8. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE BEAUFORT COUNTY DIXIE JUNIOR BOYS BASEBALL TEAM - Council Member Larry McElynn

[13. TIME SENSITIVE ITEM FROM THE 9.25.2023 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING - APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED MEMBERS DISCUSSED DURING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING TO THE SALES TAX COMMITTEE]

OF THE AGENDA WILL BE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT OBJECTION ITEM.

NUMBER 13 IS A TIME SENSITIVE ITEM FROM OUR PREVIOUS PUBLIC FACILITIES MEETING.

IT'S THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED MEMBERS DISCUSSED DURING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SAFETY COMMITTEE TO THE SALES TAX COMMITTEE. MAY I HAVE SUCH A MOTION? MR. CUNNINGHAM YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. MOVE THAT WE APPOINT MR. SOLOMON FROM SAINT ISLAND DISTRICT THREE MISS RUFF FROM LADIES ISLAND DISTRICT TWO MR.

[00:55:01]

LENNOX FROM HILTON HEAD ISLAND DISTRICT 11 TO THE TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUTH CAROLINA SECTION FOUR DASH TEN DASH 3/22 PLEASE I'LL SECOND THIS MISS HOWARD MADE THE SECOND FOR THE AUDIENCE AND THOSE ON LINE WE'RE HAVING A TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE IT'S DONE UNDER SOUTH CAROLINA LAW SECTION FOUR DASH 10TH AND DASH 320 IT WILL BE A MEMBER COMMITTEE BY THE MUNICIPALITIES GET TO APPOINT CERTAIN MEMBERS HE'LL HEAD BEING LARGEST THEY GET TO APPOINT A MEMBER HILTON HEAD HAS APPOINTED MR. MAURICE CAMPBELL AS THAT MEMBER MR. CAMPBELL THEN APPROVES THE SELECTION OF THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND SO HE HAS APPROVED MR. CHARLIE WETMORE FROM THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON AND DEAN WAS FROM THE CITY OF BEAUFORT AND TOWN OF PORT ROYAL. SO THAT SIX COMMITTEE MEMBER IS SET. WE HAVE THREE MEMBERS WHO REPRESENT NORTH OF THE BROAD AND THREE MEMBERS WHO REPRESENT SOUTH OF THE BROAD THAT COMMITTEE DISCUSS THE NEED OF TRANSPORTATION AND CAPITAL PROJECTS. THEY WILL BRING THEIR FINDINGS TO COUNCIL IN LATE DECEMBER. COUNCIL WILL THEN DIGEST THAT INFORMATION AND DETERMINE IF IT'S NECESSARY FOR US TO HAVE A REFERENDUM IN 2024. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION SEEING NONE OF THIS WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT OBJECTION. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS THERE

[14. PUBLIC HEARING AND THIRD READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BEAUFORT COUNTY’S BUDGET ORDINANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 (ORDINANCE 2023/22) TO APPROPRIATE $350,000 TO COUNTY COUNCIL TO COVER COST OF REVIEWS, AUDITS, AND INVESTIGATIONS (FISCAL IMPACT: this ordinance will appropriate $350,000 from the General Fund, Fund Balance to Council’s FY24 line item budget)]

ARE NO OBJECTIONS. NEXT IS A THIRD A PUBLIC HEARING AND THIRD READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COUNTY'S BUDGET ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 TO APPROPRIATE $350,000 TO COUNTY COUNCIL TO COVER THE COST OF REVIEWS, AUDITS AND INVESTIGATIONS.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE? MR. BARTHOLOMEW OH NO. BY ALL MEANS, MISS BROWN OKAY, JULIE MOTION IN SECOND. IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? NO, NO.

YOU ALL THINK YOU NEED MORE MONEY? NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE NEED.

I WANT MONEY FROM OUR BALANCE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. AND HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE TAXPAYERS ARE WE PAYING FOR THAT? NO, WE THE MONEY IT'S GOT TO COME. SO YOU'VE GOTTEN IT FROM US ALREADY? YES. THEN IT IS US WHO IS PAYING FOR THIS, MR. CHAIRMAN MAN THE FUNDS ARE BEING USED FOR EXACTLY WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE LAST TWO MONTHS PUBLICLY. OKAY. AUDITS AND INVESTIGATIONS TWO THINGS GOING ON COUNTY BEING TRANSPARENT HAVE BEEN GOING OVER THIS FOR I MEAN I'M SURE IF ANY OF YOU HAVE READ THE PAPERS YOU'VE SEEN THE THINGS THAT HAVE COME OUT THIS IS US TAKING THAT STEP TO HIRE AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT AND APPROPRIATE THOSE FUNDS TO DO JUST THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS MISAPPROPRIATION HAPPENING WITH THEM.

BUTTE COUNTY YEAH. HOW ARE YOU INCLUDING PUBLIC IN PARTICIPATING IN THAT PROCESS? IT'S WE HIRED AN OUTSIDE SOURCE OUTSIDE IF YOU'LL LET ME FINISH ANSWERING I WILL ANSWER FOR YOU. WE HIRED AN OUTSIDE SOURCE AND NOBODY WITHIN COUNTY CAN INTERJECT OR INTERFERE WITH THE INVESTIGATION TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS FUNDED FUNDING THAT YOU GUYS PUT IN TRUST WITH US IN THE COUNTY. OH, OKAY.

SO THAT MEANS THAT FOR LIKE THE ABUSE OF TAX THAT YOU ALL HAVE COMMITTED IN THE PAST WE COULD POSSIBLY GET OF OUR MONEY BACK. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE INVESTIGATION IS ABOUT.

INVESTIGATIONS, MISUSE OF FUNDS. OH, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO LOOK BACK ANY OF OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS FOR THE PAST TWO MONTHS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT EVERY SINGLE TIME WHEN WE YEAH BUT YOU'RE NOT ADDRESSING OUR ISSUES THAT'S ALL I'M TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE EXACT ISSUES ARE IS WHAT THESE FUNDS ARE GOING TO TOWARDS THAT INVESTIGATION AND THOSE REPORTS WILL BE PUBLICLY AND DONE HERE AND IN THE PUBLIC TRANSPARENT FORM IT'S OKAY FOR ME NO NAMES FOR INFORMATION FOR EVERYONE.

SUSAN AS FOR ME YES MA'AM. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC SEEING THEM WERE CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE COMMENTS THE COUNCIL A I WOULD JUST LIKE SAY ONE THING ABOUT THIS BUT WE'RE APPROPRIATING 350 THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE GOING TO SPEND ALL OF IT.

WE'RE JUST AUTHORIZING AMOUNT FOR THE BUILDING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS CLEAR ABOUT THAT. OKAY. MR. BRESLIN, ANY OTHER

[15. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 34 ULMER ROAD (FISCAL IMPACT: $3,150,000 Purchase Price plus closing costs and to include all due diligence costs. Funding source is the General Fund- Fund Balance)]

DISCUSSION THIS WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT OBJECTION AND I SEE NO OBJECTIONS.

ITEM NUMBER 15 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE THE NEXT NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE

[01:00:03]

PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 34 ULMER ROAD A MOTION MAKE THAT MOTION MR. LAWSON I'LL SECOND MR. CHAIRMAN FOR SENSE OF DISCUSSION. MR. CUNNINGHAM TO THE MOTION AND SECONDED AGAIN A PUBLIC HEARING SIR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS PURCHASE YES ,MA'AM. YEAH.

THE COUNTY HAS BEEN PURCHASING A LOT OF PROPERTIES AROUND HERE OR THE COUNTY DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE COUNTY GET TO GIVE US BACK OUR PROPERTY WHEN THEY ARE DONE IT BECAUSE ONCE YOU PURCHASE IT IS YOU ACT LIKE IT'S YOURS BUT WE WANT OUR OWN PROPERTY.

WE WANT PROPERTY TO BELONG TO US NOT TO THE DEVELOPERS, NOT TO ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT COME INTO OUR TOWN FOR THREE AND FOUR AND FIVE YEARS WHILE WE WHO WERE HERE FOR MORE THAN 50, 60, 70, 100 YEARS. YEAH. TO PAY ALL THE TAXES FOR IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS SAYING NONE WILL NOW GO TO COUNCIL. YES THIS PROPERTY I WAS AT THE RURAL AND CRITICAL LANDS MEETING AND IT WAS PROPOSED THAT RURAL AND CRITICAL PAY FOR DUE DILIGENCE AND IT WAS THREE THREE VOTE SO IT FAILED. I CANNOT VOTE I'D LIKE HAVE A ROLL CALL ON THIS. I CANNOT VOTE FOR THIS. IT I KNOW IT'S ADJACENT TO SOME PROPERTY THAT WE ALREADY HAVE BUT IT ALSO HAS A CELL TOWER ON IT WHICH MAKES IT LESS USEFUL BECAUSE OF A PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR THAT AND I REQUEST THAT WE DO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS.

OKAY OTHER DISCUSSIONS MR. LAWSON WE JUST MENTIONED SOMETHING THAT'S COME TO US HERE JUST AT THIS MEETING AND THAT IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT TRYING TO PURCHASE THIS THROUGH OUR OUR GENERAL FUNDS. I KNOW THAT I MIGHT ASK STEFANI COME FORWARD AND TALK TO US BUT RURAL CRITICAL LANDS WAS ALSO LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY.

