7. A RESOLUTION TO SET FORTH A UNIFORM POLICY FOR PROCESSING, RESPONDING TO, AND TRACKING REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT SC CODE OF LAWS 30-4-10 et seq.

[7. A RESOLUTION TO SET FORTH A UNIFORM POLICY FOR PROCESSING, RESPONDING TO, AND TRACKING REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT SC CODE OF LAWS 30-4-10 et seq. ]

ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AS A RESOLUTION TO SET FORTH UNIFORM POLICY AND PROCESSING RESPONDING TO AND TRACKING REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM INFORMATION ACT CODE OF LAWS 30 DASH FOR DASH 10 AT SEQUOIA I ASSUME EVERYONE'S READ THE ITEM PART IN OUR PACKET RESOLUTION. ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE PERMITTING HYBRID.

IN ADDITION TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS HYBRID MEETINGS GOING FORWARD I PERSONALLY THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA. THERE'VE BEEN MANY TIMES I'M JUST SPEAKING PERSONALLY IN AN BUT I'VE BEEN THERE MANY TIMES I'VE HAD TO FORGO CONSULTING ARRANGEMENTS OVER THE YEARS AND I'M SURE I'VE LOST ALL I'M GOING TO READ YOU WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

ITEM NUMBER ELEVEN NOT ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. OH, I'M SORRY.

THANK YOU. A RESOLUTION TO SET WITH YOU. OK, I APOLOGIZE.

I WAS GOING I DON'T KNOW. YOU'RE RIGHT. SO I NEED EMOTION LOOKING FOR EMOTION ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN FOR I WILL MAKE THE MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER SEVEN TO BE SENT TO

COUNTY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU. >> THE SECOND A SECOND.

THANK YOU, GERALD. I WE'RE IN DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN FOR YOU.

THE MATTER OF DEALING WITH FOI REQUEST COMMENTS. >> OK, MR. RODMAN, AS YOU MAY KNOW, SAT AROUND A SPREADSHEET AND FOR US TO LOOK AT AND I SPIT IN EVERYBODY'S PACKAGE AND WE'VE ALL SEEN IT. AND THAT'S A FALL THAT'S FOR THE LOST DISCUSSION.

>> THAT'S FOR ITEM NUMBER TWELVE. RIGHT.

OH, OK. THANK YOU. SO DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON

[00:05:08]

ITEM NUMBER 7 HERE? >> NONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION. WE'LL APPROVE THIS.

ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS? NONE. THIS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS

[8. A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO ACCEPT FAA GRANTS ]

APPROVED. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT HARIS MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR EXCEPT IF THEY GRANT. I THINK JOHN RAMBLES ON HERE IF

WE NEED TO HEAR FROM HIM. JOHN, YOU ON HERE? >> IT'S NOT OK.

HE IS LOGGING ON NOW. >> SORRY. THAT'S IT.

I'M SPEAKING WITH. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW.

WE NEED JOHN BUT HE'S STANDING BY. ANYBODY NEED ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION? BUT I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON A BREAK.

I WILL BE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT MOTION. THANK YOU, JOE.

SERGEANT. >> THANK YOU, MISS HOWARD. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO HEAR FROM JOHN? RAMBLED ON THIS OR HAVE YOU SATISFIED YOURSELF BY READING THE DOCUMENTATION INCLUDED INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA? MR. CHAIRMAN, I BELIEVE TOM KAMENY WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU THE BACKGROUND ON THIS. OK.

>> MR. CAVANEY, YOU HAVE YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY.

LISTEN, THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS THAT BEEN LOOKING AT THE GUY.

I THINK IT SAYS THAT THIS MATTER IS TO COME BEFORE COUNCILS.

THE COUNCIL'S NEXT MEETING ON THE TWENTY SIXTH. WE ACTUALLY NEED IT TO BE ON COUNCIL'S AGENDA FOR THE 12TH BECAUSE WE NEED COUNCIL NEEDS TO AUTHORIZE ERIC TO ACCEPT THESE GRANTS SPECIFICALLY BEFORE APRIL 17TH. SO WE'LL JUST PUT IT ON FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 12TH. THAT THAT WOULD BE GREAT. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION HERE? >> NONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION WILL APPROVE ITEM NUMBER ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON THE AGENDA AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO APPROVE FAA OR ACCEPT IF A GRANTS ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS ? THERE ARE NONE. NUMBER EIGHT IS APPROVED. ITEM NUMBER NINE A RESOLUTION

[9. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS RELATED TO THE CARE ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE DISPOSAL SITE]

AUTHORIZING A SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS RELATED TO THE CARE ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE DISPOSAL SITE. BY THE WAY, I READ THAT ALL OF THE MATERIAL THAT WAS ATTACHED IN IT WAS A TERM IN THERE THAT I WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH.

THE TERM IS CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION PROVIDED BY ADT. DOES ANYBODY.

TOM, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS? OK. MR. CHAIRMAN BOB I AM HER BEST PART IS THAT I SEE OF MR. CHARLES YOU GIVE HER THE BEST IS THE BEST.

THAT IS A PROVISION IN THE LAW. LET'S PEOPLE WHO ARE ALL JOINTLY AND EVIDENTLY LIABLE FOR CONTAMINATION OF THE SITE TURN AROUND AND SUE EACH OTHER .

IT'S A CONTRIBUTION PROTECT PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHEN YOU CLAIM AND IT SAYS WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COME IN AND SUE YOU EVEN THOUGH THAT PERSON.

I CONTEND YOU ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH THE WAY I READ THAT THERE IS AN APPORTIONMENT OF QUOTE UNQUOTE LIABILITY THEN AND THE DOLLARS ARE A PORTION ACCORDINGLY.

IS THAT RIGHT? AND SO WE'RE SAYING LIKE LET'S SAY YOU CAN GET TWENTY THREE PERCENT. YOU'RE SAYING THAT SOMEBODY CAN'T SUE SAYING WE OWE TWENTY EIGHT PERCENT, CORRECT? OK. WELL THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 10.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. THANK YOU, SIR. I'M SAYING YOU TO VOTE ON THE

NEED TO VOTE ON 9. >> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. I HEARD HIM RECALL FOR A MOTION

ON 10. I'M SORRY. >> I BUT I MISSPOKE.

I MEANT NINE. THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S SORT OF TWO WE HAVE A MOTION IS TAKEN ON ITEM NUMBER NINE. WE'LL APPROVE THIS WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS DURING NINE? ITEM NUMBER NINE WILL THIS BE MOVED TO COUNCIL'S APRIL 12TH MEETING? YES, SIR, IT WILL.

[10. APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN BEAUFORT COUNTY, PORT ROYAL, AND THE CITY OF BEAUFORT- PROJECT BURGER, GLASS, GARDEN, AND STONE. APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN BEAUFORT COUNTY, PORT ROYAL, AND THE CITY OF BEAUFORT- PROJECT BURGER, GLASS, GARDEN, AND STONE]

OK, ITEM NUMBER 10 IS APPROVAL OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN BEAUFORT COUNTY PORT ROLE AND THE CITY OF BEAUFORT, RJ BERGER GLASS GARDEN AND ST..

MR. O'TOOLE WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. IS HE ON?

[00:10:01]

YES. YES, I AM. OK, JON, YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS? SURE.

AND WE HAVE WE HAVE CHARLIE STONE WITH MY OFFICE AND PERRY MCLENNAN FROM H.S. BE ON THE CALL IF THERE ARE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. BUT AS YOU RECALL WE HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTING FELOS AS WE'VE GONE ALONG TO BRING DOWN THE TAX RATE FOR MANUFACTURERS FROM 10 AND A HALF TO 6 PERCENT. THESE TWO CORPORATIONS AS WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS THEY ACTUALLY FOR LIABILITY PROBABLY PURPOSES SEGREGATED THEIR CORPORATION REAL ESTATE BUSINESS HOLDINGS QUITE COMMON. SO AS A RESULT THEY FELL INTO THE RANGE OF SS OR CS IN ORDER TO GET THE SS OUT C WHICH ACCOMPLISHES THE SAME THING AS A FEE THOUGH THEY NEED TO BE IN AN MCI PAY. AND AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS THIS OUR FIRST TIME GOING THROUGH IT. WE REALIZED THAT OUR COMMUNICATIONS HAD TO BE IMPROVED WITH THE COMMUNITY. SO WITHIN HERE YOU'LL SEE THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS.

AND THOSE ALSO HAD TO BE ENTERED INTO BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE BURTON FIRE DISTRICT. SO EVERYTHING'S IN ORDER AND THEY ARE READY TO GO FORWARD INSTEAD OF GOING TO THIRD READING IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY CURTAIL OR ONCE WE GOT ALL THESE THINGS IN ORDER THAT WE ACTUALLY GO TO BACK TO SECOND READING BECAUSE THE CHANGES WERE SUBSTANTIVE ENOUGH THAT WE SHOULD GIVE THE PUBLIC THE SECOND VIEWING.

SO THIS IS RECOMMENDED FOR SECOND READING IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN IN OUR TWO ATTORNEYS ON THE CALL TO KEEP ME ON TRACK OF FIVE MISSTATED ANYTHING GARY MORRIS ON THE CALL GARY MACLENNAN THIS IS HERE IN HIS STEAD MR. SOMERVILLE OK. ANY COMMENTS? MR. MCLENNAN I THINK HER SUMMARIZED IT VERY WELL. THANK YOU ALL FOR HAVING ME.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE COUNTY ON THESE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THESE TWO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS WITH ONE WITH THE CITY OF BEAUFORT AND ONE WITH THE TOWN OF PORT ROYALE ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PLACE THESE PROJECTS SET SINCE THE PROJECTS FALL WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THOSE MUNICIPALITIES.

THESE AGREEMENTS ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MOVE WITH THE INCENTIVES.

>> THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER MR. GO TO OR MR. MCCLENNAN? JUST COMMENT. YES SIR.

YEAH. I THINK THEY PUT BACK AT SECOND READING I COULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO DESCRIBE WHAT EACH ONE OF THESE PROJECTS ARE, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, THAT TYPE OF THING. I DON'T THINK THE PUBLIC'S NECESSARILY DISABILITY YET. THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. RUDMAN MR. O'TOOLE, WE'LL DO THAT. ALL RIGHT.

ARE THERE ANY I'LL MOVE THIS FORWARD WITHOUT EXCEPTION. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO ITEM NUMBER 10 HEARING NONE. ITEM NUMBER 10 IS APPROVED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

[11. AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE PERMANENT THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESOLUTION ALLOWING FOR ELECTRONIC OR HYBRID MEETINGS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO ]

ITEM NUMBER ELEVEN IS AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE PERMANENT THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESOLUTION ALLOWING FOR ELECTRONIC AND HYBRID MEETINGS AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WE'VE GOTTEN A REAL EDUCATION IN THE LAST YEAR ON POSSIBILITIES OF VIRTUAL MEETINGS. PERSONALLY I WAS IMPRESSED AS I STARTED TO SAY EARLIER THAT ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AND I DON'T KNOW WHY I DID THAT THAT I PERSONALLY SUPPORTED IT. IT IS GOING TO HELP ME A LOT. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY, MANY TIMES IN MY 15 YEARS ON COUNCIL THAT I'VE HAD TO FOREGO CONSULTING ARRANGEMENTS BECAUSE I COULDN'T PARTICIPATE OTHERWISE AND IT HAS COST ME A LOT OF MONEY.

