In 1993, the City of Aiken spent $75,000 on what was billed as “a major facelift” to the circa 1963 Smith Hazel Recreation Center. The job entailed replacing two aging tennis courts, updating the facade, removing the fencing, painting the interior, upgrading the lighting, and repainting the lines in the parking lot.
With this work occurring, as it did, in the wake a recent decision by the City to invest $2.3 million to build a second, major recreation facility on the southside, some saw the facelift as more of an appeasement than an effort to address the long-standing need for more recreational opportunities on the northside. Councilwoman Lessie Price spoke for many when she said at the time, “We want to elevate the recreational programs on Aiken’s northside to the level of the southside.”(1)
In 1994-95, the City of Aiken built the $2.3 million baseball and softball field complex (Phase I) at Citizens Park on Aiken’s southside. Five years later, another $7 million was proposed for Citizens Park, plus over $3 million in upgrades for the circa 1975 H. Odell Weeks Activity Center to include a 16-court tennis complex and pro shop, a new gymnasium, and $200k skateboard park.
In 2004, City officials decided it was time to talk about building a recreational facility on Aiken’s northside. The original $4 million slated for park facility got trimmed by $1 million for other projects. It was decided that the old City dump would be a good place this facility. (2) And for the next 10 years, that’s where the plans for a northside park stood.
In 2014, an Aiken Standard headline read: “Progress Made on Northside Recreation Facilities.” (3) The word, “progress,” referred not to forward momentum on physical construction during the prior 10 years, but to a decision by the City to collaborate with Clemson University, which had been tasked with guiding the City’s path that now included $2.6 million allocated to build a park or open space on the the old City dump plus another $2 million for a possible recreational facility. It is important to note the use of he word “facility” in this headline and in other discussions of a northside park over the years, as this word was to disappear.
Public input and feedback — deemed imperative to Clemson’s ability to guide the City’s path — was solicited and gathered. A year earlier, the Clemson University Department of Landscape Architecture had created a concept presentation titled, “Northside Park.” The illustration below, from this document, gives visual reference to how a park would be built atop a city dump, as well as a description of some of the challenges inherent to such a project. The rest of the document illustrates the verbiage necessary to market such a product.
From the “Northside Park” presentation: “The technical challenges in building on a landfill include providing protection from the hazard of methane explosion, landfill settlement, and leachate management. The design team including landscape architects, environmental engineers and ecologists collaborated to research existing environmental conditions, relevant case studies and technologies for remediating and monitoring the landfill.”
Councilwoman Gail Diggs is to be commended for her departure from other council members in articulating her concerns over the environmental safety of building the park on top of the old City dump, as well as her belief that a northside recreation facility should aspire to match the standards of the Odell Weeks Activity Center.
Dump, Landfill: Tomato, Tomatoh
For most of the century preceding this decision to turn this property into a park, the City landfill was called the City dump — the place for disposing everything from household garbage to business and industrial waste, broken-down appliances and equipment, furniture and mattresses; building materials, tree stumps, leaf mould, and even dead animals. For most of its history, the dump’s contents burned in open burn piles. As people who lived on the northside could attest, these burn piles permeated the neighborhood air with the stench and smoke of smoldering trash. In 1970, the practice of burning was officially phased out to transition to burying the trash. The term “landfill”was phased in at this time, but the burning continued. In 1986, the City began phasing out the landfill entirely, because there was simply no more space on that property to bury trash.
At the culmination of the Clemson University 2014 collaboration — with input from the community, local non-profits, educators, and other interested stakeholders taken, collated, and evaluated — Dr. Bob Brookover of Clemson University suggested, in fact, two facilities for the northside: a senior-youth center and a recreation park. The specific recommendations for these facilities are laid out in the table below, which was published in the Aiken Standard. It is important to note that, at this time, the City dump was still in the picture.
Among the key requests from the northside citizens for a recreation park was a facility accessible by bicycle, walking, or car. This is why the lands on Rutland Drive, across from Aiken High School, were deemed desirable by respondents.
Anchors and Chains
In 2015, one year after the Clemson collaboration — and eleven years after the original decision to build the northside park on the City landfill — it was announced that the idea of building a park on the landfill had been “quickly squashed” by City Council members due to concerns about building a park on top of a landfill.
This revision of history could be overlooked, if not for the fact that the ultimate decision on Aiken’s northside recreation facility was to not build one. Somewhere along the way between 2014 and 2015, talk of a northside recreation facility with a gym had been entirely replaced with talk of a walking trail. Or perhaps an open space. Maybe an an amphitheater.
Toward this end, the City purchased a 118-acre tract of land two miles outside of the city limits on Hwy 1 North. Accessibility by pedestrians or bicycle was apparently not a factor. Ground broke in late 2017. Shortly into the 6-month work of razing the trees and grading 40 acres of land to accommodate the walking trail, playground, amphitheater, multi-use field, and “plenty of parking,” it was decided to name it Generations Park. Later, it became the Beverly D. Clyburn Generations Park.
