Oct 17, 2023 Town of Hilton Head Finance & Administrative Committee

[00:00:01]

CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY BUFORT COUNTY.

UM,

[1. Call to Order]

[2. Adoption of the Agenda]

SECOND.

SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR.

THE MINUTES FROM OUR

[3. Approval of the Minutes ]

SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR.

NEXT, WE'LL HAVE APPEARANCE

[4. Appearance by Citizens]

IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO.

AND IF THERE'S A SIGN UP, KIM, IF YOU COULD CALL THOSE AS WELL.

THANK YOU.

YES.

UM, MELINDA TONNER.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS MELINDA TONNER AND I LIVE IN PME HALL.

AND MY COMMENTS TODAY ARE AROUND THE LACK OF CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON THE FINANCIAL PORTAL.

AND I'M REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO, UH, THE MEMORANDUMS THAT ARE UPDATED ON A MONTHLY BASIS.

IT'S OCTOBER 17TH, AND THE LAST POSTED RESULTS WERE FOR JUNE.

NOW, ORIGINALLY I WASN'T TOO CONCERNED WHEN I SAW THAT JULY WASN'T UPDATED.

YOU KNOW, WE WOULD SAY AT WORK ONE MONTH DOES NOT A TREND MAKE.

SO I GET THAT AS WELL AS YOU MIGHT BE WORKING ON YOUR SEASONALS ON YOUR MONTHLY BUDGET.

UH, BUT I BECAME CONCERNED WHEN AUGUST RESULTS WEREN'T PUBLISHED.

SO I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT LAST YEAR.

LAST YEAR, AUGUST.

RESULTS WERE PUBLISHED BY SEPTEMBER 30TH AND SEPTEMBER, RESULTS BY OCTOBER 19TH.

SO IT'S OCTOBER 17TH AND NOTHING HAS BEEN POSTED FOR THE NEW FISCAL YEAR.

ON THE WEBSITE, IT SAYS INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE PREPARED ON A MONTHLY BASIS BY THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO ASSIST WITH DAY-TO-DAY MANAGEMENT.

AND IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS PROVIDING TRANSPARENCY TO THE TOWN'S FINANCIAL ACTIVITY, FINANCIAL POSITION AND OPERATIONS.

WHETHER YOU'RE A TAXPAYER BOND HOLDER, BOND RATER, OR A CURIOUS CITIZEN LIKE MYSELF.

THE INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE A GOOD PLACE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE TOWN'S OPERATIONAL INFORMATION.

SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHEN CAN WE EXPECT TO SEE AUGUST'S FINANCIAL RESULTS ON THE WEBSITE? THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MS. DONNA, SANDY WEST.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

THANK YOU AS ALWAYS FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY.

UM, MY COMMENTS ARE VERY BRIEF.

IT'S BASICALLY MY CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE C C D C BEING FUNDED WITH THE $600,000 THAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED.

UM, I KNOW THERE IS A VOCAL MINORITY IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT IS AGAINST PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS TO ADDRESS HOUSING.

AND MY QUESTION TO THAT VOCAL MINORITY IS THEN WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? I'D LOVE TO HEAR A SOLUTION BECAUSE I THINK MANY OF US WOULD BE HAPPY TO GET BEHIND A BETTER SOLUTION IF THERE REALLY IS ONE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

SKIP POLAND.

SKIP POLAND, WINDMILL HARBOR, ALEX AS A NATIVE ISLANDER.

I LOOK FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR TO REPLACE ITS ILLEGALLY OPERATED CHAMBER, D M O AND ASK THAT THE CHAMBER CONTRACT IS TERMINATED THIS YEAR, AND A FORENSIC AUDIT IS CONDUCTED TO UNDERSTAND FULLY HOW MUCH MONEY BILL MILES HAS LAUNDERED AND HIS ACCOUNTANTS RAY DEAL AND RAY WCO WOULD RUPTURE.

ROGERS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH A PROCUREMENT LAWSUIT, HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD UNDER NOW UNDER APPEAL, AND A LAWSUIT ALSO FILED FOR THE TOWN'S ILLEGAL 600,000 OF TAX FUNDS ISSUED TO THE PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY OF SEA PINES FOR THE DREDGING OF HARBORTOWN, THIS COUNCIL MUST STOP THE ILLEGAL PUBLIC MONEY FUNDING FOR PRIVATE USE.

IT'S ILLEGAL UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND THE SUPREME COURT AGREED ALSO AN INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE HELD ON THE CROOKED CHAMBER, UH, LAW LAW FIRM, UH, BUR FOREMAN, UH, WALTER NESTER AND DAVID TIGGA, AND THE REPORTED GODMOTHER OF THIS CHAMBER WHO HIRED BILL MILES.

PAUL BUFFET, THEY ALL SERVED ON THE CHAMBER HAND PICKED BUDDY BOARD AND WERE NOT DULY ELECTED UNDER NATIONAL GOLD STANDARDS SO THAT OTHER MEMBERS HAVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE ON THIS CHAMBER BOARD.

