8. RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO AWARD J.S. CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR IFB#060922E BLUFFTON PARKWAY PATHWAY (FISCAL IMPACT: $245,101.32)

[10. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CHANGE ORDER DESIGN FOR NEAR-TERM INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO INCLUDE THE INTERSECTIONS OF SC170 AND DEL WEBB BLVD/SEAGRASS STATION RD AND SC170 AND OLDFIELD WAY TO THE SC170 DESIGN CONTRACT (NEAR TERM IMPROVEMENTS) (FISCAL IMPACT: TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $507,850)]

[00:50:04]

>> SO THIS IS THE RECOMMENDATION CHANGE ORDER ON 170 ON THE NEAR-TERM.

SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH A COM ON THE NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS ALONG SB 170.

WHAT'S BEEN ASKED IS THERE'S A LOT OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM STAFF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ON TWO ADDITIONAL INTERSECTIONS TO LOOK AT. THIS IS ALMOST KIND OF GETTING INTO WAS REFERENCED AS A MID-TERM DESIGN BUT ONE BEING S.C. 170 AND DEAL WITH AND SEAGRASS STATION. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY SOUTH OF THE CORRIDOR THAT THE PLAN THAT WE'RE WORKING FROM BUT IS IN LINE WITH ALL THE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AND THIS IS THE MAIN ENTRANCE THERE OFF OF 170 FOR SUN CITY AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS UP TO THE NORTHERN END OF THE OF THE CORRIDOR WHICH IS SC 170, AN OLD FIELD WAY OR ACROSS FROM WEST THE FUTURE EAST ARGENT IN JASPER COUNTY. SO THIS WOULD BE A CONTRACT ADD TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT A COM HAS A FEE OF TWO HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS WITH A 20 PERCENT CONTINGENCY IT WOULD GIVE US A CONTRACT ADD TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS. AGAIN THIS WOULD BRING THEIR TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT TO FIVE HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS. THIS WOULD BE PAID OUT OF IMPACT FEES BLUFFTON ROAD IMPACT FEES AS WELL WITH THIS ONE ADDITIONAL JUST KIND OF UPDATE ON 170. EVERYBODY WHERE WE ARE. SO CURRENTLY WE ARE UNDER REVIEW WITH OUR PRELIMINARY OR WITH OUR FINAL DESIGN ON THE NEAR-TERM PROJECT.

SO BASICALLY THE FIVE INTERSECTIONS FROM 278 TO TAD WATCH CHERRY POINT, ARGENT BOULEVARD AND SC FOR SIXTY TWO EXCUSE ME THERE. SO WE'VE GOT THOSE ENTITIES OKATIE WE'RE AWAITING COMMENTS BACK FROM THOSE GUYS WE SPEAK TO HEAR SOMETHING VERY SOON FROM THEM. WE'VE HAD SOME COORDINATION WITH THEM AND I WAS LOOKING LOOKING LIKE WE'RE GONNA HAVE THIS COMMENTS BACK HERE SAYING OUR GOAL IS TO GO OUT TO BID WITH THE WHAT THE DESIGN DRAWINGS THIS FALL WITH HOPEFULLY THE OPPORTUNITY TO AWARD TOKEN TRACTOR AT THE END OF THIS YEAR. SO CONSTRUCTION COULD GET STARTED AT THE FIRST OF NEXT YEAR. WE ANTICIPATE IT BEING ABOUT A SIX MONTH CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE FOR THOSE FIRST BATCH OF IMPROVEMENTS.

SO BY SUMMER OF NEXT YEAR WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT WE'LL HAVE SOME IMMEDIATE RELIEF ALBEIT NOT FINAL RELIEF BUT IMMEDIATE RELIEF TO SOME OF THE PINCH POINTS ALONG 170 A COUPLE THINGS WILL WORK AND CONCURRENTLY WITH THAT IS PART OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE IMPROVING THE THE OFFLINE OFF 270 HEADED EASTBOUND OR WESTBOUND EXCUSE ME GOING NORTH ON 170 SO THAT THAT OFF RAMP WILL BE IMPROVED BUT THE OTHER THREE WILL NOT.

SO WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH DOTY TO SEE IF THEY CAN HELP COME UP WITH FUNDING TO IMPROVE THE RESURFACE THE OTHER 3 RAMPS. SO WE IMPROVE ALL FOUR A MILE WHERE THEY'RE AND THEN SECONDLY DST HAD PREVIOUSLY HAD PLANNED THAT THE SECTION OF 278 FROM 170 TO THE OKATIE RIVER THEY WERE GOING TO RESURFACE THAT AS WELL THAT GOT BUMPED IN THEIR FUNDING CYCLE TO ANOTHER YEAR BUT PENDING RECENT DISCUSSION WITH DOTY AND US TRYING TO REALLY PUSH THEM TO HELP US OUT WITH THIS THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AND SEE IF THEY CAN MOVE THAT BACK INTO CURRENT FUNDING CYCLE AND POTENTIALLY WE CAN STACK THAT ALL TOGETHER WITH DOING THAT. WE HAVE SOME STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE HAVE PLANNED ON 278. IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE GETTING ON TO 78 170 GO AND SOUTH AND YOU GO AROUND THE LOOP YOU HAVE TO MERGE INTO THE LANE WHICH SLOWS DOWN TRAFFIC AND THEN THERE'S THE ONCOMING RAMP THAT HAS A FREE FLOW. SO WE BASICALLY FLIP FLOP THAT AND GIVE THE FREE FLOW TO THE LOOP SO YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPLE SLOWING DOWN ABOVE THE BRIDGE AND THEN THE OTHER ON RAMP WOULD BE A MERGE. SO WE'RE LOOKING INTO THAT AND HOPEFULLY CAN MAKE THAT THAT HAPPEN. AND THEN WHERE THIS THESE CHANGE ORDERS WOULD TAKE PLACE IS HOPEFULLY AS PROJECTS WORKING THROUGH THEN WE'D BE ABLE TO FINISH THE DESIGN, THE PERMITTING AND HOPEFULLY OUT THE BIT ABOUT THE SAME.

THAT FIRST SHORT TERM PROJECT IS NEARING THAT CLOSE SO WE CAN BASICALLY KEEP ROLLING INTO

THESE NEAR-TERM PROJECTS. >> SO THAT WAS A LOT I PROBABLY NEED A DRINK OF WATER THAT WAS A MOUTHFUL FOR ME BUT WE'LL GLADLY TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE FOUR FIVE THAT I JUST WENT THROUGH. NOW ONE QUESTION ABOUT MR. BRAND RIGHT BEFORE WE GET INTO THE HIGH SCHOOL I WANT YOU GONE OR I COULDN'T INTO BACK BACKUP WHICH YOU SAID IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NORTH RAMP. SO WE'RE WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING IT AS FAR AS THE SCOPE WE'RE WE'RE IMPROVING THE FLOW UNDERNEATH THE BRIDGE ON 170. AND THE SIGNAL THAT'S RIGHT THERE AT THE BASE OF THAT RAMP PART OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ALSO ARE NEW AND SOME RESURFACING UP

[00:55:01]

THAT RAMP BACK TOWARDS HILTON HEAD. OKAY.

SO THAT'S THE ONE RAMP OUT OF THE FOUR THAT WE'RE PROVEN AS PART OF THE 117 PERHAPS MISUNDERSTOOD. THE OTHER COMMENT I WOULD MAKE. JUST TO BUILD ON THIS WE'VE WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS IN RECENT WEEKS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ACTUALLY BE INVESTING MONEY IN DESIGNS OF PROJECTS THAT POTENTIALLY ON THE HORIZON.

