in today’s complete edition. Adoption and pursuit of the AECOM plan eventually led to the cascade of costly decisions and the current fiasco known as Project Pascalis. 

I. The AECOM Presence in Aiken 

The AECOM Corporation is a Fortune 500 company with nearly $20 billion a year in revenues. It is self-described as “the world’s trusted infrastructure consulting firm, partnering with clients to solve the world’s most complex challenges and build legacies for generations to come.” According to its 2021 Annual Report, AECOM’s urban planning division “continues to shape the growth of the world’s major cities, while envisioning entire new urban areas to meet future needs.” 

AECOM’s Urban Master Planning/Design sector provides “strategic planning and master planning services for new cities and major mixed-use developments in locations such as India, China, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.” AECOM’s urban vision is largely devoid of historical preservation, and focused on eliminating “fragmented” property ownership from landscapes that can impede redevelopment into glittering, shining new landscapes. (3) 

In April 2019, the AECOM corporation’s subsidiary Management Services group, a $4.5 billion per year government services contractor, was the lead contractor in the consortium known as Savannah River Remediation, LLC (SRR, LLC) — the Department of Energy’s (DOE) primary contractor handling the massive Cold War nuclear weapon materials production legacy of dangerous, unstable, radioactive liquid waste at the agency’s vast Savannah River Site (SRS). The consortium employed nearly 2500 workers, about one quarter of the entire SRS workforce. Since 2009, SRR, LLC’s cost-plus-fee contract has been worth an average of a half billion dollars a year, and its bonuses ranged from $15 to $20 million per year. 

Partners in the consortium were other powerhouse government contractors: Bechtel National, CH2M, and BWX Technologies, Inc.; and subcontractors Orano, Atkins, and AECOM N&E Technical. When the consortium signed an eighteen month, $750 million contract extension (4) in April, 2019, AECOM Management Services’ executive workforce included future Aiken Economic Development Commission (AMDC) member and Chairman, Keith Wood, and AECOM Manager of Governmental Affairs, Lessie Price — also a longtime City Council member. 

AECOM maintained a prominent presence in downtown Aiken beginning in 2015, following its multi-billion dollar acquisition in 2014 of former SRR, LLC lead contractor, URS, Inc. The upper management team from URS transferred to AECOM. 

Next to its downtown office on Newberry Street, leased from the Aiken Corporation, was the city-owned AECOM Center of the Performing Arts, home to the nearly seventy-year old Aiken Community Theatre, which had been lured to its new downtown location in 2002 after decades of operating in Virginia Acres park. Across the street is a public art display in the parkway involving an empty, ten foot high, half-ton radioactive waste canister from the liquid radioactive waste operations, which was unveiled on November, 15, 2016. 

In February of 2020, AECOM sold its Management Services Division to private equity firms, who renamed the new company Amentum. Within a year the AECOM signs on Newberry Street were replaced by Amentum. Once again, the executive management team transferred to the newly conceived firm. Amentum-owned AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc took the place of AECOM Management Services on the waste contract. 

SRR, LLC relinquished the radioactive waste contract in early 2022, when DOE selected a new firm, Savannah River Mission Completion, LLC, to work on the tens of millions of gallons of legacy waste remaining. AECOM Energy & Construction remains a lead contractor in the new consortium. While the Amentum name is now dominant, AECOM’s presence is only slightly diminished. 

II. AECOM Takes the Economic Planning Lead in Aiken

The City of Aiken’s “Strategic Economic Development Action Plan,” also known as “the AECOM plan,” was developed between April 2019 to March, 2021 and is now considered the city’s “Master Economic Plan.” The AECOM plan subsequently provided a nebulous justification for much of the City’s $100 million dollar plus downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor effort known as Project Pascalis. 

A key passage in the AECOM plan reflected the company’s preference for property consolidation, and would be recited in the necessary steps towards funding Project Pascalis property purchases, particularly the $10 million, August, 2021 municipal bond issuance: 

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.