Much of the City’s attention to the park for the next three years would be directed toward the helter-skelter process of annexing the park into the City, then de-annexing the park, the re-annexing it back into the City via a curious thread of land incorporated into the mix.
A minor amount of energy has gone into rebranding this park which, for a relatively small sum of money, managed to put to rest any talk of a recreational facility. Nowadays, City officials refer to it as an “anchor” and “economic driver” to facilitate growth and development — houses, hotels, businesses, chains and such — between the City and the interstate. It was suggested that interstate travelers might even be drawn by the park to detour off the interstate down Hwy 1 and onward to spend some money in Aiken.
Phase 2 of the Beverly D. Clyburn Generations Park
The plan for second phase development of the park — the funding for which had previously been included in the City’s Capital Projects Sales Tax list — was killed the same month the park opened. The reason given was price. City officials offered that, perhaps in the future, money could be found through a private-public development partnership.
We can long ponder what the City actually accomplished with this sleight of hand, but one thing we needn’t ponder is whether, at the end of this 30-year deferment, the people of Aiken ever received the long-awaited recreation facility on the northside.
Ponder, too, the fact that the City’s envisioned path forward looks very similar to the path backward.
Back to the Future
According to the 2022 Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Need Assessment and Strategic Plan that was drawn from yet another Clemson University collaboration — this one taking place in October-November 2021 — the City should look to divest more on the northside and invest more on the southside. The recommendations that followed, while intended to be used only as a guide, give a clear picture on where the priorities lie, going into the future.
For one, it is recommended that the City determine whether there are certain parks and facilities it should “divest” of. Consideration is recommended on the future of these parks: Sumter Street Park, Gyles Park, Charleston Street Park, Perry Park, and the Aiken Co. Farmers Market.
The recommendation for Smith Hazel is another facelift to include new windows, doors and HVAC; a retrofit of existing space to accommodate senior rooms and a fitness area; a new lobby, reception room and bathroom, and a place to store tables and chairs.
It is recommended that Beverly D. Clyburn Generations Park should “largely remain an open space.” No mention of a “facility” of any kind. No gymnasiums — not even an outdoor basketball court.
The recommendation for Odell Weeks Activity Center is to demolish the facility and rebuild it to include 4 gymnasiums; a multi-use room to accommodate 500 people; fitness and wellness space to accommodate aerobics, spin, cardio, strength, functional fitness space; an indoor climbing wall, a walking track, areas and rooms suitable for day camp programs; locker rooms, restrooms, concession/vending, and retail space; consolidated offices for most management and program staff; plus add 2 additional basketball courts and 6 additional pickle ball courts. Six of the hard-surface tennis courts at the Weeks Tennis Center are recommended to be converted to clay.
The recommendations for Citizens Park include 4 to 6 new multi-use rectangular fields, including two with artificial turf, plus stadium seating and a new building to accommodate restroom and office space needs; a rebuilding of the walking track; a new maintenance, equipment and storage shed; new and upgraded lighting and scoreboards, and an irrigation system for one of the baseball fields.
First the Bad News
Present-era City leadership does not appear to have our backs.
Now the good news
We can change this trajectory by participating in local government, by learning about local issues, by attending City and County Council meetings, by using our voices, by organizing grassroots, citizen-based efforts to ampify our voices, by supporting potential candidates to replace elected officials who do not have our backs.
Also, there is actually a large sum of money from the plutonium settlement that has been allocated for economic development on the northside, where the need is ongoing for economic development that actually meets the needs of the people who live there.
There are better things to ponder, beginning with the need for the City to support the northside, just like they do the southside and the westside. This includes supporting efforts to repair and preserve, rather than demolish houses in established, historic neighborhoods that have been, for generations, a vital part of the Aiken community.
A smoldering dump should never be placed next to anyone’s neighborhood, nor should anyone’s children be expected to play in a park built on top of that dump. This is not rocket science.
One of the problems with running a city like a business is that leaders tend to lose touch with the human element of a city; everything begins to be measured by how much profit it can generate. No one ever felt the need to justify the existence a basketball or pickleball court at Odell Weeks by to its ability to generate profit for the City or local businesses. Why is the northside park being viewed in these terms? And why, after 30 years spent talking about building a recreation facility on the northside — and some 4 years after breaking ground — is there still not a single basketball, pickleball, or tennis court at Generations Park?
______________
(1) West, Otto, “Smith Hazel Center Getting Major Facelift.” 5 August, 1993. p. 1B. The Aiken Standard.
(2) Lord, Philip. “Talk Mounts to Convert Landfill into Park.” 6 February 2004. p. 2A. The Aiken Standard.