THE THEORY BEING ONE THEY MAKE A MORE SHOVEL READY. AND SECONDLY, SOMETIMES UNLESS WE'RE IN THE PIPELINE BOTH THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL LEVEL, WE'RE NOT AS ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDS AS WE WOULD LIKE TO BE. SO WHERE WE WE'VE AGREED THAT THAT MAKES SOME SENSE AND WE'LL SEE THIS COMING FORWARD FOR DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL WHEN WE LOOK AT A BUDGET AMENDMENT WHICH PROBABLY COME FORWARD IN SEPTEMBER. AND I THINK GERARD'S IDENTIFIED SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF 10 MILLION THAT MAY MAKE SENSE TO TO SPEND IN THAT DIRECTION.

ALSO I THINK AS WE GET MORE LEARNED ABOUT THESE THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT THEY WERE TRUE INVESTMENT AND WE WOULD STILL CAN GET REIMBURSED AND THEN WE COULD USE THAT MONEY TO INVEST IN OTHER ONES. ALSO DISCUSSIONS WITH A COUPLE OF THE MAYORS WHO WERE DISAPPOINTED WE PUT THE TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX OFF UNTIL 24 AND I DESCRIBED WHAT WE WERE DOING HERE WITH THIS INVESTMENT FUND AND I THINK IT REALLY POSITIONS THE TRANSPORTATION PENNY TO BE IN A BETTER POSITION BECAUSE WE'LL BE FURTHER DOWNSTREAM AND ACTUALLY GET TO SOME OF THESE PROJECTS SOONER THAN WE OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE.

SO STAY TUNED FOR THAT. BUT I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WE'RE GOING FORWARD.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THESE ITEMS ITEMS 8 THROUGH 13 ON YOUR AGENDA WHICH ARE BASICALLY

THE CONTRACT AWARDS IN JUST ONE YEAR? >> GERALD GURNEY WHEN WE MOTION YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH ONCE EVERY FOUR SIXTY TWO. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP JUST IN. HOW DID YOU HOW WAS IT RELEASED COMING SO ON IT'S GONE REALLY WELL. SO ON. THAT'S IT.

OKAY. JASPER PUT A MILLION IN AND HARDY BILLS PUT HALF A MILLION TO MAKE MOTION APPROVE A THIRD 13 SECOND US GETTING ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ANY OBJECTION WITHOUT OBJECTIONS 8 THROUGH 13 OUR APPROVED JUST ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT SENATOR DAVIS MAY JOIN. I WILL COME BACK TO NUMBER 14 AND JOHN.

I DON'T THINK SO. OK, WELL LET'S GO AHEAD AND GRABS ME ABOUT HOW I DIDN'T SEE THAT. OK. YOU'RE RIGHT.

OK. SO HE THEY ACTUALLY SAY YES, YOU READ IT YOU READ IT DOWN AT

[14. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER ADJUSTING THE SCOPE OF THE US 278 CORRIDOR PROJECT]

ALL. OH WELL YOU GOTTA TALK IT OUT. OK.

WE'RE A QUICK STUDY NOT OK. WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT UP THEN AND LET ME GIVE YOU MY TAKE ON KIND OF WHERE WE ARE ON THIS AND IT MAY HELP FOCUS OUR DISCUSSION BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 278 QUARTER OF WHICH IS THERE IS 80 MILLION THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE REFERENDUM BECAUSE ONE HUNDRED 20 MILLION FROM THE STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK IS ON THE ORDER OF 60 OR 70 MILLION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ONE DEFECTIVE BRIDGE. AND I THINK WE HAVE 10 15 MILLION OF IMPACT FEES THAT ARE IN THE PROJECT. GIVE OR TAKE. SO THE HISTORY FROM THE COUNTY STANDPOINT IS AS THIS HAS MOVED FORWARD TWO YEARS AGO. WE APPROVED THE MONEY AND DID A STUDY FOR IT WAS CALLED AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW TO LOOK AT THE WORK THAT HAD BEEN DONE AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND THERE WERE SOME GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE GOTTEN COOPERATED.

WE ALSO SET ASIDE SOME MONEY FOR OUR CONCEPT OF HAVING A LAND PLANNER LOOK AT THAT AND THE TOWN HILTON HEAD DECIDED TO DO THAT ON THEIR OWN. SO WE DRAW ON THE FUNDS THAT WERE APPROVED BUT THERE WAS A FIRM CALLED M.K. S.K. THAT DID THE WORK FOR THEM AT THE END OF THE DAY. THEY CAME UP WITH 25 RECOMMENDATION, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH I BELIEVE HAVE BEEN ADOPTED IN VARIOUS PHASES AND BEING INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT AND THERE'S NOW ON THE TABLE TO DO A SECOND INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

BUT IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE FIRST ONE IN THE SENSE THAT WHAT THE TOWN PERCEIVES IS IT RATHER THAN JUST LOOKING AT THE SECTION OF THE 278 QUARTER THAT WHEN YOU FIRST COME ON THE

[01:00:02]

ISLAND THROUGH AN AREA CALLED STONEY IF THIS WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE A LOOK AT THE WHOLE ISLAND, IF YOU WILL. AND IN FACT EVEN EXTEND OUT TO MOSS CREEK LIGHT.

SO IT'S KIND OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING OF THE OF THE WHOLE WHOLE ISLAND.

>> MY SENSE IN READING THE SCOPE AND TALKING TO PEOPLE AND KEEPING IN MIND THAT THIS WAS FIRST PROPOSED ROUGHLY FOUR MONTHS TO GO. THIS IS PROBABLY A SIX TO 12 MONTH EXERCISE. AND I SHOULD ALSO AT THIS POINT SAY I THINK SENATOR DAVIS HAS VERY HELPFUL IN MOVING THIS FORWARD SUGGESTING SOME OF THIS.

AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR REALLY GETTING US THE MONEY FOR THE STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK. SO WE NEED WE NEED TO ALWAYS REMEMBER TO THANK HIM FOR THE HARD WORK THAT HE DOES FOR US. NOW I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE POTENTIAL COSTS OVERRUNS THAT WE MAY BE DEALING WITH. I'M CONVINCED THE DELEGATION WILL PROBABLY BE SUCCESSFUL IN MAKING SURE WE DON'T LOSE THE STATE INFRASTRUCTURE MONEY. BUT WE'RE IN A SCITUATE HIGH INFLATION AS WE'RE ALL AWARE. AND IF WE WERE TO DELAY THE OVERALL PROJECT SIX MONTHS NINE MONTHS, WHATEVER AND MY BEST GUESSES WERE INCURRING EXTRA COSTS BY DELAYING THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE ORDER OF 5 6 MILLION A MONTH. SO IF WE'RE OUT SIX NINE MONTHS WE'RE FOR POTENTIALLY EXPOSING OURSELVES TO ABOUT A 50 MILLION DOLLAR COST INCREASE.

SOMEBODY COULD ARGUE WITH THOSE THOSE NUMBERS. SO IF YOU KIND OF THINK ABOUT THE PROJECT AND BROKE IT INTO TWO PIECES WE'VE GOT THE PIECE ON THE BRIDGES WHICH WAS TRIGGERED BY THE NEED TO REPLACE THE ONE DEFECTIVE BRIDGE.

AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THERE REALLY AREN'T ANY OPEN ISSUES THAT WE'RE WE'RE DEALING WITH. AND IN FACT I THINK THE ITEMS THAT WERE SUGGESTED BY ASK THE LAND PLANNER I BELIEVE THOSE ARE BEING INCORPORATED. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT MAKING THE BICYCLE TRAIL A LITTLE BIT WIDER. MAYBE WE COULD NARROW SOME OF THE THE LANES WAS A CONCEPT A BUMP OUT SO PEOPLE COULD, YOU KNOW, STOP ON THE TRAIL AND BE ABLE TO FISH OR OBSERVE WHATEVER IT WAS. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE BRIDGE SECTION OF IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAND PORTION LET'S CALL IT STONEY FOR THE TIME BEING.