SO THAT'S MY PERSONAL SAD STORY BUT I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHERS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTIONS AND WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS THEY WANT TO MAKE. I ASKED FIRST OF ALL LET ME ASK FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND MAKE THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT.

SECOND US GERALD DID YOU MAKE THE SECOND YOU'RE ON MUTE? >> I DON'T KNOW.

IT WAS PAUL SOMEONE WENT AHEAD OF ME. BUT IF THAT PERSON DOESN'T SPEAK UP TENURE, I'LL SECOND IT. OK.

IF THERE WAS SOMEBODY AHEAD OF MR. DOES NOT APOLOGIZE I DID.

I DIDN'T CATCH IT. SO THE FIRST IS THE MOTION WILL BE FROM MR. PASS MAN AND THE SECOND WILL BE MR. DAWSON. RIGHT. WE'RE IN DISCUSSION.

>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS. YES, SIR. FROM LOOKING OVER THIS AUDIENCE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE NO LONGER EVEN NEED A STATE OF EMERGENCY TO CONDUCT HYBRID

MEETINGS. CORRECT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

[00:15:03]

THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN IS THIS OPEN TO ALL MEETINGS INCLUDING ACTUAL

COUNTY COUNCIL MEETINGS, NOT JUST COMMITTEE MEETINGS. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

AND ALSO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS OF COMMISSION. I'M GONNA VOTE NO ON THIS THEN I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH IT. I THINK WHEN WE ARE IN OUR COUNCIL CHAMBERS WE SHOULD MAKE THAT ATTEMPT IF WE WANT TO A MANDATE WHERE IT IS JUST COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT'S SOMETHING MAYBE I CAN GET BEHIND BUT I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN CONTINUE TO CONDUCT BUSINESS ONLINE WHEN WE SHOULD BE HAVING OUR COUNTY MEETINGS IN PERSON. FRANKLY I WAS GONNA BRING THIS UP TO COUNTY NEXT WEEK ANYWAY SO I'M GLAD IT'S IN OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION TO BE DISCUSSED NOW I SAW MY I'M GOING TO BE A HARD NO ON THAT. THANK YOU. THIS PROGRAM IS REALLY WHAT IT ALSO WAS TO WEIGH IN ON THIS. OH STOIC. YES TO HIS TO YEAH I'M SURE LOGAN IS ON THIS. I THINK FOR COMMITTEES AND SO ON IT PROBABLY WORKS FOR IT REASONABLY WELL I THINK FOR MAIN COUNCIL MEETINGS GIVEN THAT THEIR PUBLISHED WAY AHEAD OF TIME AND THEY'RE BASICALLY IN THE EVENING. I THINK THERE'S A LOT TO BE GAINED BY US ALL BEING PRESENT AND IT DOES TEND TO GET CUMBERSOME PARTICULARLY IF YOU GOT ONE OR TWO PEOPLE WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GET THEIR COMMENTS NOT A VOTE.

ARE THEY MUTED THE WHOLE NINE YARDS OR SO? I'M I'M I'M OPPOSED TO AT COUNCIL. I'D BE RECEPTIVE TO IT FOR ALL OTHER MEETINGS INCLUDING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. ALDERMAN.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COMMENT? MR. TURN, MR. HIRSCHHORN. YES, SIR.

I DIDN'T SEE YOU THERE. THANK YOU. I LIKE MR. STERN ALSO HAVE A PERSONAL SAD STORY. YOU KNOW IT'S NOW ARE UP AND AN HOUR BACK TO TRAVEL BEAUFORT.

IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE, YOU KNOW, FOR FOLKS WE'RE WORKING. HOWEVER, I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ABOUT ME. IT'S ABOUT US PROVIDING GOOD GOVERNMENT AND I THINK THAT FOR TWO REASONS THE ONLINE MEETINGS ARE PROBLEMATIC.

NUMBER ONE, WE DON'T GET THE FACE TO FACE INTERACTION WITH EACH OTHER WHICH I DO THINK IS IMPORTANT AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT FACE TO FACE INTERACTION WITH STAFF AS WELL. YOU JUST DON'T GET THE SAME. YOU JUST DON'T GET THE SAME THING WHEN YOU'RE ON SSM IS WHEN YOU'RE IN PERSON. SO THERE'S THAT.

AND THEN NUMBER TWO, I THINK THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD MEANINGFUL PUBLIC COMMENT IN BASICALLY A YEAR NOW AND PUBLIC COMMENT IS VERY DIFFICULT. WE WORK FOR THEM.

THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE US WITH MEANINGFUL TIMELY PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT FACE TO FACE. SO FOR THOSE REASONS I'M I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. RASHAD. ANYBODY ELSE?

>> CHAIRMAN THIS YEAR CAN ME. YES, SIR. YORK, APPRECIATE IT.

UNLIKE YOU, PAUL, I THINK WITH THIS NEW AGE YOU KNOW WE HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF OVER HAVING MEETINGS IF YOU AWAY TOWN AS LONG AS YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET YOU CAN BE IN A MEETING AT THE SAME TIME A PLACE A LOT OF VALUE ON THE PRESENT.

SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN ACTUALLY ENGAGE WITH WITH US AND THAT WE SHOULD NEVER TRY TO SHUN THE PUBLIC AT ALL. SO I WOULD REALLY LOVE FORCED TO CONSIDER A HYBRID BUT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF MEMBERS THAT ACTUALLY CAN BE MISSIN SO THAT IF YOU HAD SAY AT LEAST THREE QUARTER OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT YOU CAN HAVE THREE OF THE MEMBERS AT A HYBRID STAY STAGE WHICH WOULD ALLOW THOSE WHO LIKE YOURSELF PAUL WORKING TO BE IN A MEETING IS STUFF.

BUT THE EMPHASIS WILL BE PLACED AND I USE THIS USING THE RECORDER.

IT COULD BE ANY NUMBER. BUT THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL SHOULD PROBABLY BE PRESENT IF WE CAN AFTER THIS PANDEMIC IS OVER. I WOULD TRY TO DO MY BEST TO BE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS BUT THERE ARE TIMES THAT I CAN'T AND I'M LIKE PAUL I WAS ABLE TO BE A PART OF THE COUNCIL MEETING OUT OF TOWN AND I FELT THAT I DID MISS ANYTHING BECAUSE I WAS THERE. SO IF WE COULD KIND OF RELAX THAT IT RELEASE HAVE A HARD CORE. NO, ALWAYS PRESENT. AND THEN ON A FIRST COME FIRST SERVE THOSE WHO GOT TO BE OUT OF TOWN WOULD PREFER DOING THE HYBRID, ALLOW THEM UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF NUMBER AND IF THERE'S SOMEONE WHO IS ABUSING IT THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO STAND IN LINE THAT ALLOW SOMEBODY ELSE TO WHO HAD NOT TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF A HYBRID TO PARTICIPATE. SO THAT'S WHERE I AM. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO STAY WITH THE NEW ERODE AND NEW TECHNOLOGY AND THE HYBRID ETHIC WORKS.

WELL THANKS EUROPE. YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL OR DO YOU

[00:20:05]

WANT TO MAKE YOUR MOTION AT THE COUNCIL OR WHAT'S YOUR WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE TO REMAIN WITH THIS? I REALLY LEFT IT THERE FOR DISCUSSION IF ANYBODY ELSE CAN . I WOULD LOVE A BLOW FOR IT HYBRID WHERE WE HAVE THE MAJORITY BUT I DON'T KNOW I THINK A SIMPLE MAJORITY MAY NOT BE SUFFICE.

SO 7 8 I THINK 8 WOULD BE THE NUMBER SO I WILL PUT THAT ON THE TABLE AS A MOTION THAT WE HAVE A HYBRID BUT WE MUST HAVE AT LEAST EIGHT MEMBERS PRESENT TO MOVE FORWARD.

>> BEAR IN MIND THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMMITTEES, AGENCIES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AS WELL AS COMMITTEES COUNSEL. SO YES I DO UNDERSTAND THAT AND I'VE HEARD FROM SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND THEY THEY THEY LOVE THE HYBRID AS WELL. SO I THINK IT WILL FALL RIGHT

IN LINE WITH THEM. >> A MOTION? YES, MA'AM.

OH, IS HE MAKING A MOTION? NO. I'LL SECOND I THOUGHT I DID THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST THREE COURT OF PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT.

I'LL SECOND THE MOTION BUT I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THE MOTION.

>> THIS ORDINANCE TALKS ABOUT A LOT MORE THAN COUNTY JUST COUNTY COUNCIL ITSELF.

SO ARE YOU JUST LIMITING YOUR YOUR AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL AND YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING TO ANY OF THE OTHER BODIES THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THIS ORDINANCE? WELL, SPECIFICALLY, SHELBY, I THINK YES, BECAUSE THAT'S THE BODY THAT WE GOVERN AT LEAST FOR COUNSEL.

I WOULD I WOULD GO WITH THAT, PAUL. AND I DON'T I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ON THIS MATTER, BUT I'VE HEARD FROM A FEW MEMBERS THAT APPRECIATE THE HYBRID. SO. SO IF I'M JUST SPEAKING FOR COUNSEL THEN THEN IT WILL BE FOR COUNSEL AT THIS. THANK YOU.

>> SO YOUR MOTION IS TO SUPPORT THE THE ORDINANCE BUT YOU WANT TO REQUIRE THAT COUNCIL WHICH CONSISTS OF ELEVEN PEOPLE TO HAVE AT LEAST A PRESENT ONE EACH ON EACH COUNCIL MEETING IS

THAT THAT MOTION? >> YES. >> IS THAT A PEOPLE IN PERSON?

THAT'S WHERE I THINK MR. GLOVER IS SAYING YES. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

NOW IS THAT WORKABLE LIST? THAT'S FOR DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. GLOVER. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE. WE HAVE. I'M SORRY.

WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT WITH RESPECT ONLY TO COUNTY COUNCIL MEETINGS. WE REQUIRE THAT AT LEAST EIGHT PEOPLE BE PRESENT BEFORE ANYONE CAN BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING VIRTUALLY DISCUSS ISSUES.

DIDN'T YOU GET MY SECOND? MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL SECOND IT. BUT YOU DID.

THANK YOU. I WAS JUST AS A COMMENT FIRST. >> MR. CHAIRMAN PAUL, I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER BIFURCATING THE QUESTION. I THINK YOU'RE GONNA FIND PROBABLY ALMOST UNANIMOUS FOR OUR COMMITTEES BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AGENCIES AND I SO I THINK THE REAL QUESTION WOULD BE THE SECOND QUESTION OF WHAT WE DO FOR JUST OUR COUNCIL MEETING THAT MAY BE A WAY TO MOVE THROUGH THIS. WELL, THE ORDINANCE THE ORDINANCE SPEAKS TO ALL OF THOSE OTHER BODIES. SO I MEAN WE CAN WE CAN CERTAINLY ENTERTAIN AN EMOTION THAT SPEAKS TO ONLY ONE OF THOSE BODIES AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT MR. GLOVER HAS IN MIND. SO AS I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS THAT ALL OF THE OTHER BODIES THE AGENCIES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES OF THIS COUNCIL CAN CAN BE VIRTUAL, 100 PERCENT VIRTUAL OR 20 PERCENT VIRTUAL OR 80 PRESENT VIRTUAL. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE ELEVEN OF US THERE HAS TO BE AT LEAST EIGHT PEOPLE PRESENT BEFORE ANYONE CAN BE AUTHORIZED TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY.

