Tag Archives: Parks and recreation

City Government, November 2022

More Overlooked Absenteeism

3 Comments
The City of Aiken Recreation Commission’s High Absenteeism Rate


Three members of the City of Aiken’s Recreation Commission violated the attendance policy for city boards, commissions, and committees in 2021 by missing more than forty percent of their meetings. Yet, no members were automatically removed, as required by city ordinance. Two of the three voted on February 1, 2022 to dramatically raise city recreation fees, a vote later inappropriately presented in a memorandum to City Council as a legally valid approval of the major fee increases. Without these votes, the meeting would have lacked a quorum, and no vote could have occurred.

Boards, Commissions, and Committees

Aiken City Council appoints citizen volunteers to three boards, seven commissions, four committees, and the Aiken Housing Authority—which operates as an independent body. According to the Aiken Handbook for Effective Boards, Commissions, and Committees (Handbook), these advisory volunteer bodies are essential for crafting city policies that can have profound effects on the lives of citizens:

“In keeping with Aiken’s philosophy of citizen involvement, the City Council appoints  citizens to commissions, committees, and boards to assist it in formulating city policy.  The strength and success of the Aiken City Government is to a large degree reflective  of the quality of service performed by volunteers to these entities.”

Most volunteer bodies fall under the advisory category, but several have broader powers over the citizenry:

  • The Design Review Board and Board of Zoning Appeals are “quasi-judicial” bodies similar to administrative courts of law; and their decisions can only be appealed to District Court.
  • The Planning Commission provides the first round of review and approvals or disapprovals for requests for annexations, developments requiring zoning changes, and city services for developments outside city limits.  City Council rarely overrules their recommendations. 
  • The Municipal Development Commission is independently incorporated, but remains almost entirely funded through the City budget; and its resolutions, recommendations, and plans still must be approved by City Council.
  • Among other duties, the Community Development Committee is legally authorized to approve or disapprove the disbursement of federal housing assistance funds, choose contractors, and rule on Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs.
From Aiken Handbook of Effective Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2018.


Rules of Attendance

Chapter Two, Article Four of the city’s municipal code governs the requirements of the various boards, commissions, and committees.
The lead requirement, Section 2-141, involves attendance:

“Any appointed member of a board or commission created by an ordinance of the city council who during a calendar year is absent from 40 percent or more of the regular meetings or three or more successive regular meetings of the board or commission shall automatically be removed therefrom and shall not be reinstated to the remainder of his term except by a resolution adopted by the city council.”

According to the Handbook, each volunteer body is assigned a paid city employee as a contact. The function of the contact is similar to that of the City Manager’s role during Council meetings; they are responsible for working with Chairpersons and members to provide leadership and support, prepare and review agenda material, and offer expert advice.

Another primary responsibility of the staff contact is to monitor the attendance policy:

“Reviews the attendance policy with the Board, Commission, and Committee members and ensures that they understand and are following attendance rules by attending at least sixty percent (60%) of all regular and special meetings. Maintains records of attendance and reports to the city manager the need for potential removal of any Board, Commission, or Committee member who is absent three successive regular meetings in a year and/or who is absent a total of forty percent (40%) or more in a year. “

Attendance Problems Receive a Public Airing

At its November 14, 2022 meeting, Aiken City Council debated the merits of reinstating Design Review Board member Josh Stewart; who missed forty percent of all regular meetings in 2021. In 2022 he has missed three of eight meetings, two workshops involving the Hotel Aiken and Beckman Building demolition discussion, and the legally mandated continuing education workshop.

Council eventually tabled the motion to reinstate by a vote of 4-3, but not before City Planning Director Marya Moultrie made a false claim to Council that Stewart had attended every meeting in 2022. Details of the contentious debate were reported in the Sunday, November 20th edition of the Aiken Standard.

Recreation Commission Attendance Problems

According to its city website, the Recreation Commission’s mission is to “serve as a liaison between the city residents and program participants and the Aiken City Council to ensure the development and provision of appropriate, quality recreation facilities, services, and programs.”