(2) Schechter, Maayan. “Progress Made on Northside Recreation Facilities.” 14 November 2014. pp 1A+ The Aiken Standard.
A Review of the City of Aiken’s 2022 Recreation Fee Increases
by Don Moniak
September 21, 2022
At the September 12, 2022 Aiken City Council meeting, city resident Laverne Justice was one of eight citizens who spoke during Council;s open public comments period. Ms Justice declared that the City of Aiken was overcharging people at its recreation centers:
“I am disappointed in the new rules…like a family of four having to pay $400. We are not a country club, we are a recreation center. I disagree with a child having to pay $2 to have a pick-up game (of basketball)…Taking $2 from a child to play a game is ridiculous.”
Subsequent to those comments, a review of the city’s recreation fees was conducted that revealed the implementation of the new fee structure at Odell Weeks and Smith-Hazel recreation centers violated the City of Aiken’s Municipal Code.
Summary of Issues
Section 2-261 of the City of Aiken’s Municipal Code states:
All fees, rentals, admissions and other charges made to the public for the use of city recreational facilities shall be recommended by the director of parks and recreation, reviewed by the city manager and approved by the city council.
In 2022 the City of Aiken unceremoniously increased two sets of fees in the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism department:
A two to five fold increase in user fees at Smith-Hazel and Odell Weeks Recreation Centers; including new fees for youth pick-up basketball on indoor courts at both parks, and an “all-day” $10 per day activity fee replacing a $2 Pickleball fee at Odell Weeks Park. ( After months of objections, the latter fee is now $6 per day for residents, and $10 per day for nonresidents.)
A doubling of the “seat tax” at the city-owned, downtown Performing Arts Center, from $1 per ticket sold to $2 per ticket sold or a minimum charge of 10 percent.
The “seat tax” increase was quietly approved in a City Council vote on June 27, 2022 when Council approved the city’s new ten-year lease for the downtown Performing Arts Center with the Aiken Community Theatre.
In contrast, there was no vote or even any discussion by City Council on the drastic increase in fees and admissions at the recreation centers. Council was only informed on February 28, 2022 within the City Manager’s “Issues and Updates” memorandum, buried on page 126 of a 140-page meeting agenda. No public input on the actual fee proposals was ever solicited. Not a single discussion of fees at the recreation centers was recorded on the City’s You Tube channel. The written justification for the fee increase has not been publicly released.
Timeline of Events: Smith-Hazel and Odell Weeks Fee Increases
January 10, 2022: Aiken City Council heard a presentation on the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department’s (PRT) Master Plan Report from its author, Professor Bob Brookover of Clemson University. The plan reflects the “process and results of a needs assessment conducted by Clemson University researchers October-November 2021 in Aiken, South Carolina and provides strategic recommendations to guide the future development and sustainability of park, land, and recreational programs and amenities in the City of Aiken.” (1)
The research reportedly involved public input through an online survey with 950 respondents and seven focus groups involving more than one hundred recreation facilities users. One goal was to determine “willingness to pay” for recreational facilities.
Brookover asked focus group participants two questions:
how much each “would be willing to pay to obtain use of recreational and park facilities and programs in Aiken” if all the park facilities and programs in Aiken had been seized; and
how much each was willing to pay for new facilities and programs.
The reported average amount respondents were willling to pay per year was just under $100 for current programs, services, and facilities; and just under $75 for “improved programs, services, and facilities.”
In regard to funding and fee structure, Brookover had three recommendations:
Conduct a comprehensive review of pricing structures to include making a determination about the future of fee differentials for in city and out of city participants;
Address lost revenues from allowing free-use of facilities to groups;
Increase the hospitality tax from 1% to 2%.
January 18, 2022. According to PRT’s quarterly publication The Park Bench, a Recreation Commission meeting was reportedly scheduled. No notification in the City Calendar of meetings was made; the meeting never happened.
February 1, 2022. A Recreation Commission “special call meeting” was held during which Smith-Hazel and Odell Weeks fee increases were approved. The meeting was not posted to the City’s calendar and there is no record of a notification for a meeting.
Figure 2: City of Aiken Calendar for January 31-February 7, 2022. No Recreation Commission meeting was scheduled or announced for February 1, 2022
Until September 15, 2022, there was also no record of an agenda, or meeting minutes. Only after City Manager Bedenbaugh and PRT Director Jessica Campbell were informed of the oversight did the agenda and minutes appear in the City’s online records. The agenda was a single page and contained a single item: Fee Proposal.
Above: Special Called Meeting Agenda with mention of fee proposal
No agenda packet containing any details of the fee proposal has been publicly provided—even though a written proposal was provided to the commission.
Although approved on March 15, 2022, the February 1, 2022 meeting minutes were not posted until September 15, 2022 and have never been distributed to City Council as per normal informational procedures. The minutes do not indicate why there was urgency to review a change in fees.