SO I THINK THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF COMMENTS AS DISCUSSION.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK WHAT YORK HAS COME UP WITH WOULD BE A GOOD SOLUTION IN THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING EVERYDAY ALL DAY FOR A LIVING AND DON'T HAVE A PRIVILEGE OF BEING RETIRED YET WOULD BE ABLE TO STILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. AND THEN IT WILL ALLOW.

[00:25:01]

BUT IT WILL ALLOW THE REST OF US TO BE THERE IN PERSON AND WE WON'T SEE ABUSE OF IT.

BY THIS AMENDMENT. >> WELL, I CAN ENVISION LOTS OF SITUATIONS WHERE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF OUR COUNCIL ARE ILL. SEVERAL MEMBERS COUNCIL OR ATTENDING WEDDINGS OR FUNERALS OR OTHER CRITICAL EVENTS AND THEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE OR SEVERAL SOMEBODY ELSE'S OR ARE TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING OR LIVE IN AND THEY CAN'T BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY THEY'RE TOLD NO YOU CAN PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY BECAUSE SO AND SO AND SO AND SO AND SO AND SO OR ON OUR SICK AND WE HAVE TO HAVE AID. SO SO YOU HAVE TO BE HERE IN THIS POINT OF FACT THE PERSON CAN'T BE HERE. SO THE SIMPLE SIMPLE WAY IS RESOLVED IS THAT PERSON CANNOT PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY AND I'M NOT I DON'T THINK THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. SO THAT'S MY NICKEL'S WORTH. MR. CHAIRMAN, I CHIME IN AS WELL. GOD, CHRIS, THANK YOU. ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL OR A COMMITTEE WHO DON'T LIVE IN SOUTH CAROLINA FOR A LARGE PORTION OF THE YEAR AND WHO COULD PARTICIPATE FROM VACATION HOMES OR OUT OF TOWN OR OR WHEREVER.

AND THAT TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S OPENING THE DOOR FOR FOR PROBLEMS. I THINK WE NEED TO BE REALLY CAREFUL WITH THIS AND HOW WE ADDRESS IT AND IT FEELS TO ME LIKE IT'S A SLIPPERY. CHRIS, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING IS A SLIPPERY JUST THE IDEA OF HAVING THESE HYBRID MEETINGS IN GENERAL AND MOVING TOWARD ELECTRONIC MEETINGS LIKE YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY WHO LIVES FIVE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR IN FLORIDA, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE YEAR THAT THEY'RE NOT IN BEAUFORT COUNTY AND THEY DON'T

HAVE TO BE THERE STILL BE FOR COUNTY RESIDENTS TECHNICALLY. >> RIGHT.

AND THEY'RE OUT OF TOWN OUT OF STATE FOR SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE YEAR AND THEY'RE NOT IN THE COMMUNITY. PEOPLE WHO SERVE THE COMMUNITY SHOULD BE IN COMMUNITY.

SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE PIECE OF IT. THAT'S JUST ONE OF THESE YOU KNOW, I STILL REITERATE WHAT I SAID EARLIER ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENT AND NOT HAVING MEANINGFUL PUBLIC COMMENT, NOT HAVING PERSONAL INTERACTION WITH EACH OTHER.

I THINK THIS IS JUST A SLIPPERY ALTOGETHER. SO WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION FOR CURT? CURT, THE WAY THIS AMENDMENT IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A PEOPLE PRESENT IF IN FACT WE DECLARED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A HYBRID MEETING.

DOES THAT THEN SAY IF WE DO NOT HAVE EIGHT PEOPLE THAT CAN BE PRESENT, WE COULD NOT HOLD THE MEETING? WE'LL ASK WHERE YOU GET INTO WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF A QUORUM TO YOU? YOU RUN RUNNING INTO TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.

YOUR ONE IS IT CAN'T BE HYBRID I GUESS I UNDERSTAND FROM MR. GLOVER IF MORE PEOPLE CAN'T ATTEND VOTE VIRTUALLY LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY IF THERE ARE NOT AT LEAST EIGHT WHO ARE ATTENDING IN PERSON BUT THE MEETING COULD STILL GO ON WITH JUST NEARLY A QUORUM WHICH IS 50 PERCENT PLUS ONE. SO IT'S A DIFFERENT THING FROM MEETING VERSUS VIRTUAL MEETING . MADGE I MEAN MR. SOMERVILLE. YES.

ARE THERE FOR THAT. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE AMENDMENT SO IF I AM THE FOURTH PERSON WHO CAN'T ATTEND BECAUSE OF A VARIETY OF SITUATIONS ESSENTIALLY I WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM VOTING THAT NIGHT BECAUSE I WAS LAST IN LINE. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AND THAT IS MY CONCERN. I UNDERSTAND AND I THINK THAT'S JUST BEEN ABSOLUTELY CRAZY SITUATION. IN 2021 WHEN TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS US TO OPERATE THE WAY WE ARE AND I THINK RATHER SUCCESSFULLY. SO I OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT.

I DO SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO ALLOW US TO HAVE HYBRID MEETINGS AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT IT. I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH MEETINGS OF COUNCIL IN THE PAST WHERE PEOPLE WERE NOT NOT IN MY TENURE, NOT DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS BUT WHEN THERE WERE MEETINGS AND ONLY EIGHT PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND THE OTHER THREE WERE ABLE TO CALL IN OR PARTICIPATE FULLY BUT WERE EXCLUDED FROM PARTICIPATING BECAUSE THIS RULE HAD NOT YET BEEN STRUCTURED AND IMPLEMENTED . SO I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE MOTION TO ALLOW HYBRID MEETINGS AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT SAYING THAT EIGHT PEOPLE HAVE TO BE THERE AND THREE PEOPLE. THERE'S A LIMIT OF THREE PEOPLE CAN VIRTUALLY PARTICIPATE BECAUSE IF I AM THE FOURTH PERSON YOU HAVE EXCLUDED ME FROM PARTICIPATING IN THIS MEETING. THANK YOU, SIR.

MRS. CHILL, I SPEAK TO YOU. CAN I SPEAK TODAY? >> I THINK LOGAN HAD HIS HANDS UP. MY CORRECT. LOGAN YES.

GO AHEAD. NEW YORK. YOU CAN SPEAK RIGHT AFTER LOGAN. YES. I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS.

[00:30:04]

I DO UNDERSTAND MR. IS CONCERN WHILE YOU START PUTTING LIMITATIONS ON THINGS.

WHEN YOU PUT A CAP ON THEIR I WOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO REMOVE THE COUNCIL PORTION COMPLETELY FROM IT. MR. MACALLAN JUST STATED THAT OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS OF HIS TENURE THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN THAT ISSUE AND I GUESS THE WORKING ASPECT I WORK 50 60 HOURS A WEEK AND THEN TO COUNCIL ON TOP OF THAT. BUT YOU BUILD YOUR SCHEDULE AROUND IT. I KNOW WHAT I SIGNED UP FOR WHEN I RAN JUST LIKE THE REST OF US DID. I STILL DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN PUT A CAP ON COUNCIL OR EVEN GO VIRTUAL FOR COUNCIL. I JUST DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN OPEN UP THAT DOOR.

I THINK WE SHOULD BE IN PERSON . I THINK WE SHOULD BEEN IN PERSON A WHILE AGO WHICH I KNOW A LOT OF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME ON.

AND YOU KNOW WE'VE GONE DOWN THAT BEFORE BUT I'M STILL GONNA OPPOSE BOTH PORTIONS OF THESE ACTIVISTS CALLING HIM GLOVER. SO YOU WANT TO. YES, YES.

YES. THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE YOUR NECK.

I'M SURE. GREAT. YEAH.

I JUST WANNA RESPOND TO WHAT LARRY JUST TALKED ABOUT IN THE I DO AGREE WITH WITH WITH LARRY WITH THE NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO HYBRID .

BUT YOU KNOW, THE THE THE BALANCE FOR ME IS REALLY I THINK AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL I SHOULD BE PRESENT AS OFTEN AS I CAN. AND HOW DO YOU SURE.

COUNSEL, IF YOU DON'T HAVE AT LEAST A SHORT NUMBER THAT THEY WOULD AT LEAST MEET THE PUBLIC? I'M GOING TO 10 MEETINGS AS SOON AS THIS PANDEMIC IS OVER WITH.

SO THAT'S LIKELY GOING TO BE A PROBLEM. IT'S NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED WITH COUNCIL. THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN A GOOD ATTENDANCE AS I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL. BUT I THINK THAT WITH THE TECHNOLOGY IT ALLOWS PEOPLE WHO MAY BE OUT OF TOWN FOR WHATEVER REASON THE ABILITY TO TO TO TO BE AT THE MEETING TO BE PART OF THE MEETING, PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.

AND SO I THINK THAT THE HYBRID MUST OR SHOULD CONTINUE WHAT WHAT THAT NUMBER THAT BALANCING NUMBER IS. I DON'T KNOW. I JUST THREW IT OUT THERE.

IT MAY BE TOO HIGH BUT I THINK I WANT TO SAY THAT KELSO PLACE A LOT OF EMPHASIS ON THEIR MEMBERS BEING PRESENT TO MEET THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU.

>> GERALD, YOU HAD A COMMENT I THINK. YEAH.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IN MY PERSONAL OPINION THE VIRTUAL ASPECTS THAT I FELT AS MEETING I THINK I SERVE THIS WELL DURING THE COVID 19 RESTRICTIONS AND SO AS LONG AS THE LAWS WERE DEALING WITH THE COVID 19 ISSUES I AND THEN I SUPPORT US CONTINUE THE MEETING VIRTUALLY NOW AND AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO COME BACK INTO IN-PERSON MEETINGS AND I THINK AT THAT TIME THEN THERE ARE VIRTUAL ASPECTS OF CONTINUING THE MEETINGS NEED TO BE MONITORED TO MAKE SURE THAT NONE OF US ARE ABUSING US MEETING IN PERSON. SO I SUPPORT I SUPPORT THE MAIN MOTION MAIN MOTION AS IT'S

WRITTEN WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. >> THANK LOGAN. DID YOU HAVE AN I.D. FROM IT? LET ME ADD JUST ONE MORE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. GLOVER SAYING YOU KNOW ABOUT IT.

IT COMES IN HANDY, IT COMES USEFUL AND THAT IT SHOULDN'T LEAD TO ANY PROBLEMS. BUT UNFORTUNATELY I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ALREADY THERE THAT IT HAS LED TO PROBLEMS. YOU GUYS KNOW I'VE BEEN TO EVERY MEETING IN PERSON. I ALSO GO TO EVENTS OUTSIDE OF COUNTY COUNCIL AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. WE PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOT GONE TO MEETINGS IN PERSON BUT STILL GO TO OTHER EVENTS OUTSIDE. I BELIEVE THERE'S ACTUALLY FIVE THAT WENT TO AN IN-PERSON MEETING IN THE CITY BUT YET SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE HAVE NOT COME IN PERSON TO OUR OWN COUNTY COUNCIL MEETINGS. THAT JUST RUBS ME THE WRONG WAY. I THINK IF YOU WANT TO STAY HOME I GET IT.

WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE A PANDEMIC. THEN YOU STAY HOME. YOU TAKE YOUR PRECAUTIONS.

I'M ALL FOR THAT. BUT I DON'T THINK YOU GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW AND AND THAT'S WHAT'S SORT OF FRUSTRATING ME ABOUT THE SLIPPERY THAT CHRIS TALKED ABOUT. MR. DREW.