IF THEY DID, BILL MILES WOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED AND REMOVED 30 YEARS AGO FOR HIS FRAUD AND HIS TAX THEFT.

ALSO, ALEX, WHO ASKED YOU TO SERVE ON THE G I C, THE GREATER ISLAND COUNCIL.

WHY ARE YOU A, WHY ARE YOU A CHAMBER MEMBER WHO PAID YOUR CHAMBER MEMBERSHIP? WHY DO YOU KEEP VOTING IN FAVOR OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL TAX FUNDING TO THE CHAMBER? ALEX, I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT THE FOOD TRUCKS IN YOUR PROPERTY IS ALSO CAUSING A DANGEROUS SITUATION.

AND THERE'S NO TRAFFIC LIGHT, THERE'S NO TURNOFF LANE, AND THERE'S NO REENTER LANE.

WHO IS, WHO APPROVED THIS? AND WHO GETS SUED IF AN ACCIDENT HAPPENS

[00:05:01]

WHO ASKED TO FOR YOU TO PAY FOR THE CHAMBER MEMBERSHIPS? WHO INVITED YOU TO THE CHAMBER BALL PARTY? WHO, WHY IS THIS SE WHY IS THIS SECRET? ALEX, I HAVE ASKED ALL THESE QUESTIONS AND OTHERS HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER.

CARLTON DALLAS, GLENN STANFORD, DAVID AMES, JOE PASSMAN, STU RODMAN, LARRY MCALLEN, LESLIE RICHARDSON, PETER CHRISTIANSON, THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.

ALSO, IF THIS COUNCIL DOES NOT STOP BREAKING THE LAW AND MR. PERRY DOESN'T APOLOGIZE FOR LYING, THERE'S GONNA BE A LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD TO FORCE THIS ACCOUNTING FROM THE CHAMBER THAT THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON, AND THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING AND ALL FUTURE COUNT COUNCIL MEETINGS.

ALSO.

THIS INCLUDES BLUFFTON COUNCIL AND BEAUFORT, UH, UH, COUNTY COUNCIL.

I WILL ASK ALL TAXPAYERS TO JOIN ME IN THIS FIGHT FOR TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

THIS FINANCE COMMITTEE CANNOT CONTINUE TO JUSTIFY AND BREAK LAWS.

IT'S JUST, IT, IT'S NOT LEGALLY FUNCTIONAL.

YOU'RE NOT BEING LEGALLY FUNCTIONAL.

YOU DO A LOT OF GOOD THINGS, BUT YOU HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING RIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE LOOKING FOR YOU FOR EVERYTHING, RIGHT? NOT JUST HAND PICK THE ONES YOU WANT TO BE.

RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. HOLMAN.

ANYONE ELSE? THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMUNITY TODAY? WE'LL MOVE ON TO

[5.a. Consideration of Approval of a Sponsorship Agreement with the Heritage Classic Foundation for the RBC Golf Tournament - Josh Gruber, Deputy Town Manager]

IT'S RUBA.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

LET'S SEE IF I CAN, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WANTED TO, UH, BRING THIS MATTER BEFORE YOU BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR, WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM STEVE WILMONT, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR CHAIRMAN OF THE HERITAGE CLASSICS FOUNDATION, UM, REQUESTING THAT THE TOWN CONSIDER A SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT FOR THIS YEAR'S UPCOMING 2024 R B C UH, GOLF TERMINAL PRESENTED BY BOEING.

UM, IN THIS, UH, SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT, IT IS THE EXACT FORM AS WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN PREVIOUS YEARS THAT THE TOWN HAS BEEN A SPONSOR OF THIS AGREEMENT.

THE ONLY CONSIDERATION WITH THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST IS THAT THE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION HAS INCREASED FROM WHAT HAD BEEN, UH, $300,000 LAST YEAR TO $500,000 THIS YEAR, AND IS OUTLINED IN THE LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILMONT.

UH, HE DETAILS WHY THERE IS A NEED TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL INCREASES IN THE SPONSORSHIP AMOUNT, PRIMARILY RELATED TO THE FACT THAT THIS PARTICULAR P G A TOUR EVENT IS NOW CONSIDERED A SIGNATURE EVENT.

AND IN THE WORLD OF P G A TOUR EVENTS, THAT MEANS IT'S ELEVATED.

SO THEY HAVE TAKEN THAT TO MEAN THEY NEED TO STEP UP THEIR GAME IN ALL AREAS OF PROVIDING THIS TOURNAMENT.

SO YOU CAN SEE HERE, UH, IT'S INDICATED THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT NOT ONLY INCREASING THEIR ADVERTISING, UH, THEIR TELECAST, BUT ALSO ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE EVENT.

AND THAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING YOUR PACKETS.

