Category Archives: Project Pascalis 2025

City Government, December 2025, Editorials, Project Pascalis 2025

Irregularities?

5 Comments

Guest Editorial
By Lisa Smith

Council members please consider your statutory obligations before voting to spend $2,000,000 of federal funding, awarded to the city of Aiken for Northside and Downtown redevelopment, as a buyer’s incentive to purchase the remaining publicly owned Project Pascalis properties.

Before any sales agreements were made, small business owners who are/were renting space in the city-owned Pascalis Property buildings expressed interest in buying their rented premises. They did this privately and publicly. They were reassured publicly but then denied the opportunity to purchase. The tenants were given 5-year lease agreements which were all signed and returned to the city. The city arbitrarily reneged on their offer of a lease to one of the tenants, while giving 5-year leases to other tenants. The city also paid substantial relocation expenses to yet another tenant. This is a commitment made by the city to assist with the relocation of displaced tenants, made with the caveat that tenants are/were not to discuss any part of the agreement publicly. An unusual city policy of threatening our small business owners in order to control their ability to speak honestly about city business practices.

Why were the Pascalis Properties only marketed as a group?   The notable exception to this was Newberry Hall, which was sold as an individual property by the city to its original owners at a substantial loss to the city.  The city acquired Newberry Hall, without an appraisal, for $2M and then sold it back, one year later for $1.15M.  Although that is a $850,000 loss for the taxpayers, there is a precedence set by selling a business property to its current tenant for the appraised value. Less city incentives.   

Would a company interested in restoring the Hotel Aiken want to be forced to also buy Vampire Penguin (with a five-year lease in place) and Warneke Cleaner, amongst the others?   Why would a buyer who might be interested in restoring and reopening a business in the McGhee Block want to buy a hotel? 

  • Why weren’t the publicly owned Pascalis Properties offered for sale to local business owners/tenants who wanted to purchase them?
  • Why are the properties only marketed as a group?
  • How much money could the city have made by selling these properties to local small business owners at the appraised values less incentives? 
  • Why were some tenants given lease agreements while others promised lease agreements that were not honored? 
  • Why did (at least) one tenant qualify for substantial relocation compensation between $50-75K in addition to the agreed amount?
  • If Newberry Hall could repurchase their property, at a  loss to the city, then why not the others?
  • Why are/were small business owners bound to secrecy agreements?

 The city decided to hire Colliers to market the remaining Pascalis Properties. We have not seen the criteria used to make this decision. 

After the sale of Newberry Hall for $1.15M, the remaining $9.5M of city owned properties from the failed Pascalis Project had the approximate cost to taxpayers of $8.35M.  Arguably, there were many other costs that should be considered, bond origination and payments, real estate commissions, closing costs, etc., but the $8.35M is the lowest amount due to repay taxpayers their investment made by city government in commercial real estate.

Although we have requested the closing statement for the original purchases by the city of the Pascalis Properties, our FOIA requests have been denied. 

Colliers used one of its related companies to conduct an appraisal of the properties and established the value and consequently, the sales price of $2.5M.  $8.35M worth of our property was appraised for $2.5M and no questions were asked?  No second appraisal was ordered; no additional comps were offered.  Colliers is the agent for the seller’s (us) and the buyers…and they set the price by using a Colliers company to appraise the property.

 A small group was assembled by city government, including the Colliers agent, to review the offers made by prospective buyers on the Pascalis Properties and recommend which would be accepted.  We do not know how the group members were chosen.  The group held closed meetings without any minutes being taken.  They did not meet publicly or comply with FOIA laws.  Information was not available to the public on the choices available, or the decision-making process used to choose the winning offer on Pascalis Properties. 

  • What was the criteria for inclusion in a group assembled to disburse more than $8.35M of publicly owned property? Why was this group exempt for FOIA Laws, public meetings, or any reports?
  • Why was an appraisal of $2.5M accepted on property the city paid $8.35M in 2021 That’s more than a 70% devaluation in a market that was very bullish. 
  • What were the exact criteria used for choosing the preferred buyer from the alleged six other offers made? 
  • Why was only one offer made available to the public?
  • Why was Colliers hired as our agent, and also the buyer’s agent and the appraiser, and on the city’s team of decision makers? They remain our agent and on the city’s team after the expiration of the listing agreement.

When asked, on the record, if a parking garage was a contingency of the sales agreement of the Pascalis Properties to the selected bidder, the City Manager stated it was not.  At that time the appraised value of $2.5M was the agreed upon sales price with a $200k allowance to be paid by the city to the selected bidder for “design services”.  Careful readers would have also discovered that the contract required the city to “repurchase” property from the selected bidder that would include Warneke, and other property not fully described, at a price that is not disclosed to build a parking garage at the city’s further expense (estimated at $7M).  We can assume the city would then also pay Colliers a commission to “re-purchase”.  This was presented at a public hearing and was accepted by the council’s vote. 

