[1. CALL TO ORDER ]
[00:00:09]
. >> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF BEAUFORT COUNTY MONDAY APRIL 18TH AT 4:00 OR 5:00 P.M. TO ORDER.
WOULD YOU ALL RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE? >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL PUBLIC NOTICE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED POSTED AND DISTRIBUTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION ACT. >> I HAVE TAKEN ATTENDANCE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE IN CHAMBERS AND ONLINE. WE DO HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS SUMMERVILLE SERVICE JOHN MCKELLEN AND FLEW SELLING OUR ONLINE. ALL OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE IN THE CHAMBERS. COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM IS NOT ABLE TO JOIN US SO WE DO HAVE A
[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ]
QUORUM TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF COUNTY COUNCIL. MAY I HAVE A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA? MR. RUDMAN MADE THE MOTION AND MR. DAWSON MADE THE SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS? THE AGENDA WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT ANY OBJECTIONS. ARE THERE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS ?[6. THIRD READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT YEAR FISCAL YEAR 2022. FISCAL IMPACT- FUNDING WILL BE FROM THE OPERATING SURPLUS OF FISCAL-YEAR 2022 ]
>> NO, SIR, THERE ARE NOT. >> OK. I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION FOR OUR ACTION ITEM WHICH IS A THIRD READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2020. MAY HAVE SUCH MOTION PLEASE PROMOTE MR. SOMERVILLE MAKES THE MOTION. SECOND. SECOND MR. RUDMAN MAKES THE SECOND DISCUSSION. MR. SOMERVILLE, YOU MADE THE MOTION YOU WILL GET TO GO FIRST
AND THEN I SEE MR. FLYNN WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT NEXT. >> WE'RE GOING TO WAIT LONGER
TO WAIT FOR MR. REPLY. I THINK I'LL BE RIGHT. >> NO, YOU MADE THE MOTION MOTION PERSON WHO MAKES THE MOTION GOES FIRST. OKAY.
I'LL VOTE YES. >> OKAY. NO COMMENT.
MR REDMAN, YOU MAKE THE SECOND SO YOU GET TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY, SIR.
>> I'LL JOIN PAUL WITH NO COMMENT. OK.
MR LLEWELLYN. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE ITEMS ON THE PROPERTY ACQUISITION OVER NEW RIBAUT ROAD YOU SEE OUT FROM THE RESOLUTION AND
FROM THE AUTHOR CAUSATION TO SPEND ONE POINT TWO 1 5 OK. >> YOU WANT TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN WHICH IS THE ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN THOUSAND
DOLLARS? >> CORRECT. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT AMENDMENT? I'LL SECOND MR RUDMAN MAKES THE SECOND MR FOLLOWING WHAT IS
YOUR OBJECTION TO THAT SUM OF MONEY? >> WELL WHEN THIS WITH ORIGINALLY ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED THERE REALLY DIDN'T SEEM TO BE A GREAT PLAN.
>> CERTAINLY LOOKING CONFLICT WITH THE IDEA OF PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED BY MY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. I DON'T I DON'T BELIEVE AT ALL THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING. IN FACT I WOULD SUGGEST IT'S PROBABLY BETTER SUITED TO HAVING HOUSING FOR DOCTORS AND NURSES FROM THE HOSPITAL BUILD AND ACQUIRE HOUSES AND PROPERTY IN THAT AREA MAYBE EVEN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT I THINK THAT THE NEAR MARKET TOWARDS TOWARDS LOW AND MODERATE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNDER EVERY TERM THAT THE UMBRELLA TERMS TALKED ABOUT.
>> THIS ISN'T A GREAT LOCATION AND IT'S NOT CLOSE SERVICES THAT WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATED BY PEOPLE WITH LIMITED MOBILITY OR LIMITED TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS.
I THINK IT'S SO FAR FROM FROM GROCERY STORES AND OTHER SERVICES THAT IT WOULD BE
TYPICALLY NECESSARY. >> I THINK THAT WE'D JUST RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES.