TODAY WAS A COPY OF THE SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT, UH, AND HAS INDICATED, UM, ALL OF THE TERMS ARE THE SAME AS WHAT THEY'VE BEEN IN PRIOR EVENTS.

AND I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO HIGHLIGHT THE IMPACT FROM LAST YEAR'S EVENT.

SO BASED UPON, UM, THE REPORTED INFORMATION, THERE WAS A LITTLE OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND ATTENDEES SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PARTICULAR EVENT.

AND THE GENERATED ECONOMIC IMPACT, UH, DERIVED FROM THAT EVENT WAS AN EXCESS OF $102 MILLION.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU, JOSH.

QUESTIONS MS. STANFORD? YES.

THANK YOU.

UM, JOSH, HAVE OTHER SPONSORS HAD SIMILAR INCREASED REQUESTS? I CANNOT TELL YOU THAT ANSWER.

I DO KNOW THAT THE COSTS OF THE EVENT HAVE GONE UP ALL AROUND.

SO, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'D BE WILLING TO DISCLOSE THAT INFORMATION TO US.

WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK THAT QUESTION.

UM, BUT THE COST OF PRESENTING THE EVENT HAVE GONE UP SUBSTANTIALLY.

WE KNOW THAT, UH, THAT'S BECAUSE OF INFLATION OR BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S NOW A SIGNATURE EVENT.

IT'S NOW A SIGNATURE EVENT.

AND SO, UH, AS HIGHLIGHTED, UM, THE ASPECTS OF THE EVENT HAVE ALL BEEN INCREASED, ONE OF WHICH, UM, IS THE, THE PRICE PURSE ITSELF, AND NOT THAT OUR SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT GOES TOWARDS THAT, BUT IN PREVIOUS YEARS, THE PRICE PURSE WAS $8 MILLION AS A SIGNATURE EVENT.

THE PRICE PURSE IS $20 MILLION.

SO THAT IN AND OF ITSELF NECESSITATES AN INCREASE OF THE OVERALL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ALL ADVERTISERS.

SO WE, WE COULD GET THAT INFORMATION IF IT'S NECESSARY.

I'M NOT SURE, UM, WHAT SENSITIVITIES THERE WOULD BE WITH THAT

[00:10:01]

UM, BUT THE MATH INDICATES THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO GO UP.

WHAT HAVE WE BUDGETED FOR THIS EXPENSE? UM, I BELIEVE WE HAD $300,000 IN THE BUDGET.

SO ULTIMATELY THIS IS IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS BUDGETED, BUT WHEN WE DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT LATER ON IN THE YEAR, WE CAN TAKE THAT UP AND WE CAN IDENTIFY SOURCES OF FUNDING TO SATISFY THAT.

UH, AT THAT TIME, I WOULD LIKE SOME MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH OTHER SPONSORS, UM, BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT EVERYONE IS SEEING AN, AN INCREASE OF, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THIS IS.

YES, SIR.

THANK YOU, MS. BAKER.

I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE QUESTION, BRIAN, TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHAT OTHERS ARE BEING ASKED AND WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED FOR AND, UM, WHERE THAT, THOSE ADDITIONAL FUNDS WOULD COME FROM.

UM, AS WE KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT WHERE MONIES ARE BEING ASKED, UM, OF US AND WHERE WE WILL FIND THEM IF WE SHOW, UH, DESIRE TO, AND EVERYONE'S GOT THEIR HAND IN A COOKIE POT THAT VERY LIKELY WILL HAVE FEWER AND FEWER DOLLARS IN IT.

UM, I I BELIEVE THIS PARTICULAR CONTRIBUTION HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN BUDGETED OUT OF HOSPITALITY TAXES.

YEAH.

SO IT'S NOT COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND, IT HAS COME FROM SPECIFICALLY TOURISM RELATED REVENUES.

UM, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE EVENT I SUSPECTED, SO THANK YOU.

UM, I SEE THAT 101,000 ATTENDEES, TWO HILTON HEAD I GATHER, THAT IS BASED ON, SO I THINK THAT'S THE ACTUAL TICKETED EVENT.

SO THEIR, THEIR TARGET NUMBER WAS ABOUT 30,000, I BELIEVE, FOR FRIDAY, SATURDAY, SUNDAY.

SO WE NOT THAT THAT WAS THE REPORTED NUMBER.

SO A HUNDRED THOUSAND ISN'T THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING TO THE ISLAND, OKAY.

AND IT'S UNLIKELY THAT THAT NUMBER'S GOING UP.

SO THOSE NUMBERS ARE ALMOST IRRELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSION.

THE REAL, THE REAL QUESTION IS, IS OUR INVESTMENT, WHETHER IT'S 300,000, 500,000 COMING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY IN A LEVERAGED WAY, AND I'M COMFORTABLE SAYING YES, IT IS.

HOWEVER, THIS IS THE SAME KIND OF, UH, CONVERSATION I'VE HAD WITH THE, UH, D M O.