  • The City Manager informed the public that a parking garage was not a contingency of the sale of the Pascalis Project properties, however the city contract with the successful bidder required the city to first sell, then “repurchase” land including Warneke Cleaners, but not fully described, for anundisclosed amount, for the construction of a parking garage at the city’s expense, which we now know is estimated at $7M. 
  • The sales price of $2.5M was established by an appraisal from a company linked to the buyer’s agent, who is also our agent with the city reimbursing $200,000 for “design services”.. 
  • We do not know any specifics about any other offers made because no information has been made available.  One offer made was rumored to be a purchase for $5M without contingencies.  Another offer was rumored to be for a slightly lower amount made by a renowned historical restoration expert representing an established hotel restoration business without contingencies.

Now we are told that the selected bidder will also require the city to pay $2M for improvements to the Pascalis Properties prior to the sale.  This was approved by council on first reading.  This is in addition to the $200K, and the repurchase of part of the property, not fully described, for an undisclosed amount, and the city funding a $7M five story parking garage.  

  • An additional $2M is now being required by the preferred bidder from the city to close the sale on the remaining Pascalis Properties.  That brings the sales proceeds to only $300k, less the repurchase of Warneke and more undescribed property for an undisclosed price, which will likely cause the bottom line of the sales contract to show a cost to the city rather than any proceeds, and the city will be required to build a $7M parking garage.

Before committing to sell (give away) millions of dollars of publicly owned property at a complete loss, AND committing to build a huge multi-million-dollar parking structure with ingress and egress on Newberry Street, Council MUST do it’s due diligence.

Council must fully consider these “irregularities”.   

All bids made to purchase the Pascalis Properties, including the interest of the current tenants, should be studied and considered, and the option of re-listing the properties should not be excluded. 

ALL six current bids must be fully reviewed and the full decision-making process must be made public in order to have any kind of transparency or public trust in this process.

____________________

City Government, Project Pascalis 2025, September 2025

The City Manager’s Contract and the Sale of the Project Pascalis Properties

17 Comments

by Don Moniak
September 22, 2025
(Update September 27, 2025: Mr. Bedenbaugh’s contract extension and amendment was approved by a vote of 5-0. The sale of the Pascalis properties to the Oliver Group was also approved, on first reading, by a vote of 5-0. The second and final vote is tentatively scheduled for October 13, 2025).

The City Manager’s Contract

Stuart Bedenbaugh has served as Aiken City Manager since 2018. His current three-year contract does not expire until August of 2026.

Aiken City Council is now poised to extend that contract for another three years, through August 2029. The new contract provides a 6% raise to a $178,984 annual salary, and a one-year severance package in the event of being terminated without cause (figure 1).

Essentially, Council will consider a four-year contract during the Petitions and Requests portion of its regular meeting tonight, just two months before three new Council members will take office. The agenda item is open to citizen comments.

Figure 1. CIty Manager’s memorandum to City Council regarding extension of City Manager’s contract.


Bedenbaugh was promoted from Assistant City Manager to Interim City Manager in February 2018 following the departure of former City Manager John Klimm; and was promoted to the position in June 2018 when City Council approved a one-year contract. At the time, the contract included a two-month severance package if City Council dismissed him without cause.

Two years later, his year-to-year status ended, and a three-year contract was approved in June 2020 at an annual salary of $146,224, with a provision for $20,000 in “unused sick leave” if he were terminated without cause. That particular vote came after a closed-door Executive Session—it was not an agenda item subject to public input. (Pages 13-14)

Another three-year contract running from July 29, 2023 to August 7, 2026 was approved in June 2023, when his annual salary was raised to $162,840. (By comparison, North Augusta City Manager James Clifford’s salary was $185,891 as of early 2024). The June 2023 decision occurred during the Petitions and Requests portion of the agenda and was open to public input. One citizen spoke in favor of the contract, nobody spoke against. (Pages 11-12)

This will be the second time for the contract to be on the agenda. It was pulled from the August 25th agenda for unexplained reasons. In the leadup to the August 25th meeting, Council discussed the contract in closed-door Executive Session on both July 14th and August 11th.

The Pascalis Properties Sale.