I THINK THIS IS JUST THIS IS LIMITED AND IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR A DOCTOR OR FOR A NURSE OR ADMINISTRATOR TO LIVE IN AN AREA BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S GREAT FOR AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE
. >> THANK YOU MR RUDMAN. >> YES.
AND BRYAN, WE MAY HAVE SOME OF THIS DISCUSSION IN YOUR YOUR ABSENCE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THIS WOULD BE FOR HOUSING PEOPLE AT THE AT THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE OF ITS
[00:05:05]
LOCATION. AND MY SENSE OF THIS IS THAT WE ACQUIRE THIS AT A GOOD PRICE AND THEN DIRECT IT AND WHATEVER WE DO WITH THE HOSPITAL SO THEY COULD PICK IT UP AND USE IT FOR THAT HIGHEST AND BEST USE. SO THAT WOULD BE THE REASON FOR US TO BUY THAT.AND I KNOW AT ONE POINT ERIC AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOTTEN TO IT YET BUT YOU'RE GOING OH YOU'LL HAVE SOME DISCUSSION WITH THE HOSPITAL ABOUT WHETHER THEY'D LIKE TO BE
ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT ACQUISITION, OK? >> YES, HOWARD, I AGREE.
COUNCILMAN RODMAN, THE DISCUSSION WE HAD IS ANOTHER MEETING LENDS ITSELF THIS PROPERTY IS IN MY DISTRICT. IT'S VERY FAMILIAR TO THE PROPERTY THAT THE CITY WORKED WITH OTHERS ON RIBAUT ROAD A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THAT YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH WHERE THERE'S EIGHT UNITS ON RIBAUT ROAD AND BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY PCL WE ONLY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN GET IT FOR THIS PRICE.
IT AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED AS MY UNDERSTANDING AND IT'S A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF INFILL AND AS COUNCILMAN RODMAN SAID, WE FEEL LIKE THERE WILL BE PEOPLE AT THE HOSPITAL WHO WOULD BENEFIT AND OTHERS FOR DEVELOPING THIS AND WE HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS WE CAN DO WITHIN IF I MIGHT ASK QUESTIONS BECAUSE YOU KNOW CLEARLY I WASN'T A PARTICULAR MEETING BUT SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THE COUNTY CAN TAKE IT FROM OR CAN ACQUIRE CCL AT A LOWER
PRICE AT A DISCOUNTED PRICE. >> THEREFORE IT SEEMS TO ME TO SEE LIKE GETTING THE FAIR
MARKET VALUE FOR THE PROPERTY THEY'RE GETTING LESS VALUE. >> ZACK THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
SO WE'RE WE OUT ONE END AND THEN TAKE IT FROM THERE. >> I THINK THAT'S THAT'S A SHELL GAME. I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANT TO PARTICIPATING IN AND SECOND OF ALL, EVEN IF THAT WAS EVEN IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, EVEN IF THAT'S PATENTLY UNTRUE, I DON'T KNOW. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE AGAINST TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A PROFIT FROM SOME CITIZEN SOME YEARS OR MAYBE EVEN THE HOSPITAL OUT THERE, A GOVERNMENT AGENCY QUASI DOMINATE. THEY COULD ACQUIRE IT THEMSELVES IF THEY REALLY WANTED IT. I THINK THAT THIS IS THIS IS JUST A COVER FOLKS. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE BEING MANIPULATED, THAT THIS IS THE QUOTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THAT AREA AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S THE
APPROPRIATE PLACE TO DO THAT. >> OK, LET'S GO ROUND AND THEN WE'LL TRY AND ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION A DIFFERENT WAY. MR. >> AND PROBABLY A CLARIFICATION JUST SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON HERE BECAUSE AS FAR AS I KNOW WE HAVE NOT OFFICIALLY APPROVED THE PURCHASE OF THAT PROPERTY OR ACTUALLY WE'RE DOING THIS BY PUTTING THIS INTO THIS ORDINANCE OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE SETTING ASIDE MONEY
ONLY TO APPROVE THE PROPERTY AT A LATER DATE? >> SO THAT'S WHY I NEED YOU ALL AMENDED ON SECOND READING TO ADD THIS ONE POINT TWO MILLION AND A 5 PERCENT COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT TO THE BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT HAD RECEIVED FIRST READING.