Because programs are open to nonresidents of the city, the commission is one of three organizations that allows nonresident volunteers to serve; the other two being the Aviation Commission and the Equine Committee. The group also holds the distinction of having non-voting “youth commissioners,” and in 2021 introduced the concept of “youth influencers.” The commission is currently involved with crafting the proposal to build a multi-million dollar soccer complex at Citizens Park.

A review of Recreation Commission meeting minutes revealed an even deeper attendance problem than the Design Review Board. In 2021, three members of the commission missed fifty percent or more of the meetings (1); and in 2022 two of those members continued to miss more than fifty percent of meetings (2). Although city ordinance mandated the members be removed from their appointed office, no action was taken.

In addition, up to three meetings in 2022 were cancelled due to a lack of a quorum (2), indicating a deeper attendance issue. Overall, the Recreation Commission is plagued by a lack of participation. Even its youth commissioners are absent well over fifty percent of the time.

As reported in Taking $2 From a Child to Play a Game, on February 1, 2022 the Recreation Commission held a special-called meeting that lacked proper public notification. The only agenda item involved a proposal to substantially increase recreation fees. The 5-0 vote to approve the fee increases occurred despite the fact the commission lacks the authority to change fees—it is only authorized to provide advice and recommendations to City Council.

By city ordinance, two of the voting members should have been automatically removed from their positions and ineligible to vote. Even if the vote had only involved a resolution to recommend fee increases, the presence of only three legitimate members and subsequent lack of a legal quorum would still have rendered such a vote invalid.

Troubles with Volunteerism in Aiken

2022 has been a difficult year for Aiken’s volunteer commissions and boards. A lawsuit filed against the demolition and redevelopment effort known as Project Pascalis revealed that three members of the Municipal Development Commission and two members of the Design Review Board were appointed despite not living in the city—a major oversight by City Council. At one point the three person election commission was reduced to a single member.

Now, the issue of overlooked attendance violations has emerged for the Design Review Board, the Recreation Commission, and possibly other committees, commissions, and boards. For example, while not at the forty percent level, Planning Commission Chairman Ryan Reynolds has missed nearly a third of the meetings of the most powerful commission in the city in 2022. Equine Committee member Courtney Conger missed four of seven meetings in 2021, and two of three in 2022; although that committee is deemed ad-hoc.

Aiken City Council has consistently delegated more of its authority to city staff in recent years. For example, as reported in Taking $2 From a A Child to Play a Game, Council discussed delegating the approval of the hanging of banners to city staff. While this sounds innocuous, a single incident of a controversial banner will likely return the issue back to Council approval.

In the case of the Recreation Commission, recreation fees were raised despite the fact it was not authorized to do so, in a meeting that lacked proper notification, and by members who legally should have been removed for attendance policy violations.

______________________

Footnotes

(1) Recreation Commission Minutes for 2021.

Tuesday, January 19, 2021 Aiken, South Carolina 
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Lori Comshaw, and Ricky Brown. 
Others Present: City Staff Sam Radford, Rasheka Gaines, and Alex Meyers, Fellow Lead for America.
Absent: Commissioners Melissa Viola, Susan Schifer and John Wallace, and Youth Commissioners Bailey Edwards and Grey Larlee 

Tuesday,, March 16, 2021

Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Lori Comshaw, Susan Schifer, and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Sam Radford, Rasheka Gaines, and Breanna Jackson Absent: Commissioners Melissa Viola and John Wallace, and Youth Commissioners Bailey Edwards and Grey Larlee 

Tuesday, May 18, 2021

Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice -Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Melissa Viola, John Wallace, and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Rasheka Gaines Absent: Commisoners Susan Schifer and Lori Comshaw; Youth Commissioners Grey Larlee and Bailey Edwards.

Tuesday,August 17,2021

Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner,Commissioners SusanSchifer, Lori Comshaw and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Samantha Radford. Absent: Commisoners Melissa Viola and John Wallace

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Susan Schifer, Lori Comshaw, John Wallace, and Ricky Brown. Others Present: City Staff Samantha Radford & Rasheka Gaines; PRT Influencers Kaia McMullen, Mika Mayo, Kaeleigh Seigler Absent: Commissioner Melissa Viola 

RECREATION COMMISSION 

Tuesday, November 30, 2021.
Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Lori Comshaw, Ricky Brown, and Melissa Viola (Zoom). Others Present: City Staff Jessica Campbell, Samantha Radford & Rasheka Gaines. Absent: Commissioner John Wallace, Susan Schifer 

Summary of Recreation Commission Attendance, 2021.
50% Absentee Rate: Commissioners John Wallace and Susan Schifer. 67% Absentee Rate: Commissioner Melissa Viola.