The vote on Bedenbaugh’s longer-term contract will occur tonight following four public hearings, one of which includes the proposed sale of the six remaining downtown “Pascalis Properties” to the Oliver Group of Tennessee for $2.5 million—one-third the price paid by the City’s Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) in November 2021. Oliver Group was chosen on the basis of their overall bid–even though one other bidder made an offer of $5 million (Page 128). They have 150 days to conduct due diligence before sale closure.

The six properties at issue tonight, commonly known as the “Shah property,” were obtained for $7.5 million. Another $2 million was spent purchasing the Newberry Hall property; bringing the total sales price in 2021 to $9.5 million.

According to an April 2025 appraisal, these high prices were offered because “the city wanted control of how the property was to be redeveloped based on a much longer view and in the public’s best interest.” (Page 127)

The main problem with that Collier’s statement is that the public was never consulted in May 2021 about that “longer view” and its interests. The decision to gain control of the contracts was made behind closed doors at an unofficial and unannounced meeting of city officials; the public hearings for the $9.6 million bond issuance made no mention of specific properties; the AMDC held no formal public hearing prior to purchasing the properties in November 2021; .

Combined with the $0.85 million loss incurred through the sale of the Newberry Hall property in 2024, the total loss from the property sales is $5.85 million.

However, the sales contract with the Oliver Group includes two provisions that will further lower sale revenues.

First, a yet-to-be-determined amount will be deducted from the $2.5 million to facilitate the transfer of property housing a future parking garage; meaning the City plans to own and operate a public/private parking garage:

“The Purchase Price shall be reduced on a pro rata basis for any portion of the property excluded from the purchase and sale in this Agreement (such portion of the Property to be determined by Buyer and Seller) and retained by Seller at Closing for the purpose of the development, maintenance, and operation of an integrated public/private parking deck structure….” (Pages 100-101).

Second, the City has agreed to pay up to $200,000 for project design costs:

“From and after the Effective Date until the Closing Date, Seller shall pay all architectural and design fees incurred in connection with preparing the property for Buyer’s proposed, Intended Use…up to a maximum aggregate amount of…$200,000.”

Add to this the $100,000 cost in 2021 of securing the bond and paying closing costs, and the approximately $100,000 brokerage fee to be paid to Collier’s, and the total loss from these downtown real estate transactions easily exceeds $6 million.

The City Manager’s Role in Project Pascalis.

The public hearing for the sale proposal is being held just one week after Plaintiffs in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit released depositions that revealed more of the role Mr. Bedenbaugh played in the failed Pascalis project.

His pivotal role should come as no surprise. He is the City Manager and is expected to closely monitor, if not oversee, major projects in addition to the daily operations of city government. He was also an ex-officio member of the AMDC.

Bedenbaugh was reportedly involved in the fateful and secret decision made in May 2021 for the Aiken Chamber of Commerce to act as a holding company and take assignment of the properties while the City sought financing; a decision attributed to “city staff.” (Keith Wood Deposition, Page 64).

Once the City and AMDC began to pursue a modified Project Pascalis in the wake of the Chamber of Commerce contract assignment, he participated to an unknown extent in negotiations, would weigh in on important issues, and lead the effort towards project financing.

For example, in early June 2021, after former AMDC Chair Keith Wood raised an ethical question involving City Attorney Gary Smith’s role in the process and requested a “firewall,” Bedenbaugh subsequently dismissed the concern by writing that these issues had arisen before and Smith was obligated to honor attorney-client privilege—but failed to address the issue of a recusal.

Then, in August 2021, Bedenbaugh shepherded City Council approval of a $10 million bond package (later reduced to $9.6 million) to purchase unidentified properties in the “Parkway District;” even though it was internally well known which downtown properties were under contract with the Chamber of Commerce. Ultimately, a bond issuance of $9.6 million would pay for the AMDC’s purchase of the seven properties.

Just one week after the AMDC bought the properties on November 9, 2021, Bedenbaugh threatened to directly intervene in the AMDC’s negotiation process with RPM Development Partners (figure 2), following hesitation by Chairman Wood to meet with RPM prior to having a meeting with the entire AMDC.

Figure 2: Email from Stuart Bedenbaugh threatening to intervene in negotiations between the AMDC and Pascalis project developer RPM Development Partners. At the time, RPM was not yet an official “preferred developer,” but had been in various degrees of negotiations under several different names since June 2021. For more background information see A Hotel in the Alley.


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

Figure 3. Keith Wood deposition transcript. (click to enlarge) . Both his and former AMDC Vice-Chair Chris Verenes’ sworn depositions are available through The Project Pascalis Depositions.

City Government, Legal, Project Pascalis 2025

The City of Aiken’s Project Pascalis Litigation Costs: $230,000 and Counting

6 Comments

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

by Don Moniak
September 13, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1. July 5, 2022 email from Tim O’Briant to AMDC Commissioners.