According to the AECOM plan, in April, 2019 the City of Aiken “engaged” its Urban Planning and Consulting Division “to assist in the development of this strategic economic development strategy.” However, according to the newly updated document, made available via a FOIA request, the effort does not appear to have begun in earnest until December of 2019. In the newly released Appendix C, AECOM’s project leader Marcia Tobin wrote: 

As described in the opening statement and ‘Project Scope of Services’in the December 12, 2019 Economic Development & Master Planning Services, ‘The City of Aiken (Client) wants to forge a path forward for its growth and development, and to this end, is seeking the services of consultants to create a roadmap that leads to this goal.’ As an initial due diligence step in the AECOM Master Planning team’s process, the team has reviewed applicable material from numerous documents. Each of the 21 documents was reviewed and high-level goals, themes, conclusions, and recommendations were outlined. Specific, actionable vision statements were pulled out of each of these documents and organized into overarching themes.

III. The “Stakeholders Workshop” and the Four-Hour Trolley Tour

Following the document review (which produced a 45-page summary that escaped final publication), the second key basis for the AECOM plan occurred: a “stakeholders workshop” held on February 25-26, 2020. The importance of the workshop was highlighted on Page One of the plan’s Executive Summary: 

In February of 2020, AECOM held a two-day workshop with Aiken City officials and key stakeholders to discuss the City’s past, present, and future. AECOM was given a tour of the City’s historic downtown, many unique neighborhoods, key gateways, and commercial and employment nodes. Representatives discussed what they see as key impediments to the City’s future growth and development, as well as areas of opportunity. These discussions provide the framework for this Strategic Economic Development Plan.

Even though the final document repeatedly refers to a “stakeholders” meeting, implying a wide range of attendees with diverse viewpoints and interests, there was in fact only one non-governmental group represented: The Aiken Chamber of Commerce. The full listing of workshop attendees identified in the AECOM workshop summary, recently obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, were: 

• Two Aiken Chamber of Commerce employees: President J. David Jameson and Business Vitality Manager Mandy Collins. 
• Mayor Rick Osbon and Council Member Ed Woltz (Council member Gail Diggs replaced Woltz on Day Two) 
• Six City of Aiken employees (5) 
• Five AECOM urban planners, designers, and economic analysts. (6) 

According to the newly released Appendix E, Meeting Materials, the workshop occurred over a two-day period. Day One involved a meeting with “core group (including Mayor),” followed by a half-day Trolley tour of key sites: “Downtown, Eastside, I-20 corridor, Aiken Regional Airport, USC Aiken, Southside, Westside, Aiken Mall, etc;” and finishing with a wrap-up of the day’s findings. 

The sign-in sheet shows representation by the Chamber of Commerce, Mayor Osbon, Council member Ed Woltz, and six City of Aiken employees. 

The second day of the workshop, which included “core group checks” and “meetings with key stakeholders,” was even less well-attended, with only four employees, Council member Gail Diggs, and AECOM Urban Planner and Project leader Marcia Tobin signing in that day. 

By the end of the workshop, a vision for Aiken was articulated that included “Continue to build its employment, both with small businesses/entrepreneurs, and with larger employers;” and “Diversify its economy, building on its strong technical and scientific professional community.” Yet, of the five “Identified Opportunities and Catalysts,” two involved major efforts for Savannah River Site, two involved other major governmental initiatives, and the remaining opportunity was the twice-annual Steeplechase event at its new property whose purchase was funded by a million dollars of City funds: 

Eighty percent of the opportunities and catalysts were predicated entirely on government funding. No small business opportunities were identified and no major private industry initiatives were envisioned. 

IV. Followup to the Workshop

Appendix E also contains a page of “interview” subjects, but there is no indication these interviews were completed. When AECOM project manager, Marcia Tobin, spoke four months later to the newly formed AMDC at its June 20, 2020 public meeting, she only referenced feedback from the workshops. According to the meeting minutes (7), she cited the “workshop” eight times in her discussion, including this relevant passage insinuating the workshop was well attended and the community was well represented. From the minutes:

She said they took that information and used it in the Goal Workshops on February 25 – 26, 2020. The purpose there was to get people together who know the area– residents, city employees, volunteers and leaders within the community who understand what has been done and where they would like to go.