>> RIGHT? >> I REMEMBER THAT BUT WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE WE'RE STILL IN THE AT THE TIME WE ARE STILL AND SEEKING SEEKING INFORMATION ON WHAT WE CAN DO WHAT'S THERE. AND SO SO.
SO IF IF I VOTE FOR THIS THEN OR WE ARE WE ARE APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF THAT PROPERTY OR
APPROVING THE PURCHASE. >> YES. WE'LL BE AUTHORIZING US TO SPEND ONE POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS TO PURCHASE THESE PROPERTIES FROM PCL.
YEAH. IF YOU RECALL FROM OUR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO A SECOND READING TCE YALE HAS ALREADY HAD THE APPROVAL OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO US APPROVED BY THE STATE AGENCY THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH. SHORT OF US PURCHASING IT THEY WILL GO BACK THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND HAVE MOST WHAT A APPRAISALS DONE AS I UNDERSTAND IT. AND THEY ARE NOT WILLING TCI IS NOT WILLING TO WAIT WOULD NOT LIKE DOES NOT DESIRE TO WAIT TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO USE THE FUNDING THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE TO THEM THROUGH THE PURCHASE THESE PROPERTIES FOR ANOTHER PROJECT THAT IS A PRIORITY FOR THEM RIGHT NOW. SO THIS IS A TRANSACTION THAT IS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL TO BOTH COUNTY AND THE TCO IN MY OPINION IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN UTILIZE TO DO A AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT WITH IF THAT'S WHAT COUNSEL DESIRES TO DO WE CAN WORK WITH THE HOSPITAL TO SEE IF THEY CAN MAKE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
[00:10:02]
>> THERE IS A LOT OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US FOR THIS PROPERTY IF WE ACQUIRE IT IF WE
DON'T ACQUIRE IT THAT'S OKAY TOO. >> BUT YOU MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY IN MY OPINION TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ACQUISITION OF KEY PROPERTIES THAT ARE CLOSE TO TCO AND HOSPITAL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR TEACHERS AND NURSES IS SOMETHING THAT I HAD A DISCUSSION ON JUST THIS MORNING WITH CHAIRMAN COUNTY COUNCIL WITH WITH ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL TALKING ABOUT WORKFORCE HOUSING BEING NEEDED FOR FOUR TEACHERS
IN ORDER JUST KEEP THEM HERE FOR COUNTY. >> SO THAT'S THAT'S YET BUT THIS WILL AUTHORIZE US TO PROCEED ON WITH THE PURCHASE PROPERTY.
>> YES. OK. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DOES ANSWER THE QUESTION. OK. MR. SUMMERVILLE, I SEE YOUR
HAND IS UP. YEAH. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IF I IF IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING SUPPORTED BY TCO.
THAT'S NUMBER ONE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
OKAY. AND SECONDLY, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF WE PROCEED WITH THIS PURCHASE THAT WE'RE NOT PERMITTED TO DO ANYTHING SPECIFIC WITH IT.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE DON'T HAVE TO SELL IT IN THE HOSPITAL. WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT TO. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.
WE HAVE ALL OUR OPTIONS ARE STILL OPEN. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO ALL RIGHT.
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT AS LONG AS THOSE TWO THINGS ARE CORRECT NUMBER ONE AND THAT IS THAT THIS IS WHAT TCO AWARDS AND NUMBER TWO THAT WE'RE NOT COMMITTING OURSELVES TO ANY PARTICULAR OUTCOME. WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO WITH THIS PROBLEM THAT'S THAT'S YOU ARE
CORRECT ON BOTH OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS. >> WHENEVER YOU GET ONE, I NEED TO BRING UP SOMETHING ABOUT ITEM 3 WHENEVER WE SAY OKAY, WE'LL FINISH THIS ONE.