Member 1/19 (Z) 3/16 (Z)5/18 (Z)8/17 (Z)10/1911/30
Haislup PPPPPP
WallaceA A PA PA
ComshawPPA PPP
SchiferAPA PPA
Viola AA PA A P (Z)
BecknerPPPPPP
BrownPPPPPP
P = Present; A = Absent, (Z) = Attended via zoom


(2) Recreation Commission Minutes, Calendar Year 2022.

Tuesday, February 1, 2022 Aiken, South Carolina 

Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner (Zoom), Commissioners Lori Comshaw, John Wallace, and Melissa Viola (Zoom).  Others Present: City Staff Jessica Campbell, Seth Holley, Rasheka Gaines, Alex Myers, and Alison Cribb . Absent: Commissioner, Susan Schifer 

Tuesday, March 15, 2022

Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup, Vice-Chairperson Mike Beckner, Commissioners Lori Comshaw, and John Wallace. Others Present: City Staff – Rasheka Gaines, Austin Rippy, Alex Myers, and Alison Cribb. Absent: Commissioners Susan Schifer and Melissa Viola.

Tuesday, August 16, 2022

Present: Chairperson Suzy Haslup(Zoom),Commissioners John Pettigrew,Lori Comshaw,  Susan Schifer, and John Wallace. Others Present:City Staff-Rasheka Gaines,Sara Harvey, and Alison Cribb. Absent: CommissionersMelissa Viola.

Summary of 2022 Recreation Commission Attendance 
67% Absentee Rate: Susan Schifer and Melissa Viola.

Member 2/13/155/18 8/16 10/1811/21 
Haislup PPCPNQ
WallacepPCPNQ
ComshawPPCPNQ
SchiferAACPNQ
Viola P (Z) A CA NQ
BecknerP (Z) PC NA NQ
Brown ResignedNAC NANQ
Pettigrew NANANA PNQ

P = Present, A = Absent, C = Cancelled Meeting, NQ = No Quorum. NA = Not Applicable, not a member.
Shifer and Viola each missed two of the three meetings held with a quorum thus far in 2022.

City Government, City Parks and Recreation, October 2022

Daily Youth Recreation Fees Waived

1 Comment

10/24/22 Aiken City Council Meeting Review, Part I

by Don Moniak 

October 25, 2022

At the twenty-eight minute mark of Monday night’s Aiken City Council meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh announced: 

“In talking with the PRT (Parks, Recreation and Tourism) director the daily fees for children or individuals eighteen and under starting November 1st will be removed.” 

The only caveat added to this statement was the necessity of a liability waiver form on file and signed by a parent and guardian.

The announcement was made during the first portion of “public comments on nonagenda items,” a new fixture in Aiken City Council meetings first implemented on September 12, 2022. Mr. Bedenbaugh related the fee waiver decision following questions by Aiken resident and city parks advocate Laura Lance regarding recreation fee policies for children and the city’s “Fun Funds” program:

“In part of tonight’s agenda (packet) there was an answer given to concerns and complaints about the two dollar fee for basketball for kids to go and use the facilities. The response in ‘Issues and Updates” reads ‘as has been the case since 1995 Fun Funds have been available for all eligible youth which waives the fees.’

“I don’t think that’s correct. If I am not mistaken Fun Funds are intended for classes….summer camp or a basketball team, then they might waive their fifty dollar fee. But I don’t think the Fun Funds are intended for one or two dollar fees that kids are being charged just to go to these facilities. To apply for those funds requires a twenty dollar registration fee….Something is not matching up.” 

The announcement that daily fees for children were being eliminated was met with applause and some relief—less than two months had passed since Aiken resident Laverne Justice had first voiced objections before Council to the $2 per day policy. 

Status of Adult and Annual Recreation Fees

However, at least two questions regarding the city’s recreation fees linger.