YES, SIR. CHRIS, QUESTION FOR KURT. AND THEN A COMMENT PROBABLY THAT KURT HAS AN AUDIENCE LIKE THIS BEEN PASSED ANYWHERE ELSE IN SOUTH CAROLINA NOR CONTEMPLATED AND OR PASSED ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY OR.

I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY, MR. COUNCILMAN, I'D DONE A SURVEY TO DETERMINE THAT. I KNOW THAT IT IS THE UNIFORM ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE GOING BY

[00:35:02]

THE SAMPLE ORDINANCE GOING BY IS AVAILABLE TO BE ADOPTED THIS WAY.

I'M SORRY. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEEN DONE YET.

NO, NO, THAT'S FINE. >> AND I'M PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT.

I I DON'T KNOW. >> BLUFFTON HAS IT AS A PERMANENT ORDINANCE PANEL WALTON COUNTY EMBASSY. DOES FRANCE GO? YEAH.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND THEN MY COMMENT IS I JUST REITERATE YOU OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY AS POINTS MAY ONE WHERE WE CAN DO THIS BUT JUST BECAUSE WE CAN DO IT YOU KNOW, I'M VERY CONCERNED WITH WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD DO IT FOR A LOT OF THE REASONS OF YOU KNOW, LOGAN'S REITERATING YOU KNOW, ALL THE THINGS I SAID PRIOR.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'M GOING TO MAKE ONE FINAL COMMENT, SIR. THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS IS BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE ISSUES WITH COVID 19 HA COUNTY CHAMBERS CAN ONLY HOLD SO MANY PEOPLE. WE WANT EVERYBODY TO BE SAFE AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.

WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF VACCINATING THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS. HOPEFULLY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE COUNTY WILL BE VACCINATED AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET BACK TO SOME SEMBLANCE OF ORDER. AND EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM WHO IS PARTICIPATING NOW KNOWS WHAT OUR JOB IS. WE WILL BE IN PERSON AT SOME POINT IN TIME ONCE WE FEEL COMFORTABLE ENOUGH THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE PROTECTED WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.

WE'LL BE BACK. THERE WILL BE TIMES AND I CAN ASSURE YOU I'M GOING TO BE ONE OF THEM. THERE IS A TIME IN TWENTY TWENTY TWO ON AN EVENING WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COUNTY MEETING. I ALREADY HAVE AN OBLIGATION OUT OF TOWN. THIS WOULD ALLOW ME TO CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE.

SO I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THE PERMANENT ORDINANCE. I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO RESTRICT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS.

I THINK WE'RE ALL KNOWLEDGEABLE ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT WE BELONG THERE IN PERSON AND WE WILL DO IT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. THANK YOU BASEMENT. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS?

YEP. >> THIS IS MARK. HEY MARK.

>> AND YEAH SORRY I WAS LATE GETTING HERE GET STUCK IN TRAFFIC ON 95 BUT IF I GO BACK AND LOOK AT US IN 2019 THERE ARE MANY TIMES A DOOR COMMITTEES THAT WE WERE ACTUALLY HAVING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A QUORUM JUST FOR A COMMITTEE.

AND AGAIN COUNCIL MEETINGS WE HAD NO PROBLEM. MOST PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND I PLAN ON SENDING THEM JUST LIKE LOGAN SAID AS MANY MEETINGS IN PERSON AND THAT I CAN I AM WILLING TO SUPPORT THIS BOTH FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS AND FOR COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND THAT THE REASON IS I THINK WE'VE HAD MORE PEOPLE PARTICIPATE IN THESE MEETINGS IS BE HERE ON A REGULAR BASIS AND AND SAY WHAT THEY THINK AND BEEN MORE INCLUSIVE BY HAVING THESE THESE VIRTUAL MEETINGS THAN WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE PAST. AND IF SOMEONE DOESN'T SHOW UP AT COUNCIL MEETINGS, THAT'S SOME THEY'RE NOT REPRESENTING THEIR FOLKS AS BEST THEY COULD.

AND WHENEVER REELECTION COMES UP IS WHENEVER THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD BE REPLACED, THEIR FOLKS THINK THAT THEY SHOULD. SO AGAIN, I THINK THAT THIS IS IS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

I THINK THAT WE'VE GOTTEN MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED AND I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY THE ZOOM HAS HAS HELPED TO BRING MORE PEOPLE IN AND HAVE MORE PEOPLE ATTEND EVERY MEETING.

SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON MR. CHAIRMAN PERSONALLY FOR ONCE. IS IT APPROPRIATE OR DO WE HAVE TO VOTE MY MOTION DOWN FOR ME TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION IF THE SECOND ALSO DOES SO THAT YOU CAN WITHDRAW ANYTIME YOU WANT AND THEN WHOEVER MADE I GUESS WAS AS YOU MADE THE SACK AND WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW SUIT IF YOU WANTED IT AS OPPOSED TO VOTING ON YOUR CALL TO WITHDRAW IT THEN JUST LIKE THAT AND ALICE WOULD SHOW WITHDRAW A SECOND I'LL SECOND IF YOU WANT

TO WITHDRAW IT. >> YEAH YEAH YEAH I WITHDRAW THE MOTION THE AMENDMENT I CONCUR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE'RE BACK. THANK YOU.

YOUR. WE'RE BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION NOW AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE MAIN MOTION. ARE THERE ANY WE WILL GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE MOTION. I'D JUST LIKE TO REITERATE I THINK THE VOTERS WILL BE WATCHING WHO'S ATTENDING AND WHEN THEY'RE NOT ATTENDING AND I I AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT WITH THE OTHERS THAT YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL ANSWERABLE TO THE VOTERS SO WE HAVE TO USE OUR OWN JUDGMENT WHETHER WE USE THE VIRTUAL OPTION AND WHEN WE USE IT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST. YES, SIR. WITHOUT QUESTION THE RECORD IS

[00:40:05]

CLEAR AS STATED THAT MRC HAD ADOPTED ELECTRONIC MEETING ORDER.

THEY HAVE NOT. IT WAS ONLY THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON BASED ON OUR KNOWLEDGE AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MAIN MOTION WHICH RIBAUT READY TO VOTE ON RIGHT NOW? WE'RE GOING TO OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO CALL THE ROLL AND I DON'T HAVE A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE WHO WERE PRESENT SO I'M JUST HAVE TO GO DOWN THE LIST AND FIGURE IT OUT MYSELF. FIRST ONE IS MR. GLOVER ON THE MAIN MOTION? YES, MR. GLOVER VOTE YES ON THE MAIN MOTION AND THEN WE HAVE MARK LAWSON ON THE MAIN MOTION.

>> MARK LAWSON YES. OK. UH, THEN WE HAVE TO PASS A MAN

ON THE MAYOR KAY GRACIOUS. >> OH GOD CALLS HIS AND I VOTE YES.

THANK YOU, MR. MACALLAN. MISS HOWARD. YES, OKAY.

MR. HERBERT SCHON NOW SOME VOTES NOW. OK.

UM, MR. RODMAN THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST A COMMENT AS I VOTE IF I MIGHT. I DON'T THINK I'VE MISSED A MEETING IN THREE OR THREE HUNDRED MEETINGS SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL. I HAVE THE LONGEST DRIVE.

I DON'T. WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT 20 MEETINGS A YEAR.

CONGRESS YOU HAVE TO BE THERE TO VOTE. I BELIEVE SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY I BELIEVE THEY HAVE TO BE THERE AND VOTE. SO I WILL OPPOSE THIS.

YOU WILL VOTE WHAT? NO, MR. VOTES NO. OK.

I'M MISSING HERE, MR. DAWSON. HAVE YOU VOTED YET? >> NO, I HAVEN'T.

AND I'M VOTING YES. OK. AND TRUE GLOVER.

ALL RIGHT, MR. I'VE ALREADY VOTED. SORRY.

HERE. CUNNINGHAM. THANK YOU.

PLAY. AND I VOTE NOW. JAMES KENNY GAMBLE NO.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO HASN'T VOTED OTHER THAN ME? ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT'S YOUR VOTE? YES. SO WHAT DO WE HAVE THIS BROUGHT 7 YES. 3 NOW. SO THE MOTION PASSES ON THE

[12. AN ORDINANCE TO LEVY AND IMPOSE A ONE PERCENT LOCAL OPTION SALES AND USE TAX WITHIN BEAUFORT COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-10-10 ET SEQ., OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS, 1976, AS AMENDED; TO DEFINE THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF THE TAX; TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS UPON THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX; TO PROVIDE FOR A COUNTYWIDE REFERENDUM FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX; TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONDUCT OF SUCH REFERENDUM; TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO ]

COUNCIL. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NUMBER TWELVE WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE TO LEVY AND IMPOSED A 1 PERCENT LOCAL I SHOULD SAY AS IN USE TO ADD TO THE BILL.

UH UH UH UH UH. PERSON 1 TO SECTION 4 DAYS 10 DAYS AND AND SAY THIS SELF DEFENSE I'M SORRY TO DEFINE A SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF THE TAX TO IMPOSE DAY IS PAUL HAVING

TROUBLE WITH HIS INTERNET? >> HE LOOKS TO BE FROZEN I'M NOT SURE.

I THINK HE IS FROZEN BUT I CAN'T TELL IF IT'S AN INTERNET ISSUE.

IS IT IT APPEARED THAT WAY BASED ON THE WAY HE WAS CUTTING OUT FOR THE UNKNOWN ONE THAT THE CONNECTION WAS SLOWING DOWN. SO HE WAS THE VISE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE. MAYBE WE COULD JUST AS THAT PERSON ON IT'S PROBABLY JOE I DON'T KNOW THAT WE DO HAVE A VISE CHAIR. YEAH, IT'S YEAH.

I'LL UM I'LL CONTINUE UNTIL HE COMES BACK. OK.

THE MUNICIPALITIES GO BACK TO BACK. OK.

OK. SORRY ABOUT THAT. JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

THIS HAS BEEN A LONGSTANDING TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. IT GOES BACK A NUMBER OF YEARS . I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW MANY AND I THINK EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS IS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO THE MUNICIPALITIES AND WE WE HAD A MEETING OF THE MAYORS A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO AT BLUFFTON AT THE RECREATIONAL CENTER.

AND I THINK ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WERE THERE AT THAT TIME.

I'M PRETTY SURE THEY WERE AND WE HAD HAD A I GUESS WHAT YOU CALL A STRAW VOTE.

I DON'T THINK IT WAS BINDING BUT IT WAS I DON'T KNOW I DON'T RECALL WE HAVE TO LOOK BUT WE HAD A VOTE IN 100 PERCENT OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AGREED TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.

[00:45:06]

I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH BALLOT. SO NOT ONLY HAVE WE HAD MANY, MANY YEARS OF DISCUSSION, WE ALSO HAVE HAD SOME COMMITMENTS ALONG THE WAY BY THIS BODY. AND SO WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE MOVE FORWARD. SO THERE I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THIS, BUT THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS ARE THAT IT'S THE PROCEEDS OR DIVIDED I THINK ROUGHLY 70 30 MAY VARY A POINT OR TWO AND 70 PERCENT GOING TO TAX ABATEMENT REVOLUTION TAX ABATEMENT AND THE 30 PERCENT BEING DISTRIBUTED AMONG MUNICIPALITIES AND THE COUNTY FOR GENERAL FUND TO DO WHATEVER WHATEVER WE WE OR THERE ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MUNICIPAL COUNCILS DEEM TO BE APPROPRIATE .