>> MR. GLOVER, YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK YET. YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS
I SUPPORTED IT. I THINK THE OPPORTUNITY IS DEEPER FOR US TO ACTUALLY PUT
DO SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE COMMITTED TO DOING. >> WE HAVE THAT OPTION WHETHER WE DO THAT OR NOT, IT'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE GLOBAL HOUSING OR WORKFORCE HOUSING OR ANYTHING NATURE. I WOULD TELL YOU I WOULD SAY THAT EVEN IN THE HOSPITAL WITH THE SHORTAGE A SHORTAGE OF NURSES, YOU KNOW, HAVING A SODA FOR THEM TO DO ACTUALLY WORK AT THE HOSPITAL IN SCHOOL OR WHATEVER IS DONE REALLY GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET A FOOT ON THE GROUND AND THEN MOVE FORWARD.
IT'S NOT A PLACE THAT THEY MAY WANT TO STAY FOR A GIVEN STARTED.
THANK YOU. MISS HOWARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? I THINK THIS IS A WIN WIN BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE SOME OPTIONS AND I THINK WE SHOULD
DO IT. >> MR. ACTUALLY THE RIGHT QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN, THEY HAVEN'T REALLY ANSWERED. YOU WILL GET YOUR CHANCE JUST AS SOON AS WE GO THROUGH EVERY YEAR. NOT IN MY OF I'M GOING. MASON ACQUISITION SAVES.
I'M NOT IN ARGUING. BATES I HAVEN'T MADE AN ARGUMENT YET.
I'M ASKING QUESTIONS. WELL YOU WILL HAVE YOUR OPPORTUNITY JUST AS SOON AS
EVERYBODY ELSE HAS HAD THEIR CHANCE TO SPEAK. >> MR. DAWSON I'VE GOT I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT THE AUDIENCE. >> MR. MCKELLEN ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> I HAVE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. >> MR. HERB VERSION AS I UNDERSTAND IT, I'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT LOST IN THE BACK AND FORTH.
I READ AN AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE ORDINANCE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THIS BUT THEY HOPE THE COUNTIES BEGAN INVOLVEMENT.
I DON'T. ULTIMATELY THAT WE SHOULD DO IT.
WE CAN DO. WELL, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD GET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
PRIVATE SECTOR AND TELL US ABOUT THE AMENDMENT. >> OK, NOW MR. FALWELL AND WHAT IS YOUR NEXT QUESTION? DOES THE ADMINISTRATION REMEMBER HOW THIS PROPERTY WAS
ACQUIRED? >> THIS WAS A PROPERTY ACQUIRED THROUGH THE STATE AND AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, CAROLYN YEAH. >> AND AS I UNDERSTAND THE THE STATE REQUIREMENTS ARE THEY CAN SELL IT TO ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY THROUGH STATE APPROVAL WHICH THEY APPROACHED THE
COUNTY TO DO. >> THEY HAD IT APPRAISED. THE COUNTY CAN PURCHASE IT FOR THE ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND TCO HAS A USAGE FOR THAT MONEY IMMEDIATELY AND HAS SOUGHT THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE TO DO THE TRANSACTION AND THE STATE HAS
[00:15:01]
APPROVED THE TRANSACTION. OK. SO LET ME CLARIFY MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY. THE CCL PETITIONED THE STATE FINANCE OR TO ACQUIRE THOSE FIVE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE DUTY TO THEIR TO THEIR SCHOOL CAMPUS OR SOME REASON THAT THE STATE CONSIDERED TO BE A LEGITIMATE REASON AND SO THEY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY.>> AND NOW THEY'VE CHANGED THEIR MIND AND WANTS TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO BEAUFORT COUNTY FOR A PROFIT. CLEARLY IT'S A PROFIT BECAUSE THEY USED THEIR OWN MONEY.
YOU'RE SAYING THEY USE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA MONEY IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THEIR OWN.