Although two commissioners attended via Zoom and one of the staff made a presentation via Zoom, there is no indication the meeting was open to the public via Zoom. Even though his work was cited as a basis for the fee increases, Professor Brookover did not participate in the meeting and there is no indication that he was invited.
The minutes describe a fee approval process that would only require notification of City Council:
Under new business, Director Jessica Campbell distributed (and shared via Zoom) a draft copy of the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (PRT) Fee Change Proposal, developed by PRT Management and Supervisors with input from Dr. Brookover of Clemson University (and citizens who participated in his survey). Ms. Campbell stated once reviewed and approved by the Recreation Commission, that this would be an internal process, (and) that the City Manager, Stuart Bedenbaugh, would support whatever recommendation the PRT department makes regarding fees, and that it would not require the approval of City Council. It will be included in their Council Meeting Issues & Updates so that they are aware of the changes and have the opportunity to ask questions.
The proposal included uniform fees for residents and nonresidents, new fees for daily basketball, and an increased in fees for pickleball courts from $2/day to $10/day at Odell Weeks. The written proposal was not attached to the agenda, and is absent from the city’s electronic documents system.
According to the meeting minutes, the only set of serious objections to the fees were expressed by then Co-Chair Mike Beckner, who reportedly stated:
he was “anticipating a big pushback from pickleball players and the ‘older folks’ because that is all they play and all they do;”
the fee structure was unfair to older pickleball players;
residents expected more for their money because they pay taxes;
more time was needed “to review the information and discuss before being expected to vote;” and
“all supplemental information be sent out in advance of meetings so that the Commissioners have time to review and process the information.”
In spite of his misgivings, Vice-Chair Beckner joined Commission Chair Suzy Haslup and fellow commissioners Lori Cremshaw, John Wallace, and Melissa Viola in the 5-0 vote to approve the new fees.
February 28, 2022. In his “Issues and Updates” memorandum, which is presented during the final “Information” portion of City Council meetings, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, via memorandum only, informed City Council of the Recreation Commission’s decision to change the User Fee Structure, effective April 1, 2022:
Effective April 1, 2022 , the PRT Department will implement a change in structure for existing user fees. The new structure simplifies the facility user fees , providing benefit to the participant, and improved operations for staff. The detailed fee change proposal was reviewed and approved by the City Recreation Commission on Tuesday, February 1, 2022.
As an overview, changes include the following: – Removal of separate Non-Resident Membership and/or Fee per program or activity – Odell Weeks: Consolidation of facility user fees per activity into a Wellness Membership that is all inclusive . Wellness Memberships offered to adults and seniors at an annual rate , 6 months, or 3 months , and priced for Family or Individual User. Youth Open Gym Pass is also available. – Daily Rates available per facility – Fee increase to select Recreation and Athletics Programs” (3)
The information remained on paper and never reached the discussion phase. Assistant Manager Mary Tilton took Bedenbaugh’s place at Council’s February 28th meeting. During the five minutes of discussion pertaining to “Issues and Updates,” she reviewed the following:
A Chamber of Commerce First Friday Breakfast event involving the Aiken Mall;
The dedication of a new historic marker in downtown Aiken;
A Council workshop on goals and planning; and
the process for approving the hanging of banners along city streets—-an item not even in the memorandum but one which generated substantive discussion.
Ms. Tilton made no mention of the following items in the Bedenbaugh memo, nor did Council ask any questions about:
The March 1, 2022 Design Review Board meeting at which demolition of the Berckman Building (106 Laurens Street) and the Hotel Aiken were on the agenda;
The March 15, 2022 Aiken Municipal Development Commission meeting;
A survey regarding the Lower Savannah River Council of Government’s Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian plan;
Changes in the Parks, Recreation, Tourism Fee structure;
An contract extension for the City Audit;
An SCETV Tower update.
The official meeting minutes accurately reflect that no presentation of the fee change took place; no questions were asked, and no vote was taken. The fee increases were considered “approved” by notification only, in violation of city ordinance specifying City Council approval.
The fee increases were assumed to be approved due to the Recreation Commission’s approval, even though the Recreation Commission is not charged with approving fees.
City Attorney Gary Smith did not point out that Section 2-261 of the City of Aiken’s Municipal Code mandates that recreational facility fees be approved by City Council.
March 15, 2022. The Recreation Commission met, although that meeting notification was also absent from the City’s calendar of meetings. According to the minutes for that meeting:
Still continuing under old business, Mrs. Gaines reviewed fee updates further. She shared the flyer that is being distributed at the facilities with the commissioners. She expanded on some fees that had been updated since the February special call meeting about fees, including the different daily fee for Smith-Hazel and the clarification that if you paid the $10 fee at Odell Weeks, you could also utilize Smith-Hazel the same day (but not vice-versa). (4)
The referenced flyer is not a part of any agenda packet.