On October 8th and October 27th, 2020, two more “working meetings” were held, but the meeting attendees were not noted. By this time the AECOM plan was already on the minds of AMDC members. Two days prior, at its October 6, 2020 meeting, newly appointed commissioner Philip Merry, a real estate investor and former City Council member, cited the work in the context of reworking the City’s stormwater ordinance to allow higher density housing. From the minutes:

He thought the vehicle of the AECOM Economic Development Plan might be a good place to give credence to those concerns. He noted one example is the city’s mandate for stormwater retention. He pointed out that he thought Aiken has the highest stormwater retention requirements of anyone in the state. He pointed out this requires the developer to buy more land in order to do their project, or do the project smaller, or not do the project at all. (8) 

A major new dynamic in the mix, unrecognized by the AECOM planners, was the $600 million Plutonium Settlement between the State of South Carolina and the U.S. Department of Energy. The AMDC, however, was already lobbying for a major cut of the settlement pie for Aiken County, including $15-20 million for downtown redevelopment. For the next three months, the issues of plutonium money and the AECOM Plan merged at AMDC meetings. 

V. The Final Plan 

The final plan, condensed into 43 pages, was complete by March 2021. After the AMDC passed a resolution to adopt and approve the plan, the next step was City Council approval. What amounted to a Reader’s Digest version of the AECOM Plan was included in the agenda packet for Aiken City Council’s March 22, 2021 meeting. Omitted were Appendices C, D, and E — the document review, maps and graphics, and presentation material. In fact, even the blank cover sheets for the appendices found in the final, subsequent, published edition were omitted. Less than twenty percent of the document was provided to City Council and for public viewing. 

Whereas the terms “public perception” or “public misperception” occurs six times in the original 43-page document; the term “public input” is absent. Also absent from the final report are: 

• the word “plutonium,” despite the prospect of SRS fabricating new nuclear explosive components called “plutonium pits” being identified as an original economic “catalyst.” 
• the term “radioactive waste,” even though the report states “the largest industry in Aiken County remains waste remediation.” 

“Plutonium” did not appear in the final product. 

Despite the absence of any significant “stakeholder” presence and local media, Tobin and her fellow project members cited the Feburary 2020 “stakeholder workshops” nine times within thirty-five pages of discussion as a validation of its work and recommendations: 

AECOM’s key takeaways from this (document) review can be found in Appendix C, Aiken Document Review. This information was reviewed and discussed with City representatives at the February 2020 workshop, to ensure that this Strategic Plan would be thorough, well-informed, and not duplicate efforts. (Page 10). 

During the two-day February 2020 workshop that AECOM held with City of Aiken stakeholders, several key issues for the City rose to the forefront of the discussion. (Page 14) 

As was discussed during the February workshop, the City is in the fortunate position of being within a reasonable commuting distance of several major employers; however, they have struggled to attract and retain young professionals/young families in recent years.” (Page 15)

With the exception of AECOM planning staffers, no major employers were present at the workshop, and no major employers or small business owners were subsequently interviewed.

During the February 2020 workshop, City stakeholders discussed a need for more housing/mixed-use residential development in the downtown area. (Page 17)

No property owners, business owners, developers, builders, or realtors were present at the workshop. 

The Hotel Aiken redevelopment project was cited by City stakeholders as another ongoing challenge(Page 18). 

The Hotel Aiken’s owner was apparently not invited to the meeting. 

During the February workshop, participants noted that, although there is some programming downtown in the form of festivals and events, there are opportunities to better activate the downtown area and make it a more vibrant, lively space. (Page 18)

No center-city merchants, residents, or property owners were present at the workshop to address the “live/work/play, 18-24-hour downtown” vision that emerged. 

During the February workshop, it was noted that outside of the annual Aiken Steeplechase event, the City has not been able to leverage its renowned equine heritage into any other significant economic development opportunities. Aiken’s horse community, many of whose members live in the historic Horse District section of the City, has a reputation for being somewhat insular. As previously noted, the City is also home to a 2,100-acre park, Hitchcock Woods, that is a popular location for trail riding, but is not well utilized by the rest of the community. (Page 24). 

No representatives from the equestrian community were present at the workshop. Despite larger discussion of equine activities and industries during the October workshops, the final report only contains references to Hitchcock Woods and the Aiken Steeplechase. The word “Polo,” for which Aiken is renowned, is missing from the final document. The highly successful Bruce’s Field equestrian center is only referenced in the context as the “former home” of the Aiken Steeplechase — and one in need of development. 

In meetings with stakeholders and during the February 2020 workshop, desire was expressed to identify and celebrate key entrances to Aiken.