>> SO NOW YOU FOR COUNTY WILL BE BUYING THAT PROPERTY FOR 1 2 5 MILLION DOLLAR ONE POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS AND THE STATE HAS APPROVED IT AND WE'RE WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE A VERY FISHY WAY OF GETTING MONEY CCL THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE NORMAL WAY OF OPERATING IN THEIR NORMAL WAY OF ACQUIRING MONEY AND I DON'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN SO.
>> OK. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, ANDREW, THAT HAS GONE THROUGH THE EXACT PROCESS FOR SELLING STATE PROPERTY THAT OF ANOTHER TRANSACTION WENT THROUGH RECENTLY WITH THE SALE OF A PIECE PROPERTY IMPORT ROYAL THAT THE STATE AGENCY HAD TO APPROVE THE SALE OF THAT STATE PROPERTY AND THAT IT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IF I MIGHT ARGUE WITH YOU IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DIFFERENT THING BECAUSE YOU'VE RECOUNT HERE EXCUSE ME THE DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL NEEDS THAT USE THAT
PROPERTY LIKE 30 OR 40 YEARS. >> AND SO IT WAS REALLY ACCESS PROPERTY.
THIS IS PROPERTY THAT'S NEVER BEEN USED. IT WAS ACQUIRED FOR SOME PURPOSE THAT CLEARLY THE STATE BELIEVED WAS VALID AND YOU KNOW AND THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S THE STATE'S ISSUE. BUT NOW THEY'RE GETTING BEAT ACCOUNTING AND GOLF AND I'M AND I'M REFERRING TO COUNCIL MEMBERS LOAN IS THE APPROVAL PROCESS THAT PCL HAD TO GO THROUGH IS THE SAME AS THAT OTHER DOES THAT OTHER PROPERTY NOT NOT THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE TWO PROPERTIES YOU'RE YOU'RE 100 PERCENT CORRECT. >> THAT IS TWO SEPARATE THINGS
WE WERE APPROACHED WITH THIS IDEA. >> WE THOUGHT IT HAD SOME MERIT AND VALUE. WE'VE DISCUSSED COUNTLESS ALONG TWO OCCASIONS YOU ALL ASK US TO GO BACK AND DO SOME EVALUATION OF THE FIRST TIME WE DID IT AT THE LAST MEETING WE PRESENTED A CONCEPT PLAN THAT SHOWS THAT THERE COULD BE THIRTY SIX CON CONDO OR TOWNHOME TYPE UNITS BUILT ON THESE FIVE PROPERTIES HAVE REASONABLE ASSURANCES FROM THE CITY OF BEAUFORT SAYS THEY ARE THE ONES THAT APPROACHED THE PHOTOS THAT DID THE CONCEPT PLAN ABOUT THE PROPERTIES TO DO IT AND WE SHARED THAT WITH COUNSEL AND COUNSEL VOTED IN THE LAST MOVE MEETING TO AMEND THE BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THESE PROPERTIES ON SECOND READING THE ONLY THE ONLY COMMENT THAT I HEARD FROM THAT MEETING CAME FROM COUNCIL MEMBER CUNNINGHAM AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I FULLY SUPPORT IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO IS THAT WE NOT LOOK AT THIS AS A RENTAL SITUATION IF WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH SOMEONE TO DEVELOP THESE PROPERTIES FOR WORKFORCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT IT BE DESIGNED AND SET UP SO THAT FOLKS CAN ACTUALLY BE INVESTING IN THEIR FUTURE AND ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING TO PURCHASE AND NOT RENT.
>> OK. >> SO WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW TO REMOVE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN WHICH IS THE SUM OF ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS TO ACQUIRE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO TCO. SO MR. LLEWELLYN, YOU MADE THE
MOTION YOU GET TO VOTE FIRST. >> I VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO REMOVE MR. RUDMAN.
NO, MR. SOMERVILLE, NO. MR. GLOVER NO. MR. HER VERSION?
