Tag Archives: Citizen Input

October 2022, Project Pascalis 2022

A Citizen’s Statement on Project Pascalis

4 Comments
Delivered before Aiken City Council on October 24, 2022

Aiken resident Bruce Stemerman delivered the following statement before Aiken City Council on Monday, October 24, 2022. He was one of several citizens to speak before Council during the public meeting.

My name is Bruce Stemerman. I live on Chime Bell Church Road. My wife and I moved to Aiken just a few months ago. Similar to many others who have moved here over the years, Aiken’s delightful downtown district was an important contributing factor in our decision to relocate here from Charleston, SC.

I was dismayed by the Project Pascalis from the first I learned of it. I was able to get up to speed on the proposed plans thanks to the outstanding  and thorough reporting in the Aiken Chronicles, the Do It Right group, among others, and conversations with lots of concerned citizens. I felt the project proposed for the very heart of the City’s downtown was way out of scale and if developed would have a material adverse impact on what makes downtown Aiken unique, distinctive and attractive. Something I should add — the community’s impressive activism on this topic has only reinforced our decision about relocating here. 

I believe the main focus should be on restoring and renovating the Hotel Aiken.  It will no doubt be a challenging project, but no more so than the multitude  of similar restoration projects undertaken around this state, country, and world every year. Those who attended the Historic Aiken Foundation’s excellent Preservation Workshop on September 28th heard from noted experts, including a son of Aiken, about the significant and long term benefits associated with preserving and celebrating historic buildings. It was very persuasive and supported by considerable factual research, and I assume that all of you either attended in person or have watched the video. I hope that’s the case. 

So here’s what I would do if I ruled the world, and that would be a scary thing, I admit it, but here’s what I would do. 

Number one, I’d take immediate steps to prevent and mitigate any further deterioration to the main Hotel Aiken building; number two, provide support and financial assistance for the several small local businesses which have been significantly and negatively impacted by the uncertainty from the threatened demolition of the spaces they operate in;  and three, issue a request for proposal for the renovation, restoration, and management of the Hotel Aiken. 

These steps will enhance the legacy of this council, in my view, as will abandoning any further consideration of a multi-level parking garage and a superflouous conference center in downtown Aiken. 

You may also want to consider these questions relating to the AMDC: 

– Has that committee served this Council and the community well?
– Has it positively impacted the goodwill between City government and the citizens it serves?
– Did the committee follow established City policies and procedures? 
– Has it failed to carry out its own mission? 

When you think about the time, energy and dollars wasted by the AMDC, I hope you’ll conclude that it should be dissolved. 

My sincere appreciation of the council for this opportunity to express my views.

Mr. Stemerman’s statement to Aiken City Council begins shortly after minute 15:15 on the video below.

City Government, September 2022

Aiken City Council Reimplements Citizen Input Rules

4 Comments

by Don Moniak
September 13, 2022

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. 

Thank you, 
Donald Moniak