I THINK THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW WOULD ACTUALLY BE VERY HELPFUL. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD THINGS THAT WOULD COME OUT. AND THOSE THINGS COULD BE INCORPORATED ON THE RUN AND I THINK IT COULD BE DONE WITHOUT DELAYING THE THE OVERALL PROJECT.

SO WHAT'S THE US IN A RESOLUTION IS TO PROCEED WITH THE BRIDGE PORTION OF IT IN ORDER TO GO AHEAD WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT THAT THE FINDING OF NO ADVERSE IMPACT WHILE AT THE SAME TIME THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW COULD TAKE PLACE.

AND SO ONE WOULD NOT HOLD UP THE THE OTHER FOUND. AS I LOOKED AT THE SCOPE OF WHAT THE TOWN IS PROPOSING, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE LOST BY PROCEEDING.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, THEY WANT TO LOOK GOING ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE MOSS CREEK LINE.

THAT'LL BE HELPFUL. WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. THERE MAY BE SOME USEFUL INPUT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S SO MANY CHANGES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MADE OUT IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA. THERE MAY BE OTHER ALTERNATIVES AS YOU COME ACROSS THE LAND PORTION TO AVOID IMPACTING STONEY BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD IMPACT LET'S CALL IT THE BRIDGE SECTION. SO THAT LEAVES A THAT IF WE GO DOWN THAT PATH THEN THE QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU DIVIDE THE TO GET THE BRIDGES ON ONE HAND YOU'VE GOT THE STONY AREA.

ON THE OTHER HAND WE HAVE THE AREA IN BETWEEN WHICH WE'LL CALL JENKINS ISLAND FOR THE MOST PART AND CERTAINLY THE BRIDGES WHATEVER DEAL WE HAVE FIRST I WOULD LEAVE THAT TO D O T AND GIRARD TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE BEST PLACE TO DRAW THAT LINE OF DEMARCATION IF WE GO DOWN THE PATH OF SPLITTING THOSE TWO. BUT CLEARLY FROM A TRANSPORTATION STANDPOINT THEY WOULD NEED TO GET THROUGH THE SIGNAL AREA AND THEN THOSE ELEVATIONS AND CURVATURE AND ALL KINDS OF TAPERS AND THINGS THAT TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS DEAL WITH WHICH WOULD TAKE THEM PARTWAY THROUGH THE RIGHT. MY PERSONAL SENSE IS IT'D BE GREAT TO GET THROUGH THE CAUSEWAY BECAUSE THAT'S PROBABLY THE LAST MAJOR

[01:05:03]

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT WE HAVE COULD BE WIDENING INTO THE WATER BUT CERTAINLY NOT INTRUDE ,YOU KNOW, INTO THE STONY AREA. BUT AGAIN, I I WOULD LEAVE THAT TO THEM. SO THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY ON THE TABLE HERE IN THE SENSE OF THAT RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE IT WHICH IS TO PROCEED WITH THE BRIDGE PORTION OF IT.

SO WE DON'T DELAY THE PROJECT ANY FURTHER WHICH HAS A LOT OF RISK FINANCIAL RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ALLOWING THE TOWN TO PROCEED WITH THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW. SO LET ME FIRST OPEN UP IF THERE'S A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT REVOLUTIONARY FORCE AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION ON IT. I'LL MAKE THAT MOST MOTIONS, CHAIRMAN. OKAY. THERE A SECOND CALL, SIR.

CAN IT? OKAY. WE'RE OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION AND SENATOR DAVIS HAS SENT IN A AN E-MAIL WHICH I HAVE NOT READ .

IT APPEARS TO INCLUDE WHAT TOOK PLACE AT THEIR COUNCIL MEETING LAST TUESDAY WHICH HAS IN IT A SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW A DRAFT MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING OR INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND OURSELVES WHICH WOULD BE COMING FORWARD AT SOME POINT. AND AS I SAID, I'VE I'VE LOOKED AT THOSE I DON'T SEE ANY CONFLICT WITH WHAT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE. SO ANYWAY, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO CONSIDER.

THIS WOULD BE PROCEEDING WITH THE BRIDGE PORTION AND STANDING BACK IF YOU WILL ON THE STONING PORTION HERE IF YOU WANT TO SAY NO. ALL MY COMMENTS, COUNCILMAN.

OKAY. I HAVE A CLASS. I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN BREAK THE TWO OF THEM APART ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF WASN'T THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DONE CONSIDERING BOTH THE THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO ANOTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT JUST TO ADDRESS THE STONING PART BECAUSE CULTURE RESOURCES IN THE GULLAH CULTURE IS A HUGE PART OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. SO I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN PLAY

ONE THING THAT YOU CAN'T. >> WE CAN'T. YOU CAN'T.

YEAH, WE JUST HAVE TO MODIFY THE CURRENT NEPA APPLICATION FROM A CONGESTION SAFETY PROJECT JUST DOWN TO A SAFETY AND GO BACK OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

DO I NOW GO BACK? WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INPUT SECTION NOW TO DO THAT. HER COMMENTS WAS JUST JUST TO MAKE SURE AND THE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE BRIDGE. WE BASICALLY CANCELED ESTABLISH ONE BRIDGE RIGHT.

>> AND YES, COUNCIL HAS MANY TIMES ESTABLISHED ONE BRIDGE. YES.

>> SO THIS MOTION HERE BASICALLY IS SITTING FOR ONE GROUP.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING YES. IS THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL GENERALLY AGREES WITH THE ONE BRIDGE. THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BRING FORWARD.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. OK. WELL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ONE OF THE MTA SDK RECOMMENDATIONS WAS TO ACTUALLY SPLIT THE BRIDGE IN THE I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT IS STILL IS STILL IN IT. THAT RECOMMENDATION IS IN THAT IMO YOU YOU JUST RECEIVED IT. BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT AMOUNTED TO WAS ABOUT A 25 MILLION DOLLAR COST AND CERTAINLY SOME SAFETY CONCERNS AS YOU GO THROUGH THE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY. WELL, YOU WERE ALSO IF YOU TWO WERE TO HAVE A CO JOIN BRIDGE TO BRIDGE'S LANDING ON THE I'M SORRY THE INTERCOASTAL THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY DESTROY MARINERS COVE . YEAH, RIGHT. ONE BRIDGE LANDING ALLOWS A ELEVATED EXIT ON THE BRIDGE AND MARRIAGE CODE WOULD BE NOT NEXT TO THE BRIDGE BUT IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE OFF TO THE SIDE UNDER THE YOUNG. UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S THE WAY THE ACTION WOULD FEAR. SO THE ONE BRIDGE OPTION LEADS MARRIED WHAT'S CALLED CONTACT TO BRIDGE CALLED A TWO BRIDGE CULTURE CODE JOINT BRIDGE ESSENTIALLY CAUSED MARRIAGE BOTH TO BE DESTROYED. HOWEVER, I THINK IN THIS IN THIS PROPOSAL THAT THE TOWN IS PUTTING FORWARD, THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF INTEREST ON THE PART OF AN ACTIVIST GROUP OR ANOTHER BRIDGE BUT THAT BRIDGES OVER MARSH THROUGH THE WOODS TO THE CROSS ISLAND PARKWAY AND THAT BRIDGE WOULD BE AN ALTERNATE EVACUATION ROUTE. THAT'S JUST PRESUME BUT THAT WOULD ALSO HAVE A SEPARATE ENVIRONMENTALIST ELEMENT, SEPARATE NEPA ISSUE AND A SEPARATE FONZIE AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT WOULD COST, HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO GET