SO I HAVE SUPPORTED THIS FROM THE BEGINNING. I I FEEL LIKE I KNOW THAT MUNICIPAL FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES THIS IS A SOURCE OF REVENUE THAT THAT THEY CAN'T GET ANYWHERE ELSE. AND BUT WHAT THE REAL REASON I SUPPORT IT IS THAT IT REALLY IS A WASH BECAUSE MAYBE IT'S BETTER THAN A WASH BECAUSE IF IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH OF THE SALES TAX IS PAID BY NON RESIDENTS AND VISITORS AND VACATIONERS AND I'VE HEARD NUMBERS AS HIGH AS 40 50 PERCENT. I'VE HEARD NUMBERS AS LOW AS 30 PERCENT. SO SOMEWHERE IN THERE BUT 30 PERCENT IS THE BREAK EVEN POINT IF WE GET 30 PERCENT OR MORE FROM FROM OUR VISITORS AND TOURISTS AND THEN AND WE GET 70 PERCENT BACK AS PROPERTY OF PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT TO ME.

IT'S A WIN WIN. BUT ANYWAY I KNOW OTHERS LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY BUT THAT'S HOW I LOOK AT IT. SO I'LL ASK FOR A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER TWELVE ON THE

AGENDA PLEASE. MY COMMOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, MS. >> HOWARD MAKES A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND. I WILL SECOND IT. THIS DEPARTMENT MAKES THE SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE IN DISCUSSION.

STU, CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR EXCEL SHEET THAT YOU SENT OUT TO EVERYONE?

>> I WILL. AND ALSO IT DOES ME AS PART OF THE MOTION WE HAVE TO SAY WHERE THEY WERE WHICH REFERENDUM ON WHETHER IT'S GONNA BE ON THE TWENTY ONE OR THE TWENTY TWO BUT BALL CAN COME BACK TO THAT. OK.

WHAT I DID IN FACT SARAH OR WHOEVER'S GOT THIS YOU COULD GO TO THE OTHER TAB FIRST OK AND MAYBE YOU MAKE IT SOUND LARGER IN CASE PEOPLE HAVEN'T CAN'T SEE IT.

BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT I DID IS I WENT LOOKED AT WHERE ELSE THIS IS BEING DONE AND SO THIS IS KIND OF A SNAPSHOT WHAT'S HAPPENING ACROSS THE COUNTY AND WHAT I'VE LISTED THERE IS THE COUNTIES THAT ARE MORE OR LESS THE LARGE COUNTIES MORE OR LESS THE TIER ONES.

AND I WON'T GO THROUGH THEM ALL. BUT YOU CAN SEE THERE'S THREE OF THEM INCLUDING OURSELVES THAT DO A TRANSPORTATION ONE WE GOT THREE THAT ARE DOING CAPITAL. WE GOT ACTUALLY THREE THEN DOING SOME FORM OF AN EDUCATIONAL PENNY. WE ONLY HAVE TWO THAT ARE DOING LOST AT THIS POINT OF THE MAJOR COUNTIES. NOW I'D SAY MOST OF THE SMALLER COUNTIES AROUND THE STATE HAVE THIS. SO THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTIES HAVE LOST BUT IT'S VERY SMALL NUMBER OF THE LARGER COUNTIES. AND THEN MYRTLE BEACH ACTUALLY HAS ONE THAT'S FOLDS MONEY BACK INTO TOURISM. AND AND SO I GUESS MY AS I LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR ONE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE PROBABLY NEED MAYBE EVEN A STAFF RECOMMENDATION BUT CERTAINLY SOME ANALYSIS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT ROUGHLY ABOUT A BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF TRANSPORTATION ITEMS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THE NEXT YEAR OR NEXT 10 YEARS. AND I THINK THE NUMBER ON THE CAPITAL SIDE IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE A QUARTER OF A BILLION. SO IN MY MIND LOST IS ONE OF TWO OR THREE POSSIBILITIES THAT WE HAVE. AND I THINK WE NEED TO RANK THOSE IN OUR MINDS AND DECIDE WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT ARE IMPORTANT AS PART OF MAKING THIS FOR THIS DECISION. PERSONALLY I TEND TO THINK THAT WE VERY DIFFICULT TO GO ELSEWHERE FOR THE ROADS AND THE MAJOR CAPITAL. AND THEREFORE I TEND TO THINK THAT THOSE WOULD HAVE A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN LOST THE SECOND SLIDE IF YOU CAN GO TO THAT TAB AND TRY TO MAKE A BIGGER IF YOU CAN. AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT I DID IS I

[00:50:03]

TOOK IT. I ASSUMED WOULD BE UP AROUND 40 MILLION THAT WE WOULD GET EACH YEAR. AND I TRIED TO JUST TAKE A ROUGH CUT AT WHO PAYS THEM AND WHO PAYS OUT AND SOMEBODY CAN FINE TUNE THE NUMBERS. BUT I THINK THEY'RE DIRECTIONALLY CORRECT. SO ON THE MONEY COMING IN ESSENTIAL.

ALL THE NUMBERS I'VE SEEN OVER THE YEARS WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE TOURISTS THE VISITORS PROBABLY PAY ABOUT A THIRD AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE BUSINESSES AND SO ON PROBABLY PAY ABOUT TWO THIRDS. OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT A LOT OF TOURISTS BUT THEY'RE NOT BUYING REFRIGERATORS, CARS AND THINGS LIKE THAT WHILE THEY'RE HERE IN TERMS OF WHERE THE MONEY GOES OUT. PAUL'S RIGHT. IT'S ABOUT SEVENTY ONE PERCENT I THINK PROBABLY SIXTY NINE PERCENT. THAT GOES FOR TAX RELIEF.

THERE'S ABOUT 11 MILLION THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GO TO THE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES INCLUDING OURSELVES NICE DIVVIED UP ON POPULATION AND THERE'S A ROBINHOOD FEATURE OF THIS THAT THE STATE ACTUALLY KEEPS 5 PERCENT AND DISTRIBUTES TO TO OTHER OTHER COUNTIES.

SO AS I AS I KIND OF PUT THE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE INSIDE THE DOTTED BOX I SAID WELL THESE ARE IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. SO YOU KNOW IF IF THE TOURISTS PROBABLY PAY ABOUT 13 MILLION IN AND THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T HURT THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY TOO MUCH.

BUT THE BIG BENEFICIARY IS THE SECOND HOMEOWNERS THE 6 PERCENT BECAUSE THEY'RE THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET, YOU KNOW, A GOOD 30 MILLION OF THAT OF THAT BENEFIT.

AND THEN THE STATE OF COURSE GETS THE I GUESS THE 2 PERCENT. SO IN TERMS OF WINNERS AND LOSERS AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT I THINK THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY LOSES A LITTLE BIT.

I THINK THE SECOND HOMEOWNERS AND THE STATE ARE WINNERS IN THAT CALCULATION.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THAT BOX TO BE ABOUT 20 MILLION WHICH WOULD BE THE COLLECTIONS FROM RESIDENTS AND THEY WOULD GET ABOUT 13 MILLION BACK IN IN TAX RELIEF AND THE BALANCE GETS SPLIT ON A POPULATION BASIS. SO THE COUNTY WOULD GET SEVEN MUNICIPALITIES WOULD GET ABOUT FOUR AGAIN SOMEBODY COULD FIND IN THESE NUMBERS BUT I THINK THEY ARE DIRECTIONALLY CORRECT . IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE 4 PERCENT THE RESIDENTS TEND TO LOSE BECAUSE THEY'RE PAYING A LOT OF MONEY IN AND ONLY GETTING A PORTION OF IT BACK IN TAX RELIEF. YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY DOES GET SEVEN IN THAT CALCULATION BUT WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF WAYS TO GO RAISE EQUIVALENT AMOUNTS MONEY AND IT BECOMES VERY REGRESSIVE ON THE THE LOW INCOME PEOPLE TO HAVE A SALES TAX.

AND THE MUNICIPALITIES IN THIS EXAMPLE WOULD GET FOUR MILLION OUT OF FOUR THEY'D GET 10 PERCENT AND I DO BELIEVE THEY HAVE A WAYS TO GO GET THEY WANT TO IF THEY WANT RAISED MONEY FOR THE GENERAL FUND THEY CAN DO IT FOR AD VALOREM TAXES AND NOT BE REGRESSIVE AND THEY CAN ALSO DO REFERENDUMS JUST LIKE THE SCHOOL BOARD IF THEY WANT TO RAISE MONEY FOR THE CAPITALS. LASTLY, I GUESS I WOULD SAY IS THAT I DO THINK THAT PASSAGE IS A BIG PROBLEM. I THINK WE HAVE THE UNIFORM FEE FESTERING OUT THERE WITH HILTON HEAD WHICH I THINK WILL CAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST IT IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD COUNTY COUNCIL MANY MEMBERS THAT VOTED AGAINST IT. IT GETS DIFFICULT TO GO TO THE PUBLIC UNLESS WE'RE UNANIMOUS. I THINK LAST TIME AROUND WE WERE FIVE FIVE AND ONE VOTED FOR IT ONLY KEEP IT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. AS I SAID, IT'S VERY REGRESSIVE AND I SEE IT AS A VERY SHORT WINDOW TO DO IT DO IT PROPERLY. SO MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT EVEN IF WE SEND THIS FORWARD WE OUGHT TO HAVE STAFF GIVE US SOME ANALYSIS OF WHERE WE REALLY NEED TO RAISE MONEY AND WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO RAISE IT.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT GIVES YOU THE BACKGROUND, JOE, OF WHAT WHAT I PUT TOGETHER AND OBVIOUSLY OPEN QUESTION. THANK YOU, MR. ALDERMAN. WHO ELSE? MR. CHAIRMAN, WHO IS AT OH, MR. SHARON. YES, SIR.

YEAH. STEVE, I APPRECIATE THAT ANALYSIS.

I AGREE WITH ALL OF THAT. BUT A QUESTION FOR YOU BECAUSE HERE'S WHAT I'M WRESTLING WITH . THE MAYORS WANT A WAY TO RAISE FUNDS FOR PROJECTS THEY ARE LOOKING TO DO SO IN YOUR OPINION, HOW WOULD WE ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THAT? THEY CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO TO A YEAH. ANY THEIR OWN REFERENDUM IF THEY WANT TO RAISE MONEY AND THEY WOULD DO IT ON AN ALARM BASIS WHICH IS REALLY NOT REGRESSIVE. SO IT ACTUALLY IS NOT A PENALTY ON THOSE OTHER FOLKS.

ALSO IF WE WERE TO DO A COUNTY WIDE CAPITAL ONE IT CERTAINLY COULD AN EARMARK AS PART OF THAT CAPITAL ONE ITEMS THAT THEY WANT IN THEIR MUNICIPALITY .

[00:55:02]

SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF BEAUFORT WANTED A PARKING GARAGE RATHER THAN DO LOTS TO GET MONEY TO BUILD PARKING GARAGE PARKING GARAGE TO BE PART OF THE COUNTY WIDE CAPITAL.

SO I THINK THOSE WOULD BE THE TWO AVENUES, CHRIS, TO RAISE MONEY FOR THE TWO FUNDS THAT THEY MIGHT NEED. APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S HELPFUL.

YES, IT'S HARD. WELL, I DISAGREE ABOUT THE CAPITAL TAX.

WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT TWICE THAT I REMEMBER AND IT WAS A DISASTER BOTH TIMES ABOUT WHAT THE PROJECT GLASS WOULD BE. SO IT HASN'T WORKED IN THE PAST TO DO IT AS A CAPITAL SINCE TAX

MAKING IT HARD. >> I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF COMPONENTS.

FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T THINK THIS IS A REGRET. I DON'T SEE THIS AS A REGRESSIVE TAX BECAUSE WE DEPEND ON THE SECOND HOMEOWNERS.

VACATIONERS TO PAY THE BILL. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME BUT A VERY, VERY, VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF RABBLE OR IMPACTS. WE DEPEND ON THEM AND WHEN WE THROUGH SCHOOL OPERATIONS ON THEM PLUS 6 PERCENT REMEMBER SOMEBODY WHO OWNS A SECOND HOME IS PAID FOR AN EQUIVALENT PRIMARY RESIDENT'S HOME IS PAYING TRIPLE WHAT THEY'RE PAYING WHAT THEIR PRIMARY RESIDENCE IS PAYING. AND THAT'S ASSUMING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLAR EXEMPTION FOR BEING SUPERANNUATED. SO OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE GOING TO GET MORE BACK IN TERMS OF A PERCENTAGE OF THAT MONEY THAN A PERSON THE PRIMARY HOMEOWNERS BECAUSE THEY'RE PAYING MORE LOT MORE TAXES. SO AND I THINK ONE OF THE.

AND THIS IS ALSO TRUE OF BUSINESSES WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PROBLEMS OVER THE YEARS ONCE ONCE 388 PAST EXPLAINING TO THE POOR BUSINESSES WHY THEY'RE PAYING INORDINATE AMOUNT OF OF ADVIL OR TAXES. SO I DON'T ACCEPT THAT THIS IS A REGRESSIVE TAX.

I THINK IT'S I THINK THAT THAT IS TO SAY THE DISTRIBUTION PROCESS IS REGRESSIVE.

I THINK IT'S VERY FAIR BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING THE MAJORITY OF IT ARE GETTING A LARGER SHARE OF IT AS THEY SHOULD. AND AS FAR AS THE CAPITAL IS CONCERNED, THINK ABOUT THIS AS ALICE IS CORRECT. WE'VE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD BEFORE. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU PUT THE PROJECTS ON THERE AND HILTON HEAD DOESN'T LIKE IT. IF IT'S IN BEAUFORT HE'LL GET DOESN'T LIKE IT.

THEY CAN OUTVOTED. IF IT'S IN VIEW IF IT'S IN HILTON HEAD AND THE PEOPLE IN BEAUFORT IT DOESN'T. NO, I'LL STAY. BEAUFORT NORTH NORTH DOESN'T AGREE THEY'LL VOTE AGAINST IT. SO IT BECOMES A MATTER OF WHO HAS THE VOTES.

I MEAN THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTES. AND SO IT'S NOT A GOOD.

IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO. IT'S NOT EVEN A REASONABLE WAY IN MY MIND TO PUT CAPITAL PROJECTS OUT THERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET VOTES FROM THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH. AND SO ANYWAY, I WON'T I WON'T BELABOR THIS BUT JUST TO SIMPLY SAY I DON'T THINK IT IS REGRESSIVE. I THINK CAPITAL PROJECTS A BAD IDEA TO TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES. AND I SUPPORT THE LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX AS RED. WHO ELSE? MR. JOHN CUNNINGHAM.

YES, THERE YOU MAY GO. YEAH. QUICK QUESTION.

MAYBE IT'S JUST EDUCATING MYSELF ON IT. BUT FROM HERE ON THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. HERBERT AND MR. RODMAN, LET'S SAY BLUFFTON WANTED TO PUT IN A PARK AND IF WE DID THIS TACK THEY LOST THEY COULD USE THE FUNDS FROM THAT TO BUILD THE PARK. CORRECT. THERE THEIR PORTION BACK.

SO AGAIN, MR. RODMAN ALSO WENT ON TO SAY THAT IF THEY WANTED TO DO A REFERENDUM ON THEIR OWN TO BUILD THAT PARK THEY COULD AS WELL. SO IT SEEMS TO ME WE'RE JUST PLAYING THE MIDDLEMAN AND THAT TAKING THE BRUNT OF , YOU KNOW, FOR PR ON THEIR BEHALF.

ARE YOU SAYING ARE YOU SAYING THAT A MUNICIPALITY COULD DO A REFERENDUM PARK?

>> IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FROM.

I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY IS THAT WHAT MR. ROMNEY WAS SAYING THAT IF THEY NEEDED TO DO A REFERENDUM FOR WHATEVER PROJECT IT IS, I'M JUST USING A PARK AS AN EXAMPLE.

BUT THEN IF THEY CALL FOR THE REFERENDUM, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO DO THE PR WHERE IF WE GO THROUGH LOSS WE'RE THE ONES THAT TAKES THE PR OFF OF THEM.

WELL, ACTUALLY I DON'T AGREE THAT EITHER BECAUSE MUNICIPALITIES WILL DO IT.

BUT I ASSURE YOU ALL MUNICIPAL WILL POSSIBLE EXCEPT THAT I DON'T KNOW BUT THE MUNICIPALITIES WILL BE DOING THEIR OWN A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE A LOT OF PR IN FACT WE CAN DO PR FOR A REFERENDUM SO I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION. YES, IT IS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. AND I WASN'T QUITE SURE ABOUT THIS SO I ACTUALLY ASKED JOSH ABOUT IT. HE SAID THAT VISIBILITIES DISABILITIES DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO A REFERENDUM FOR WHATEVER REASONS THEY WANT TO AND THAT FALLS DOWN ON AN AD VALOREM BASIS LIKE ANY OTHER ANY OTHER TAX. SO YEAH, THEY THEY CAN DO THEIR

[01:00:01]

OWN FOR WHATEVER THEY WANT TO IS BIGGER AS SMALL AS THEY WANT TO.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN GO AHEAD. CHRIS EVANS, PRESIDENT. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

RELATIVE TO THE POINT ABOUT IT BEING A REGRESSIVE TAX. GENERALLY SPEAKING FOLKS WHO ARE ON THE LOWER END OF THE INCOME SPECTRUM ARE GOING TO SAVE LESS AND THEREFORE THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND THE VAST MAJORITY DOLLARS THAT THEY EARN THOSE DOLLARS.

GENERALLY SPEAKING YOU'RE GOING TO SUBJECT TO WHATEVER SALES TAX IS OUT THERE.

SO BASICALLY EVERY DOLLAR THEY EARN IS GOING TO BE TAXED FOR MOST RIGHT NOW.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THOSE REBATES BECAUSE A LOT OF THOSE FOLKS ARE LIVING IN RENTAL PROPERTIES WHICH ARE SIX PERCENTERS. AND I GUESS THE ARGUMENTS THAT WOULD BE WELL THEN WHOEVER OWNS THAT PROPERTY IS GOING TO, YOU KNOW, ADJUST THE RENT LOWER BECAUSE THEY'RE PAYING LESS TAX THAT SOUNDS GOOD. BUT IN PRACTICE THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. SO THESE REBATES COULD BE PASSED ON TO FOLKS AT THE LOWER END OF THE SPECTRUM AND THE FOLKS AT THE LOWER END OF THE SPECTRUM WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PROPORTIONATELY SPEAKING A LARGE PROPORTION OF THEIR INCOME TAX BECAUSE THEY SPEND IT SO BECAUSE OF THAT I THINK IT IS PRETTY REGRESSIVE SALES TAXES AS REGRESSIVE AS IT GETS.

THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT IS A SALES TAX ESPECIALLY WHERE WE LIVE IS GOING TO BE PAID BY A LOT OF OUT OF TOWNERS, OUT OF STATERS. THAT'S GREAT.

BUT FOR THE FOLKS WHO LIVE AND WORK IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, YOU KNOW THE REGULAR WORKING FOLKS ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHO ARE ON THE LOWER END OF THAT SPECTRUM IS GOING TO BE VERY MUCH MY THANK YOU FOR A SERVICE ON SOMEBODY ELSE HAD THEIR HAND UP.

I DON'T REMEMBER WHO IT WAS. SOMEBODY DID I CAN'T SEE EVERYBODY SO I APOLOGIZE IF YOUR HAND WAS I DIDN'T SEE YOU OK NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. YES, SIR.

MR. PRESIDENT. OK. THREE POINTS.

POINT NUMBER ONE THE STATE IS NOW LOOKING AT THE PENNY SALES TAXES THAT ARE OUT THERE.

IF YOU HAVE A PENNY SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION CURRENTLY YOU CANNOT HAVE ONE FOR CAPITAL. THEY'RE TRYING TO MELD THEM TOGETHER TO ALLOW COMMUNITIES TO BE ABLE TO DO BOTH OF THOSE AT THE SAME TIME WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE STATE.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS STATE DOES HAVE LOST. WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE COASTLINE THOUGH, THE MAJOR COUNTIES ALONG THE COASTLINE DO NOT.

WHICH IS INTERESTING BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOUR TOURISM IS. AND THEY DON'T HAVE LOST IT.

ARE OUR MUNICIPALITIES ARE UNANIMOUS IN THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE LOST WE AS PAUL ELOQUENTLY SAID, WE'RE GOING TO PUT ON THE ANNOUNCED THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ON A REFERENDUM TO BE HELD BY THE COUNTY BECAUSE THAT'S OUR JOB.

WE DO NOT DO THE ADVERTISING MARKETING. WE STAY CLEAR OF THIS.

THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE BY THE MUNICIPALITIES THROUGH CITIZEN GROUPS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO REPLACE THE CURRENT TAX THAT WE HAVE WITH LOST OR IF IT IS TO BE AN ADDITIONAL ONE. CERTAIN COUNTIES IN THIS STATE ARE AT THE 8 PERCENT, A GOOD NUMBER OF THEM. ONE IS AT 9 PERCENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE LOST THEY HAVE A TRANSPORTATION AND THEY HAVE A TOURISM TAX.

SO THOSE THOSE ARE THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.

>> MS. HOWARD. >> YES.

STU MENTIONED THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE THE THE YEAR IN A IN THE MOTION.

BUT WHAT'S INCLUDED IN OUR PACKAGE DOES SAY REFERENDUM NOVEMBER 2021.

SO I DON'T THINK I HAVE TO AMEND MY MOTION BECAUSE WHAT'S IN THE PACKET SAYS 2021.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS WRITTEN FOR.

MISS HOWARD. OKAY. THANK YOU.

IF I MAY ADD ONE ADDITIONAL THING AS YOU ALL MAY KNOW AND I MAY BE OUT OF PLACE WITH THIS BUT IT'S JUST SOMETHING FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF TRYING TO DO THE ONGOING UPDATE TO OUR IMPACT FEES REGARDING SCHOOLS AND OTHER ITEMS. WE HAVE SENT GRAPHIC COPIES OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS TO ALL MUNICIPALITIES. I HAVE INQUIRED NUMEROUS TIMES FROM THOSE MUNICIPALITIES ABOUT THE STATUS OF THOSE. I KEEP HEARING THAT THERE IS A LETTER COME IN FROM SOMEWHERE OR SOME PLACE ADDRESSING ALL THE CONCERNS COUNCIL MIGHT GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION TO TYING THIS CONTINUED APPROVAL THIS VOTE IF YOU'RE INCLINED TO DO SO TO THESE APPROPRIATE

[01:05:05]

MUNICIPALITIES PARTICIPATING IN THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS ON THE IMPACT FEES EXCHANGE FOR US PLACING A LAWSUIT ON THE BALLOT SO THIS JUST ON THE VIEW TO CONSIDER.