This list of projects is based around key areas of focus discussed during the February workshop. (Page 31)

Although the AMDC had yet to meet by February, 2020, it figured prominently in the list of projects within the final report, including 

Explore options for property acquisition by the City/Aiken Municipal Development Commission of parcels that can be acquired, assembled, and developed for medium-to- high-density mixed-use, mixed-income residential development….Work with the Aiken Municipal Development Commission to increase awareness of available incentives for downtown development/redevelopment.

VI. The AECOM Plan Approval: No Hearings and a False Premise

A week after the March 15, 2021, announcement of a stealthy, vaguely defined AMDC-led redevelopment effort called Project Pascalis, during its meeting on March 22nd, Aiken City unanimously passed: 

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE AECOM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTION PLAN AS RECOMMENDED BY THE AIKEN MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, AND MATTERS RELATED THERETO.

This was a resolution, not an ordinance, and as such was not subjected to two public readings that require hearings. Instead, the meeting agenda merely listed a one page item under new business: 

3) Approval of AECOM Strategic Economic Development Action Plan.

The document provided in Council’s agenda packet did not include the final three appendices. If any Council members had read the document, they did not raise this point. 

Paragraph three of City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh’s supporting memorandum presented Council with the false premise that the AECOM plan was a Redevelopment Plan: 

This Redevelopment Plan is prepared pursuant to Section 31-10-100 of the South Carolina Code of Laws.

Section 31-10-100 is the subsection of SC Community Development law that specifies ten requirements for a legal redevelopment plan. The AECOM plan addressed a few of these requirements but did so only in a general manner that does not comply with redevelopment law. At no time does the plan’s authors state it qualifies as a legally valid redevelopment plan. 

In fact, City Council had already approved a downtown Redevelopment Plan in June, 2020, called the Redevelopment 1 plan, and this is the only redevelopment plan presently approved by City Council. 

In spite of this grave oversight by Bedenbaugh and City Attorney Gary Smith, who is responsible for preparing and signing off on ordinances and resolutions, the AECOM plan was approved under this false “redevelopment plan” premise, one that Bedenbaugh argued would authorize the AMDC: 

 to acquire property, to execute contracts for clearance and preparation of land for resale, and to take other actions necessary to carry out redevelopment plans, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

Bedenbaugh and City Attorney Smith also failed to inform City Council that a redevelopment plan under Section 31-10-100 required a public hearing by the AMDC, followed by two public readings and hearings by City Council. This lack of diligence precipitated, in part, the lawsuit filed against the City of Aiken by nine plaintiffs on July 5, 2022, seeking an injuction against Project Pascalis. 

The following table illustrates the legal requirements for any redevelopment plan under the SC Community Development Act; and whether the AECOM plan and the Redevelopment One plan are compliant; While the Revelopment 1 plan meets legal requirements for a plan, it does not qualify as a legally valid plan for Project Pascalis, as the boundary is substantially different, no street changes are proposed, and no demolition is proposed. 

Redevelopment Plan Requirements    SC 31-10-100	AECOM Plan Compliance	Redevelopment 1 Plan Compliance
The boundaries of the redevelopment area, with a map showing the existing uses of the real property therein	No	Yes
Land use plan of the redevelopment area showing proposed uses following redevelopment;	No	Yes, but nochanges in use proposed
Standards of population densities, land coverage, and building intensities in the proposed redevelopment;	No	Yes
A preliminary site plan of the redevelopment area;	No	Yes, but much smaller than Pascalis project
A statement of the proposed changes, if any, in zoning ordinances or maps;	No	Addressed, but no major changes ID’ed
A statement of any proposed changes in street layouts or street levels;	No	Addressed, but no changes identified
A statement of the estimated cost and method of financing redevelopment under the redevelopment plan;	No	Rough cost estimates, but no definitive finance methods
A statement of such continuing controls as may be deemed necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter;	No	Yes.
A statement of a feasible method proposed for the relocation of the families displaced.	No.	Addressed, but no relocations proposed.
The commission shall hold a public hearing prior to its final adoption of a redevelopment plan. Notice of such hearing shall be given fifteen days prior thereto in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality.	No public hearing, no readings and hearings; only passed as a resolution by City Council.	No public hearing by AMDC, two readings and hearings by City Council.
A redevelopment plan may be modified at any time by the commission; provided, that if modified after the sale of real property in the redevelopment area, the modification must be consented to by the redeveloper of such real property or his successor, or their successors in interest affected by the proposed modification.	N/A	No modification since June 2020.