[01:10:05]

THAT APPROVED AND FUNDED AND BUILT. SO THE ONE BRIDGE OPTION AND THEY MAY COME BACK WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S GOING SHE THAT MAY JUST BE THE RECOMMENDATION. THE STUDY DOES RIBAUT AND STUDY ALSO WAS REALLY FROM NINETY FIVE TO SEE FIND CIRCLE WITH THE ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC SIGNALS THAT WILL BE PART OF THE STUDY THAT THEY DO. AND THE BIG ISSUE IS THE IS THE GATEWAY STONY AND THE QUESTION IS WILL THEY MAKE STONEY BETTER OR WILL THEY MAKE IT BIGGER. NOW IF THE BRIDGE AND ONE BRIDGE OPTION IS THE ONE WE DECIDE UPON AND WE PROCEED ON IT WILL COME IN NEXT TO MARION'S COVE AND IT WILL JOIN UP TO 78 BY WHEN THEY'LL HOVER AND THEN THE WINDMILL HARBOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS WILL BE PLACED IN THERE AND THEN IT WILL PROBABLY GO TO JENKINS ROAD BACK IN TIME ON THE ROAD AND THEN THAT AND THEN THAT'LL STOP AND THEN THE STONY GATEWAY WOULD PROBABLY GO FROM JENKINS ISLAND RIGHT DOWN TO WILBUR AND AVENUE NEAR THE SCHOOLS AND THAT WOULD INCORPORATE SPANISH WELLS ROAD AND THE COUNTRY ROAD AND WILL BORN AND THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT TO THE CROSS ISLAND THERE WHICH IS A PROBLEM IN THE EVENING IF YOU'RE TRYING TO LEAVE. SO THAT WOULD BE PART OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.

I DON'T THINK THE ONE BRIDGE OPTION COMING INTO MARRIAGE COVE AND ENDING LET'S SAY AT JENKINS ISLAND ADJOINING TO 78 WILL HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT IS EVENTUALLY DECIDED ABOUT THE STONY GATEWAY STONY GATEWAY DECISION ON HOW MANY LANES THERE WILL BE, WHETHER IT'S A PARKWAY OR A HIGHWAY. AND HOW THAT WILL BE BUILT OUT. THERE'S REALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY THE BRIDGE COMES IN NEXT TO MEREDITH'S COVE AND JOINS UP WHEN THE HARBOR. SO I MEAN I THINK THE STUDY WILL BE FINE.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO HAVE THAT STUDY SO THAT THERE SATISFIED THAT THEY GET THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME FOR THE STONY GATEWAY AND THEY GET THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME FOR THE ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL STUDY FROM 9 5. GREAT TO SEE POINT CIRCLE BUT THAT IS AS THE CHAIRMAN INDICATED WE'LL JUST HAVE TIME TO STUDY AND I THINK WHILE ALL OF THAT IS GOING ON IF WE AGREE THAT WE WANT THE ONE BRIDGE OPTION WE CAN START THE DESIGN PHASE OF THAT BRIDGE AND NOT WASTE ANOTHER NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME TRYING TO START THE PROCESS ON THE ONE BRIDGE COMING IN NEXT AMERICA'S COVE WHICH IS THE ALTERNATE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR IT. SO I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM. ALICE LOOK BREAKING IT UP ON BREAKING LOSS IS TRAGIC ON IN PROJECT SUE DOING WHAT ERIC SAID DOING THE EXTRA STUDIES LIKE IT'S A LEGAL QUESTION AND I COULD SEE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS FOLLOWING HIM.

WELL WE HAD WE HAD A LAWSUIT ABOUT WHAT VICTIMS WERE CHANGING DISCOVERED.

YEAH WE WE IT CHANGING. YOU'RE TAKING A SECTION NOW TO GET YOUR COMPARTMENTALIZING IF YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU THE DUMMY WHY WOULD THEY CHALLENGE THE NDP AT THE END AND THROUGH PUT SOME MAYBE I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST PLAYING WITH IT.

YOU KNOW IF EVERYONE IS THINKING WE HAD A CALL LAST WEEK WITH DEO THEY SAID THEY COULD DO IT AND THEY THEY VOICED NO OPPOSITION OR ANY CONCERNS ABOUT DWINDLE BECAUSE

SOMETIMES PEOPLE WILL GET A PROJECT APPROVED BY COMPAQ. >> THEY JUST HAVE TO SMELL IT TO GET AROUND COMPLIANT. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE SAFE DECONSTRUCTION PROJECT BECAUSE THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF THE CURRENT BRIDGE IS YES TO USE GOOD.

WELL THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. ACTUALLY REVERSE IS TRUE. >> I THINK WE HAVE MORE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING SUED ON STONY PIECE DAMAGES. SO NOW LET ME LET ME CORRECT ONE THING I DON'T WANT I DON'T WANT SOMETHING TO BE IN THE PAPER THAT I DIDN'T SAY D O T

IS TAKEN DIRECTION FROM THE COUNTY. >> THEY'RE NOT TAKING A POSITION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I WILL STATE AGAIN FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS IS A BEAUFORT COUNTY PROJECT IN ITS ENTIRETY. WE CAN WORK WITH THE TOWN

OF HILTON BUT IT IS OUR PROJECT. >> YEAH BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY REAL DISAGREEMENT WITH THEIR NEW STUDY ON TRAFFIC IN THAT THAT THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS OR AND CAN MAKE TO MAKE THE STONY GATEWAY BETTER AND NOT NECESSARILY BIGGER.

I MEAN IT'S LOGICAL FOR THEM THAT'S THEIR CONCERN AND IT MAKES SENSE FOR THEM IF THEY CAN IF THEY CAN GET THE MONEY FROM THE STATE TO DO THE STUDY TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY AS THE BRIDGE IS BEING BUILT I MEAN EVEN THE STONY GATEWAY COULD BE ADDRESSED AFTER THAT WAS DONE A WHILE THAT WAS BEING BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE ALTERATIONS THEY ARE GOING TO BE THAT DRAMATIC AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING IN A BRIDGE.

I HAVE NO QUESTIONS AND IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN SINK THE TWO PROJECTS AT THE END BECAUSE THE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING TO TAKE SO LONG AND THAT CONSTRUCTION

[01:15:02]

TO THE ROADWAY AND THE STONY AREA IS AN INSIGNIFICANT PART PROJECT THAT IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE THAT EVERYTHING CAN MIRROR UP AND ALL OF THAT BE DONE AT THE SAME TIME YOU ANYTHING WHERE YOU CAN ADD WHAT HAS HAPPENED RECENTLY IN CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE

COUNTY WITH REGARD TO THIS PROJECT. >> YEAH I HAD A CALL TODAY FROM

THE TOWN. >> JOSH GRUBER AND THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR TURN BUT THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION COMMITTED TO HIM THAT I WOULD ASK YOU ALL THAT YOU ALL IF YOU MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TO COUNCIL THAT YOU ALLOW ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE TOWN MANAGER AND JOSH GRUBER AND WHITNEY AND JARRETT AND MYSELF GO MEET WITH HIM TO SEE IF WE CAN WORK OUT A PATH FORWARD THAT EVERYBODY IS COMFORTABLE WITH AND WE DO THAT PRIOR TO YOU ALL TAKING ACTION ON THIS ON SEPTEMBER 12TH. MARK ACTUALLY I LIKE IT. I GOT SOME CALLS OF PEOPLE ASKING ME TO NOT SUPPORT IT BUT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. WHEN ONE COUNCIL WE'VE ALREADY PASSED ONE SIXTH SALES RESOLUTION HERE WE ARE AGAIN IN MY FOURTH YEAR AND WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT THIS AND THERE IS BEEN NO SENSE OF URGENCY. I THINK THAT THIS COMMITTEE THIS COUNCIL NEEDS TO SHOW A SENSE URGENCY WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING.