MR. LAWSON. >> MARK BOSTON. NO.
MR. MCKELLEN NO. >> MR. DAWSON. NO.
AND THE CHAIR VOTES NO. WE HAVE EIGHT. NO.
TWO? YES. THAT MOTION DOES NOT PASS.
WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE ITEMS TOTALING ITEMS ONE
[00:20:05]
THROUGH SEVEN. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE A MOTION PROPERLY MADE IN SECOND ROUND TABLE. I MAKE A MOTION TO BUY FORGET THE QUESTION AND VOTE ON NUMBER SEVEN SEPARATELY. AND MY REASON FOR THAT MOTION IF I MAY ADDRESS A MOTION IS BECAUSE I'M FULLY ABLE AND REALLY WILLING TO VOTE FOR EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE LIST.
I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE BALLOT EXPENSES THAT I'M NOT WILLING TO SACRIFICE MY INTEGRITY TO
VOTE FOR FURTHER. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. >> OK, THAT'S A VALID MOTION IS TO SEPARATE THE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 AND 7. AS IT STANDS ALONE.
SO THAT'S THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION?
A SECOND. >> MR. GLOVER MAKES THE SECOND OK.
MR. FLOOR WELLING HAS STATED HIS CASE AS TO WHY HE BELIEVES HE WILL WOULD PREFER TO DO IT THIS WAY BECAUSE HE FULLY SUPPORTS THE OTHER SIX BUT NOT ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
MR. GLOVER, YOUR COMMENTS? NO COMMENT. I JUST GIVEN HIM THE RIGHT TO
VOTE AGAINST THE GOOD. THAT'S ABOUT ALL GOOD. >> MS.
>> HOWARD. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. NO.
RIBAUT NOT THE SEPARATE. >> MR. DAWSON NO COMMENT. >> MR LAWSON.
>> NO REASON WE CAN'T DO THAT. MR MCKELLEN NO COMMENT. >> MR. HARVEY SHINE NO FURTHER
MR SOMERVILLE PROMINENT OK. >> EVERYBODY HAS HAD THEIR CHANCE MR FUELING SELLING YOUR VOTE I VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO BUY GO MR. GLOVER YES ,MR. SOMERVILLE.
MR. RUDMAN. YES. MS. HOWARD. NO. MR. LAWSON.
WORK. WATSON YES. MR. MCKELLEN.
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE. >> SIX. AND I WILL VOTE YES.
IT SUCCEEDS. OK. WE HAVE SEVEN.
YES. AND THREE NO. THE MOTIONS ARE SPLIT.
OK, SO WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION WHICH IS NOW TO HAVE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 SEPARATE FROM ITEM 7. SO WE WILL TAKE ONE THROUGH SIX AS A RECOMMENDATION.
THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS MADE BY WHERE'D I WRITE THAT DOWN? >> OK.
I WOULD CONTEND THAT IT'S BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT THERE'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE AN
ARGUMENT ON I WANT TO THANKS. >> RIGHT. I WANT TO MAKE TWO CLARIFICATIONS. OK, GO AHEAD. THAT YOU ALL MAY NEED TO ACT ON. SO TECHNICALLY FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE FOR THE COST OF LIVING
ADJUSTMENT OUR PATENT PERIOD BEGAN ON SATURDAY, APRIL 16. >> IF YOU ALL WOULD DESIRE FOR THIS TO REFLECT IN THE MAY 6TH PAY CHECK THEN YOU ALL WILL NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT OF 5 PERCENT TAKES EFFECT ON SATURDAY APRIL 16TH
AND NOT TODAY BECAUSE THAT WAS THE START OF OUR PAYROLL. >> IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD OPPOSE THAT IF YOU DON'T DO THAT THEN WHAT THAT MEANS? YES, GRATTON WAIT TO WATCH TWO MORE WEEKS AND I UNDERSTAND REFLECTED IN THEIR PAYCHECK. RIGHT.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD OBJECT THAT INCLUDE THE BEGINNING PAY DATE OF APRIL THE
16TH? >> I SEE NO OBJECTION. SO THAT WILL BE DULY NOTED.
>> ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM IS I WANT EVERYONE TO BE AWARE THAT THIS 5 PERCENT COLA DOES NOT COVER FIRE DISTRICT EMPLOYEES. THEY ARE PREPARED. SOME OF THEM ARE PROPOSING IN THEIR BUDGET TO DO A 5 PERCENT. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE WORKED SO HARD OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS THROUGH THE PANDEMIC. THEY PROVIDE A GREAT SERVICE TO OUR CITIZENRY AND PUBLIC SAFETY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE TO COVER THEM FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FISCAL YEAR WHICH IS ABOUT FIVE PAY PERIODS, IT WOULD BE SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 400 TO 500 THOUSAND DOLLARS ADDITIONAL MONEY WE HAVE THAT IN THE SURPLUS YOU ORG COULD MAKE A
[00:25:01]
MOTION TO INCLUDE THE 5 PERCENT ADJUSTMENT FOR THE FIRED DISTRICT SO THAT IF THEY WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE AND GO AHEAD AND GIVE THEIR EMPLOYEES THAT 5 PERCENT INCREASE.NOW THAT THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THEM AND IT WOULD BE COVERED BY THE COUNTY BY THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT AND THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO TAKE ANY MONEY OUT OF THEIR OUT OF THEIR
CURRENT BUDGET. >> THAT ONE WOULD REQUIRE SOMEONE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO DO THAT. IS THERE ANYONE WISHES TO MAKE SUCH AN AMENDMENT THAT MAKES THE AMENDMENT OK? MISS HOWARD MAKES THE MOTION AND MR. RUDMAN MAKES THE SECOND POINT. I'LL TAKE THE SECOND BUT POINT OF ORDER.
TYPICALLY IF WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS MATERIAL WITHIN THAT TAKES US BACK TO SECOND READING. THIS SOUNDS TO ME DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT THIS IS MATERIAL.
SO I THINK WE EITHER HAVE TO HANDLE NOW SEPARATELY OR WHETHER WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO SECOND READING. THANK YOU ALL CAN. I THINK YOU ALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO DOG ME AND ANY TIME I KNOW MY POLICY IN THE PAST. YOU ALL HAVE TAKEN THAT POSITION THAT IT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO CENTER READING. BUT IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO SECOND READING IN ORDER TO DO THIS THEN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION WOULD NOT
RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO IT. >> BECAUSE WE WANT TO GET THIS DONE FOR THE 4 OUR REGULAR EMPLOYEES. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S THAT BIG DEAL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TO THE FIRE DISTRICT CHIEFS. BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THAT IN CASE YOU ALL DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT. I THINK IT WOULD BE A NICE GESTURE IF WE DID DO THAT.
>> THE FILM DISAGREE. I WASN'T ARGUING ABOUT THE OUR IMPLY GET RIGHT GET GOING AND WHETHER THIS. WE'VE GOT TO GO BACK TO SECOND READING.
THEN I WOULD PREFER WE NOT INCLUDE THIS AND THAT AND DO AN AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMAN RUDMAN I DISCUSSED THIS WITH ERIC A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF TIME.
>> I THINK THE AMOUNT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ABOUT ABOUT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS WHICH IS PROBABLY LESS THAN HALF A MILLION DOLLARS WHICH IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL IN THE NEWLY BIFURCATED MOTION WHICH IS EVERYTHING EXCEPT THAT ITEM
SEVEN TOTAL MARKETING. >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S DULY MOTIONS IN SECOND.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER WHO WISHES TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE AMENDMENT TO ADD THE FIRE DISTRICTS IN THEIR I SEE NONE. I WILL ASSUME THAT WITHOUT OBJECTION THE AMOUNT OF MONEY NECESSARY WILL BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT.