March 2022: The changes in fee structure were announced through postings and flyers at Odell Weeks and Smith-Hazel. No media advisories were issued. At the time, the fee structure published in The Park Bench appeared as it had since about 2015:
January, February, March edition of The Park Bench
April 1, 2022. New fees went into effect. In the April, May, June edition of The Park Bench the new fees are published for the first time:
From: April, May, June edition of The Park Bench.
April 12, 2022. WJBF-News reporter Shawn Cabbagestalk reported on complaints about the new fees. He described numerous constituent calls received by Councilwoman Gail Diggs. As a result, Diggs asked for an issue update at the next City Council meeting. (5)
April 25, 2022. The fee issued was discussed during a City Council workshop; which are not recorded and where public comment is not generally sought. According to the meeting minutes, Stuart Bedenbaugh informed Council that:
Historically the Recreation Commission makes any fee increases for recreation activities, and any changes in fees are reported to Council. Then the fees are implemented at a date in the future. The Recreation Commission at their February meeting approved recreation fee increases. The increases were reported to Council in the Issues and Updates Memo on February 28, 2022.
Parks director Campbell also spoke to Council. According to the minutes:
She noted they took the information that was presented by Dr. Bob Brickover in our Needs Assessment and staff worked alongside him on the recommendation for many nights in November, December and January doing research on fees for similar facilities within our community as well as across the state. They put together an extensive proposal that went into more detail than just for the Weeks Center. That information is what was discussed with the Recreation Commission in February, and the proposal was approved. They rolled it out in April because it took about two months for everything to be implemented within our software system and within our marketing materials. It was a process to get to the point where we actually rolled out the change with the public. We tried to do due diligence in notifying everyone in advance.
We put together flyers, met with certain user groups, and answered as many questions as we could within the pickleball community, basketball, fitness room users, etc
May 2, 2022. The Aiken Standard published a letter to the editor by Nancy Hughes addressing the new recreation fees. Ms Hughes wrote about the 500 percent increase in pickleball fees and asked the question “Why are in-city residents getting these exorbitant increases which far exceed even the most dire inflation predictions?”
(A search of the Aiken Standard archives for key words “Odell Weeks,” “Pickleball,” and “Smith Hazel” yielded no stories on the fee increases).
May 17, 2022. A scheduled Recreation Commission meeting was either cancelled or failed to have a quorum.
June 1, 2022. The June, July, August edition of the The Park Bench reported no change in fees.
June 27, 2022. City Council approved its lease agreement with the Aiken Community Theatre for its use of the city-owned Amentum Performing Arts Center. The theatre was built in the early 2000’s as a means to stimulate downtown growth, and since its opening the group has collected a $1 “seat tax” for every ticket sold. This helps fund the city theater’s operational costs and maintenance.
The new lease arrangement doubled the seat tax to $2 or no less than 10% of a ticket. While the fee increase was approved by virtue of the lease being approved, there were no questions or discussion by Council on the fee increase. No explanation for the increase was provided.
August 16, 2022. The Recreation Commission meeting was held at which the March 15 meeting minutes were approved. “Fee updates” was a part of old business and a new Commissioner, John Pettigrew, was introduced, replacing former co-chair Mike Beckner.
September 2022. The October, November, December edition of The Park Bench published a small change in the fee structure—-a daily activity resident fee at Odell Weeks of $6, reduced from $10. No notification to City Council of fee changes were made at any meetings following the August 16th Recreation Commission meeting where this change likely occurred.
September 14, 2022. In response to the question, “Was there ever any announcement of fee increases on the City’s website, as in a news release,” PRT Director Jessica Campbell responded:
“In February 2022 public notice on the changes in fee structure were provided to users of the facilities and was also announced in City Council agenda packet Issues/Updates;” and
“The changes in fee structure were announced through postings at the facilities.”
September 16, 2022. An email was sent to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh and PRT Director Jessica Campbell, and cc’ed to Mayor Rick Osbon, requesting information about meeting notifications, a copy of the new fee proposal presented at the February 1, 2022 meeting, and:
“An explanation for why the Recreation Commission was tasked with approving new fees when Section 2-263 of the Municipal Code states:
‘All fees, rentals, admissions and other charges made to the public for the use of city recreational facilities shall be recommended by the director of parks and recreation, reviewed by the city manager and approved by the city council.’ (emphasis added)”
As of September 21, 2022, there has been no answer from City Manager Bedenbaugh or Mayor Osbon.
Conclusions
The City of Aiken substantially increased fees in its recreation department twice this year with minimal to no oversight by City Council. The most dramatic change involved activity fees at the Odell Weeks and Smith-Hazel recreation centers. These fee increases were decided at a “special called” Recreation Commission meeting that lacked any public notification.