I THINK THAT WE DO THAT. WE CAN THEN ALSO ASK HIM HEAD THE SHOOT TO SHOW A SENSE URGENCY. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO GET THIS DONE.

WE NEED TO REFORM AND START THIS PROCESS. AND I THINK THAT THE THE THE GOOD DECISIONS WE MADE AS NECESSARY JUMP TWO POINTS. I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH CHILDHOOD COUNSEL. MY COUNTERPART THERE, MCCANN AND I TALKED TODAY AND HE UNDERSTANDS OUR POSITION IN THAT WE SIGNED AN IGAD THAT IS OUR PROMISE THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. NUMBER ONE, WE HAVE MADE THE PROMISE THAT WE'RE GOING TO START CONSTRUCTION NO LATER THAN 2024 AND THE PROMISE IS WE WILL FINISH IT IN 2020 8 IF WE

DO NOT KEEP TO THAT PROMISE. >> WE STAND TO LOSE 102 180 MILLION DOLLARS.

THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE TAKE LIGHTLY. NUMBER TWO IS OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR HAS SAID THIS IS A COUNTY PROJECT. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT OUR RESOLUTION, THE PROJECT THE PROJECT AS AMENDED IS NOT SUBJECT TO MUNICIPAL APPROVAL BECAUSE IT'S DEFINED IN THE LAW ARE THREE THINGS THE TERM STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT, FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE AND THE FACT THAT IT CROSSES THE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAYS BECAUSE ALL THREE OF THOSE ARE IN FACT TRUE HILTON HEAD DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE APPROVAL TO REPLACE THOSE BRIDGES AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE MOVING FORWARD. WE NO LONGER CAN AFFORD THE LUXURY OF DELAYING THE PROJECT BECAUSE OF THE IJA WE HAVE IN PLACE BECAUSE COST OVERRUNS AND BECAUSE THE TIMES THAT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING.

OTHER COMMENTS ALMOST EVERYONE IS. OH, CHRIS, THANK.

>> I'VE ALWAYS SUPPORTED THIS SINGLE BRIDGE OPTION SO I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT.

>> THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S THE PATH FORWARD. WHERE I GET CONCERNED THOUGH IS TWO PARTS. NUMBER ONE IS WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT SPLITTING THE NUMBER PROCESS AND I'M ALSO A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED MAYBE I WAS MISUNDERSTOOD ENDING.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BRIDGE NOW BUT THEN THE ROADS DON'T GET DONE? IS THAT EVEN A POTENTIAL UNDER THIS IDEA? IT IS A POTENTIAL.

IT'S NOT LIKE LIKE WE HAD TO GIVE IT A PROBABILITY BUT WE HAVE GET WHAT YOU SAY VERY GOOD HAPPENS TO ME LIKE WE'RE OPENING THE DOOR FOR NOTHING THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN SAY

JENKINS ISLAND ON THE CROSS ISLAND. >> LOOK, THAT'S GOING TO BE A

[01:20:01]

HUGE MISSED OPPORTUNITY POTENTIALLY CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN WHAT WE'RE SOLVING. MAYBE NOT, YOU KNOW, BIG THIS COULD THE BRIDGES BUT I THINK YOU TAKE MY POINT. YES. SO IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING. IT'S ALSO CONCERNING TO ME IF THE NEPA THING THAT YOU KNOW,

POTENTIALLY WE'RE JUST GOING TO INADVERTENTLY DELAY THIS THING. >> WELL, SO I'M AN ENGINEER, NOT A WEATHERMAN SO I CAN'T GIVE PROBABILITY BUT THE NEPA. SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ACTION IS WE'RE SPLITTING THE PROJECT UP AND NOT IN PHASES BUT IN SEPARATE PROJECTS. SO TO YOUR POINT, MISS HOWARD, WITH THE NEPA PROCESS, THE NEPA PURPOSE AND NEED RIGHT NOW IS SAFETY AND CONGESTION WHEN WE DO THIS PART.

WE'RE BASICALLY REMOVING THE CONGESTION BECAUSE IT MAY NOT SYNC UP ON THE TIME LINE WITH THE ROAD PROJECT AND WE MAY TIE A SIX LANE BRIDGE BACK INTO A FOUR LANE ROAD SECTION WHICH SHORTLY THEREAFTER TURNS INTO A FIVE LANE AND A SIX LANE AT CROSS ISLAND PARKWAY.

AND IF THAT HAPPENS, THAT'S TO YOUR POINT THE FINE LINE THAT WE HAVE TO.

WE HAVE TO BE COMFORTABLE THAT WE'RE SOLVING A SAFETY PROBLEM IN THE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND NOT NECESSARILY A CONGESTION PROBLEM. SHOULD THE TOWN DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A PROJECT OF THEIR OWN THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE PROJECT, NOT A PHASE OF THIS PROJECT AND WE'D HAVE TO KEEP THAT DISTINCT AND CLEAR FOR THE NEPA PROCESS.

SO THEY MAY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEIR OWN SEPARATE NEPA PROCESS BEYOND WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH BECAUSE AH ONCE WE MOVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WE WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME UPDATING TO OUR NEPA PROCESS TO BUNDLE IT BACK TO JUST THE BRIDGE. HOWEVER, SHOULD WE NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND THE TOWN MOVE FORWARD OR WE READ OR COME TO SOME AGREEMENT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS IN SOME MANNER? THEN THE NEPA PROCESS STAYS INTACT AS IT IS.

SO THERE'S PROS AND CONS BUT THAT'S WHERE WE THINK THAT IF THAT HELPS.

COUNCILMAN, OUR RESOLUTION TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT AS THE RESOLUTION SAYS THREE GROUPS AS WE DEAL TO THE STADIUM FOR DRUG INFRASTRUCTURE BANK AND THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE TO AGREE WITH WHAT WE WANT TO DO NOW AND THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES DON'T ESTABLISH THE FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT BUT WE NEED TO DO THIS TO MOVE THIS PROJECT FORWARD.

IF IT'S EVER GOING TO GET BUILT I GUESS MY LAST COMMENT WOULD BE IF I'M CORRECT THAT THE ULTIMATE COST IS BEING IMPACTED THE RATE OF ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS FOR EVERY WEEK WE DELAY THE TOWN STUDIES PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR. WE'RE TALKING 50 MILLION DOLLARS. WE DON'T HAVE AND THERE'S NOTHING LOST BY TAKING THE TIME TO LET THEM DO THEIR PROJECT AND IT STILL CAN BE TOTALLY CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROJECT TIMELINE BUILD THE BRIDGES AND TIED INTO THE CONSTRUCTION. SO ANY OUTCOME IS RIGHT.

GOT A QUESTION IF I MIGHT, SIR. IF THIS IS A BEAUFORT COUNTY PROJECT, WHY DO WE ALLOW THEM TO DO THEIR PROJECT? I THINK THAT'S DONE LIKE THEY'RE ON WHAT NOW.

BUT THE QUESTION IS WHAT IF THIS IS A BEAUFORT COUNTY PROJECT? WHY DO WE HAVE TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE? I THINK THE ANSWER, CHRIS, IS THAT THERE'S A THING CALLED MUNICIPAL CONSENT AND THEY HAVE TO GRANT IT FOR ANYTHING THAT GOES THROUGH THEIR TOWN LIMITS. THAT'S SOME. THIS ONE THIS IS THICK AND STONY. GO THROUGH THE TOWN LIMITS SO THEY HAVE THEY HAVE A VETO POWER OVER THAT WHEREAS JOE SAID THEY DON'T BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH FEDERAL HIGHWAY OVER INTERCOASTAL ON THE BRIDGES. THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ALL RIGHT. GOT IT. THAT'S SUPER HELPFUL.