IT'S ADJACENT TO BAILEY'S PARK WHICH IS ALREADY A PIECE OF PROPERTY LOOKING AT CREATING A PARK WITH AND THEN THIS PROPERTY WOULD SIT NEXT TO IT THAT WOULD MAKE THEM THIS 100 ACRES IN RIGHT OUTSIDE THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF BLUFFTON NEAR THE ULMER ROAD CENTER THERE AND . IT'S BEEN MADE TO OUR ATTENTION THAT IF WE CAN CLOSE ON THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS THAT THE PURCHASER IT'S BEEN APPRAISED FOR THAT $3.1 MILLION IS IN THE CURRENT BUDGET. BUT IF WE CAN CLOSE THIS PROPERTY IN OCTOBER THAT THEY WOULD ACTUALLY ACCEPT $2.5 MILLION TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTIES THAT COME DOWN IN PRICE BECAUSE THEY WANT THE COUNTY TO PURCHASE IT IF WE CAN'T PURCHASE WELL THEN THEY WILL LOOK AT IT TRYING TO PUT IT BACK ON THE MARKET OR HAVE OTHER PURCHASERS LOOK AT. SO AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT WE DISCUSS HERE IS IS THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY WHETHER WE PRESERVE IT, WHETHER IT IS SOMETHING GOES THROUGH RURAL CRITICAL LANDS, WHETHER WE PURCHASE IT AS A COUNTY PROPERTY WHICH THEN WE COULD LOOK AT EXPANDING THE ART THE BLUFFTON REC CENTER THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET FOR PURPOSES THERE SO AGAIN THIS IS PROPERTY IN AN AREA THAT THERE IS NOT MUCH ELSE THERE AND EVERYTHING IS GROWING. SO AGAIN SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BEST OPTION IS FOR US AT THIS FOR US TO CLOSE ON THIS AS QUICK AS WE CAN.

STEPHANIE, YOU WANT TO KIND OF GIVE US AN OVERALL FROM THE RURAL CRITICAL LANDS OF WHAT YOUR THOUGHT WAS AND I KIND OF GRABBED DEREK FOR THIS MEETING AND SAID WOULD YOU MIND SPEAKING AND COMING FORWARD? SO WE KIND OF PUT YOU THE SPOT BEFORE SHE SPEAKS.

I HAVE A QUESTION I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT IT'S NOT LIKE WE CANNOT USE THAT LANE FOR AND FOOTBALL FIELDS. CORRECT? RIGHT.

WELL OKAY AROUND TOO MUCH WETLANDS BUT I WHAT I DON'T WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT PART BEFORE WE SHARE PART OF IT CAN BE USED FOR BALLFIELDS JUST NOT AS MANY BALL FIELDS WE ORIGINALLY PLANNED SO THAT'S WHY WE STARTED THIS THE AWAY FROM IT BECAUSE OUR GOAL ONE OF THE GOALS I'VE BEEN PUSHING IN THE BLUFFTON AREA IS TO GET AT LEAST EIGHT BALL FIELD CENTER SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY HOLD TOURNAMENTS AND ACTUALLY INSTEAD OF SENDING OUR KIDS ACROSS STATE LINES INTO COLUMBIA, MYRTLE BEACH AND ALL OVER THE STATE SO IT'S NOT GOING TO REACH THE GOAL THAT WE INITIALLY INTENDED NOT SAYING WE WOULD BUILD MORE FOR PARKS BUT IT HAVE ROOM FOR ABOUT THREE OR FOUR. THANK YOU.

LOVELY THANK MR. CHAIR. COUNSEL, I'M GOING TO JUST GO BACK SLIGHTLY AS TO HOW I ENDED UP GETTING INVOLVED THIS SO IN 2018 WHEN WE PURCHASED THE BAILEY PARK AND ASKED OUR CONTRACTOR AT THE TIME TO ALSO INVESTIGATE THIS PROPERTY FOR SALE, WE WERE TOLD BY THAT

[01:05:05]

OWNER THAT THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED IN SELLING TO RURAL CRITICAL.

IT HAS STILL BEEN ON STAFF'S RADAR FOR PURCHASE SO WHEN NEW OWNERS BECAME AVAILABLE TO US AS POTENTIAL SELLERS VERY EARLY THIS YEAR I WAS INTERESTED AND THEY HAD FILLED OUT THE APPLICATION FOR THE ROLE AND CRITICAL PROGRAM SO I DID BRING IT TO ROLE AND CRITICAL BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 14TH. IT IS TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF BAILEY MEMORIAL PARK.

THERE IS A VERY BIG OL WETLAND THAT STRADDLES THE TWO PROPERTIES THE SOUTH END OF THIS PROPERTY IN THE NORTH END OF OUR PROPERTY MY INTEREST IN IT IS FROM HABITAT CONNECTIVITY PERSPECTIVE SO IF THIS PROPERTY WERE DEVELOPED IT WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR WETLANDS AS WELL AS THAT PROPERTY'S WETLANDS I'M ALSO INTERESTED IN THIS PROPERTY FROM THE GREEN PRINT PERSPECTIVE IT DOES HAVE A HIGH PRIORITY FOR WATER QUALITY HIGHER THAN OUR EXISTING BAILEY MEMORIAL PARK SO THERE IS A POSSIBILITY TO WELL TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROPERTY FOR FUTURE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE OLDROYD COMMUNITY SO I KNOW OUR PUBLIC WORKS STORMWATER FOLKS MAY HAVE AN INTEREST IN IT IN THE FUTURE I WAS INFORMED THAT IT WAS NOT THAT WE WENT DOWN THE RECREATION PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT SIDE BUT BECAUSE OF THE UNSUITABILITY THE PROPERTY WITH ALL THE WETLANDS AND THE CONFIGURATION OF WHERE EVERYTHING IS REGARDING THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO BE SUITABLE FOR THAT BUT I STILL HAD AN INTEREST FROM COUNTY STAFF PERSPECTIVE FOR THE HABITAT QUALITY, WATER QUALITY AND CONNECTIVITY SO IT WOULD BE ALMOST 100 ACRES WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE TO DOWNTOWN BLUFFTON I THINK IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE A GOOD PARK AND TO INCLUDE IN OUR EXISTING PASSIVE PARKS WAS GOOD .

YEAH. SO JUST TO TALK ABOUT LOGISTICS HERE THEN OF THIS AND THIS ENTIRE OPERATION WE KNOW WE HAVE CLOSE IN 30 DAYS BRADY MIGHT HAVE TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ANYWHERE IN THIS BUT WE HAVE A SHORT TIME TO CLOSE TO DROP THE PRICE TAG DOWN WITH IS WHAT IN EACH OUR CRITICAL HAS IN THEIR ACCOUNT CORRECT DUE DILIGENCE THIS IS FROM GENERAL FUND THIS WOULD BE I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE THE MONEY NOW TO DO IN GENERAL FUNDS THEY HAVE THE MONEY TO AS WELL BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CLOSE WITHIN 30 DAYS AND THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT. THE BOARD IS NOT BEHIND THIS PROJECT SO WITH SAID IF WE DID THAT THE INTENT WOULD BE TO LOOK AT IT FOR EITHER HOLDING IT AS GREENSPACE AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, TRANSFERRING IT OVER IN A SALE TO OUR OWN CRITICAL OR TRANSFER OVER TO OUR SALE OF STORMWATER. NOW THOSE ARE THREE OPTIONS. YES WE UNDER A LITTLE BIT OF A GUN BECAUSE OF THE TIME FRAME THAT SAVE THE 650,000 BUT THAT'S JUST PUTTING THE INFORMATION OUT THERE OF HOW WE GOT TO THIS TIME FRAME WE'RE ON OF GETTING THIS DONE BEFORE THE END OF OCTOBER AND WHY WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME TYPE OF DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY OR NOT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TIME FRAME IF THIS DOESN'T PASS TODAY OR GETS POSTPONED TO CLOSING TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER READING. THIS IS ONLY SECOND READING.

IT'S A COMPLICATED ONE ITEM MOVIE BUT GO AHEAD MR. CHAIRMAN.

WE SHOULD THANK YOU. STEPHANIE HELPED ME GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE TODAY. WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU SAY IS THAT YOU WERE VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN THIS PROPERTY FOR PASSIVE PARK IN CONNECTION WITH THE DAILIES PROPERTY? YES SIR. THE RULING CRITICAL VOTED 3 TO 3 SO IT WAS NULL AND VOID.

YES. SO COULD YOU GIVE ME SOME RATIONALE BEHIND THE NAYS AND THE YEAS AS IT RELATES TO THIS PROPERTY FROM THE RULING CRITICAL LAND PROGRAM? YES, SIR. AND MISS HOWARD CAN DEFINITELY CORRECT ME IF I'M MISINTERPRETING MY QUESTION TO THE RULING CRITICAL BOARD WAS TO ACTUALLY GET A SECOND OPINION OF AN APPRAISAL BECAUSE THE FIRST APPRAISER WAS NOT ON OUR CONSERVATION LIST CONSERVATION APPRAISERS LIST. SO IN TO FOLLOW WITH THE RULE AND CRITICAL PROCEDURES POLICIES THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE I WANTED TO GET A SECOND OPINION FROM A CONSERVATION APPRAISER. I'D ASK THE BOARD IF THEY WOULD MAKE A MOTION PER DISCUSSION.

[01:10:02]

HALF THE BOARD SEEMED ON BOARD AND HALF THE BOARD DIDN'T SEEM ON BOARD AND THEN ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS INSTEAD MADE A MOTION TO DENY PROJECT AND THEN THAT WAS THE TIE VOTE AND THEN THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL VOTE TAKEN FROM THAT. SO THE YAYS, THE NAYS THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE CELL TOWER AND THEN ALSO I GUESS FELT THIS IS ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S ON THE PROPERTY AND IT IS A LEASE IT'S NOT A PERPETUAL LEASE BUT IT IS A LONG TERM LEASE. IT WOULDN'T END UNTIL I THINK 2046 SO IT IS A LONG TERM LEASE . SO THEY WERE THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THAT AND THEN THEY ALSO I THINK FELT THAT DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE WOULD BE LOW DUE TO THE WETLANDS AND BUFFERS AND THINGS AND THAT MAYBE CODE WOULD PROTECT PROPERTY THE PEOPLE WHO WERE FOR IT OR SEEMED TO SAY OKAY SEEM TO WANT TO BE OKAY WITH GETTING AT LEAST A SECOND OPINION APPRAISAL THAT WAS JUST THAT WAS MORE THE THE YAYS WAS JUST WELL LET'S GET AN ADDITIONAL APPRAISAL SEE WHAT THAT SAYS BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED FUNDS WITH THE WRONG CRITICAL AND SO IF I UNDERSTAND MR. CUNNINGHAM NOW THERE IS A IF THE IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS FOR THE RULING CRITICAL LAND PROGRAM THERE'S A TIME FACTOR THAT I THINK I'M HEARING THAT WE NEED TO MOVE BUT THE QUESTION BECOMES IF COUNCIL PURCHASED THIS OUT OF THEIR FUNDING THEN THE COUNCIL HAS TO TRANSFER IT TO RURAL AND CRITICAL LAND TO PUT IT BACK IN THEIR PROGRAM.