AND THAT IS ARE WE MARKETING TOURISM OR ARE WE MARKETING COMMUNITY? AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IN THIS, UH, DOCUMENT SOME REFERENCE TO OUR ABILITY, THE COMMUNITY'S ABILITY TO MARKET ITS ASSETS AS WE SEE THOSE ASSETS NOT NECESSARILY THROUGH THE LENS OF A TOURIST.

AND SO I, I LOOK AT, UM, WHAT WE ARE GETTING FOR, UM, THE, UH, 300, 500,001 COLOR AD LISTING AND WEBSITE LISTING AND VIDEO BOARDS SPONSOR BOARD MEDIA GUIDE, WELCOME MESSAGE.

AND I ASK MYSELF OF THOSE, WHAT ARE WE REALLY GETTING IN TERMS OF A BENEFIT OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO MARKET OUR COMMUNITY AS OPPOSED TO THE TOURIST ASSETS? AND I SEE THE ONE PAGE AD WE CAN INFLUENCE THAT WE CAN INFLUENCE THE WELCOME MESSAGE.

I DON'T SEE ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE ANY MATERIAL IMPACT ON LISTINGS.

SO I WOULD ASK THAT WE CONCEPTUALLY LOOK AT OUR ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THE MAIN VIDEO MESSAGE ON TV, THAT THE COMMUNITY MESSAGE, UH, BE PREPARED SO THAT, UM, THE ANNOUNCERS MM-HMM.

HAVE THOSE WORDS IN THEIR, UM, UH, UH, MESSAGING.

SO I, I THINK THAT THERE, THERE SHOULD BE AN A LINE ITEM FOR A NEW PARAGRAPH THAT RELATES TO OUR OPPORTUNITY AS A TOWN AND AS A COMMUNITY TO INFLUENCE THE MESSAGING THAT'S GOING OUT VIA THE TV.

THANK YOU.

YES, SIR.

AND, AND IF I MAY RESPOND TO THAT BRIEFLY, I, I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY WHERE WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING OUR ATTENTION BECAUSE THE TELECAST IS REALLY WHAT PROVIDES THE PUBLIC EXPOSURE FOR THIS EVENT.

THE PRINTED MATERIALS, THE BANNERS, THOSE ARE ALL CERTAINLY NICE TO BE NAMED AS A SPONSOR, BUT IT'S THE TELECAST THAT REALLY SHOWS THE ISLAND AND THE ASPECTS OF THE ISLAND THAT WE'RE TRYING TO COMMUNICATE TO THE BROADER, UH, PUBLIC OUTSIDE THIS AREA.

AND SO IF THERE'S A PARTICULAR MESSAGE, I'M SURE THAT WE COULD WORK WITH THEM TO IDENTIFY WAYS TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THEIR, INTO THEIR BROADCASTING MATERIALS.

I SPOKE TO, UH, ANDREW DAVIS THIS MORNING, AND I'M SURE BECAUSE OF HIS POSITION AND RESPONSIBILITY, UH, IN THE TOWN, HE WOULD HAVE SOME INPUT THERE.

MM-HMM.

.

GOOD.

OKAY.

UH, SO , JOSH, UM, WE'VE GOT, UH, GET

[00:15:01]

UM, UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BETTER OUR RETURN ON INVESTMENT HERE.

UM, AND SINCE H TAX IS THE FUNDING SOURCE, IF WE COULD CORRELATE THAT SOMEHOW, AND OF COURSE, CONTROLLING OF THE MESSAGING ALRIGHT, IS WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR.

ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO THERE MAY BE MORE TO THAT LIST WHEN WE GET DONE HERE.

YES, MS. TURNER, COMING FROM BUSINESS, MY FIRST THOUGHT IS CAN WE NEGOTIATE AND ASK FOR SOME EXTRA BENEFITS SINCE WE ARE GOING TO BE SPENDING MORE MONEY? SO PERHAPS THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET SOMETHING MORE FOR THE DOLLARS.

THANK YOU, MR. HOLDEN.

THIS IS SO ABSURD.

THIS DOES NOT SURPRISE ME THAT JOSH GRUBER FOUND GUILTY OF THREE ETHICS VIOLATIONS, NOW PRESENTS ANOTHER ILLEGAL TAX USE TO SPONSOR A GOLF TOURNAMENT IN SEA PINES.

THE SAME PLACE WE JUST GAVE $600,000 TO TO DREDGE HARBORTOWN.

WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS TOWN? YOU KNOW, IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S WORTHY, IF IT'S HEARTFELT, UM, IT, IT, IT, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.

THE BOTTOM LINE, IT'S ILLEGAL.

IT'S ILLEGAL TO USE PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES IN ANY FORM OR FASHION.

THIS OPENS THE DOOR FOR OTHER EVENTS, TENNIS.

THIS, SOME OF US DON'T EVEN LIKE GOLF.

SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TENNIS.