THANK OK. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THE RESOLUTION?

>> WE DO HAVE A MOTION I BELIEVE IN A SECOND. SO THIS STANDS APPROVED WITHOUT OBJECTION AND THERE ARE TWO FINAL COMMENTS THAT I WOULD MAKE TO IT.

ONE, IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT THE SECTION ACROSS STONEY EVEN THOUGH IT REQUIRES MUNICIPAL CONSENT FROM THE TOWN IS ONE THAT THEY MIGHT CONSIDER GRANTING ON JUST THAT SECTION BECAUSE I BELIEVE EVERYTHING THEY'VE ASKED FOR FROM THE MTA STUDY IS INCLUDED FOR EXAMPLE OR HAVING IT MEANDER TO CREATE A MORE OF A PARKWAY EFFECT. AND SECONDLY THE M.O. YOU INCLUDES TALKING ABOUT ADAPTIVE CONTROLS AND THAT'S WHERE YOU USING STATE OF THE ART TECHNOLOGY TO MANAGE A REAL TIME BASIS INTERSECTIONS. IF YOU IT'S GOING ON THE INTERSECTIONS ON HILTON THAT ARE ACTUALLY BETTER NOW THAN THEY WERE 10 YEARS AGO AND THERE'S AGREEMENT ON ALL OF US TO CONTINUE THAT PROCESS. SO I ACTUALLY THINK IT LENDS

[01:25:03]

ITSELF TO A SEPARATE M O U BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE COUNTY TO PROCEED WITH THAT RIGHT AWAY AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO INCLUDE IT IN THE IN THE BROADER STUDY OF THE WHOLE ISLAND. BUT I BELIEVE THAT MAYBE YOU COULD DISCUSSION BOARD WOULD BE GOOD AT THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL. YEAH. YEAH.

I THINK EVERYONE'S IN AGREEMENT COULD DO THAT FROM NINETY FIVE TO SEE BUT I DON'T THINK THEY NEED THIS. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF REASON IN MY MIND TO KEEP THAT IN A STUDY THAT MAY TAKE SIX MONTHS OR TWELVE MONTHS.

WHY NOT JUST GET ON WITH IT AND MAYBE A BETTER WAY TO DO IT. YEAH.

THAT'S JUST A THOUGHT. MAYBE SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT.

SO THERE'S KIND OF TWO COMPONENTS THAT WE'RE HITTING ON THE NINETY FIVE TO SEE FAN CIRCLE AS WELL AS THAT DATA TECHNOLOGY. HILTON HEAD HAS A PROJECT IN THEIR CFP FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR FOR ADAPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES. ARE ACTUALLY GOING OUT OUR FEE RIGHT NOW FOR THAT. WE ARE WORKING ALONG WITH THEM AS WELL AS THE MPO IN THIS AND THAT AND DOJ TEAM DUTY HAS A HAS A PROJECT PLAN TO CONNECT ALL THE SIGNALS WITH THEIR FIBER TO HAVE A BACKBONE. SO ALL OF THAT IS KIND OF AND WORK ALREADY REGARDLESS IMO YOU. AND THEN SECONDLY JUST LAST MEETING AT LATS EARLIER IN THE MONTH THEY GOT APPROVED AND THEIR TIP TO FUND A ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY ALL THE WAY FROM NINETY FIVE TO SEE PENN CIRCLE. SO ALL OF THAT KIND OF BE CONNECT IT'S ALREADY SORT OF SET UP WITHOUT EMAIL YOU IN PLACE BUT SEPARATE FROM THE BRIDGE PROJECT WON'T EVEN BE STUDIED BY THE GROUP THEY'RE GOING TO HIRE BECAUSE THEY CAN REALLY JUST FOCUS ON THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION PORTION THAT THE BRANCH TO GET IT DONE.

[15. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE WORK ON PRIVATE ROADS]

THE ADAPTIVE QUICKER. RIGHT. OK.

GOOD DISCUSSION. NEXT ITEM IS THE MAINTENANCE WORK ON PRIVATE ROADS.

ARE YOU GOING TO TELL US ALL ABOUT THAT? YES, SIR.

I'VE BEEN CHAIRMAN FOR YOU KNOW ,CONTROVERSY ON THIS ONE. IS THERE MIGHT BE SOME DISCUSSION. SO BEFORE USE THE PRIVATE ROAD MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE BACK IN APRIL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT COMMITTEE MEETING YOU ASKED STAFF TO COME BACK AND REVISE THE EXISTING ORDINANCE.

SINCE THEN I'VE MET WITH ASSISTANT COUNTY MR. HEAD OR FOOT TO DISCUSS THE ORDINANCE IN PARTICULAR THE EVALUATION SAID PRIVATE ROADS BY EITHER THE FIRE CHIEF WITHIN THAT DISTRICT OR AN E MESS REPRESENTATIVE MR. FOOTE HAS REVIEWED AND AGREES WITH THE ORDINANCE PREEMPTIVELY SHARED A LIST OF PRIVATE ROADS ALREADY WITH ME THEY AMOUNT TO ABOUT TWENTY FIVE THAT NEED IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. LET YOU JUST GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT I KIND OF UNDERSTAND IS PART THE ISSUE HERE I THINK IS THE LEGAL STAFF LOOKED AT IT THROUGH SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT COUNTY GOVERNMENTS DOING ROAD DOING WORK ON PRIVATE ROADS AND SECONDLY I THINK THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT GOT TO A POINT THAT SAID IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT PROBABLY THE BEST MEASURE OF WHAT NEEDS DOING WOULD BE ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH PUBLIC SAFETY AS THE ABILITY OF A FIRE TRUCK OR A BMX VEHICLE TO GET TO ASO THOSE TWON CONFLICT SO OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSIONS PILOT AND ME TO PREEMPT THAT.

I APPRECIATE IT. I'LL TRY. READ THIS HAS BEEN A LONG STANDING ISSUE AND VIEW FROM IN AND OVER THE OVER THE YEARS MY YEARS IT'S KIND OF EBBED AND FLOWED SOMETIMES IT'S A GOOD IDEA SOMETIMES TO SICK BAD IDEA.

I UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL CONCERNS THAT ARE ATTORNEYS HAVE AND I CERTAINLY RESPECT THAT.

BUT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THERE ARE TIMES IN MY HUMBLE OPINION IT DOES MAKE A LOT OF SENSE FOR YOU FOR A COUNTY TO DO MINIMAL AMOUNT OF GRADING ON ROADS SO THAT THEY'RE PASSABLE.

THE ORDINANCE THAT HAS BEEN CRAFTED HERE OCCURRED. DID YOU CRAFT THIS BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF WORK? THERE ARE TWO TO ONE THING I DO WANT TO COMMENT ON A VERY POSITIVE WAY. I'M GLAD YOU PUT IN FUNERALS IN THERE BUT I DON'T THINK I DOUBT VERY SERIOUSLY THERE'S ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM OR LISTEN ON TV FOR MANY PEOPLE WHO REALIZE APPRECIATE THE MAGNET DUE TO THE PROBLEM WE HAVE HAD HISTORICALLY ON ON BURIALS AND A LOT OF THE CEMETERIES COUNTY ARE REMOTE AND DIFFICULT TO ACCESS AND I MEAN YOU JUST CAN'T IMAGINE THE DIFFICULTY OF THE GRIEF THAT A FAMILY WOULD HAVE TO ENDURE TO TRY TO GET A A HEARSE INTO A INTO A BURIAL AREA. GRAVEYARD THE ROADS ARE SO BAD THAT THEY CAN'T EVEN GET A HEARSE IN IT. THERE HAVE BEEN PLENTY EXAMPLES THAT THIS COVERS THAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT IT WHICH I DON'T. MAYBE IT'S ME I DON'T KNOW THE REST OF IT.