The recreation centers fee increase decision was subsequently buried in a meeting packet memorandum to City Council, and not placed on the meeting agenda. The City Manager’s office chose to not raise the issue during the meeting. No discussion, questions, or vote occurred, in spite of the requirement in City Code for approval of recreation fees by City Council. City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh has declined to release the original Parks, Recreation, and Tourism department proposal. (A FOIA request for the proposal and additional information was filed September 20, 2022) .
It is not the job of the Recreation Commission to set recreation fees. Its mission is to provide recommendations and advice to City Council. In this instance, Aiken City Council was not subjected to a single citizen comment, complaint, or question during a public session. Through inaction and a lack of inquisitiveness, Council and Mayor Osbon instead placed the burden for dealing with citizen complaints on Parks and Recreation Department workers.
For the past five months, recreationists at Odell Weeks and Smith-Hazel have paid new daily fees that were implemented in violation of Aiken’s Municipal Code. Families are being charged $400 per year, seniors playing the fast growing sport of pickleball are paying a daily fee three times higher than six months ago, and Aiken youth are being assessed a new two dollar daily fee just to play basketball. Kids are having to pay the city to stay off the streets.
City Council has only discussed the matter after the fact in a “workshop” setting, but never in a formal public meeting. When presented on September 12th with the first objection to the new policy during a formal meeting, every Council member remained silent.
Meeting Minutes for February 28, 2022. While no discussion occurred pertaining to the fee increases, the minutes do reflect a substantive discussion regarding the procedure by which banners are approved. Following are the official minutes related to the “Information” portion of the meeting:
Ms. Lawton stated she would review some upcoming dates and give a report to Council on the matter of Council approval for banners.
She stated that on Friday, March 4,2022, at 7:30 a.m. Southeastern will present an update on the Aiken Mall redevelopment project at the Aiken Chamber of Commerce First Friday breakfast meeting at Newberry Hall. She encouraged all Council to join that event.
On Saturday, March 5, 2022,at 1:30 p.m. there will be historic marker unveiling at 118 Laurens Street SW. The marker recognizes our rich legacy of Jewish merchants in Aiken. An email had been given to Council with more information regarding the unveiling.
On Monday, March 7, 2022, at 5 p.m. there will be a City Council work session to hear the New Horizons facilitator, Irene Tyson,present her summary of Council’s goals and actionable items for each goal. That work session will be followed by an executive session.
Banners
Ms. Lawton stated Council had raised a question at the last Council meeting about the approval process for banners. Staff consulted with the City Attorney, Gary Smith, and confirmed that a change would require a text amendment to the sign section of the Zoning Ordinance. She said unless Council feels strongly that staff pursue that to allow administrative approval, we would continue as is and continue to bring banner requests to Council for approval.Councilwoman Brohl asked in doing the research do we know why Council had that provision put in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Smith, City Attorney, stated the provision had been in the Zoning Ordinance for a long time, and he could not remember why it was put there. He said he felt that it was probably put in the Zoning Ordinance when we redid the Zoning Ordinance in the 1990s.
Councilman Woltz asked if we want to fix it.
Mayor Osbon stated it would be Council’s choice. If Council does not want to see the list of banners coming and just wants staff to use their discretion,the change would need to go through Planning and then to Council for the usual process.
Councilwoman Gregory recommended that Council move forward with changing the Zoning Ordinance. Several Councilmembers stated they did not care whether the banner requests came to Council or were handled by staff.
Mayor Osbon stated Council did not have to decide on the matter at this time.
Ms. Lawton stated staff could go through some records to see if we can find any information for the approval of banners being in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mayor Osbon asked that staff take the next steps and bring the information back to Council as to why Council approval was in the Zoning Ordinance. Direction could be given later on the matter.
On August 16, 2022, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request* was submitted for information related to City of Aiken legal work conducted by the law firm of Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes. Gary H Smith III has been the City of Aiken’s Attorney** for 27 years; and members of his firm have also performed various work for the City. For example, on August 26, 2022, Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant wrote in an email:
The March 18, 2021 $173,047.51 wire transfer from the AMDC’s checking account to Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes was entirely unrelated to Pascalis. Attorney Mary Guynn has handled real estate closing for the City for several years. This was the balance due for the closing on the Jackson Petroleum/Williamsburg property closing.
The information request, based in part on this email, and involving the period since January 1, 2019, consisted of three parts:
1. Copies of all closing documents, settlement documents, or other real-estate related documents for all City of Aiken real estate transactions involving any member of the Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes law firm, for the period January 1, 2019 to present. 2. A copy of the contract for services, or any contract for services, with any member of the Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes law firm, including City Attorney Gary Smith; for the period January 1, 2019 to present. 3. A listing, if available, of all City of Aiken real estate transactions for the period January 1, 2019 to present.