IF YOU PAID FOR IT OUT OF GENERAL REVENUE FUNDING THEN YOU YOU COULD HOLD IT WITHOUT BEING IN RURAL AND CRITICAL ONLY REASONABLE SERVE YOUR PURPOSE IF THE COUNTY DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE IF YOU DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH IT BESIDES THE PASSIVE PARK THEN THAT WOULD BE COUNCIL'S PREROGATIVE. BUT TO YOUR POINT YOU COULD BE PURCHASED WITH GENERAL FUNDS. THERE'S LIMITED FUNDS LEFT AND RURAL CRITICAL AND THAT WAS ANOTHER CONCERN THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD THAT THE DOLLARS THAT ARE LEFT AND THEY REALIZED THEY'RE GOING OUT OF EXISTENCE ARE VERY PRECIOUS AND I THINK THAT WAS POINT RIGHT AND I WOULD DEFER TO MR. CHRISTMAS TO TO CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS HAS THAT.

YEAH MY MY CONCERN IS THAT IF WE PURCHASE IT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IN THE PAST PARK BUT COUNCIL HAS TO DO THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT STAYS THERE PERPETUALLY THAT'S MY TAKE ON THIS CURRENTLY THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA THE THE FUNDING SOURCE FOR THIS ITEM IS THE GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE. THAT MEANS WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROVE THAT MONEY FROM FUND BALANCE SO THERE'S FUNDS THERE.

IT'S NOT APPROPRIATED FUNDS SO WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT WHATEVER THAT ASSESSMENT IS RIGHT NOW IT WAS 3.4 $3.1 MILLION. IF IT'S $2.5 MILLION, WE'D STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU AND ASK FOR THOSE FUNDS TO MOVE TO THAT ACCOUNT TO MAKE THAT PURCHASE. AND FOR A SEPARATE APPRAISAL, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT I WOULD HIRE COMPASS SOUTH WHO DID THE BAILEY APPRAISAL SO? WE CAN HAVE A GOOD COMPARISON WITH WHAT WE PURCHASED FIVE YEARS AGO.

THEY WOULD PROBABLY TAKE JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO GET THAT SECOND COULD ASK ASKING FOR AN EXPEDITED APPRAISAL I'M ALL RIGHT. I'M SURE I COULD.

YES, MS.. WORD THANK YOU JUST FOR CLARITY AND THE AUDIENCE ACTUALLY THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY PREPARATION OF THAT FUNDING SOURCES OF THAT ORDINANCE SO HE'S SECURE APPROVAL FOR BOTH IT DOES UP TO THAT AMOUNT UP TO THAT AMOUNT.

GOOD QUESTION FOR MR.. QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU THE CELL PHONE TOWER THE EASEMENT IS THAT ABLE TO BE MOVED IF WE DO ACQUIRE THIS OR IS THAT DOES IT HAVE TO STAY RIGHT RIGHT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT HAS TO STAY. THERE ARE.

THEY PAYING A LEASE THROUGH 2046 ARE THEY ARE THEY PAYING WHAT ARE THEY PAYING FOR THAT.

I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE AMOUNT THE RENTAL RATE IS ON THAT THE LEASE RATE ON IT BUT I CAN GET THE IMPRESSION WAYNE COUNTY START GOING TO THE COUNTY I WOULD ASSUME IT WOULD BE ASSIGNED WITH THE PURCHASE. YES THAT WOULD BE A CONTINGENCY OF IT AND THE THING I WOULD STRESS ON THIS IS THIS IS ONLY THE SECOND READING BUT IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD TODAY THERE'S NOT A TIME NOW WE CAN MOVE IT TO THIRD READING TO GET MORE INFORMATION AND THEN DECIDE AFTER THAT SO YOU CAN AS WELL GET MORE INFORMATION YOUR END WE CAN ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE AS WELL MYSELF INCLUDED IF WE VOTE FOR IT TONIGHT WE'RE VOTING JUST TO REITERATE WE'RE VOTING TO USE GENERAL FUND MONEY TO PURCHASE THAT IS CORRECT.

[01:15:04]

NOT JUST TO DO THE APPRAISAL. THAT IS CORRECT. SO WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE.

PLEASE LET ME JUST GO BACK AND SAY THAT OBVIOUSLY IN HERE WE WERE LOOKING AT PURCHASING THIS WHICH ARE APPRAISAL CAME IN AT THAT 3.15 AMOUNT AND THE SELLER IS NOW COMING TO US AND SAYING IF WE CAN MOVE QUICKER THAT THEY WOULD REDUCE THE COST OF PURCHASE FROM THE 3.15.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT ROLL PURPLE ARMS WAS LOOKING AT AS WELL WAS THAT SAME AMOUNT OF PURCHASE OF 3.15 AT THIS PROPERTY NOW IS THAT 2.5 AGAIN TO TO PRESERVE THE 40 ACRES RIGHT OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN BLUFFTON THAT IF WE DON'T PURCHASE IT IT WILL END BEING HOMES IN THAT AREA.

SO AGAIN JUST JUST THAT THROWING OUT THERE AS A AS THE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING. SO AGAIN, I WOULD I WOULD ASK FOR US TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND THEN GET THE DETAILS AND INFORMATION BY OUR NEXT PLAYER OUR NEXT MEETING AND INCLUDE IT IN THOSE DETAILS WOULD IT BE A SECOND APPRAISAL BECAUSE IF THAT'S IT WE WOULD NEED TO AMEND WHAT WE WANT TO DO HERE BECAUSE THERE'S AN EXTRA FUNDS TO DO A SECOND APPRAISAL AND WHERE THEY COME FROM I DON'T THINK SO MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINK THE APPRAISAL WOULD BE ON REAL AND NOT COUNTY COUNCIL. NO, WOULD NOT. WHY WOULD IT NOT BE THERE? THE BUSINESS IS NOT ASKED TO DO IT AND VOTED NOT THEN THERE IS NO SECOND APPRAISAL.

WE'RE NOT FUNDING A SECOND APPRAISAL. WE'RE NOT REQUESTING A SECOND APPRAISAL. WE DIDN'T COVER THE DUE DILIGENCE COST ALREADY THE DUE DILIGENCE COST ARE DIFFERENT ANALYSIS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS AND SO FORTH SURVEYS THAT THE SELLER HAS ACTUALLY ALREADY PROVIDED TO THE COUNTY YOU WOULD NOT A SECOND APPRAISAL IF WE JUST DIDN'T APPRAISAL AT 3.15 AND WE'RE GETTING IT FOR 2.5 I'M SURE THE NEXT APPRAISAL WOULD BE UNDER 650 IS NOT GOING TO BE UNDER 650,000. WE JUST DID THE APPRAISAL ON THIS A MONTH AGO AT THE GAME SO I WOULD HAVE TO PULL IT UP BUT MR. GEORGE OWNS THE ADMINISTRATION. THEY CAME OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATORS CONTINGENCY FUND I BELIEVE AND WAS MR. GREENWAY THE ADMINISTRATOR THAT YES HE WAS AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE APPRAISER. THEN I WOULD ASK TO CALL RON.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. YES.

HOW MUCH MR. ROBINSON HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE IN THE FUND BALANCE FOR RURAL AND CRITICAL ? I MEAN WE SHOULD KNOW HOW MUCH WE'RE GETTING READY TO SPEND AND HOW MUCH IS IN CRITICAL ROLE IN RIGHT AROUND TWO AND A HALF.

IT'S ABOUT 2.6 UNTIL ABOUT 72.6 . OKAY.

READY TO VOTE? THIS IS UP TO THREE POINT I'M NOT SURE WHEN I'M WITH MR. CHAIRMAN. OKAY. THIS IS THIS WOULD MOVE THIS JUST AS YOU SEE THIS NOW CORRECT FOR THE THIRD AND FINAL READING AT THE NEXT COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING TO PURCHASE 34 ULMER ROAD WHETHER WE CAN PURCHASE IT WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS AT 2.5 OR IF THE COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING FOR SOME REASON DOESN'T HAPPEN IN TIME IT'S GOING TO BE 3.1 AND IT'S ALL GOING TO COME FROM OUR GENERAL FUND BALANCE AND CORRECT THIS UP TO 3.1 CORRECTION 3.1 AND IF SOMETHING CHANGES IT WILL BE LESS CORRECT AND WE'LL KNOW THAT BY THE NEXT MEETING CORRECT BECAUSE THERE WILL BE DECISIONS MADE ALONG THE WAY.

OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WOULD YOU CLOSE IT AND ASK THIS QUESTION ASSUMING WE ARE WE ARE BASING THIS ON THE APPRAISAL THAT WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY CORRECT IN JULY IN JULY. SO AS MR. CUNNINGHAM HAS SAID AND IT WAS FOR 3.1 BUT WE CAN PURCHASE IT FOR FIVE AND WE HAVE TO DO THAT WITHIN THE DAYS OUR STAFF SAID THAT THE WAS NOT A NO THAT RULE AND CRITICAL LENS TO DO THEIR APPRAISAL THEY NEEDED SOMEONE THAT WAS APPROVED BY RULE CRITICAL LANDS CONSERVATION APPRAISER I GOT YOU LOOK OKAY IS EVERYBODY NOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON OKAY WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE

[01:20:07]

COUNCIL MEMBER LAWSON. MARK LAWSON YES. COUNCIL MEMBER CUNNINGHAM YES.