[01:30:04]

I THINK IT'S EXCELLENT. I AGREE WITH EVERY POINT ON IT. BUT ITEM NUMBER F FOXTROT UNDER ITEM TWO TO AID MUNICIPALITIES SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS, SPECIAL TAX DISTRICTS WITHIN BEAUFORT COUNTY IN THE CONSTRUCTION REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE OF ROADWAYS OR OTHER PROJECTS LOCATED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL OR DISTRICT. I ASSUME THAT MEANS THAT WHERE WHERE THERE IS PRIVATE PROPERTY INVOLVED BECAUSE THE WAY IT READS IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR ROADS. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS THE INTENT. OR MAYBE I'M NOT READING IT CORRECTLY BUT I SEE ASSUMED THAT THIS WOULD MEAN THAT WE MISS FATALITY HAS A PRIVATE ROAD THAT CAN'T BE ACCESSED.

LET'S SAY THEY DON'T HAVE THEY DON'T HAVE GRADING EQUIPMENT THAT WE COULD COME TO THEIR AID . THAT'S WHAT I ASSUME IT PROBABLY BY PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION THAT THEY CAN'T GET NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY, PRIVATE CREDIT.

I'M SORRY PRIVATE ROADS. OK. OK.

THAT'S IF THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I GO. OK.

EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT WORK. DO YOU EVER MISS YOUR EXPERTISE AND YOUR YOUR YOUR DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF THE OPERATIONS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT? THANK YOU. SO I LOOKED AT A POLICY STATEMENT THAT PRIOR COUNCIL HAS. I GUESS IT'S STILL IN EFFECT. DO WE DID WE LOOK AT THAT POLICY STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO THIS ORDINANCE, THAT POLICY STATEMENT ONLY COMES INTO EFFECT IF SOMEONE IS BRINGING THEIR ROAD UP ON HIS OK, WAIT. THIS WOULD BE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAT POLICY STATEMENT WOULD STILL BE IF THEY WANT US TO TAKE OVER MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD THEN THEY GOT TO SPEND THE MONEY TO BRING THE ROAD COUNTY STANDARDS SO THAT THIS IS A ONE TIME PUBLIC SAFETY OR A MINIMAL NUMBER OF TOWNS PUBLIC SAFETY WORK ON PRIVATE ROADS FOR AMBULANCES, FIRE POLICE FUNERALS TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS PROPERTIES.

WE HAVE A SITUATION A COUPLE SITUATIONS HERE IN THE COUNTY. BILL CAN ELABORATE.

WE HAVE ONE SITUATION IN PARTICULAR WHERE IF THERE IS SOMEONE THAT GETS SICK WE HAVE TO TELL THE FAMILY THEY NEED TO BRING THAT PERSON OUT TO THE NEAREST PUBLIC ROAD BECAUSE WE CANNOT TAKE DOWN THAT ROAD AND THAT'S IN IN THOSE SITUATIONS EVERY SECOND MIGHT BE VITAL.

AND I WILL ECHO THAT THAT IT WAS WELL CRAFTED THROUGH ALL THE SCENARIOS AND POSSIBILITIES ARE DICTATED BY THE GOVERNMENTS. MARTIN I I'M GOING TO BE PROBABLY THE ONE OBJECTION TO THIS AND I STILL THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE SPENDING PUBLIC MONEY TO SAVE PRIVATE ROADS. I AGREE THAT THERE ARE EMERGENCY SITUATIONS THAT WE SHOULD GO OUT IN OUR EMERGENCY SITUATION AND TAKE CARE OF THINGS BUT THIS IS OPENING A PANDORA'S BOX. IF WE'RE GONNA DO THIS WE SHOULD HAVE A LIMIT ON HOW MUCH YOU SPENT FOR EACH ITEM. WE SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING IN HERE THAT WE ACTUALLY THEN GO BACK PROPERTY OWNERS WHO THEY ARE AND AND MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT MONEY WHETHER THAT'S LEADING YOUR PROPERTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> BUT THEY WHEN THEY SELL THE PROPERTY AND PAY THIS BACK, THEY CAN ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND MURDERS SIDE OF THIS. BUT YOU YOU'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED 25 PEOPLE.

ROSE AND HERE WE HAVE PEOPLE CALLING YOU ON A REGULAR BASIS COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW YOU HAVE ROADS THAT WE CAN'T EVEN TAKE CARE OF . SO I GUESS I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO BE A OBJECTION TO THIS AND THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE COULD LOOK AT THAT.

PAYMENTS ARE VIRTUALLY BASIS WAS GIVING AIR THAT THAT CERTAIN LATERAL MOVEMENT TO TO SEND FOLKS OUT TO SPEND SOME MONEY. BUT WHEN I READ THIS IT JUST YOU KNOW, EVEN CRUSHER RUN GRAVEL TYPE ROAD JOURNALS WILL NOT ROUTINELY PROVIDED IT WILL NOT BE THE ROADS AS ROUTINELY PROVIDES. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT MEANS THAT WE CAN BE USING THOSE THINGS BY FIXING UP OTHER PEOPLE'S ROADS.

AND WHAT I'VE SAID A LOT TIMES IS THE FACT THAT A ROAD DOESN'T GET IT FREE BECAUSE YOU HAVE PROPERTY SHARE AND NO ONE CAN AGREE TO PAY FOR IT. DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THE ROAD THAT PEOPLE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR THINGS THAT THEY'RE USED TO BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET ALONG? SO AGAIN, WE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN THIS THAT I JUST DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE SPENDING PUBLIC MONEY FOR PRIVATE ROADS. THERE, STU AND I APPRECIATE IT. MARKS COME.

ONE OF THE THINGS IN A RURAL COMMUNITY. PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS PROPERTY IS REALLY AWKWARD. YOU PULL YOUR MICROPHONE OVER. OH, THANK YOU.

OH, ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THE RURAL COMMUNITY. IN BEAUFORT PARTICULARLY WITH

[01:35:03]

THERE IS A LOT OF USED PROPERTY SO THERE'S REALLY NO OWNERSHIP SAY TO A LOT OF THESE ROADS THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY CLOSE IT EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO. AND THE THIS THIS ORDINANCE RIGHT HERE WILL BASICALLY GIVE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC SAFETY FOLKS.

OUR PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR THE AUTHORITY TO SEE IF WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS ROAD JUST TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE FOR EMERGENCY. THERE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE ACTUALLY LIVING DOWN THE ROAD THAT AT THE HEAD ROAD ITSELF IS OWNED BY SOMEONE ELSE AND THEY REFUSE TO GIVE THE RIDE AWAY FOR THE COUNTY TO MAINTAIN IT AND MAKE IT A COUNTY ROAD.

SO IT WILL ALWAYS REMAIN A PRIVATE ROAD EVEN THOUGH THE FOLKS WHO LIVE FURTHER DOWN THAT ROAD MORE AND MAKE IT A PRIVATE I MEAN A COUNTY ROAD BECAUSE WE CANNOT GET ALL THE SIGNATURES INVOLVED. THEY WOULD JUST REFUSE TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.

BUT THEY ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING AND THEN BEING ABLE TO HAVE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THOSE YOU KNOW IN THAT ROAD IS SO I UNDERSTAND WHY WHEN YOU HAVE URBAN AREAS YOU HAVE MUNICIPALITIES, YOU MAY HAVE A BETTER ROAD SYSTEM BUT IN A RURAL AREA IT'S THIS IS A COUNTRY ROAD. AND WITH ALL THESE EXCESSIVE RAIN THAT WE'VE BEEN GETTING HERE LATELY, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER FOLKS CAN ACTUALLY GET IN OR OUT OF THEIR ROADS EVEN TO GET TO GET FOOD. SO I THINK IN THIS COUNTY WE HAVE THE LUXURY.