DO WE HAVE AN ACCURATE FIGURE AT THIS POINT IN TIME? PAREKH INDICATED TO ME PREVIOUSLY THAT HE THINKS IT WILL BE LESS THAN HALF A MILLION BUT IF COUNCIL WILL AUTHORIZE UP TO HALF A MILLION THAT SHOULD COVER IT AND AUTHORIZE US TO DO IT.
>> THEY FIRE DISTRICTS MAY NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. THEY MAY NOT DO BECAUSE THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT HOW IT MIGHT AFFECT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO WITH THEIR OWN RECRUITING AND RETENTION. BUT I LIKE HOW THAT AVAILABLE. THEY WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF IT. >> SO IS THIS A ARE WE GOING TO TRANSFER FUNDS FOR THESE PAY PERIODS LEADING UP TO JULY 1ST OR ARE WE JUST AUTHORIZING THEM TO DO IT OUT OF THEIR OWN FUNDS WHICH IS WHAT THEY NORMALLY USE? WE WILL COVER THE 5 PERCENT FOR ALL THEM AND WE WILL TRANSFER FUNDS TO THEM FOR JUST BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THE FISCAL
YEAR. >> THAT'S FIVE PERIODS I THINK. OK.
SO THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED WITHOUT OBJECTION. WE'RE BACK TO ITEMS ONE THROUGH SIX WITH THOSE DULY NOTED CHANGES. IS THERE ANY ONE WHO WOULD BE IN OBJECTION TO ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 WITH THE 2 STATED CHANGES OF THE PAY PERIOD STARTING ON THE 16TH OF THIS MONTH RATHER THAN HAVING TO WAIT AND THE INCLUSION OF UP TO A HALF MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE 5 PERCENT INCREASE FOR THE FIRE DISTRICTS SEEING NO OBJECTION.
>> ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 WILL BE APPROVED. WE'RE AT ITEM NUMBER 7 WHICH STANDS ALONE. I WILL CALL THE ROLL REGARDING THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.
THE ORIGINAL ITEM WAS DONE BY MR. SOMERVILLE. SO MR. SOMERVILLE YOU WILL VOTE FIRST ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AT ONE POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS. CORRECT.
I VOTE YES. >> THE SECOND WAS DONE BY MR. RUDMAN.
MR. HERBERT SHUN NOW. >> MS. >> HOWARD.
[00:30:04]
YES, MR. LAWSON. >> LAWSON NO. MR. MCCLELLAN? YES. MR. DAWSON? YES.
MR. FLO? >> NO. THE CHAIR SAYS YES.
WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN. YES AND THREE NO.
AND ITEM NUMBER SEVEN PASSES. IS THERE ANY FURTHER ITEMS TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL? ONE THING I NOW KNOW YES, WE WE HAVE WE'VE BEEN HAVING SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SUMMER CHILD CARE. SO LAST WEEK I AUTHORIZED OUR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO HOLD SUMMER CAMPS FROM 730 TO 530 EACH DAY DURING THE SUMMER FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES.
WE ARE LIMITING IT TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES ONLY THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE STAFFING TO DO THAT NEXT YEAR. WE HOPE WE CAN MAKE SUCH PROGRAMING AVAILABLE TO OUTSIDE EMPLOYEES. I DO WANT TO RECORD I WOULD WANT TO MAKE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT
TO YOU ALL. >> THE SUPPORT HAS BEEN OVERWHELMING FROM THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR THIS IS 30 DOLLARS A WEEK WITH THEM WITH THE EMPLOYEES NEEDED TO PROVIDE SNACKS AND LUNCHES FOR THEIR CHILDREN EACH DAY. BUT WE'RE GOING TO HOLD ON AT THE CHARLES DE ACCOUNTS. WE HAVE CHARLES LAMB BROWN HERE AND THE BLUFFTON CENTER IN BLUFFTON FOR BOTH NORTH ABROAD AND SOUTH OF THE BROAD EMPLOYEES WHO MAKE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT. YOU ALSO YOU'RE AWARE OF IT IN CASE YOU HEAR ABOUT IT NEXT.
>> EXCELLENT. NO FURTHER ACTION TO C
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.