COUNCILMEMBER TABACHNICK YES. COUNCILMEMBER REED'S YES. COUNCILMEMBER HOWARD NO.

COUNCILMEMBER GLOVER NO COUNCILMEMBER. DODSON YES.

COUNCILMEMBER BROWN YES. COUNCILMEMBER BARTHOLOMEW YES. VICE-CHAIR MAGELLAN YES.

CHAIRMAN PERSIMMON I'LL BE A YES. THE MOTION PASSES.

THE MOTION PASSES OKAY. THIS MOVE ON TO COUNCIL FOR THE THIRD READING OKAY NEXT IS THE

[16. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 62, SOLID WASTE, BEAUFORT COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCE]

FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 62 SOLID WASTE DUE FOUR COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCE MAY I HAVE SUCH A A MOTION PLEASE SIR? MOMENTS ADJOURNMENT MR. CUNNINGHAM SECOND CIRCUIT THIS HOUR DID YOU SAY YES TO THE SECOND OKAY DULY MOTION SECONDED ANY DISCUSSION SEEING ? NONE.

THIS WILL BE APPROVED FOR FIRST READING WITHOUT OBJECTION AND THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS ITEM

[17. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CH 38. ARTICLE II. TRASH AND LITTER CONTROL OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES]

NUMBER 70 IS THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 38 ARTICLE TWO TRASH AND LITTER CONTROL OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES.

MR. MAKES THE MOTION A SECOND MR. GLOVER MAKES THE SECOND TRULY MOTION AND SECOND ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NONE THIS WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT OBJECTION MR. CHAIRMAN.

[18. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 7, DIVISION 7.4, SECTION 7.4.50 (PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING AND NOTICE) AND SECTION 7.4.70 (PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES) TO CLARIFY THAT PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT TAKEN FOR APPEALS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS]

YES SIR. I MUST EXCUSE MYSELF. YES, UNDERSTOOD NEXT IS THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE SEVEN DIVISIONS 7.4 SECTION 7.4.50 AND SECTION 7.4.70. TO CLARIFY THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT TAKEN FOR BOARD FOR APPEALS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY HAVE SUCH A MOTION I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THIS TAB BURNING SECOND OKAY MR. MCGOWAN DULY IN SECOND IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION SEEING? NONE.

[19. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT/REZONING REQUEST FOR 71.54 ACRES (R600 013 000 0008 0000 AND R600 013 000 0050 0000), LOCATED AT 1691 OKATIE HIGHWAY, FROM T2 RURAL (T2R) TO T4 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER (T4NC) AND T3 NEIGHBORHOOD (T3N) USING A VILLAGE PLACE TYPE OVERLAY (PTO) (ARTICLE 3 DIVISION 4 SECTION 80, ARTICLE 7 DIVISION 3 SECTION 50).]

THIS WOULD BE APPROVED WITHOUT OBJECTION. ITEM NUMBER 19 IS THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REZONING REQUEST FOR 71.54 ACRES LOCATE LOCATED AT 1691 OKATIE HIGHWAY FROM T TO RURAL G TO ARE TO T TO NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER T FOR NC AND T THREE NEIGHBORHOOD T3 NW USING A VILLAGE PLACE TYPE OVERLAY ARTICLE THREE DIVISION FOR SECTION 80 ARTICLE SEVEN DIVISION THREE SECTION 50 MAY I HAVE SUCH A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE THAT WAS SPLIT ON THIS. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO SEND IT BACK TO COMMITTEE WHERE MORE WORK CAN BE DONE AND GIVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE INPUT.

I KNOW THEY'VE HAD LOT OF INPUT BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE INPUT AND IT WILL GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS. I DISAGREE WITH THAT MISS HOWARD MAKES THE MOTION IS THERE A SECOND SECOND MR. GLOVER MAKES THE SECOND DULY MOTION THEN SECONDED ON MOVING TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES LAND USE COMMITTEE I'D SAY YES MA'AM. YOUR CONSTITUENTS STOOD UP HERE FOR 15 MINUTES TONIGHT AND TOLD THEY WANT YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS ON THE FIRST READING NOT SENT BACK TO COMMITTEE I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CLEARER THEY NEED TO BE WHY WE ABOUT A MEETING WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO IN COMMITTEE IF WE IF WE VOTE NO TONIGHT IT WILL BE A YEAR BEFORE IT COULD EVEN COME BACK UP WITH GOOD. THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. I SAID I'M GOING TO SAY WE SHOULD WE SHOULD VOTE ON IT TONIGHT AS WELL. TONIGHT YOU WANT TO PUT A MOTION AND ALSO MONITOR WAIT A MINUTE WE KNOW WE HAVE A MOTION THE FLOOR MOTION AND SECOND FLOOR COME TO COMMITTEE. YES, MA'AM. YES, SIR YOU WE'RE SITTING AT A POINT EVERY OTHER MEETING WE TALK ABOUT MORE ROAD, MORE IMPROVEMENTS OUR SCHOOL REFERENDUM COMING UP. IT'S OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND WE CONTINUE TO USE A CRUTCH WORKFORCE HOUSING BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US RAN ON WORKFORCE OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US RAN ON RESPONSIBLE GROWTH AND MANAGED GROWTH BUT HONESTLY TIRED OF NEGOTIATING AND TIME AGAIN IT'S THE SAME OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND PARDON MY FRIENDS BUT IT'S THE SAME THING WE JUST DID WITH THE PROBABLY A QUARTER MILE DOWN

[01:25:01]

THE ROAD LAST YEAR AND IT'S THE SAME THING WE'RE GOING TO DO IN OLD TOWN BLUFFTON SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS AGO AND. THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER ONE THAT COMES UP AND THEN ANOTHER AND THE MOMENT WE ALLOW THIS OR EVEN ENTERTAIN THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT'S JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO OPEN THE DOOR I MEAN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPROVEMENTS ARE 170 NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD THAT WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER TO MAKE A REFERENDUM NEXT YEAR WHEN WE CAN'T EVEN KEEP UP WITH THE HECK WE GOT GOING ON RIGHT NOW OUR SCHOOLS CAN'T KEEP UP. WE ALREADY KNOW THE NEXT ONE'S GOING TO BE BUT I'M NOT SAYING THIS ISN'T A GREAT IDEA. I'M NOT SAYING THE VILLAGE APPEALING AND YOU KNOW ALL THE THINGS I'M JUST SAYING IT'S NOT THE RIGHT TIME SO I DON'T CARE IF IT'S NOT A YEAR.

THAT'S FINE. GIVE US TIME TO MOVE FORWARD OUR OUR REFERENDUM AT THAT POINT TO SEE IF WE ACTUALLY GOT THE FUNDS TO IMPROVE ROADS FOR THE FUTURE LET'S SEE IF THE SCHOOL BOARD DOES ACTUALLY APPROVE THE REFERENDUM THIS NOVEMBER.

SO WE'RE NEGOTIATING WHAT WE GOT PROBABLY A QUARTER MILE DOWN THE ROAD THAT'S SMALLER THAN EARTH IS BIGGER THAN THIS THAT GOT APPROVED FOR 345 HOMES AND IT'S ALMOST TWICE THE SIZE AND WE WANT TO PUT 400 HOMES ON THIS ONE BECAUSE IT'S A VILLAGE STYLE OVERLAY AND I'M JUST NOT BUYING IT. I I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT A GREAT IDEA.

BLUFFTON WAS BUILT ON THIS IDEA BUT WE DO HAVE OTHER HOMES THAT ARE STILL BEING BUILT THAT OUR KIDS AREN'T EVEN IN THOSE SCHOOLS YET WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING ANOTHER AND EMS STATION RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF OLDFIELD. WE STILL HAVEN'T GOT THAT DONE YET OR SUN CITY SO I'M GOING TO BE GO AGAINST SENDING IT BACK COMMITTEE BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THIS BEING NEGOTIATED IN THIS YEAR NOT SAYING IT'S NOT IN THE FUTURE I'M NOT SAYING I CAN'T SEE 100 HOMES OR 150 HOMES GOING THERE IN TWO OR THREE YEARS WHEN BE HONEST YOU GUYS JUST LIKE WHEN WE HAD THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT AT SOME POINT IT'S GOING TO REDEVELOP AT SOME POINT THIS LAND IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED AT SOME POINT BUT NOT NOT THIS NOT THIS TIME. SO I WILL VOTE AGAINST YOUR I THINK THIS IS THE REASON FOR GOING BACK TO COMMITTEE YOU CAN NEGOTIATE THE TIME SCHEDULE YOU CAN NEGOTIATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE PUT IN YOU CAN ALL THOSE THINGS ARE TOOLS THAT YOU CAN USE CORRECT BUT NEITHER COULD BE NEGOTIATED IF WE DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GETTING THE TAX DOLLARS TO FIX OUR ROADS. I AGREE AND I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE REFERENDUM.

IT COULD BE IN COMMITTEE FOR A VERY LONG TIME TOO. BUT RIGHT NOW THEY CHANGED THEIR PROPOSAL FROM NO AFFORDABLE TO 20% AND THAT WAS ENOUGH.

THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH. I WILL SAY THAT OPENLY. BUT THIS WOULD GIVE US A TOOL TO GO BACK AGAIN BUT IN A YEAR WELL IN LESSENING BY RIGHT THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY CAN DO BUT THEY THERE'LL BE HELD STILL FOR A YEAR FOR THE HOUSE WE STILL HOUSES IN THAT AREA AND THAT'S ONE PROBLEM TO BE AWARE OF THAT AND ALSO WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT JASPER COUNTY DOES CORRECT BUT THEY ARE STILL ON OUR ROADS AND WE'RE STILL FOOTING THE BILL FOR THEM BEING OUR ROADS RIGHT THERE ON ARGENT WELL WE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT THEY DO AT ALL.

WE ONLY CONTROL OUR OWN HOUSE. EXACTLY. WHICH IS WHY I VOTE AGAINST POSTPONING AND WILL VOTE NO WHEN WE CALL IT TO ORDER. YOU WOULD EVER FEEL AND LET ME LET ME JUST SAY THIS THAT OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW EVERYTHING GROWING AS IT IS WE DO NOT WANT MORE GROWTH WE'RE TRYING TO LIMIT THAT AND MAKE IT IT SOMETHING THAT IS PALATABLE IF MADE ME VOTE TODAY I WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT HOWEVER I GO BACK LOOK AT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THAT I'VE HEARD OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE TALK ABOUT WHICH IS PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT IS THE PROPERTY RIGHT OF THIS PROPERTY OWNER TO AT LEAST LET THEM BACK AND TRY TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING ELSE. BUT BUT AGAIN THAT'S THAT'S UP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN I BACK WITH ANYTHING BUT SENDING IT BACK TO ME DOES NOT COST US ANYTHING DOESN'T HURT IT ALLOWS THAT PROPERTY OWNER THEN TO CONSIDER HE KNOWS OUR FEELING WITH THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW. SO AGAIN I WOULD VOTE TO SEND IT BACK AND THEN THERE WOULD MORE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AND THERE WOULD BE THINGS THAT THERE BUT EXCUSE ME I'M TALKING SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT GIVES THAT PROPERTY IF I OWN THE PROPERTY WHETHER THERE'S THAT PIECE OR SOMEPLACE ELSE I'D WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST CONSIDER WHAT OPTIONS ARE OUT THERE. HOWEVER AGAIN AS I MENTIONED IF MAYBE VOTE TODAY I WOULD DEFINITELY VOTE AGAINST IT. MR.. MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I SAY ONE THING EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES FOR ME THIS IS NOT WAR OF THE BUILDER COMING UP WITH A 20% AFFORDABLE HOUSING OFF THE CUFF BECAUSE HE THINKS THAT'S GOING TO GET THAT VOTE.

I THOUGHT THIS WAS A REZONING ISSUE. SO IF THIS WAS ALREADY BOUGHT WITH THE ZONING IN MIND IT HAS NOT BEEN PURCHASED AS WELL AS THE PURCHASER IS NO PROBLEM.

SO THERE IS SOMETHING ALREADY IN MIND THAT'S THERE THAT DOESN'T ALLOW THIS.

THIS IS WHAT THESE PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR ABOUT. GO LISTEN BACK TO COMMITTEE.

IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THAT WAY ANYWAY. WHY DON'T WE GET OUR JOBS DONE FIRST WITH INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEN COME BACK TO THIS MY THING IF IT'S A REZONING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT'S A REZONING. IF IT WENT BACK TO COMMITTEE WE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FOR THE BILL FOR THE FOR THEM TO DO OF THAT

[01:30:06]

INFRASTRUCTURE. THIS OUR MY THING IS THIS TO SOME OF US UP HERE RAN ON PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE PEOPLE IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND IF THESE PEOPLE WANT US TO VOTE NO ON THIS AND WE'RE AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION WE NEED TO KNOW THIS BASIC VOTER GROUP WHERE ARE WHAT I'M SAYING I'M SAYING IF THIS IS A VOTE NO AND YOU SAY IT'S GOING TO COME UP WITH A YEAR FROM NOW YOU'RE GOING TO PUT MORE INFORMATION TOGETHER.

WE'LL GET IT WILL GATHER, WHY WHY DO WE WANT TO TAKE OUR JOBS AND JUST KICK DOWN THE ROAD? I'M AGAIN I'M SEVEN MONTHS INTO THIS SO I'M LEARNING WITH EVERYBODY HERE LET'S DO THIS.

BUT YOU KNOW, COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE JUST TO GET MORE THINGS TO APPEASE SOMEBODY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. MR. CHAIRMAN, UNDER THE CURRENT PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHAT WOULD BE BUILT HERE? LET'S CLARIFY ONE HOUSE FOR THREE ACRES. THERE YOU GO. YOU KNOW WELL THAT'S THE ZONING PROPOSAL. I MEAN NO, NO, NO. THE WAY IT'S SET UP NOW IT'S ONE HOUSE FOR THREE AND THAT'S THE ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS GETTING SOME MORE ROOM IT'S YOU KNOW, THE SEWER JOBS THE WAY I LOOK AT IT OTHER COMMENTS I I THOUGHT WE WERE VOTING ON 71 ACRES IN FLORIDA AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A REZONING YEAH THIS NOTION KNOW THE PROPOSAL ATTACHED TO THE REZONING WHICH UNTIL WE HAVE BUILDING AGREEMENTS MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YES OR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SO THAT'S WHY WE WOULD RATHER I MADE THE MOTION TO SEND IT BACK AND I AM MORE THAN WELCOME TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE NEXT YEAR WHY IT'S NOT OUR BUILDINGS.

WE'VE GOT ENOUGH. WE TAKE ALL OF THAT BEFORE WE GET WHAT WE WANT.

WE'RE GOING TO SET PRECEDENT. WHAT ABOUT WHAT WE WHAT WE WANT? YOU'RE NOT HELPING US BY YELLING FROM AUDIENCE DO ME A FAVOR.

LET US DELIBERATE UP HERE. WE HEARD WHAT YOU SAID BUT YOU'RE NOT HELPING US WHEN YOU'RE DOING THAT JUST TO DISTRACTION. OKAY? JUST DO ME A FAVOR. I KNOW IT'S HARD, BUT YOU'RE NOT HELPING US AT ALL.

WE THE COUNTY HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES ABOUT MANAGING THE GROWTH OF THE COUNTY.

WE ALL AGREE THE GROWTH IS COMING. WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO STOP GROWTH BUT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MANAGE THE GROWTH IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE WHAT IS ATTRACTIVE TO THIS PROPERTY IS THAT IT WILL CONNECT TO THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT AND THAT IT WILL BECOME A VILLAGE TYPE COMMUNITY THAT MAKES IT WALKABLE THE WAY IT CAN BE DESIGNED WE THE COUNTY WILL HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT IS DONE THAT WAY IF IT IS NOT IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE APPROVED ARE GOING TO BE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ROADS.

YES THERE ARE WILL THERE BE CONNECTED CONNECTIVITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY? YES, THERE WILL BE. BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT NOW UNTIL WE SIT WITH THE DEVELOPER TO SAY BEFORE THIS COMES TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET CERTAIN AGREEMENTS WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THAT OR NOT I'M SORRY BUT THAT'S THE WAY WE FEEL WE NEED TO APPROACH THIS OTHERWISE IT'LL BE JUST ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT.

WE CAN'T CONTROL DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR MUNICIPALITIES THEY HAVE MUNICIPAL LAW.

THEY HAVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT WERE SIGNED 30 SOME YEARS AGO THAT SAID THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED A CERTAIN WAY. WE CAN ONLY CONTROL WHAT IS IN UNINCORPORATED BEAUFORT COUNTY. THIS WILL BECOME A MODEL OF HOW BEAUFORT COUNTY DEVELOPS THIS REZONING TO THE OPEN NOW FOR THREE YEARS THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID THERE YOU ARE CORRECT.

OKAY, WHAT ABOUT YOU? YES. QUESTION I HAVE YOU KNOW NO.

IS THIS PLANNING BROAD HERE YOU KNOW SO I'M JUST BACK THERE FROM YEAR TO YEAR.

ONE OF THE THREADS WE HAD SEVERAL YEARS AGO WAS ANNEXATION INTO HARTVILLE.

YES. IS THIS A POTENTIAL FOR ANNEXATION INTO HIDING MILL? I'M NOT SURE I. DON'T THINK SO JUST BECAUSE IT'S MILES AWAY IS MILES AWAY.

[01:35:01]

NO PARTY GOES ACROSS THE STREET KANSAS STREET AS JASPER CONTINUES ACROSS THE STREET IN JASPER COUNTY INGREDIENTS ACROSS WELL TO ONE SIDE THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU.

I DON'T KNOW YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S JUST THE KIND OF ISSUE THAT WE GOT TO CONFRONT SEES THAT THREAT IS ALWAYS THERE IF HE FEELS DO SOMETHING THAT IF THEY CANNOT ANNEX IN THE HEART OF ILLINOIS OR MAKE CHANGE FOR ME. SURE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. CHUCK'S COMING TO TOWN A GOOD AFTERNOON. SO I WAS BACK THERE TALKING TO ROB OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR AND WE CAN FIND THAT INFORMATION. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT GROWTH BOUNDARY IS.

WE CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE CITY OF HARTVILLE FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE WITH THIS PLACE TYPE OVERLAY WHAT WE CAN OFFER ARE OPTIONS WHAT STAFF'S GOING TO PICK A SIDE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BUT WE OFFER OPTIONS IF WE WANT TO CONTROL GROWTH. THIS PLACE TYPE OVERLAY IS VERY UNIQUE AND IT OFFERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOT ONLY CHANGE THE ZONING BUT THEN YOU DO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THE COUNTY IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO THIS HOLDS ALL THE CARDS, EVERYTHING ALL OF IT. THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE'RE GOING INTO THAT WE HAVE TO DO.

WE CAN BRING BACK OPTIONS OR NOT. BUT IF THAT IF IT GOES BACK TO THE COMMITTEE CAN DO THAT WORK IT MAY TURN INTO SOMETHING GREAT IF IT'S VOTED DOWN.

THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION TO ME. I KNOW THAT'S KIND OF A NON-ANSWER WITH HARTVILLE BUT THAT'S THE BEST WE COULD DO NEXT. THE CHAIRMAN YES, I'M NOT DENYING THAT IT'S A PLAN. I'M NOT DENYING THAT IT'S IT LOOKS GOOD AND ESTHETICALLY IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I DON'T WANT TO HOLD THE CARDS. I DON'T AND THAT'S NOT OUR JOB IS TO HOLD CARDS. WHAT CAN WE DO? WHAT CAN WE DO I WANT TO SLOW DOWN GROWTH UNTIL WE CAN CATCH UP ON OUR ROADS AND SCHOOLS. THAT SIMPLE.

THERE'S REALLY NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE A ONE 400 HOMES. I DON'T CARE IF THEY'LL GIVE US 50% WORKFORCE HOUSING IT'S STILL 400 HOMES AND. MORE PEOPLE IN WORKFORCE HOUSING ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE KIDS IF PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF WORKFORCE HOUSING.

SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO NEGOTIATE UNLESS THEY'RE WILLING TO CUT THIS THING DOWN OVER 50%? I HAVE NO INTEREST I MEAN IT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE GAME I DON'T CARE ABOUT HOLDING THE CARDS OR NOT CARE ABOUT PUTTING MY NAME ON A COOL PROJECT THAT GOT DONE AND THAT'S NOT WHY I'M HERE. ONE MORE THING, MR. CHAIRMAN.

YES. IF YOU TAKE SIMPLE MATH HELP ME WITH THIS.

YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WANTS YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT MR.. I'M CONTROLLING GROWTH.

SOMEBODY IS PROPOSING HUNDRED HOMES IN A ZONING THAT DOESN'T ALLOW IT BUT THE ZONING ALLOWS ONE HOME FOR THREE ACRES HOW MANY ACRES ARE WE TALKING? 7124.

OH, LET'S SEE WHAT'S THE SIMPLE MATH IN THAT HOW MANY HOMES? 23 VERSUS 400 400 HOMES.

I'M TELLING YOU I DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH OF A DISCUSSION OR AN ARGUMENT.

WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S GOING TO BE 400 HOMES THIS YEAR. LOOK, I KNOW I KNOW WHAT A LOGGING WE DON'T WANT TO WE DON'T WANT TO CONTROL THAT. WE'RE HERE TO DO OUR JOBS.

WHY DON'T WE JUST DO THAT TONIGHT? WE HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING.

YEAH, GO AHEAD. WHY HAVEN'T WE MET THE DEVELOPER? IS ANYONE OUT THERE ALL FROM PERSON BUYING US BECAUSE WE'RE PRESENTED THIS ONE IS BUT NO.

ALL RIGHT. I KNOW WE HAVE A DEVELOPER THE OWNER OF HIGHLAND RIGHT HERE IN THE AUDIENCE. HE CAME TO COUNTY COUNCIL ALL THE TIME AND SPOKE WITH US.

I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHO THE PERSON IS IS BUYING THIS AND IT HAS ANYONE UP HERE MAP THE FIRST THING NOW JUST AS ATTORNEY YES I KNOW THAT BUT I TO KNOW WHO BUYING IT YOU WON'T KNOW UNTIL THEY BUY IT. OH WELL THEN I AIN'T GOT NO MOVE FORWARD.

LET'S GO. I KNOW THESE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT DON'T KNOW IF THIS DEVELOPER EVEN LIVES IN THE COUNTY SO I OWE THEM NOTHING. YEAH, I DON'T WHO THEY ARE AND MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO ME. MY JOB IS TO MANAGE GROWTH AND RIGHT NOW OUR SCHOOLS ARE OVERPOPULATED AND SO OUR ROADS AND I CAN'T EVEN GIVING AN INCH PEOPLE GOING TO TAKE A MILE IS THE SAME ARGUMENTS GUYS USED AGAINST ME ON PINE ISLAND JUST SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT WE DID FOUR MONTHS AGO. YEAH. SO THE QUESTION YEAH.

OKAY WHAT'S WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION TO MOVE IT TO BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR THE ROLL CALL HOWARD. YES. COUNCILMEMBER GLOVER YES.

COUNCILMEMBER TABACHNICK YES. COUNCILMEMBER REED NO. COUNCILMEMBER LAWSON.

MARK LAWSON YES. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON LEFT. COUNCILMEMBER CUNNINGHAM NO.

COUNCILMEMBER BROWN NO COUNCILMEMBER NO VICE-CHAIR MCGOWAN NO.

[01:40:03]

CHAIRMAN PASSIM I I I'M GOING TO SAY YES AND IT IS DEFEATED BUT WHO HAS THE QUESTION MR. CHAIRMAN ANY, OTHER DISCUSSION OKAY. WE'LL CALL THE QUESTION IT'S HOWARD MADE THE MOTION NO, NO I'M SORRY. OH THAT'S, RIGHT NOW WE NEED AN INFUSION. THE FIRST READING MAY HAVE SUCH A MOTION TO RESUME MOTION ON THE FIRST READING TO NO MOTION MEANS IT FAILS AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT.

AND WHEN MAKING A MOTION YOU KNOW MOTIONS WE SHOULD MOVE ON. YEAH OKAY.

[20. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING THE SALARIES FOR VARIOUS ELECTED OFFICIALS AND TO AMEND SECTION 2-347 OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY CODE OF LAWS ESTABLISHING THE SALARIES FOR VARIOUS ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS (FISCAL IMPACT: Potential salary amounts owed totals $45,417.78 to be paid from the payroll contingency account)]

ITEM 20 IS THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE RATIFYING THE SALARIES FOR VARIOUS ELECTED OFFICIALS AND AMEND SECTION TWO. THERE'S 347 OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY CODE OF LAWS ESTABLISHING THE SALARIES FOR VARIOUS ELECTED AND APPOINTED INDIVIDUALS IN MOTION PLEASE JUST FOR CLARITY. YEAH YEAH.

SO THEY NOW KNOW IT HAS FAILED . THERE WAS NO MOTION JUST FOR CLARITY FOR THE PUBLIC IT IS THAT HAS FAILED. IT IS OFF OUR BOOKS.

IS IT A LEGAL OPINION OR THERE SHOULD BE NO THAT WHAT IT MEANS THEY WERE CONFUSED I GUESS GOING BACK TO NO WE WILL NOT GET A DEAL IN THE YEAR. YEAH YEAH I GOT TO BE REELECTED THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. IT CAN'T COME BACK FOR YEARS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I WASN'T SURE THE ENVIRONMENT JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED OTHER FILINGS OKAY. I NEED A MOTION IN SECOND FOR THE ITEM NUMBER 20 SOME OF THIS MR. CUNNINGHAM AND MR. BALDWIN MOTION TO GO DISCUSSION YES DISCUSSION.

OKAY. WHAT WHAT'S SHE COMING UP WITH? WHAT SHE'S GOING TO GIVE US THE ACCURATE NUMBERS NOW IT'S OKAY COME ON I DON'T HAVE TO SPEAK. WELL, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE. YEAH, FOR TWO PEOPLE WE HAVE THE HONOR IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WAS IN THE PIG HERE. HERE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT WE WERE ASKED TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL AT OUR LAST COMMITTEE MEETING. UNFORTUNATELY CATHERINE MEET HAD SOMETHING SHE HAD THIS EVENING SHE COULDN'T GET OUT OF .

HOPEFULLY I CAN ANSWER ALL THOSE QUESTIONS FOR YOU ON THE SCREEN YOU'LL SEE SALARIES AS OF SEVEN ONE FOR THE FIVE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT WERE IN QUESTION.

THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED ARE THE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT WE FURTHER HAVE TO GO BACK AND AMEND THEIR SALARIES AS OF THE DATE THAT THEY WERE ELECTED INTO THEIR OFFICE IS SECOND CHART BELOW THEIR SAYS AMENDED SALARY RATES WHAT IS RETROACTIVELY OWED TO THE AUDITOR AND THE CORONER IN THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN OKAY LET'S SEE IF WE UNDERSTAND THIS SO AGAIN AS OF JULY FIRST OF 2019 THE SALARY RATES WERE AMENDED AT THAT POINT THE SINCE JULY 1ST OF 2019 THE AUDITOR AND THE CORONER HAVE OUR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS CORRECT THOSE INDIVIDUAL SALARIES ONCE THEY WERE PUT INTO OFFICE WERE BEING COMPENSATED AT THE RATE OF 2015 ORDINANCE THAT WAS STILL ACTIVE . SO THE ORDINANCE THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY WILL RETRACT OF LATE PROVIDE PAYMENT TO THE AUDITOR AND THE CORONER PURSUANT TO THE NUMBERS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY COUNCILMAN MIQUELON IN 2018. I CAN SHOW YOU THAT BREAKDOWN IS YES FINE LET ME TRY SHORTSTOP. YES.

THE TWO THE TWO POSITIONS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WERE POSITIONS THAT WERE HELD BY PREVIOUS OCCUPANTS THAT HAD BEEN REELECTED ALL OF THOSE OCCUPANTS HAD RECEIVED REELECTION BONUSES ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE WE HAVE HERE IN THE COUNTY.

SO MY QUESTION THAT THE NUMBERS YOU HAVE HERE REFLECT THE REMOVAL OF THOSE REELECTION THAT ONLY GO WITH THE PERSON AND NOT THE POSITION OF SIMPLE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING IF THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE IN WHITE. THE SHERIFF WAS YES ELECTED FOUR TIMES YOU GET BONUSES OF 5% CORRECT. THAT DOES NOT STAY WITH THE POSITION. IT'S THE PERS CORRECT. THAT PERSON RESIGNS AND A NEW SHERIFF COMES IN OF THOSE REELECTION BONUSES SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM WHATEVER SALARIES CURRENTLY MAKING MY QUESTION IS IS THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE. YES THANK YOU.