There was minimal discussion about the resolution prior to its passage. Only eleven citizens attended, as the meeting minutes describe COVID concerns and prevention guidelines as having limited attendance. 

VII. The AECOM Plan In Action: Misdirected and Misapplied

The day after the meeting, AMDC officials signed a “Cost Sharing Agreement” with Weldon Wyatt’s development firm GAC, LLC to move forward on the initial Project Pascalis effort — an agreement that would collapse within forty five days. Within the agreement was an option for the AMDC to purchase any property GAC or its affiliates purchased, or held by contract. By this time, Wyatt’s WTC Investments, LLC had already signed a $7.5 million purchase and sale agreement with Hotel Aiken owner Neel Shah involving the hotel and five other downtown properties owned by his family—The Berkman Building on Laurens Street (housing Ginger Bee, Vampire Penguin, and Beyond Bijou), the vacant Holley House, the Taj Aiken Restaurant, the historic McGhee Building (housing the vacant former CC Johnson Drug Store and three service businesses), and Warneke Cleaners. 

On March 29, 2021, building on Council’s resolution, Mayor Rick Osbon penned a letter to the AMDC: 

We appreciate the efforts the economists, planners and other experts from AECOM put into crafting it for us, but, from here on out, it becomes the AIKEN Economic Development Action Plan. It’s up to every resident of Aiken, the AMDC, the Aiken Corporation, the City Council and countless stakeholders throughout the community to join together and make this document more than a plan for the future. We need to make it our present and our reality as soon and as successfully as we possibly can. (7) 

Among Osbon’s key requests were: 

• immediate attention to the Parkway District; 
• the “expedited redevelopment of the stalled Hotel Aiken project;”
• a “conference/convention facility….adjacent to sufficient first-class lodging to accommodate as many as 500 overnight and multi-night attendees.” 
• “package and market sufficient acreage and appropriate sites” to help create more “urban-scale residential condo and apartment inventory within the downtown area.”
• a “structured parking solution.” 

Efforts to meet all these goals were already underway with Project Pascalis, although no details would be released to the public until eight months later. 

The first Pascalis project collapsed in early May when Weldon Wyatt withdrew from the deal. As part of the negotiations to salvage the deal, Mayor Osbon met with Weldon Wyatt and Greenville based developer Andy Cajka, President of Greenville, SC based Southern Hospitality Group. A memorandum from Tim O’Briant to AMDC members Jameson, Chris Verenes, and Chairman Keith Wood described the May 3rd meeting: 

The Mayor and Weldon met with Andy on Monday, I was out of town, apparently shg hotels will possibly deliver a LOI (letter of intent) regarding the hotel this week. The mayor agreed the meeting went well and Andy was engaged in making a deal that would be privately funded based on the public dollars and incentives driving the project. Mayor indicates he deferred question about Friday negotiations and City’s position on deal points citing my absence and his lack of information on the subject.

A day later O’Briant and AMDC Treasurer and Chamber of Commerce President David Jameson had lunch with Weldon Wyatt, his investment and development partner Thomas “Chip” Goforth, and GAC Management Services employee Ryan Bland, who two weeks earlier had still held the position of City of Aiken Planning Director. O’Briant described that meeting as follows: 

David Jameson and I went to lunch with Weldon, Ryan, and Chip. Weldon continues to promote the benefits of 100 percent public funding of the entire project, but now says he doesnt’ intend to participate in the cost or the proceeds—just wants a fee/commission for the project to be successful. This despite bringing in a potential private partner with money to spend just yesterday. He is somewhat cagey and defensive and says he believes I have conveyed messages not representative of the City’s position. Indicates he believes there is some possibility the city council would accept the deal that I rejected Friday. Indicates Lessie (Price) is setting up the Thursday meeting to get everyone in one room to verify my position does not reflect that of leadership.

