Southport debate over Franklin Square Park centers on trees and soil; board asks grantor to clarify conditions

Hundreds of residents and park volunteers filled public comment at the City of Southport Board of Aldermen meeting on Jan. 8 to press a common point: preserve Franklin Square Park’s mature oak canopy and prioritize soil health over ornamental pathways.

The debate that dominated the meeting began during public comment, when speakers including Tom Gregory and Michael Proctor said the park should remain 'natural' and warned that installing permanent walkways or large garden features could damage the trees’ root systems. ‘‘These trees, we can't afford to lose another tree in there,’’ Tom Gregory said.

Parks staff and consultants from Bartlett Tree Experts presented the board with an assessment that came after soil testing and tree risk surveys. The consultants reported that 11 of 23 test locations were highly alkaline—some measuring as high as a 7.9 pH—which staff said was most likely caused by historic crushed oyster shells in the park substrate. The Bartlett-recommended approach emphasizes soil amendments, targeted fertilization (a zone-specific “prescription”), mulching (2–4 inches where appropriate), root invigoration on selected trees and annual reassessments.

Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Chair Emma Thomas summarized the committee’s recommendation: continue the current maintenance plan focused on soil care, tree assessments and mulch application and delay adding hardened circulation pathways. ‘‘The biggest thing this year is the care of the soil,’’ she said, noting that some emergency pruning and root work already has been completed.

Supporters of restoring defined pathways, including Friends of Franklin, argued pathways would improve ADA access and help visitors navigate the park. Jean Potter, reading a submitted comment on behalf of Friends of Franklin, said restored paths could make the park more accessible to elderly and disabled residents and reduce the city’s liability for falls. Opponents countered that many pathway materials (including some pavers) could leach alkalinity or require excavation that would disrupt the fine feeder roots within the upper 10–18 inches of soil.

A number of speakers and board members suggested compromise materials such as decomposed granite or pervious pavers; several people urged further research and careful specification of materials and installation methods that avoid root disturbance.

The board also discussed a $10,000 grant from the Orton Foundation that included restrictive language barring large‑scale events or temporary structures that might damage park grounds. After extended debate about the benefit of the funds versus the risk of ceded control over park use, the board voted to ask the city manager to seek clarified language and the possibility of earmarking the funds for tree or soil work before accepting the check. The motion to return to Orton for negotiation carried.

What happens next: staff will return with revised language from Orton or a proposal to earmark the grant. Parks staff said Bartlett will continue annual tree assessments and that recommended soil treatments will be included in the 2026–27 budget process.