OKAY. HERE'S YOUR BREAK DOWN FURTHER TO YOUR QUESTION IN THIS AND WHEN THEY GET THE STATE COLA THEY DO NOT GET THE COUNTY COLA CORRECT.

[01:45:04]

THEY WOULD GET THEY GET THE POINT OF THE DEPENDING ON WHICH ONE IS HIGHER WHICH ONE IS HIGHER IN MY MIND ABOUT THAT. OKAY. NOW MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS MR. MACALLAN BACK IN 2019 OFFERED TO CHANGE THE SALARIES OF TWO INDIVIDUAL ROLES.

THE AUDITOR AND THE CORONER. BUT THAT 2019 ORDINANCE WAS NEVER ADOPTED EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE. ARE YOUR CALCULATIONS FOR THE AUDITOR AND THE CORONER BASED UPON THE ORDINANCE FROM 2059, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT'S ON THE BOOKS OR 2019 NUMBERS THAT AREN'T AND LOOKING AT THE CHART HERE I APOLOGIZE FOR MAKING SURE THAT I'M HAVING ALL THESE NUMBERS CORRECT IN AT WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF THE CORONER THE CORONER CURRENTLY BEING PAID AT THE 2015 RATE AND WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IN OF YOU TONIGHT WILL STATE IS THAT YOU WILL BE RETROACTIVELY COMPENSATING HIM BASED ON THE 2019 2019 NUMBERS THAT MR. MCGOWAN PROVIDED.

OKAY. BUT EVERYBODY ELSE WAS GETTING 29 BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT BECAUSE THE OTHER THREE INDIVIDUALS HAVE HELD THEIR POSITION SINCE 19 SO THEY ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THAT. SO NOW HAVE TO MAKE AN ORDINANCE TO PUT THIS IN EFFECT GOING FORWARD THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY DOES BOTH. YEAH I HAVE I DROPPED IT IN A MANNER IN WHICH IT RETROACTIVELY COMPENSATES THE ORDER AND THE CORONER APPROPRIATELY INCONSISTENT WITH THE 2019 NUMBERS AND IT ALSO AMENDS THE ORDINANCE SO THAT THE 2019 NUMBERS ARE IN IT MOVING FORWARD THEY'RE NOT GETTING PAID FROM 2019 THEY'RE GETTING PAID FOR WHEN THEY STARTED AND. THAT'S THE REELECT IN THIS LAST ELECTION CYCLE THE CALL REMEMBER THE NUMBERS YOU'RE ON A FIVE YEAR SALARY BUMP.

IT'S JUST WHAT WASN'T PAID THEM FROM THE TIME THEY TOOK OFFICE THIS YEAR.

CORRECT. SO THE AUDITOR WILL RECEIVING IT BASED ON HIM BEING IN PLACE ON JULY 1ST OF THIS YEAR. BUT THE CORONER'S FROM 21. CORRECT.

WHICH IS WHY HIS RATE IS HIGHER AND HE TO GET THAT MONEY. YEAH, RIGHT.

AND WE ALSO LOOKED THE PREVIOUS THE CORRECT SALARIES OF THE AUDITOR AND CORONER NOW SO THE AUDITOR WOULD BE A INCLUDING STATE STATEMENT. YES.

WOULD YOU ASKED FOR AT THE LAST COMMITTEE SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAD ALL OF THAT IN HERE. YEAH RIGHT. SO HE'S GOING TO GET THE ORAL AUDITOR WILL BE RECEIVING THE $99,930.60. OKAY.

BUT WHAT WHAT NO, HE'S NOT GETTING 101 367 YEAH RIGHT PLUS THE STATE STIPEND.

MY APOLOGIES. SO THE TOP THE SALARY AS OF SEVEN ONE IS THE CURRENT SALARY WE I SHOULD HAVE ADDED IN ANOTHER ELEMENT TO THIS BECAUSE THE AMENDED SALARY OF THE AUDITOR IS CURRENTLY $78,715.30 PLUS AN ANNUAL STIPEND.

RIGHT. THE NEW SALARY IS GOING TO BE THE 99 THOUSAND 930 BECAUSE YOU GO BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WAS SUGGESTED AT THE IN 2019 AND I THINK THIS WAS AT THAT COMMITTEE. BUT LET ME MAKE THIS EVEN COMPLICATED.

SO IF IF THE SHERIFF DECIDES NOT TO RUN THIS NEXT TIME IS HIS THE WHOEVER TAKES OVER AS SHERIFF IS THAT SALARY NOW ALSO BEING SET WITH THIS WE'VE GOT A STARTING SO YES SO THAT WAY SO THE NEWLY ELECTED IF IF ANOTHER THE THREE REMAINING ARE NOT RE RE ELECTED ANY ONE OF THEM WOULD BE THERE STARTING SO GO BACK TO WHAT WE ARE MEANT TO DO TONIGHT AND PJ DON'T THINK I'M TRYING TO YOUR IDEA WAS WAS AN EXAMPLE YES THAT'S WHY I KEPT A GENERAL ANY THREE BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE REELECTION BONUSES AND SO THAT ALL HAS TO BE DEDUCTED WHAT SHE SAID TO RESET THAT BACK A IF FOR SOME REASON SOME IT'S GOING TO BE WHAT WE HAVE HERE TONIGHT IT'S NOT IF IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE IT WILL BE THAT BASED OUT WILL BE THAT SALARY WHICH IS SO THE SUGGESTION OF OUR INTERIM DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR MYSELF AS WELL AS H.R.

WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FURTHER ABOUT THIS MOVING FORWARD SO WE ARE NOT CAUGHT BEHIND THE BALL AGAIN AND NOT HAVING SALARIES AT WHAT SHOULD BE THE CORRECT RATES.

SO FOR CLARITY THE SALARY WHEN PJ LEAVES IS 88,000. IF HE GOES IN A NEW SHERIFF COMES IN WHATEVER THE BASE SALARY IS IN THE AUDIENCE AT THAT TIME WAS SO THIS I WHICH

[01:50:05]

IS WHAT HAS CAUSED THIS CONDITION SUPPORT YES YES IT WOULD BE BECAUSE THERE'S NO THERE'S NO REELECTION BONUS FOR DIFFERENTIAL OPTION YEAH SO THEY SALARY CORRECT FOR THEM IT HAS TO BE DEDUCT IT TO GET TO THE BASE SALARY. CORRECT.

RIGHT. WHICH PUTS YOU AT THE NUMBER THAT SHE STATED 80,000 RIGHT.

YES. SO 60 I SEE WHERE THE 78 COMES FROM BECAUSE IT'S BASED UPON THE $59,000 THAT'S IN THE 2015 ORDINANCE WHICH MR. MCLELLAN WANTED TO CHANGE IN 2019 $88,000. CORRECT. OKAY.

IT WAS NEVER DONE. I BELIEVE THAT WAS WHICH WASN'T DONE BUT THE SALARIES WERE ADJUSTED. YES I THINK THEY WERE CORRECT. OKAY.

SO NOW OUR NEW AUDITOR AND IT SHOULD BE THE 19 WHICH WAS $88,000 CALL THIS PLUS THE GOAL IS CORRECT MINUS BONUSES CORRECT WHICH I DON'T THINK WERE IN YOUR CALCULATION.

AND IF MICHAEL MY CALCULATIONS SERVE ME CORRECT THE 88 HAD A COLD IN 20 OF 3% TWO AND A HALF PERCENT STATE IN 2022. CORRECT? CORRECT.

5% COLA IN 2022. WHAT YOU JUST SAID THAT I THINK WE JUST BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S THE FIGURES I HAVE FROM WHAT WAS GIVEN TO ME AS A PART OF THE ELECTED BASED A BREAKDOWN OKAY SO YES OF THAT VIBRATION IS IN THERE THEN YES. OKAY A 3% COLA IN 2023.

CORRECT 3% COLA FROM THE STATE IN 2023 THAT'S SUPPOSED TO GET THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO GET BOTH BUT THEY GOT BOTH OF THE ASSUMED THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION.

THIS IS CRAZY. SO HERE IS THE BREAKDOWN HERE FOR THE CORNER.

YEAH. AND IT SHOWS THE COLAS THAT WERE APPLIED TO THE BASE SALARY. OKAY. WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU JUST WENT THROUGH. YEAH, OKAY. EXCEPT FOR THAT 5% COLA.

NO, THERE'S THE 5% CORRECT. RIGHT. 3% STATE THERE WAS ANOTHER 5% IN 2020 FOR THOSE THE REELECTION CORRECT. NO NO NO 5% STATE CODE .

YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WHICH IS WHAT BRINGS WE STILL DID THE SECOND READING ON THIS. YES.

THE CORNERS PAY TO 104 WHICH IS HERE. YES.

THANK YOU. MAYBE A FOURTH AND FIFTH COPY OR NO.

THIS IS SO THE BASE SALARY FOR THE CORONER AND THE ORDER HAVE BOTH BEEN ADJUSTED WITH THE COLA AS APPLIED WHICH IS THESE BREAKDOWNS THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE FOR THE CORNER EXCEPT THAT I THINK SO OKAY BUT THIS SO THE AUDITORS HERE I ASK YOU NO NO NO I'M STILL CONFUSED BECAUSE ALL OF THESE YEAH. ALL RIGHT. DO WE WISH TO VOTE ON THIS? NO. WE MIGHT GET A DIFFERENT NUMBER THAN YOU DID SO EITHER I'M JUST ONE QUESTION ABOUT SEE IF IT'S DEFEATED. YEAH I THINK AT THE END OF THE STORY WE HAVE TO GET THIS FIXED THESE ARE FROM MARY I HATE TO SAY THIS I AM NOT THE NUMBERS DON'T EVER CLAIM TO BE BUT I CAN GET THESE BACK TO OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO SEND IT BACK THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY SO YEAH I'LL SECOND QUICK MOTION THEN SECOND TO SEND IT BACK TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION IS THERE ANY OBJECTION? CAN WE JUST GET A PRESENTATION ON THE SECOND 1/2 READING AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SENDING IT BACK AGAIN MOVING AND GET IT BACK. I MEAN WE'RE ASSUMING THE NUMBERS ARE CORRECT AND IF WE CAN MOVE IF YOU WOULD LIKE THIS READING TO CONCLUDE OR WE CAN SEND IT BACK TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THE NUMBERS THE NUMBERS CORRECT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.