1. What is the status of fee increases implemented on April 1, 2022, but in apparent violation of city procedures?

As reported in “Taking $2 From a Child to Play a Game,” fee changes must be approved by City Council. 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.” 


Fee increases were implemented in April based on recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department to the Recreation Commission. Although it has no authority to change fees, the Recreation Commission voted to do so.

According to the document “Fee Proposal Changes” presented to the Recreation Commission on February 1, 2022–but never made public (1)—the maximum original annual fee was $125. At the urging PRT Director Jessica Campbell, the Recreation Commission voted to raise membership fees to as much as $400 for a family of four. According to the most recent edition of “The Park Bench,” these annual “Wellness Membership” fees remain in place.

From: “Fee Proposal Changes,” Feburary 1, 2021 Presentation to City of Aiken Recreation Commission.
From: “Fee Proposal Changes,” Feburary 1, 2021 Presentation to City of Aiken Recreation Commission.

2. Even though the change in youth fees is welcome, the question remains: who is in charge of finalizing recreation fees? At the August 16, 2022 Recreation Commission meeting, at least one commissioner acknowledged it was not in their purview to change rates:

“Commissioner Wallace  reminded members that they are expected to make recommendations to City Council, but are  not in a position to approve or disapprove of changes.”


Footnotes

(1) The original Parks, Recreation and Tourism (PRT) “Fee Proposal Changes” document was presented to the Recreation Commission during its special meeting on February 1, 2022; a meeting for which there was no proper public notice. No record of that meeting was publicly available until mid September.

The “Fee Proposal Changes” were not included in the Feburary 28, 2022, “Issues and Update” memorandum in City Council’s Meeting Agenda Packet that served as notification to City Council of fee changes. The document was not publicly available until a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request compelled the city to post it. It is now buried in the city’s Laserfiche document repository at

https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2757514&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF

Fee-Proposal-2-1-2022View fee proposal doc


FOIA Request #254-2022, filed on September 20, 2022, requested:



“1. A copy of the “ draft copy of the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (PRT) Fee Change Proposal” provided at the February 1, 2022 Recreation Commission meeting. Meeting minutes for that meeting indicate this document was provided. This document was requested on September 16, 2022 in a letter to PRT Director Jessica Campbell and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. The document should be readily accessible. 2. A copy of the final PRT Master Plan Report and Needs Assessment by Clemson University professor Bob Brookover. Please advise if there is no final copy and whether the draft that was provided in City Council’s January 10, 2022 Workshop agenda packet is the current version. 3. A copy of the online survey cited in the Master Plan Report. 4. A copy of all park usage data provided to Professor Brookover and his research associates during preparation of the report.”

Aiken_FullReport_Brookover_Final-1View clemson report



The “Fee Change Proposal” and a clean copy of the PRT Master Plan were provided on October 4, 2022. They are currently in the city’s Lasefiche ecodoc repository.

_______________

City Solicitor Laura Jordan’s response to #3 and #4 of the request was as follows:

“For Item No. 3, the requested item is an online survey. The survey is no longer active online and the City is not in possession of a copy of the survey. For Item No. 4, Professor Brookover was provided the link to the Monthly Reports, which are available at the City of Aiken’s Document Repository (LaserFiche). Once the Laser Fiche page has been accessed, click on the “Browse” link in the upper right hand corner. From there, click on the “Parks and Recreation” Folder and then then “Monthly Reports” Folder.’”


City Parks and Recreation, Editorials, October 2022

Editorial: My Letter to Aiken City Council About Aiken’s Parks and Northside

1 Comment

Printed copies of the letter below — an unabridged version of my statement to Aiken City Council on October 10th — were provided to councilmembers before last night’s meeting.

This letter draws heavily from the earlier editorial, “A Northside Story” plus last week’s newsletter on Aiken’s disappearing neighborhood parks. This isn’t to offer up a recreational replowing of old ground, but to emphasize recurring patterns and themes in City offices that we can expect to see in the future.