THEY MIGHT WANT A, A FISHING EVENT SPONSORED BY THE TOWN.

THIS IS FOR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

THIS IS NOT GOVERNMENT.

THE CHAMBER'S NOT GOVERNMENT, G I C'S, NOT GOVERNMENT.

YOU PEOPLE HAVE GOT TO STOP.

PUBLIC FUNDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND THAT'S FOR THE BENEFIT USE AND REASON FOR ALL OF US TAXPAYERS IN THIS ROOM.

YOU JUST GET UP THERE AND EVERYBODY GRUER GETS UP THERE AND EVERYBODY ELSE JUST JUSTIFIES ALL THIS, JUST JUSTIFIES ALL THIS THEFT TO TAXPAYERS.

YOU FOLKS HAVE GOTTA STOP.

IT'S JUST, IT'S, IT'S INSANITY.

IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, SEEING NONE, WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE DIOCESE FOR THE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION.

SO, MR. GRUBA, UM, NOT LOOKING FOR US TO TAKE ACTION TODAY MM-HMM.

, UM, SO WE'LL LOOK FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

WE'LL PUT IT ON A, UH, TO BE DETERMINED NEXT AGENDA? YES SIR.

OKAY.

OKAY.

THANK YOU SIR.

IS THERE A DEADLINE, UH, WHEN THIS IS RE NO, I BELIEVE THE, UH, AGREEMENT CALLED FOR PAYMENT NO LATER THAN APRIL 1ST.

SO THERE, THERE'S CERTAINLY PLENTY OF TIME.

OKAY.

UH, NEXT WE'LL HAVE A

[5.b. Discussion of Act 57 of the 2023 South Carolina General Assembly Legislation Session, Development of Workforce Housing - Josh Gruber, Deputy Town Manager]

MR. GRUBER WILL BE PRESENTING AGAIN.

YES SIR.

ALRIGHT, SO I AM REALLY GONNA KIND OF TAKE IT BACK AND START AT THE BEGINNING.

AND SO I APOLOGIZE IF THIS IS INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE ALREADY AWARE OF, BUT I THINK IT'D BE VERY BENEFICIAL FOR THE PUBLIC TO TRY TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ACCOMMODATIONS, TAXES, UM, LET ALONE THE FACT THAT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT BUCKETS AND THAT THIS NEW RECENTLY ADOPTED LEGISLATION APPLIES TO THOSE TWO BUCKETS DIFFERENTLY.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I AM GONNA START OUT WITH LOCAL ACCOMMODATION TAXES.

FIRST, HIGHLIGHT THEM IN TERMS OF THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY, HOW THE TOWN APPLIES THOSE, UH, HERE LOCALLY.

AND THEN WHAT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADOPTED WITHIN ACT, UH, 57 OF 2023 STATES AND HOW THAT APPLIES TO LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS, TAXES.

AND THEN PROVIDE AN OUTLINE FOR IF COUNCIL DESIRES TO MOVE FORWARD AND UTILIZE THOSE FUNDS.

WHAT ARE THE PROCEDURAL STEPS THAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH BEFORE WE COULD LAWFULLY DO THAT? WE'RE GONNA GONNA DO THE SAME THING FOR STATE ACCOMMODATIONS, TAXES.

AND AS I MENTIONED, THOSE TWO ARE DIFFERENT.

THEY'RE APPLIED, UH, DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE THAT IS WITHIN ACT 57.

UH, I'M ALSO GONNA THEN, UH, HIGHLIGHT THE REVIEW OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION REQUEST, UH, THAT WE SUBMITTED.

UH, I'LL, I'LL GIVE YOU A, UM, A SPOILER ALERT.

WE JUST RECEIVED THE OPINION BACK YESTERDAY.

UH, SO WE HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO REALLY DIVE INTO IT.

WE NEED TO REVIEW IT WITH THE TOWN ATTORNEY, THE TOWN MANAGER, AND THE MAYOR.

UH, BUT ULTIMATELY WE HAVE RECEIVED BACK, UH, WHAT IS THE OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THOSE QUESTIONS.

AND, UH, AT A LATER POINT IN TIME WE'LL BRING FORWARD SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON WHAT THAT OPINION STATES ONCE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DIGEST IT.

AND THEN I'LL END BY HIGHLIGHTING AGAIN THAT CRITICAL PATH AND TIMELINE FOR INFORMATION FOR BOTH LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS AND STATE ACCOMMODATION TAXES IF THE POLICY DIRECTION FROM COUNCILS TO UTILIZE EITHER ONE OF THOSE FUNDING SOURCES FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING PURPOSES.

ALRIGHT, SO LET'S DIVE INTO, JOSH, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? PLEASE REFRESH ME AND MAYBE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE QUESTION THAT WAS POSED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SO I'M GONNA COVER ALL, THERE WAS ACTUALLY FOUR QUESTIONS WITHIN

[00:20:01]

I'M GONNA COVER ALL FOUR OF THEM.