The response to date was completed on Friday September 15, 2022. Twenty-three documents were found to be responsive, much of it already in the public record. The first part of the response, involving twenty-two records, is under review. The results of the other two portions of the request can be summarized as follows:
The City of Aiken does not keep an accounting of its real estate transactions which range from a few thousand dollars to nearly $10 million dollars, in a simple, easy to retrieve format; and
There are no contracts between the City of Aiken and members of the firm that conducts much of its real estate transactions; and the only record of any agreement is a letter from the City Attorney to the City Manager dated December 28, 2016.
No Tracking of Real Estate Transactions
As is the case with many FOIA responses, the most revealing information is the absence of information. In response to part three of the request for “a listing, if available, of all City of Aiken real estate transactions for the period January 1, 2019 to present,” Aiken City Solicitor responded:
With regards to No. 3, South Carolina’s FOIA statute obligates the City to disclose “public records” which by definition only includes items in the possession of, or retained by the City. Accordingly, to the extent the City does not have a record conforming to your request, the City is under no obligation to create a public record and has not done so with respect to this item in your FOIA Request.
There is no tracking of city real estate deals, no one document that specifies what was bought or sold, who was involved, and the purchase and sale costs.
No Attorney Contracts
Part two of the request was for:
A copy of the contract for services, or any contract for services, with any member of the Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes law firm, including City Attorney Gary Smith; for the period January 1, 2019 to present.
The only responsive record to this portion of the request is a December 28, 2016 letter from City Attorney Gary Smith to former City Manager John Klimm, titled a “Fee Arrangement Letter” in the city’s files.
The 2016 “Fee Agreement Letter” between City Attorney Gary Smith and the City of Aiken.
Section 2-348 of Aiken’s Municipal Code pertains to professional services from a wide array of licensed professionals including law firms.
“Professional services shall be obtained through the process of requesting interested firms to submit their qualifications; reviewing the qualifications submitted and determining which firms are qualified; requesting the qualified firms to submit proposals; selecting the qualified firm with the best proposal; and negotiating the necessary contract. Except for agreements for less than $25,000.00 and that are provided for in the annual operating budget of a department, agreements for professional services shall state the terms and conditions and shall be approved by city council.”
No evidence of such a process or outcome for the City Attorney position has been provided in response to two FOIA requests.
The City Attorney is near the top of the city’s organizational chart, one of two most powerful unelected positions in local municipal government; and responsible for:
providing advice on municipal matters of law and jurisprudence to City Council, the City Manager, and boards, commissions, and committees;
serving as parliamentarian to the City Council; and
ensuring city government operates lawfully.
Yet, for all this, the existing contract is a little more than a handshake, one that has lasted nearly six years.
______________
Footnotes:
*This is the second FOIA request for the City Attorney’s contract this year. Aiken area resident Kelly Cornelius requested City Attorney Gary Smith’s contract and received the same response: the December 28, 2016 letter.
** Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith is the defendant in three lawsuits (including one filed by Ms. Cornelius) regarding violations of state ethics law involving the Project Pascalis proceeedings. A detailed account of the record, including the City Attorney’s job description, is contained in “The Pascalis Attorneys,” which can be viewed at:
“City of Aiken’s Real Estate Deals: No Tracking and No Contracts.”
The title created confusion. The “tracking” referred to just that, a tracking system for real estate transactions. “No contracts” referred to contracts for professional legal services, not to real estate contracts.
My apologies for any confusion. Don Moniak, 9/18/22)
For the first time in anyone’s memory, on September 12, 2022 Aiken City Council placed on its meeting agenda citizen input for issues unrelated to agenda items. Even though Council did not acknowledge the source of the change, they accepted written citizen requests to honor City of Aiken’s municipal code that mandates “nonagenda items from the public” be on the agenda both early and late in the meeting.
Eight citizens took advantage of the new opportunity, raising issues ranging from recreation fees, water quality notifications, the future of the County Courthouse, the lack of a grocery store in walkable distance in the downtown area, the growth of the Aiken airport, and the upcoming Historical Aiken Foundation workshop.
Prior to this, City Council required citizens to submit a request to speak on nonagenda items, and that request had to be approved.
Comments can be viewed at 0:26 and 1:12 of the meeting at the City of Aiken’s You Tube channel:
The following letter to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, cc’ed to City Council, is a followup on the historical significance of the meeting:
Mr. Bedenbaugh,
At last night’s historical City Council meeting, the agenda was open to comments and questions unrelated to agenda items from citizens in attendance. City of Aiken Municipal Code 2-64, Rules of Order, Rules of Procedure, and Order of Business has long mandated that “nonagenda items from the public” be placed twice on the agenda, yet that requirement, if ever implemented, became lost long ago.