____________

Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I would like to address the persistent refusal by City officials, in concert with the Aiken Standard, to hold themselves accountable for the secrecy and the many points of wrongdoing that culminated in Project Pascalis. But I am compelled instead to speak to Aiken’s disappearing neighborhood parks, which I see as coming from a similar place, where the interests of wealth and power take a front seat to the interests of the Aiken citizens you serve.

In August 2022, City Council adopted a “Strategic Plan” for the future of Aiken’s Parks and Recreation which includes divesting in 5 neighborhood parks in lower income communities, most of these being in the bounds of the Schofield Community Association — a historic neighborhood that is part of the original 1835 Dexter-Pascalis plan for the City of Aiken, whose residents are predominantly working class Black people.


Parks at risk of divestment and closure include the Charleston Street Park at Colleton Avenue plus four northside parks: Perry Memorial Park, Gyles Park, Sumter Street Park Courts, and Hammond Williams Park. Here, it bears mention that all of the parks serve the Census Tract 214 Opportunity Zone, where the poverty rate is currently at a staggering 41%.


I would like to pose the question: Whose future is served by this strategic plan?


The City has shown generous determination, will and money when it comes to redeveloping the Richland Avenue portion of the Opportunity Zone. It would be nice to see these same resources put to use fulfilling the stated mission of the Opportunity Zone, which is to promote economic vitality in low income communities. Demolishing houses, crippling infrastructure, and uprooting lower income residents in this areas to replace them with upper income property owners is not revitalization. It’s gentrification.


The City’s decision to divest, rather than invest, in our Northside parks comes despite study after study (1) (2) (3) showing positive correlations between child health and access to neighborhood parks.

A neighborhood park is defined as a park within a quarter to half mile radius to home — about a 5 to 10 minute walk. (4) These parks are not to be confused with our 3 larger community recreation facilities — Odell Weeks, Citizens Park, and Smith Hazel — which are the anchors in our city park system. Neighborhood parks are important, because not all children have the means for long-distance travel to larger facilities.


Children with access to these parks tend to visit the park more often and to have better mental and physical health outcomes.The health of the neighborhood, itself, is also positively affected by parks, as participation in neighborhood parks is associated with a closer-knit community, safer neighborhoods, and reduced crime. (5) (6) These correlations are true for any child and any neighborhood.


Children who lack access to neighborhood parks are at greater risk for childhood obesity, (7) (8) as well as a lifetime of obesity, opening them to comorbidities such as diabetes, heart disease, gall bladder disease, cancer, autoimmune disease, osteoarthritis, and a multitude of other health issues. (9) Obese children are also at greater risk for depression, poor academic performance and behavioral problems. (10)


The repercussions expand on a societal level, where the costs for ill health, unrealized human potential, lost productivity, disability and premature death grow incalculable. Obesity, alone, accounts for billions in health dollars per year. (11) (12)


Here, it bears mention that Aiken’s northside is also a food desert, which means limited access to healthy food, easy access to fast foods and convenience-store snacks, adding to the health burden for the people who live there and also pointing to an area in sore need of honest economic revitalization, something Opportunity Zone funding is intended to address.


So what would compel a city to close and divest of neighborhood parks in an area where the deck is already stacked against the health and the futures of the people who live there?

Perhaps it’s bad advice to blame. Few, if any of the Clemson study respondents lived in this neighborhood. The average income of respondents ($75k and up) stands in great contrast to the median income ($28K) of the people who live in the area targeted for divestment. Also, only 8% of the study respondents were Black. This doesn’t reflect the demographics of the city (which has 33% Black residents) nor this neighborhood, in which 60-70% of the residents are Black. Also, a large majority of the respondents — 68-75% — didn’t even have minor-aged children. Any of these points should have sent the researchers back to the drawing board.


The Clemson study also didn’t weigh the many millions of dollars invested in Aiken’s southside parks over the past 30 years, which dwarf the combined investments for the north, east and west-sides of town. But it did recommend yet more major investments over the next 5-7 years in the southside parks, including demolishing and rebuilding Odell Weeks. Smith Hazel is to get some more bandaids and another facelift.

Clemson researchers deemed these neighborhood parks as being “underutilized,” without providing criteria for that determination. If these parks are indeed under-used, this should serve as a challenge to Parks and Recreation to learn why and to fix it — not as a clarion call to close the parks.


The ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes famously said that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Rather than investing in online surveys and focus groups who don’t live in the neighborhood, why not go and visit these parks after school and on weekends to see how they’re being used? Survey the people who are using them —- as well as the people who don’t — to learn their wishes and needs.


The public’s silence in these conversations should not be taken as complacency or agreement, but as a sign that the City and its hired researchers need to do a better job of making these conversations inclusive to all citizens.

_____________

REFERENCES
(1) “Let’s Go to the Park Today: The Role of Parks in Obesity Prevention and Improving the Public’s Health” https://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpa.org/Publications_and_Research/Research/Papers/ Role-Parks-Obesity- Prevention.pdf

(2) National Recreation and Park Association publication: “Parks and Recreation in Underserved Areas: A Public Health Perspective” https://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpa.org/ Publications_and_Research/Research/Papers/Parks-Rec- Underserved-Areas.pdf

(3) “Parks and Healthy Kids” https://www.nrpa.org/contentassets/ e7416e8568da437085bcecbcdcbd2e3c/parks-healthy- kids.pdf

(4) NRPA Recreation Size and Occupancy Standards https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/css386/ Recreation_Size_and_Occupancy_Standards.pdf

(5) “How Neighborhoods Can Reduce the Risk of Obesity” https://www.rand.org/pubs/ research_briefs/RB9267.html

(6) The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion” https:// http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6388234/#B27-ijerph-16-00452

(7) “Low-income communities more likely to face childhood obesity” https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/ low-income-communities- more-likely-face-childhood-obesity

(8) “Childhood obesity and proximity to urban parks and recreational resources: a longitudinal cohort study” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21075670/

(9) “The Comorbidities of Childhood Obesity” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 351672036_The_Comorbidities_of_Childhood_Obesity

(10) Childhood obesity often affects academic performance: now we may know why” https:// news.siu.edu/2019/03/032619- research-studies-impact-of-obesity-on-academics.php

(11) Productivity loss due to overweight and obesity: a systematic review of indirect costs https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC5640019/

(12) Forbes “Obesity Epidemic Accounts For More Than $170 Billion In Surplus Medical Costs Per Year In The United States: Study” https://www.forbes.com/sites/anuradhavaranasi/ 2021/03/31/obesity-epidemic-accounts-for-more-than-170- billion-in-surplus-medical-costs-per- year-in-the-united-states-study/

(13) Spillover Benefits of Park Proximity” https://ced.sog.unc.edu/2021/03/spillover-benefits-of- park-proximity/

City Government, City Parks and Recreation, October 2022

Aiken’s Disappearing Parks

Leave a comment
An Unexpected Turn of Events

Somewhere between the start of the August 8, 2022 City Council meeting and last night’s City Council Meeting, three things happened:

  1. City Council discussed and voted unanimously on a plan that recommended divestment and closure of 5 neighborhood parks.
  2. The “Aiken’s Disappearing Parks” flyers and newsletter (see screenshots below) were shared in emails and in the neighborhoods targeted for divestment and closure of 5 city parks.
  3. Aiken City Council members unanimously backpedaled on their support for the divestment and closure of these 5 neighborhood parks.

The story on Aiken’s parks — which started last month as a simple look into the $2 fees the City recently started charging children to use Aiken’s recreational facilities — continues to unfold. Which is to say there will be more articles and more editorials on these pages in the coming days and weeks.

A full-size view of the newsletter, with live links to references, can be viewed in the pdf link below. Please note that the contact information for City Council members, (which was listed in the flyers and on pages 1 and 3 of the original newsletter), has been removed for this posting, as there is currently no need to contact City Council regarding divestment and closure of our northside parks.

Disappearing-Parks-Contact-info-removedView newsletter
City Government, City Parks and Recreation, October 2022

Aiken City Parks to Remain Open

2 Comments

“It was just a recommendation.”

by Don Moniak.
October 11, 2022

Two months after voting to approve a Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan that recommended the city consider closing some neighborhood parks, Aiken City Council disowned that portion of the plan at its October 10, 2022 meeting.  The issue was first reported in “Divesting of Parks and Open Space.”