ALRIGHT, SO LET'S START WITH LOCAL ACCOMMODATION TAXES.

SO IN THE STATE LAW SECTION 6 1 5 20, IT ALLOWS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY ORDINANCE TO OPPOSE A LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX NOT TO EXCEED 3%.

SO THE TOWN TOOK THAT ENABLING LEGISLATION AND WE ACTUALLY ADOPTED TWO ORDINANCES.

ONE IS TO PUT IN PLACE A LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX AT 1% OF ACCOMMODATIONS TAXES THAT ARE COLLECTED.

THE OTHER IS TO PUT IN OUR, WHAT WE CALL OUR BEACH PRESERVATION FEE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY OUR 2% OF THE LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX.

THAT WHEN COMBINED WITH THIS IS THE 3% THAT'S ALLOWED FOR UNDER STATE LAW.

AND SO KNOW THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAXES AS IT APPLIES TO HILTON HEAD, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A 1% TAX THAT IS ON, UH, TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS HERE WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE TOWN.

IN TERMS OF WHAT THE ALLOWED USES OF THE LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX STATES, SECTION 6 1 30 A SUBSECTIONS ONE THROUGH SIX WERE WHAT WAS IN THE STATE CODE IN TERMS OF PERMISSIBLE EXPENDITURES FOR TOURISM RELATED, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE BUILDINGS AND PURPOSES.

YOU SEE THAT NUMBER SEVEN IS NOW ADDED AND HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.

THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADDED BY THE ADOPTION OF ACT 57 OF 2023.

AND WHAT IT STATES IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING, WHICH MUST INCLUDE PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE HOME OWNERSHIP, UH, IS NOW A, A PERMISSIBLE USE OF LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAXES.

HOWEVER, THERE IS A CAVEAT TO THAT.

IT'S THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOT DEDICATE MORE THAN 15% OF ITS ANNUAL LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX REVENUE FOR THE PURPOSE IN THIS ITEM.

AND THAT THERE IS THEN ALSO A SUNSET PROVISION.

SO SEVEN YEARS FROM THE TIME THAT THIS WAS ADOPTED, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WAS, WILL ALLOW THIS TO STAY IN PLACE.

AND THEY'VE CALLED FOR SOME STUDIES AND SOME REVIEWS TO DO AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA GET INTO TODAY.

BUT ULTIMATELY THE THOUGHT WAS THEY'RE GONNA PUT THIS IN PLACE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, STUDY IT, LEARN THE IMPACTS OF IT, AND THEN CONSIDER AN EXTENSION OR A TERMINATION OF IT AT SOME POINT IN TIME LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD.

I'VE ALSO PUT IN HERE SECTION B ONE BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR OUR PURPOSES.

AND IT SAYS AN ACCOUNTING IN WHICH LEASED $900,000 IN ACCOMMODATIONS.

TAXES ARE COLLECTED ANNUALLY.

THE REVENUES OF THOSE LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX MAY ALSO BE USED FOR THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THOSE ITEMS IN ONE THROUGH SIX THAT SUPPORT POLICE FIRE PROTECTION, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS OPERATIONS DIRECTLY ATTENDED TO THOSE FACILITIES.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THOSE COSTS THAT ARE BORNE BY THE TOWN FOR PROVIDING SERVICES THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO SUPPORTING TOURISTS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR EXPENDITURE UNDER OUR LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX PROVISIONS.

AND SO WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO IF THE TOWN WERE TO CONSIDER USING LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAXES FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING IS TO DO A COUPLE OF THINGS.

FIRST, WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AMOUNT THAT'S, UH, PROVIDED FOR UNDERNEATH THE STATUTE, WHICH, WHICH IS 15% OF THE THAT PRIOR YEAR'S COLLECTIONS.

HERE WE WOULD ALSO NEED TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE.

AND I GO BACK TO THIS SLIDE RIGHT HERE.

IF YOU LOOK AT, LOOK AT OUR LOCAL TOWN CODE, WE INCORPORATED THIS LANGUAGE OF SECTION 6 1 5 30 A ONE THROUGH SIX VERBATIM IN OUR CODE.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS, WHILE THIS IS NOW A PER PERMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE AT THE STATE LEVEL, OUR LOCAL CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THESE FUNDS TO BE USED FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING.

SO PRIOR TO AUTHORIZING ANY EXPENDITURE FOR THAT, WE'D HAVE TO CHANGE OUR LOCAL CODE TO MATCH THIS LANGUAGE OF THE STATE CODE.

AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE FOR A BUDGET ORDINANCE.

UM, LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS, TAXES IN PARTICULAR HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE TOWN'S BUDGET 100%.

AND SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS ALL OF THE FUNDS THAT ARE COLLECTED IN THAT BUCKET HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATED AS PART OF THE ADOPTED BUDGET PROCESS.