AND FOR US TO ALLOW SOMEBODY'S HOUSE TO BURN DOWN OR ALLOW SOMEBODY NOT TO GET TO AN AMBULANCE SERVICE BECAUSE OF THE LAW ITSELF. I THINK WE SHOULD BE READY TO SAY TO ANYBODY WHO WOULD WANT CHALLENGES HERE GO AHEAD AND SUE US BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO OUR PEOPLE. THAT'S WHAT THIS BASICALLY DOES HERE MINIMUM NET NET TO A STANDARD THAT A COUNTY WOULD WANT BEFORE THEY TAKE A TOLL ROAD WOULD JUST ALLOW IN THE EARMARKS THE SHERIFF TO GET DOWN THESE ROAD FOLKS TO TO BEAR THE DEEDS BECAUSE MOST

OF THE DEAD CEMETERIES ARE THINK ACCESSIBLE. >> WE REALLY ACTUALLY ON THE WATER IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET TO THERE. SO I SUPPORT THIS HERE AND A REALLY LIKE THEM ALL FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE AUDIENCE OF FIRST READING MR. CHAIRMAN,

WE'RE GOING THANK YOU. >> IS THERE A SECOND FOUR SECONDS? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, JOE TO MR. GLOVER'S POINT. THIS IS THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE. IF WE IN FACT TAKE THIS, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE READINGS AND A PUBLIC HEARING. WE CAN ADDRESS THE VARIOUS THINGS THAT CAME TO MY MIND THAT WE'VE ALREADY ANTICIPATED. THERE MAY BE 25 ROADS THAT IF AN EMERGENCY THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S HAPPENED IF AN EMERGENCY WERE TO HAPPEN ON THAT ROAD WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

NOW WE MAY HAVE A MEANS AND METHOD OF ADDRESSING THOSE ROADS.

MAYBE WE GO TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THAT ROAD TO INDICATE THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET THERE IS TO IMPROVE THIS ROAD FOR AN EMERGENCY PURPOSE. AND HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT. THAT'S SOMETHING FOR US TO ELABORATE BEFORE WE FINALIZE THIS. SAY NO OTHER COMMENTS MADE BY ANALYST JIM.

ONE MINUTE LET ME GO. I AGREE WITH EVERYONE WHO'S SAID THIS NICELY WORDED ORDINANCE SO I APPRECIATE THAT . I WOULD JUST UNDER NUMBER TWO WE HAVE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. ALSO DIRECT THE USE OF PUBLIC FORCES AND RESOURCES IF HE SLASH SHE APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

YOU'VE DONE YOUR GOOD. YES, SIR. OK.

I WAS BAITED BREATH. I THOUGHT WELL I JUST WANT TO SAY WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MAINTAINING THE ROADS. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF FIX IT TAKES TO BE ABLE TO GET EMERGENCY VEHICLES AGAIN. I'VE GOT TO SAVE IT.

KURT, I THINK YOU NAILED IT. YOU'VE COVERED THIS VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER

[01:40:01]

WHICH THIS CAN HAPPEN. IT'S JUST NOT A BROAD. WHENEVER SOMEBODY FEELS LIKE WHENEVER SOMEBODY COMPLAINS PERHAPS TO BE VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HAVE TO BE MET AND THE ROAD HAS TO BE INSPECTED BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DESIGNEE OR THE FIRE CHIEF OR THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC SAFETY. AND SO I THINK THERE ARE PLENTY SAFEGUARDS IN HERE TO PREVENT US FROM EVER GETTING INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE WE'RE GOING TO SPEND PUBLIC MONEY AND INAPPROPRIATELY SO THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER DOING TO COUNCIL MEMBER LAWSON WHEN HE SAID WHY HE SAID IT MADE ME THINK OF ONE SITUATION WHERE COUNCIL LAWSON CHAIRMAN PASSED MY AND AN HOUR IN A MEETING WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD A FEW MONTHS AGO THAT PEOPLE WERE USING OUR PRIVATE ROAD TO ACCESS COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES. SO WE MIGHT NEED TO ADD THAT EXCEPTION IN THERE THAT IF THERE IS A COMMERCIAL USE ON THAT ROAD THEY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR US TO BE DOING MAINTENANCE UNDERNEATH THOSE SITUATIONS.

SO THAT YOU KNOW THAT THAT WILL HELP FIX THAT WILL HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS. BUT IT'S CALLED THE QUESTION. SARA, YOU WANT TO READ THE ROLL ,COUNCILMAN GLOVER? YES, COUNCIL MEMBER SOMERVILLE .

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER CUNNINGHAM. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER MAGELLAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER LAWSON.

MARK LAWSON. >> NOW COUNCIL MEMBER HOWARD. >> YES.

CHAIRMAN ROBIN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PARSIMONY.

YES. THE NATION PASSES SERVICE. OH GOD.

[16. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY KNOWN AS 16TH STREET EXTENSION AND A RELATED DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO THE TOWN OF PORT ROYAL ]

OUR OWN LAND COUNCIL MEMBER HARBORSIDE. NO.

>> NO. NO. MOTION STILL PASSES.

OKAY. MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM.

VAN'S BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME. HIS CONVEYANCE OF SOME RIGHT AWAY KNOWN AS 16TH STREET EXTENSION. YOU STILL WANTED AFTER ALL THIS TIME.

YEAH, THIS ONE I FEEL IT IN EVERYTHING AND THAT IS THE MAN I NEED TO I THINK IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS WE HAVE A ROAD OR A SERIES ROADS 16TH STREET EXTENSION THAT FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES HAS BEEN A TOWN ON ROAD FOR A LONG TIME.

THE PROBLEM IS NEVER GOT ONLY ONE DAY. SO WE CAME UPON THIS IDEA AS A LONG ROAD WITH THIS ONE ROAD. IT CAN FIND THIS. THE TOWN IS DOING SOME WORK AND SOME DRAINAGE WORK. AND HEY, CAN YOU TAKE A LOOK? AS WE LOOK INTO IT.

GET IT OUT RIGHT AWAY. TO DETERMINE THAT NOT EVERYTHING.

SO THIS WOULD BE A CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY OF A ROAD TO AN IMPORTANT WELL FOR THEM TO MAINTAIN AT NO COST. JUST A STRAIGHT PLAN B. THEN TO CONVEY THESE ROADS WE ANYTHING GOOD ENOUGH? LOOK FOR EMOTION ON THAT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE PLAY OR ELSE THE SECOND I SAID OKAY. YOU'RE SAYING ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NONE.

[17. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING AUTHORIZATION FOR GOLF CARTS TO USE MULTI-USE TRAILS AND PATHS]

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION HEARING MAN WHO STANDS APPROVED WITHOUT OBJECTION AND LEADS US TO OUR LAST ITEM WHICH GOLF CARTS ON MULTI USE TRAILS AND PATHS WHICH THESE GENTLEMEN SPOKE TO EARLIER. SO WHO'S GONNA WHO'S TAKING THAT UP FOR THE COUNTY'S? I GUESS SO. OKAY. MARK YEAH.

HERE YOU. YOUR BOY. KIND OF COME FROM PUTTING US PAST US TO A LIGHTWEIGHT WHETHER OR NOT YOU WILL BE APPROPRIATE.

IF WE COULD FIND A GOLF CART HE'S MORE USED TO OUR PAST IN THE COMIC BOOK.