After that point the known paper trail ends, and the outcome of any meeting set up by Council member Lessie Price is unknown. What is known is:

• On May 10, 2021, Aiken City Council met in closed door Executive Session for nearly two hours to discuss a range of topics, including “a possible purchase of real estate” and “a possible contractual arrangement with a real estate developer.” The outcome of that meeting was not summarized during the subsequent public session. 
• On May 14, 2021 the Aiken Chamber of Commerce took assignment of the purchase and sale contract for the Shah’s suite of properties; and then on June 3rd took assignment, of the Anderson (Newberry Hall) contract. In all, the Chamber reimbursed Wyatt’s firms $135,000 of otherwise nonrefundable earnest money managed by City Attorney Gary Smith’s law firm. From that point, the AMDC secretly referred to the properties as “AMDC controlled.” 
• In August 2021 Aiken City Council approved a $10 million bond issuance in support of AMDC property acquisitions in the “Parkway District,” with the AECOM Plan’s reference to “fragmented property ownership” a key justification in the supporting bond documents. 
• AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, whose letter to City Council urging the bond passage included citations from the AECOM plan, also wrote in a July 26, 2022 letter to the Historic Aiken Foundation: “The AMDC first pursued the purchase of the property in question and those adjacent to it at the behest of Aiken City Council.” 

There is no record of Aiken City Council asking the AMDC to purchase the Pascalis project properties. Any such request made in closed-door, Executive Session would constitute a serious violation of Open Meetings law, which dictate that no votes are to be taken in Executive Session. 

When questioned about the origin of this unsubstantiated statement, neither Chairman Wood nor Tim O’Briant have offered any reply. 

VIII. Conclusion

The AECOM plan was formulated by a subsidiary of a major contractor for the largest employer in Aiken County and the entire Central Savannah River Area (CSRA). It was commissioned by a newly formed City of Aiken Economic Development Department, despite the company’s relative absence of experience in planning for small Southern towns like Aiken, whose primary draw includes the charm of its historic downtown area dominated by small, locally owned businesses, a vibrant equestrian community, and a lack of traffic jams. 

The plan was pursued in a stealth fashion with negligible public input. A “stakeholders workshop” was dominated by City of Aiken employees, many of whom did not reside in the City of Aiken at the time. The Chamber of Commerce was the only nongovernmental entity attending, and only attended the session dominated by a four-hour Trolley tour.

Yet, AECOM staff, most notably AECOM Urban Planner and Project Leader Marcia Tobin, consistently misrepresented the workshop as a diverse “stakeholders” meeting, when in reality it was at best a small, subjectively chosen, private focus group. Moreover, AECOM staff were absent when City Council approved adopting the plan, and have not issued any concerns publicly that Council and the public received less than twenty percent of the final product for review. No Council members appear to have detected the omission or registered any concerns if they had. 

While the AECOM plan does not purport to be a redevelopment plan, it was blatantly misapplied as one by the AMDC and Aiken City Council, and repeatedly used to justify huge expenditures of tax dollars to establish what City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh openly referred to as a “land bank.” Again, AECOM planners have registered no concerns publicly over this gross misrepresentation of their work product. 

Less than two months after the AECOM plan was approved and adopted under a false pretense,  the first Project Pascalis failed. Undeterred, Aiken City Council and the AMDC doubled down, plowed forward, and then spent the next year compounding the failure to the tune of nearly $10 million of taxpayer money.  The obvious alternative of regrouping and publicly reporting the status of downtown redevelopment efforts appears to have escaped the thought process of city officials.” 

________________

References

(1) Freedom of Information Requests and Responses:

FOIA Request  #191-2022. Filed on 8/2/22 by Donald Moniak. 

Request: “Attendee list and meeting notes or minutes for the workshop described in the AECOM authored Aiken Economic Master Plan: ‘February of 2020, AECOM held a two-day workshop with Aiken City officials and key stakeholders to discuss the City’s past, present, and future. AECOM was given a tour of the City’s historic downtown, many unique neighborhoods, key gateways, and commercial and employment nodes.’ Since this is the master economic development plan, the requested information should be readily available. Posting this information to the City’s website and providing that link would constitute a sufficient FOIA response.” 

Response: The summary for the February 25-26 workshops; and the Presentation to AMDC at its June 20, 2020 meeting. 

FOIA Request #225-2022. Filed on 8/23/22 by Donald Moniak 

Request: “A copy of the AECOM contract and/or agreement to prepare and develop the “Strategic Economic Development Master Plan” for the City of Aiken, which states that “AECOM was engaged by the City of Aiken, beginning in April of 2019, to assist in the development of this strategic economic development strategy.” 2. A copy of all invoice statements for work completed by AECOM in relation to this contract, and payments for the work. 3. A copy of the following items in the report’s Appendices C, D, and E ( which are empty in the document): City of Aiken Document Review, Maps and Graphics, and Meeting Materials. This information is in the public interest, as illustrated by an abundance of references to the document by City of Aiken officials since March, 2021. Therefore, all fees should be waived and in the interest of government openness, the documents should be made available on the City of Aiken’s website. This information should also be readily available as this document forms the basis of the city’s economic plan.” 