AND SO I'VE GOT A SLIDE LATER ON THAT'LL SHOW YOU WHAT THOSE AMOUNTS ARE TO GIVE YOU SPECIFIC NUMBERS.

BUT KNOW THAT IF WE WERE TO DO, UH, USE THAT FUNDING FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME KIND OF BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS AS THEY'RE CURRENTLY APPROPRIATED.

NEXT, IF THE FUNDING IS GIVEN TO AN EXTERNAL ENTITY, WE WOULD NEED TO CREATE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR SIMILAR AGREEMENT TO DOCUMENT, UH, HOW THE FUNDS WILL BE UTILIZED AND ENSURE THAT THE STANDARDS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE STATUTE ARE BEING MET BOTH AT THE TIME THAT THEY'RE SPENT AND THEN GOING FORWARD FOR ANY KIND OF FUTURE ONGOING, UH, RESTRICTIONS.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HAVING IT FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD AND RESTRICTING IT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER VEHICLE IS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IS IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT THOSE FUNDS ARE APPROPRIATED AND IT'S SPOKEN TO WITHIN THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH WHATEVER AGENCY WE'RE GONNA CONTRACT WITH.

[00:25:01]

DOCUMENT HOW THOSE FUNDS ARE USED.

ALRIGHT, LET'S TALK ABOUT STATE ACCOMMODATION TAXES.

SO UNDER SECTION 12 36 920 A TAX EQUAL TO 7% OF, UH, THE GROSS PROCEEDS ON TRANSIENT RENTALS IS COLLECTED AS AN ACCOMMODATIONS TAX OF THAT THE STATE TAKES 2% AND REMITS IT BACK TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT WHERE THE TAX IS COLLECTED EITHER IN A MUNICIPALITY OR IN AN UNINCORPORATED COUNTY.

BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT STATE A TAXES, IT IS THIS 2% OF THE 7% THAT THE STATE IS COLLECTING THAT THEY ARE THEN TRANSMITTING BACK TO US.

AND SO IF MY MATH IS CORRECT, AND IT RARELY EVER IS, THIS IS DOUBLE THE AMOUNT THAT WE COLLECT UNDER LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX.

SO LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX IS 1%.

STATE ACCOMMODATIONS TAX IS 2%.

SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY DOUBLE THE REVENUE BECAUSE IT'S DOUBLE THE PERCENT UNDER SECTION 6, 4 10.

THERE'S A SPECIFIC MANNER IN WHICH THIS REVENUE MUST BE DISTRIBUTED.

AND SO IT STARTS BY SAYING THE FIRST $25,000 ARE ALLOCATED TO THE, UH, MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY'S GENERAL FUND.

THE NEXT 5% OF THE BALANCE IS THEN ALLOCATED TO THE GENERAL FUND AS WELL.

AND THEN THE 30% AFTER THAT GOES TO THE MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTIES DESIGNATED MARKETING ORGANIZATION.

AND SO THAT THEN LAYS OUT, UM, THE MANDATORY FUNDING THAT MUST BE ALLOCATED.

I SKIPPED A SECTION FROM THREE DOWN TO FOUR B BECAUSE FOR OUR BUDGETING PURPOSES, THIS IS THE MANNER IN WHICH WE'VE ALLOCATED THOSE FUNDS.

SO WE TAKE 25,000 OFF THE TOP, WE ALLOCATE 5% TO THE GENERAL FUND, WE TRANSFER 30% TO THE D M O.

AND THEN THE NEXT THING THAT WE DO IS WE BUDGET WHAT FUNDS WE'RE GOING TO USE WITHIN OUR BUDGET, BOTH FROM AN OPERATING AND A CAPITAL STANDPOINT FOR OUR ONGOING ACTIVITIES.

AND SO THAT LANGUAGE THERE TALKS ABOUT WHEN WE HAVE A MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY WITH A HIGH CONCENTRATION OF TOURISM RELATED ACTIVITY, AND WE ARE ONE OF THOSE JURISDICTIONS THAT IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO USE THIS FUNDING TO SUPPLEMENT YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT, TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, HIGHWAY AND STREET MAINTENANCE AND ESSENTIALLY, UM, SUPPLEMENT YOUR OPERATING BUDGET OR YOUR CAPITAL BUDGET.

AND WE DO BOTH.

AND SO AGAIN, I WILL GET TO A SLIDE HERE WHERE WE'LL ACTUALLY DIVE INTO THE NUMBERS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR THIS YEAR AND WE'RE GONNA ALLOCATE THOSE DOLLAR VALUES TO EACH ONE OF THOSE BUCKETS.

THE NEXT THING WITHIN THERE, AND THIS IS FOUR A, THE SECTION THAT I SKIPPED OVER, WE THEN TAKE THE REMAINING BALANCE OF WHAT'S LEFT AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND WE ALLOW THAT TO BE USED WITHIN A SPECIAL FUND TO PROVIDE GRANTS TO ORGANIZATIONS OR ENTITIES THAT WANT TO ENGAGE IN TOURISM RELATED EXPENDITURES AND THE TERM TOURISM RELATED EXPENDITURES OUTLINED WITHIN THE STATUTE.