During the first comment period, the question was posed to Council: “When was the last time Agenda Items (3) and (7) were on the Agenda?
At 30:24 of the meeting, Mayor Osbon answered, ” I do not know, it predates all of us,”
Late in the meeting, council was asked about the origin of the ordinance and you answered “pre-1980.” Maybe your talented IT department could locate the exact source of the ordinance change for the historical record?
I was unable to locate when the ordinance change occurred, nor any agenda in City of Aiken files in which “nonagenda items from the public” has ever been on the agenda. I did find that from 1955 (when the earliest agenda records are posted) through 1960, #2 in the agenda involved public requests and petitions; and that the language evolved from “citizens who are present” to “consideration of requests and petitions” to “petitions and requests.” Here is a timeline for that period.
July 7, 1955: Agenda #2 is “Consideration of requests from citizens present who desire to address council.”
December 12, 1955 to sometime in 1956: Agenda #2 is “Consideration of requests and/or petitions from citizens who are present and who desire to be heard by the council.” In the case of June 4, 1956, even the local Chamber of Commerce was still considered in the citizen category, and was unsurprisingly seeking funding from the City of Aiken— $4500 in this case.
January 28, 1957: Agenda #2 still mentions “citizens” : “Consideration of Requests and Petitions from Citizens.”
February 11, 1957: Agenda #2 changes to “Consideration of requests and/or petitions.” , and shortened and changed to “Petitions and Requests” by 1960.
December 12, 1960: Last agenda with “Petitions and Requests” as #2 on the agenda.
January 2, 1961. “Petitions and Requests” moved to # 4 of the Agenda.
As I stated last night, the September 12, 2022 agenda should be held up as a model for public input and nonagenda items” should be viewed in the context of “Consideration of requests and/or petitions from citizens who are present and who desire to be heard by the council.” As Elections Commission nominee Mike Loftis stated last night, “In any kind of position, when you are talking you are teaching, and when you are listening you are learning.” Viewing the people as “citizens” instead of as “the public” would improve the way Council listens and learns from citizens of the Aiken area.
Project Pascalis is Punted Two Weeks Down the Road
by Don Moniak September 12, 2022
On Friday, September 9, 2022, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) met for the first time in three months. For more than three hours, the Commission met in a closed door, Executive Session to discuss legal issues pertaining to its beleaguered, $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment effort in downtown Aiken known as Project Pascalis. The notification of a special Executive Session meeting was made on September 8 — at which time the commission also cancelled its scheduled September 13th meeting.
Public notices on AMDC meetings. Click to view full size
It is uncertain who was in the Executive Session, and the discussion remains confidential. But after leaving “Executive Committee,” five of the six remaining original voting members entered into a public session that lasted less than three minutes. (Three other commissioners have no vote because they are not city residents, and were appointed to the positions in contradiction of City law).
The brief public session was marked by:
A reference to an Executive Session decision to take action, even though voting during Executive Sessions is illegal;
A puzzling description of the contract with Pascalis project developer RPM Development Services as “purported;’
An implicit acknowledgement that the AMDC violated South Carolina’s Community Development Law;” and
A seconded motion to stop Project Pascalis overruled by a motion to amend, without any vote on the original motion.
The meeting was taped by a member of the public.
The following transcript is now provided:
AMDC Chair Keith Wood: Okay so we’ve taken the appropriate action to come out of Executive Committee and we are now in public session of the AMDC Meeting of September the ninth. We have decided to take some action. So I will entertain a motion relative to the action that we discussed.
Vice Chair Chris Verenes: Mr Chairman, I make a motion that we stop Project Pascalis, that we declare the purported existing contract null and void, and thirdly we propose to either amend or cancel the redevelopment plan so we can follow South Carolina Community Development Law.”
Chairman Wood: I second that motion.
Chairman Wood: Discussion?
(5 seconds pass).
Commissioner David Jameson: Mr Chairman, I agree with this motion but based on our counsel’s recommendation and additional due diligence that I feel like is needed I’d like to motion to amend to continue this to the week of September 26th.”
Commissioner Doug Slaughter: I second that motion.
Chairman Wood: Any discussion?
For the record we have Philip Merry on the phone, who is a Commissioner. We also have Stuart McVean here. Stuart technically is not a voting member of the Commission, but he has been involved and engaged in this process from Day one. His opinion is extremely valuable to us, which is why he is here but he cannot vote.
So we have a seconded motion, is there any discussion before we take a vote?
Okay, all in favor of accepting the approval of the amended motion David Jameson laid out please say Aye.
(Only Ayes are heard)
Chairman Wood: We have a full majority of the quorum that we have here today. That is all the action we will take today. We will set a meeting time the week of September 26to further discuss David’s motion.
[Meeting Adjourned].
Thus, the AMDC punted their decision to an undefined date that is likely to be announced at the last possible moment.