THANK YOU MR. GREENWAY. THAT IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITIES BUT MY GENERAL IMPRESSION IS THAT THAT THEY'RE SLOW WALK AND SOME OF THEM ARE SLOW WALK IN THIS THING AND THAT'S A PROBLEM.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WE NEED SCHOOLS. WE NEED ALL SORTS OF THINGS FROM IMPACT READ ROADS. WE NEED PARKS. WE NEED LIBRARIES.

WE DO ALL SORTS OF THINGS NEED MONEY TO SPEND ON THOSE THINGS AND SOME OF THEM ARE RELUCTANT AND HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT FOR YEARS DECADES TO SIGN ON TO THESE THINGS.

I'VE NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT. SO I THINK I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO THIS. WE ALSO HAVE TO DECIDE. I THINK IT WAS A MEMBER WHO MENTIONED IT BUT WE HAVE TO DECIDE. MAYBE IT IS.

WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER WE WANT TO PUT IT ON THE 21 22 REFERENDUM AND I CERTAINLY HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO WIN AND AND AND THEN DISCUSSION ABOUT MR. GREENWAY SUGGESTION ABOUT MAKING IT CONTINGENT UPON APPROVING THE THE IMPACT THAT CHAIRMAN YEAH. THANK YOU.

I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE LOSS BECAUSE AS I GOT COUNCIL THE MUNICIPALITIES BEEN ASKING FOR IT. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT. THE QUESTION BECOMES WHEN I'M NOT TOO SURE. WAS BEST AT THIS TIME BUT I WOULD ASK.

I WOULD NOT ASK BUT I WILL SUPPORT THE COMMENT THAT STILL RAISED ABOUT THE STAFF WEIGHING IN ON THIS BECAUSE WE WILL WE WILL BE WE WE TASKED THE STAFF DOING OUR GOAL SETTING A RETREAT TO TO LOOK AT AND TO BRING BACK TO US THE CAPITAL NEEDS FOR US FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS AND MEANS OF WAYS OF FUNDING THAT. SO IN MY MIND THE THE TRANSPORTATION REFERENDUM, THE LAST REFERENDUM AND OTHER MEANS OF RAISING MONEY 8 PERCENT ETC ETC. SALARY TIES INTO ALL OF THE TOTAL NEEDS FOR BEFORE COUNTY FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS.

AND HOW DOES THIS FIT INTO THAT SCHEDULE? THAT'S WHERE I AM AND WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE CLARIFICATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD. BUT I WOULD MOVE OUR SUPPORT MOVING THIS FORWARD AT THIS TIME. THANKS, MICHAEL.

ANYBODY ELSE? I'LL JUST HAVE ONE HAND ON. YES, SIR.

THANK YOU. THE ONE THING I WOULD ADD IS SORT OF WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. JUST BECAUSE WE CAN. DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD JUST BECAUSE SOME OF THE PEOPLE AROUND US HAVE 8 AND 9 PERCENT SALES DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD BE DOING THE SAME. A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE ARE MOVING TO THIS AREA BECAUSE OF OUR TAXES BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH LOWER THAN THE AREAS ARE COMING FROM.

I JUST SAY WE SHOULD TAKE CAUTION ON THAT AND BE CAREFUL. JUST BECAUSE OTHER SURROUNDING AREAS ARE DOING IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULD. I THINK JASPER THEIR PROPERTY TAXES 6 PERCENT ALL THE TIME BY THE YEAR FIRST IT'S YOUR SECOND HOME.

YOUR FIRST HOME. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU KNOW IT RUNS BETTER THAN BEFORE COUNTY. SO I JUST THINK WE SHOULD BE CAUTION TO THAT.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT PRIMARY RESIDENTS JASPER COUNTY PAYS 6 PERCENT? ISN'T THEIR PROPERTY TAXES 6 PERCENT AND JASPER AND BEAUFORT COUNTY IS FOR I THINK YOU MIGHT BE GETTING CONFUSING SALES TAX WITH WITH THE I UNDERSTAND I'M JUST USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF SAYING RAISING TAXES DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN THAT IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

>> THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. BUT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THAT SALES TAX WHEN THEY CASH OUT. OK. GOT.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? THIS IS THIS IS NOT RE ADDING ANOTHER TAX. OUR TRANSPORTATION. TAX IS ABOUT TO COME OFF AND THIS WOULD JUST BE REPLACING THAT. IT WOULD NOT INCREASE OUR TAX BASE. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. ANYBODY ELSE? I DO WANT TO TALK. YES, SIR. MR. DAWSON.

I. I THINK THE PLOT THAT IS MISSING IN THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION. NO ONE'S TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT ONCE WE IMPLEMENT THIS AND IF IT PASSES THEN IT IT IT IT STAYS ON. I MEAN IT'S NOT LIKE THE CAPITAL SALES TAX WHERE WE SET OFF FOR MAYBE A THREE YEAR FOUR YEAR TERM.

AM I CORRECT? YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. >> YES.

[01:10:01]

IF WE ARE IF WE ON COUNTY COUNCIL WERE APPROACHED TO PUT ON A REFERENDUM TO REMOVE IT, THEN WE'LL TAKE THAT UP JUST LIKE WE'RE TAKING THIS UP. YEAH.

COUNCIL MEMBER ROBIN WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING. OK.

I'M SORRY I CAN'T HEAR YEAH. I WOULD SAY THIS A COUPLE OF THINGS I I I DON'T VIEW THIS AS REPLACING THE TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX IN THE SENSE THAT I DON'T SEE THAT WE HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN TO DO THE TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX AGAIN.

IF WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS ALL THE ROADS NEEDS THAT WE HAVE. SECONDLY, THE POINT IS MADE THIS DOES GO ON FOREVER. THE MECHANISM TO REMOVE IS SO UNWIELDY THAT IT DID NOBODY WOULD EVER REMOVE IT. SO IT IS PERMANENT AND THEREFORE IT BECOMES THE SINGLE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF BEAUFORT COUNTY ACTIVIST.

>> I DON'T I DON'T AGREE. IT IS NOW WE PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE IS A METHODOLOGY IN THE STATUTE TO REMOVE IT. MY POINT WAS THAT IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE.

MAYBE WE COULD ASK STAFF TO WALK US THROUGH WHAT IT IS BUT I THINK THERE IS A HIGH POTENTIAL HIGH NUMBER OF PEOPLE FROM PETITION STANDPOINT TO GET IT ON THE BALLOT AND I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU REMOVE IT AND TO GET WHATEVER THAT PERCENTAGE IS IN THE TEN 2015 15 PERCENT OF THE ELECTORATE HAS TO ASKED TO HAVE IT BE REMOVED.

NOW WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, STU, IS YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE BUT THE WAY LOST WORKS IS WHAT EVER YOU COLLECT IN TAXES 71 PERCENT OF IT HAS TO BE REBATED AS TAX RELIEF. SO I DON'T FOLLOW THE LOGIC THAT IT IS THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE WELL. BUT THEN MAYBE I MISSTATED SLIGHTLY JOE MY SENSE WAS THAT IF YOU'RE TAKING YOU FOR ADDING 40 50 MILLION A YEAR FOREVER IT BECOMES A LARGE NUMBER.

NOW RELATIVE TO THE TAX RELIEF COMING OFF, IT'S NEVER BEEN REALLY CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT ALWAYS ACCRUES TO THE PEOPLE OVER TIME. TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MORE OF ANOTHER REVENUE STREAM AND MOST ENTITIES INCLUDING OURSELVES WILL JUST GO SPEND.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE MECHANISM IS THAT GUARANTEES THAT IT GOES BACK AS A TAX RELIEF BUT I PROBABLY NEED TO BE EDUCATED ON THAT. YEAH I I AND THANK YOU, MR.

PASHMAN. >> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE CHRIS RISK DO YOU HAVE.

I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CONVERSATION CONVERSATION NOW IF WE COULD GET A WALK THROUGH OF EXACTLY WHAT THAT REPEAL WOULD LOOK LIKE AND THE VARIOUS STEPS, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. YEAH, THERE THERE IS A PRESENTATION THAT WAS DONE BEFORE SOME LOKO THAT WE CAN GET HOLD OF SO THAT WE CAN SHOW COUNCIL EXACTLY THE LAW EXACTLY HOW IT GOES INTO PLACE AND EXACTLY HOW IT WOULD COME ABOUT AND IF IT IS TO BE REMOVED THE EXACT PROCESS THAT REMOVES IT AS WELL AS WHAT THE VARIOUS LOST TAXES ARE YOU KNOW WHO'S DOING IT AROUND THE 46 COUNTIES IN THE STATE.

SO ERIC, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET THAT, DON'T YOU? NOW WE'LL GET THAT AND SEND IT OUT EVERYONE AND YEAH. PROVIDED COMPENSATION WE'LL BE WE'LL BE BETTER PREPARED.

IT COUNTS IF YOU WANT US TO TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE REPEAL MECHANISM AND DO THAT PRESENTATION WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING.

ONE OF THE THINGS MIGHT ALSO POINT OUT IS THAT YOU KNOW WITH REGARDS TO SALES TAX ISSUES REGARDLESS OF WHAT I'VE OR WHETHER IT BE TRANSPORTATION OR ABOLISHED OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

THERE IS A DEMAND FOR SERVICES THAT ALWAYS EXIST IN A JURISDICTION AND THERE IS GONNA BE ALWAYS AND DEMAND FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WITH REGARDS TO LAWS, ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES I SEE IS THAT THOSE WHO OWN PROPERTY HERE IN THE COUNTY STAND TO BENEFIT. AND I WE CAN ALL DEBATE AS TO WHAT HOW HOW SIGNIFICANT THE BENEFIT WOULD BE WHILE THOSE FOLKS COME IN FROM OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY.

HERE ON TOURISM VACATION SPENDING MONEY IN OUR JURISDICTION AND BUYING THINGS OR ASSISTING THE FULL TIME RESIDENTS AND PROVIDING SERVICES THEM PAY EM FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE DEMANDED BY OUR RESIDENTS AND BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING HERE TO VISIT. SO TO ME IT IS A GREAT BALANCE .

I MEAN I THINK KURT WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM.

YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. AS TO THE TWO QUESTIONS, I CAN ANSWER THEM RIGHT NOW.

THE IN ORDER TO RESCIND THE TAX THERE HAS TO BE A PETITION OF 15 PERCENT OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE COUNTY PRESENTED TO COUNTY COUNCIL COUNTY COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE AN

[01:15:01]

AUTOMATIC MECHANISM TO PUT THE REFERENDUM ON TO TAKE THE TAX AWAY.

IT HAS TO BE DONE ONLY ON THE REQUEST OF 15 PERCENT OF THE ELECTORS AND THEN IT'S SIMPLY ANOTHER REFERENDUM AND IT'S DONE IN NOVEMBER. SO THAT'S HOW THAT WOULD WORK.

AND AS FAR AS THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE MONEY GOES TO THE PROPERTY TAX CREDIT FUND, 71 PERCENT OF THE COLLECTIONS GO TO THE PROPERTY TAX CREDIT FUND WHICH IS EXACTLY AS IT SOUNDS IT MUST BE GIVEN IN PROPERTY TAX RELIEF. I MEAN TWENTY NINE PERCENT OF THE COLLECTIONS GO TO WHAT'S CALLED THE COUNTY MUNICIPAL REVENUE FUND WHICH IS USED BY THE COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITIES FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS. SIMPLE THOSE TWO POINTS ARE

SIMPLE. >> OUR QUESTION IS THAT BASICALLY WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT I MEAN JUST FOR ROUGH NUMBERS WE'D HAVE TO GET ROUGHLY 30000 THOUSAND PEOPLE ON A ON A ON A PETITION TO SAY WE WANT TO REPEAL A BAN. IT GOES TO REFERENDUM.