[01:55:04]

DENISE LOOKING AT YOUR IDEA KATHERINE YOU TRYING TO RECORD IT? SEND ME HER INITIAL SPREADSHEET I CHECKED MATH AND IT WAS ON THE CORNER.

I DID NOT SEE THE CALCULATIONS HAD I JUST LOOKING AT THE MOTIONS OF THE SPREADSHEET DOING THE THE NUMBERS ARE CORRECT SHE DID NOT INCLUDE ELECTION THAT FOR THAT WAS SHE HAD HER CONDITION SPREADSHEET BECAUSE RIGHT SO I DIDN'T LOOK AT THAT NOW OKAY WHAT IS THE CAUSE SO YOU KNOW BUT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE GET IT EXPLAINED AGAIN LIKE THEY HAVE HER UP NEXT SHE WOULD BE HAPPY TO BE HERE WITH THE MOTION TO MOVE IT FORWARD OR WE'RE NOW WE HAVE A MOTION IN SECOND TO MOVE IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE SO THAT WE GET THIS RIGHT.

THREE I WOULD OBJECT MR. CHAIRMAN. I OKAY, I TRUST OUR STAFF AND I'M ASKING YOU TO GIVE A DIFFERENT PRESENTATION OR A DIFFERENT FORM OF BEING PRESENTED. WE HAVE TWO WEEKS TO GET THAT DONE AND I'M HAPPY TO THAT TO YOU PRIOR TO WHEN WE CALL THE QUESTION PLEASE THIS IS TO MOVE IT BACK TO COMMITTEE VICE-CHAIR MCALLEN NO COUNCILMAN I DO WANT YOU WANT TO GO BACK SO FAR SO I GOT TO AND EVERYBODY IS LOOKING AT ME LIKE I WAS A COUNCILMEMBER HOWARD YES COUNCILMEMBER TAVERNER I'M GOING TO SAY YES BECAUSE MY NUMBERS DON'T MATCH. COUNCILMAN MORRIS YES, THESE CALLS COUNCILMEMBER LAWSON MARK LAWSON COUNCILMEMBER GLOVER NO .

COUNCILMEMBER CUNNINGHAM NO. COUNCILMEMBER BROWN YES. COUNCILMEMBER BARTHOLOMEW NO CHAIRMAN PASSING IT YES. THE MOTION TO SEND BACK TO COMMITTEE PASSES 164 CAN I ASK WHAT WERE THE COLAS AGAIN PLEASE? I BELIEVE THE COLAS WERE IN 2020 3%. YEAH 2020 2A2 AND A HALF PERCENT STATE CORRECT IN 22 A 5% COLA OKAY IN 23 A 3% STATE AND A 3% COLA CRAZY 5% IN 2024 AND IF YOU TAKE THE STARTING SALARY OF 88 AND 92 AND GO THROUGH THAT THANK YOU I GET A DIFFERENT NUMBER THAN WE CAME UP WITH SO IN 23 THEY GOT THREE AND THREE, THREE AND THREE THAT THEY COULDN'T DO THAT THEN I DON'T GET WHAT SHE'S GOT. YEAH IT'S OKAY OKAY IT'S GOING BACK TO COMMITTEE.

[21. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT A GRANT FOR PROJECT COMIDA (FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact)]

ALL RIGHT WE ARE APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE IS APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT A GRANT FOR PROJECT THEY HAVE A MOTION IN SECOND PLACE SO MOVED A SECOND THAT MR. MCCALLUM MADE THE MOTION WHO MADE THE SECOND MR. BARTHOLOMEW MADE THE SECOND MOTION AND SECOND ANY DISCUSSION ANY OBJECTION TO MOVING THIS FORWARD SEEING NONE THAT IS APPROVED ITEM 22 IS

[22. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AND PAYMENT OF HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT BEAUFORT COUNTY’S PORT ROYAL CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $799,052. (FISCAL IMPACT: $799,052 to be paid out of Capital Improvement Project Fund 10401600-54436; account balance is $4,820,179)]

APPROVAL OF A PURCHASE AND PAYMENT OF A HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT THE BEAUFORT PORT ROYAL CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $799,052 MAY HAVE A MOTION.

SO MOVE MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CUNNINGHAM I'LL CIRCLE MISS HOWARD DULY MOTIONED IN.

SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? YES. I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS.

YES, THERE ARE A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ON THIS EQUIPMENT AND I KNOW IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE THEY ALL VOTED TO PAY THIS $800,000 AND I KNOW I KEEP SAYING THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN I CAME FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR WHEN NEGOTIATED THIS BILL NOT JUST PAY THE WHOLE BILL. YOU NEGOTIATE THE BILL SO MY SUGGESTION IS WE PAY HALF OF IT AND AND THAT'S IT NOT ALL OF IT ANY DISCUSSION ACTUALLY I JUST HAVE A QUESTION TO FOLLOW UP THAT I SHOULD PROBABLY ASK IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

JUST SO PEOPLE KNOW WHAT WOULD IT COST TO REMOVE WHAT WOULD BE THE TAXPAYER EXPENSE TO REMOVE THIS UNAPPROVED EQUIPMENT AND SEND IT BACK AND SEND IT BACK?

[02:00:01]

WHAT'S THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? SO I HAVE NO IDEA.

I HAVEN'T EVEN CONTEMPLATED REMOVAL IT I DON'T KNOW SHIPPING CHARGES FOR HOW MUCH THE 2021 YEAH FOR ALL IN FOR ALL THE SHIPPING COSTS ALL THAT WAS $21,000 SO YOU KNOW IN GOING RIGHT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE I VOTED YES TO MOVE FORWARD AND SEND IT FORWARD AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM APPROVING IT NOW THE ISSUE THOUGH IS HOW IT CAME TO BE AND I THINK YOU'VE ADDRESSED IT BUT THAT'S STILL AN ISSUE. I MEAN WE'RE GOING THROUGH ALL THIS RIGHT NOW THE SCRUTINY THAT WE'RE ALL UNDER I MEAN WHAT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE BUT TO IN THIS ENVIRONMENT RIGHT NOW IS UNACCEPTABLE AND THE OTHER THING I'M READING THIS ARTICLE FROM THE ISLAND NEWS RIGHT NOW AND IT'S YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR IN YOUR STATEMENT THAT SHE HAD ACTUALLY BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION OR AT LEAST THE PERSON INVOLVED HAD BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION. THIS TO ME THE CHAIN THAT'S BEEN PUBLISHED LOOKS LIKE SHE WAS JUST TRYING TO GET SOMEBODY TO PAY THE INVOICE DIDN'T SEEM LIKE A PROCUREMENT ERROR THAT SHE THAT SHE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION WAS TRYING TO GET THE PERSONAL IS THAT YOU WANT TO SERVE I HAVE NOT SEEN THE ARTICLE I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT JUST CAME OUT SO FRIDAY, JULY 1ST AT 9:40 A.M. THIS IS AT THE EMAIL.

LET ME JUST I'M SORRY I FORGOT IT WAS A PERSON THIS DRIFTING INTO A PERSONAL MATTER CAN'T BE DISCUSSED HERE HAS TO BE EXECUTIVE SESSION SO LET ME JUST CAUTION YOU ON THAT.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND AND THIS IS COMPLETELY IT IS IN MY REPORT AND I'M HAPPY TO EXPLAIN THAT. SO THERE ARE SOME VERY THAT'S WHAT THAT ARTICLE QUESTION YOU GET AND STOP TALKING. OH OKAY THANK YOU I HOPE I'M CLEAR WITH THAT I'M SORRY I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING NOT TO GO INTO PERSONAL MATTERS AND I WAS NOT GOING TO SAY OKAY BUT THANK YOU. I WILL STOP TALKING. I APOLOGIZE FOR BRINGING THAT UP. I JUST SAW THIS ARTICLE COME OUT AND I HAD A FOR YOU I'M ATTACHED TO IT SO THAT'S WHY I WAS DISCUSSING IT. BUT LIKE I SAID I JUST HAVE ISSUES WITH THE WAY THIS CAME. I DON'T WANT TO OBVIOUSLY IT'S ALREADY THERE, THE EQUIPMENT'S ALREADY THERE. I DO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD BUT. LIKE I SAID, I DO TAKE ISSUES WITH HOW EVERYTHING CAME TO BE. THIS BEHAVIOR CAN GET ANY OTHER COMMENTS OH IS IT REALLY CALLED HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE? IT'S JUST CALLED AN ACCESSIBLE ,IS IT NOT? I DON'T THINK WE USE THE TERM HANDICAP SO THEY'RE INTERCHANGED ALL THE ANC 117 IS A HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE CODE AND THEN YOU HAVE INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUNDS, YOU HAVE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE PLAYGROUNDS HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ROUTES IN THE BUILDING CODE SO THEY'RE INTERCHANGEABLE I MEAN TODAY SOME PEOPLE TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT. SO THESE THESE ARE ADOPTED TERMS IN THE BUILDING CODE THAT ARE IN STATE. SO WE USE THEM INTERCHANGEABLY AND JUST REITERATE THIS IS TWO PLAYGROUNDS AND THAT ONE IS EQUIPMENT IT'S IT'S A PROJECT IT'S ALL ENERGY SO THE WHOLE THING IS INTERCONNECTED WITH GROUND. THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT INCLUSIVE.