“We have no desire to close these parks,” Aiken City Councilwoman Gail Diggs declared at the end of a discussion ignited by two Aiken citizens speaking during the public comment period for nonagenda items. 

The discussion began when Aiken resident Laura Lance presented Council with a synopsis of park closure recommendations in the city’s Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan and citations from published research explaining why parks are important:

“Children with access to a neighborhood park tend to visit the park more often and to have better mental and physical health outcomes. The health of the neighborhood, itself, is also positively affected by parks, as participation in neighborhood parks is associated with a closer-knit community, safer neighborhoods, and reduced crime. These correlations are true for any child and any neighborhood.” 

After informing Council that four of the five parks are in Schofield Community Association neighborhoods, she asked: 

“Whose future is being served by this plan? What would compel a city to divest of a city park?” 

After the case to keep the parks open was made, Mayor Rick Osbon thanked Ms. Lance for her comments, Councilwoman Andrea Gregory politely applauded with the audience, and Councilwoman Gail Diggs was heard to say: “That was good information.” No other discussion ensued, but City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh and Ms. Diggs did silently confer. 

Gail Diggs and Stuart Bedenbaugh conferring at the 20:40 mark after a presentation on potential city park closings.

Aiken resident Jennie Stoker followed, and asked about the lack of information packets which were previously available years ago at Council meetings.  After Mayor Osbon interrupted to ask, “We still put those out, don’t we?” City Clerk Sara Ridout replied that Council agenda packets were no longer placed on the table with agendas.

Stoker also offered a suggestion to return to the practice of citizens commenting towards the audience instead of with their backs to the audience, and followed that with a final comment on parks: 

“I live on Kershaw Street and at the end of it is Charleston Street Park, which I read was one that might go away, it didn’t belong to the city….I see you are shaking your head, Gail. That’s good. When our grandchildren are in town, that’s the easy one for us to go to…Does that mean it is not going away?” 

The discussion finally turned two-sided when City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh replied: 

“The parks are not going to be closed. That was a recommendation. That was in the report. It would have to come back to council. There is no appetite to bring that to council.” 

After Mayor Osbon commented that “We probably need to clarify that,” Councilwoman Andrew Gregory attempted to clarify but only further muddied the waters: 

“There’s three things about the parks. There’s the study. There’s the recommendations. Then the fact that, it is just a recommendation, we have no indication to…get rid of parks.” 

After Laura Lance stated from the audience, “Jessica Campbell did say that they were going to close some parks,” Stuart Bedenbaugh replied “No, she didn’t.”

At that point Council woman Diggs added the necessary clarity, finally denouncing the recommendations by stating: 

“Council has no desire to close the parks. We would have to vote for it . We have no desire. None. No desire to vote these out. We wouldn’t do it.” 

Despite efforts by Council to backpedal, the fact remains that at Council’s August 8, 2022 meeting, there were no words spoken against the park closure recommendations; even after Councilman Ed Woltz raised the issue. Contrary to Stuart Bedenbaugh’s false assertion that “No, she didn’t,” Parks, Recreation and Tourism Director Jessica Campbell did go on the record regarding park closures:

“We are still considering a park. I think we are hoping to get some renovations underway at Smith-Hazel park within this current budget year and once we feel that we’ve got those parks to where they need to be then we’ll look at closing some that are within proximity that may not be utilized.” 

After a question from the audience during that same meeting, Campbell also confirmed on August 8th that the Hammond-Williams park playground would be closed and converted to “passive open space.”  Council then unanimously approved a strategic plan that involved park closures. 

Andrea Gregory and Stuart Bedenbaugh’s protestations that “These were just recommendations” are disingenuous at best.  The Clemson plan was adopted unanimously by Council; there were no objections to park closures or any other recommendations; there was no indication the issue would “come back to council.”

______________

REFERENCES

YouTube video of the October 10, 2022 Aiken City Council meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAmg_wS2VGY

PDF of Clemson University “Needs and Assessment Strategic Plan” that was approved by unanimous vote by Aiken City Council on August 8, 2022. See, also, screenshot, below, from this publication.

Aiken_FullReport_Brookover_FinalRead Plan

:

Screenshot of page 23 of Clemson University strategic plan (see PDF, above)