THE QUESTION IS WHAT DOES THE PETITION LOOK LIKE? IS IT AS SIMPLE AS FORM PUT UP ON THE COUNTY WEB SITE AND PEOPLE GO IN AND SIGN IT? OR IS THIS A SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE HAVE TO GO DOOR TO DOOR AND GET PHYSICAL SIGNATURES AND THEN HAVE THEM VERIFIED AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING? BECAUSE I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO STEVE'S POINT ABOUT IT BEING AN UNWIELDY PROCESS AND THAT CERTAINLY WOULD LEND ITSELF TO A MORE DIFFICULT REPEAL.

YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S A IT WOULD BE A MORE OF THE DOOR TO DOOR PROCESS BECAUSE IT SAYS THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS. SO THE PERSON HAS TO BE FOUND TO BE A QUALIFIED ELECTOR IF THEIR SIGNATURES VALID. I HAVE ANOTHER REALLY STUPID QUESTION I'M SORRY THE DOOR DOOR PROCESS HOW WOULD THAT WORK ON SOMEWHERE LIKE HILTON HEAD WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT IS GATED BE DIFFICULT? MM HMM.

WELL, I'M GOING TO WEIGH IN ON THIS. I THINK IF PEOPLE WILL HAVE AN OPERA IF WE PASS THERE IF THE IF THE BOGUS PASSED THIS THEN THEY WILL IT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR WE THINK IT'S EFFECTIVE OR NOT.

AND I FEEL PRETTY SURE THAT IF THE VAST MAJORITY OR EVEN AS MINIMAL MAJORITY THINK THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD DEAL THAT THEY DON'T WON'T HAVE ANY TROUBLE GETTING GETTING A SIGNATURE SIGN PEOPLE IN THAT GATED COMMUNITIES CAN GET THEIR SIGNATURE SIGN AND PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY CAN GET THERE SUCH AS THEIR SIGNATURE SIGN.

SO I DON'T I DON'T SEE GATED COMMUNITY BEING AN ISSUE BECAUSE I'VE SEEN A LOT OF SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE IN GATED COMMUNITIES GET SIGNATURES NOT A BIG DEAL.

SO I GUESS I'M CUNNINGHAM ABOUT THE SIGNATURE THING. >> I CAN TELL YOU GUYS FROM CAMPAIGNING THIS LAST YEAR AND GOING DOOR TO DOOR THAT ANYTIME YOU ARE GETTING ANYBODY TO SIGN UP SELL OR RECEIVE EMAILS, YOU'RE GETTING INFORMATION ON THEM.

IT IS CONSIDERED SOLICITING. SO WHETHER IT'S GATED OR NOT. THE ONLY TIME YOU ARE ALLOWED TO GO DOOR DAWN IS NOT CONSIDERED LISTENING. IF YOU WERE GIVING OUT INFO BUT IF WE WERE TRYING TO COLLECT ANY TYPE OF SIGNATURE E-MAIL OR INFORMATION IT DOES FORM THE SOLICITING CATEGORY WHICH MOST NEIGHBORHOODS IN COUNTY DO NOT ALLOW.

>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE PEOPLE GATED COMMUNITIES CAN'T GO AROUND TO GET SIGNATURES

FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS? >> IT DOES FALL INTO SOLICITATIONS AS WHAT I'M SAYING. SO IF A NEIGHBOR WANTED TO COMPLAIN THEY WOULD GET INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY BYLAWS WHATEVER IT IS I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THEY WON'T ALLOW THEM THERE THEIR MEMBERS TO GO THEIR RESIDENTS TO GO AROUND AND KNOCK ON EACH OTHER'S DOORS IF YOU'RE A RESIDENT. BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S FINE. OH MAN.

MAY I SUGGEST THAT WE SEE IF WE CAN MOVE THIS TO COUNCIL NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, THAT WE HAVE A PRESENTATION READY SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT WHAT LOST IS ALL ABOUT. NUMBER THREE THAT WE TIE IT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS FOR IMPACT FEES AND THEN WE MAKE THE DECISION IF IT'S GOING TO BE ON ON A REFERENDUM IN THIS NOVEMBER. AND NUMBER FOUR, IT IS THEN UP TO THE MUNICIPALITIES, NOT US.

WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE. IF WE'RE GOING TO PASS IT TO PUT IT ON A REFERENDUM, IT WILL BE UP TO THE MUNICIPALITIES TO GAIN THE FAVOR OF PASSAGE OF THIS THROUGH VARIOUS CITIZEN GROUPS. THANK YOU, MR. PESSIMIST. SO WE CAN THE PART ABOUT MAKING IT CONTINGENT UPON THE PASSAGE OF THE IMPACT FEE MEMBER WHAT ARE THEY MEMO TO USE? ERIK THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY THE MINISTER WHICH ARE THE IGAD OR AMMO USE IGAD OKAY. IDEAS WE'LL HAVE TO. I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT IS NOT IN THERE IS NOT IN THE LANGUAGE AS OCCURRED THE YES AND THAT

WOULDN'T THAT WOULDN'T FIT IN THIS ORDINANCE. >> IT WOULD BE SIMPLY A MATTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS. I THINK IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO BE PUT IN THIS ORDINANCE.

[01:20:04]

WE JUST NEED TO COMMUNICATE THAT TO THEM I THINK AND SAY HEY, WE'RE DOING THIS FOR YOU NOW DO THIS FOR US. OK, WHAT ABOUT WHAT ABOUT THE YEAR OF THE REFERENDUM 20 21 VERSUS 22? SHOULD THAT BE IN THE ORDINANCE OR IS THAT IT IS IN THE ORDER?

>> IT IS IN NEW YORK. IT'S ALREADY IN THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THAT.

>> IT'S ALL RIGHT AND WE WANT IT SAYS YES. OK.

OH GOOD. SO GOOD. IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT IF YOU ADOPT THIS IT'LL BE ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER OF THIS NOVEMBER.

EXCELLENT. OK. THANK YOU, JOE FOR THAT NICE SUMMARY. IT WAS EXCELLENT. ANYBODY ELSE BECAUSE I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL A QUESTION ON THIS UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS.

I'M HEARING THAT NOW THANKS TO OUR CLERK TO COUNCIL I CAN NOW SEE EVERYBODY.

AND IT WASN'T HER FAULT, BY THE WAY. IT WAS MY FAULT.

SO I'M GOING TO CALL A QUESTION AND I'M GOING TO START ON MY UPPER LEFT WHICH IS MR.

PACIFIST. HOW DO YOU VOTE ON THIS OR YES. >> I MCKELLEN.

NO, MR. DAWSON, NO. MR. CUNNINGHAM NOW MISS HOWARD .

YES. MR. HERBERT. NO.

MR. RODMAN? NO. MR. GLOVER.

YES. OK. MR. LAWSON.

MARK LAWSON. YES. THAT'S ONLY EIGHT PEOPLE THAT ALL WE HAVE HERE. DID I MISS SOMEBODY GOT TEN AND YOU NEED TO VOTE.

>> WELL THERE NINE VOTES SO FAR. I JUST NEED YOURS.

OH, I VOTE YES. AND WHO ELSE HASN'T VOTED? BRYAN'S NOT HERE.

THAT'S IT. IT'S TIED 5 5. OK.

ALL RIGHT. TIED 5 5. SO THAT MEANS IT FAILS ME.

IT FAILS TO MOVE FORWARD TO COUNCIL BECAUSE OF A 5 5 TIE. I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

AM I RIGHT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OK, SO NOW WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER 13 WHICH IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SETTLEMENT

[13. AN ORDINANCE TO CALL FOR A REFERENDUM TO ALLOW THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA TO VOTE TO RETAIN THE COUNCIL-ADMINISTRATOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT OR CHANGE TO THE COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT]

>> YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT? WE DID THAT ONE WEEK.

WE ALREADY DID THAT. AND THE NEXT ISSUE IS A WAY FOR THEM TO CHANGE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. ITEM 13 WAS WRONG. I MUST HAVE THE WRONG OH, HERE IT IS. YOU'RE RIGHT. I HAD THE I HAD THE OLD AGENDA . I'M SURE THAT THE NEW AGENDA IS AN ORDINANCE TO CALL FOR A REFERENDUM TO ALLOW THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS BE RECOUNTED CAROLINA TO GO TO RETAIN COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENT OR CHANGE GOVERNMENT OR CHANGE TO THE COUNCIL YOU MORE GOVERNMENT. I NEED A MOTION ON THAT PLEASE . I'LL MAKE THE MOTION PASS IMMIGRATION MOTION TO HAVE A

SECOND SECOND MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> ALL RIGHT.

WE ARE NOW IN DISCUSSION. I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING HERE BECAUSE I'VE HEARD CRITICISMS OF US, NOT JUST ME BUT ALL OF US ABOUT THIS FOR NOT BEING MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHY WE WANT THIS. I'M NOT A SLANDER AND LIBEL ATTORNEY BUT I KNOW THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL ISSUE HERE. YOU CAN'T. YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU SAY. SO I DON'T MAKE AN OCCURRED IF YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS OR NOT. THAT'S FINE. I JUST I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ON WHAT WE WHAT WE SAY. BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST SOMETHING I WANT TO COMMENT ON ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. MR. MACALLAN WAS THIS MORNING. IN THE RECENT PAST AND WHAT WAS

THE OUTCOME OF THAT? >> I WAS IN IT DID NOT PASS AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I MADE THE COMMENT THAT I DID BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORTED IT AND WERE UPSET WHEN IT DIDN'T PASS TENDED TO BLAME US FOR NOT BEING MORE SPECIFIC AS TO WHY EXACTLY WHY WE WANT THIS TO PASS. DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN THAT VOTE WAS TAKEN AND WHAT THE PERCENTAGES WERE? I DO NOT. ANYBODY? WELL, IT HASN'T BEEN ON THE BALLOT FOR. IT'S FOR MANY YEARS HAS IT AT LEAST SIX OR SEVEN BELIEVE IT WAS 2011 BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE THAT SOUNDS RIGHT.

DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM? YEAH I THINK IT WAS BACK THEN AND THEN WE ACTUALLY VOTED TO

[01:25:05]

PUT IT ON THE BALLOT IN 18 AND THEN WE TOOK IT OFF BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE REFERENDUM FATIGUE BECAUSE WE HAD THE TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX ON THERE.

SO YES, WE WE VOTED TWICE TO PUT IT ON. AND ONCE THE BACK AND OFF AGAIN DOES IT SAY IT IS THE ORDINANCE SAYING THAT IT WILL BE ON THE TWENTY ONE BALLOT AND WE HAVE

TO STICK THAT IN THERE? IT IS IN A SCHEDULE FOR 21. >> OK.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

YEAH I DO. YEAH. AND MAYBE SOMEBODY CORRECT ON THE DATES BUT YET IF WE DID IT IN 20 TO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT WOULD BE THE TIME THAT THE WHILE THEIR TERMS RUN I BELIEVE UNTIL TWENTY THREE MEMBER. NO NO NO NO.