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

Figure 2: Email from AMDC Attorney Gary Pope Jr. after the Pascalis lawsuit was filed.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law FirmClient Billings
Smith Robinson et alCity of Aiken $78,051
Morrison AMDC $29,775
Holley DRB $30,593
LindemannDRB $23,154
McCantsCity Attorney$20,087
Albee Keith Wood and Chris Verenes$38,726
Davidson and WrenTim O’Briant $9,789
Total $230,176
City Government, Freedom of Information, Project Pascalis 2025, September 2025

The Project Pascalis Depositions

3 Comments

by Don Moniak
September 13, 2025

Yesterday the Plaintiffs in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, aka the “Pascalis Lawsuit,” released a media advisory, a summary of two depositions from former Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) Chairman Keith Wood and Vice Chair Chris Verenes, and the depositions themselves.

The Media Advisory read as follows:

“Today the Plaintiffs in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, also known as “The Pascalis Project Lawsuit,” are releasing the sworn depositions of former Aiken Municipal Development Commission officers–specifically former Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chairman Chris Verenes. In addition, Plaintiffs are also releasing a six-page memo summarizing the findings from the deposition and other discovery documents. 

The revelations from the Wood and Verenes depositions include the following: 

  • Some City officials knowingly failed to comply with state law and standard ethical guidelines for procurement practices by “steering” the contract for the $75 million Pascalis Project towards a preferred developer who was not selected via an open, official procurement process. 
  • The procurement aspect of Community Development Law was knowingly violated when an official, open procurement process was knowingly delayed in November of 2021 until AFTER a contract was signed with a preferred developer in December of 2021. The depositions reveal that the AMDC was not made aware of this irregular, unethical, and illegal process by City staff and their attorney until seven months later, at a closed-door meeting on June 23, 2022. Shortly thereafter, the AMDC took the position to restart the project with a new redevelopment plan and a legal, open, official procurement process. This restart, however, was derailed by this litigation. 
  • After being informed of the transgressions, at least two Aiken City Council members advocated a no action approach, declining to pursue an investigation as to the cause of the debacle.”

    More details are contained in a September 5, 2025 Memorandum and Summary.

    The full depositions are available here: 

  • KeithWood
  • Chris Verenes

    Supporting documentation.

    While the Plaintiffs have yet to release their volume of exhibits, some key documents cited in the depositions were obtained from the City of Aiken via a Freedom of Information Act request that yielded approximately 120 formerly “privileged” emails (spread out in redundant fashion in more than 1200 pages) and that provides additional supporting documentation to the summary.

    The key documents include a June 29, 2022 email from Keith Wood in which he described “knowing violations” of state Community Development Law; and a three-page memo from Woods outlining a timeline of key Pascalis project events in which he highlighted “facts associated with what transpired that is potentially unethical and potentially in violation of SC statute.” These documents are available at Privileged Records of the Pascalis Project.

    The depositions, coupled with pertinent records, indicate that some city officials did knowingly violate the law, and were reportedly advised by legal counsel not to delay a Request for Proposals. The Defense, which did cross examine both Wood and Verenes, failed to provide any documentation to challenge the assertions of at least one serious willful violation. No evidence was presented that indicated the delay of an official Request for Proposals in order to benefit a preferred developer was an “honest mistake.”

    ——————————————————————————————

    Coming soon: The Steering” of the Project Pascalis Contract: May 2021 to June 2022.

Related Aiken Chronicles articles

The Project Pascalis RFP.
A Hotel in the Alley…
The Pascalis Attorneys
The AECOM Plan

City Government, Freedom of Information, July 2025, Project Pascalis 2025

The $45,000 FOIA Fee

10 Comments

An update to City of Aiken Ordered to Produce Project Pascalis Records, Former AMDC Officials Seek Full Disclosure of Project Pascalis Records, and Which Project Pascalis Records Remain Hidden from Public View?

by Don Moniak
July 17, 2025

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.”

In November 2022, one week after inadvertently posting the AMDC/RPM Development Partners purchase and sale agreement (PSA) in the City’s document repository, officials removed the document from public view only one day after the publication of the PSA in “Downtown Aiken Half Priced Sale.” That PSA remains in the public domain but is still not archived in the City’s document repository.

That same month, AMDC Commissioners Keith Wood and Chris Verenes objected to a “Joint Defense Agreement” for Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al (the Pascalis lawsuit), claiming that it would have “restricted frank, open, and complete information.” City Council opted not to honor their wishes and ultimately shut them out of an Executive Session to discuss the lawsuit.

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.