Response: On September 5, 2022, an updated version of the AECOM plan that included Item 3 of the request, Appendices C, D, and E, was posted to the AMDC website at: 

Click to access 210127_AikenStrategicEDPlan_FINAL.pdf

The 43 Page document approved in March 2022 by Aiken City Council now was 247 pages. 

This document was posted surreptitiously by the AMDC, and without proper notification as required by SC FOIA. 

(2) AECOM Plan. The original document with three empty pages of appendices was removed sometime after August 23, 2022, and replaced on September 5, 2022 with the following: 

Click to access 210127_AikenStrategicEDPlan_FINAL.pdf

(3) AECOM 2021 Annual Report: https://aecom.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/reports/aecom-annual-report.pdf 

(4) In April 2019, AECOM led Savannah River Remediation, LLC was awarded a $750 million extension of the Savannah River Site liquid radioactive waste processing contract. In a news release about the award, AECOM described itself as: 

“AECOM (NYSE:ACM) is built to deliver a better world. We design, build, finance and operate infrastructure assets for governments, businesses and organizations. As a fully integrated firm, we connect knowledge and experience across our global network of experts to help clients solve their most complex challenges. From high-performance buildings and infrastructure, to resilient communities and environments, to stable and secure nations, our work is transformative, differentiated and vital. A Fortune 500 firm, AECOM had revenue of approximately $20.2 billion during fiscal year 2018. See how we deliver what others can only imagine at aecom.com and @AECOM.”
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190402005391/en/U.S.-Department-Energy-extends-AECOM-led-joint-venture

Photos of the Radioactive Waste Public Art can be found at: https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/art-canister-installed/collection_354aaa5e-52c2-5887-8ae9-930a3779a18d.html#9

(5) City of Aiken employees: 

**Tim O’Briant  —  Economic Development Director

Sabine Craig  — Assistant Economic Development Director

*Stuart Bedenbaugh  — City Manager

**Ryan Bland — Planning Director (former) 

**Joy Lester — Capital Project Sales Tax Administrator

**Kim Abney  — Finance Director (former) and Assistant City Manager (former)

*Known to be a City of Aiken Resident. 
**Primary residence in 2021, according to County records, not within the City of Aiken 

(6) AECOM Team

Marcia Tobin, Project Director; a twenty two year AECOM employee based out of Knoxville,TN and Arlington, VA. 

Christine Graziano, Project Manager, Economic Development; a thirteen year AECOM employee based out of Arlington, VA 

Sarah Richards, Senior Analyst, Economic and Community Planning; a five year veteran of AECOM based out of Richmond, VA

Mickey O’Brien, Senior Urban Designer; a nineteen year AECOM veteran based out of Atlanta, GA 

John Hightower, Senior Urban Designer; a ten year AECOM/URS veteran based out of Atlanta, GA

(7) AMDC Meeting Minutes for June 20, 2020 are within the July 7, 2020 Meeting Agenda Packet: 

Click to access 2020-07-07-Municipal-Development-Commission-Agenda.pdf

(8) AMDC Meeting Minutes for October 6, 2020:
https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=531104&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF&cr=1

(9) Aiken City Council Meeting Agenda and Minutes for March 22, 2022:
Agenda Packet: 
https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=553405&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

Meeting Minutes:
https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=594313&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

(10) Letter from Rick Osbon to the AMDC.
https://www.cityofaikensc.gov/mayor-outlines-key-priorities-for-development-in-aiken/

(11) Memorandum from Tim O’Briant to AMDC Executive Committee. May 5, 2022. 

(12) Based on the Memorandum, Andy Cajka’s proposal is believed to be second from the bottom on the redacted review of bidders to the secretive May 2021 Solicitation for Proposalstitled “Pascalis offers comparison_Redacted. 

• A “very complete letter of intent” 
• A proposal to “contribute $1.5 million to property purchase but requires that incentives equal to any purchase price be equaled by the City incentives for a zero sum gain.” 
• a group with “considerable experience in all aspects of project pascalis.”