AND IT TALKS ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS THERE.

WHAT'S DIFFERENT IS THAT A NEW SECTION NINE WAS ADDED UNDER A TOURISM RELATED EXPENDITURE THAT ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING, WHICH MUST INCLUDE PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE HOME OWNERSHIP.

AND AGAIN, IT HAS THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT THAT ALLOCATION IS CAPPED AT 15% OF THE ANNUAL LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX REVENUE.

I CAN TELL YOU ONE OF THE ASPECTS THAT WE'D ASK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO WEIGH INTO WAS HOW TO MAKE THAT CALCULATION AND WHETHER THAT WAS 15% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT'S COLLECTED OR 15% OF WHAT'S AVAILABLE FOR TOURISM RELATED EXPENDITURES BECAUSE SUBSECTION NINE WAS IDENTIFIED AS A TOURISM RELATED EXPENDITURE.

SO THAT IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE POSED AND WE NOW, UH, PRESUMABLY HAVE AN ANSWER TO IN THE OPINION THAT CAME BACK.

SO WHAT ELSE IS REQUIRED BY ACT 57? AND I MENTIONED THAT THE LANGUAGE IS TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM STATE AND LOCAL.

LOCAL, IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD OTHER THAN HAVING TO CHANGE OUR OWN LOCAL CODE, WE'RE SET AT A CAP, BUT OTHERWISE COUNCIL'S FREE TO APPROPRIATE THOSE FUNDS FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING, UH, UH, IN ANY MANNER THAT IT CHOOSES.

WHEN IT COMES TO STATE ACCOMMODATIONS, TAXES, THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER STEPS THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH FIRST BEFORE BEING ABLE TO USE THAT FUNDING FOR THAT PURPOSE.

THE FIRST IS WE HAVE TO PERFORM A HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS.

SO THAT IS A NEW DOCUMENT AND A NEW STUDY THAT HAS NOT EXISTED UNTIL THIS ACT WAS ADOPTED, BUT IT LAYS OUT HOW UM, THE LEGISLATION AND THE EXPENDITURE OF WORKFORCE HOUSING DOLLARS WOULD IMPACT THE LOCAL HOUSING ENVIRONMENT.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A WHOLE LIST OF, UM, ELEMENTS TO THIS HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT HAVE TO BE COMPLETED.

SHORTLY AFTER, UH, ACT 57 WAS ADOPTED, WE ENGAGED THE SERVICES OF TAMMY HO HAWKINS, WHO AS MOST OF YOU'RE AWARE, AS AN EXPERT IN THE AREA OF WORKFORCE HOUSING

[00:30:01]

AND SO, UH, JUST LAST WEEK WE RECEIVED HER DRAFT OF THAT DOCUMENT AND WE ARE NOW AS STAFF GOING THROUGH THAT, MAKING SURE THAT ALL THOSE ELEMENTS ARE THERE, MAKING SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE CONTENT THAT IT HAS IN THERE, AND ALSO MAKING SURE THAT SOME OF OUR EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS ARE AWARE OF THAT INFORMATION BEFORE WE MOVE IT FORWARD AND BRING IT, UH, BRING IT FORWARD PUBLICLY.

BUT THE STATUTE SAYS WE HAVE TO PREPARE THIS HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS AND THEN WE HAVE TO TRANSMIT THAT HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS TO A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS.

SO WE HAVE TO SEND IT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, WE HAVE TO SEND IT TO THE TOURISM EXPENDITURE REVIEW COMMITTEE.

AND I PUT A LITTLE ASTERISK THERE BECAUSE UM, THERE WAS A LEGAL OPINION PROVIDED BY A SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY TO THE TOURISM EXPENDITURE REVIEW COMMITTEE REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THIS LANGUAGE AND WHAT ROLE THE TURK WOULD OR WOULD NOT PLAY IN TERMS OF RECEIVING THIS DOCUMENT.

AND I FLAGGED IT BECAUSE WHAT THAT OPINION SAYS, AND, AND MIND YOU THE CAVEAT IS IT'S JUST AN OPINION, BUT THIS IS THE LEGAL ADVICE THAT THE TURK HAS RECEIVED AT THIS POINT, IS THAT THEIR ONLY ROLE IS TO ACCEPT THAT DOCUMENT.

THEIR ROLE IS NOT TO ANALYZE IT.

THEIR ROLE IS NOT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S SUFFICIENT OR NOT SUFFICIENT, BUT IT IS A CHECK THE BOX.

THEY'VE RECEIVED A COPY OF IT AND THEY HAVE IT BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADOPTED WITHIN ACT 57.

AND SO WE ARE REQUIRED TO DISTRIBUTE THAT, UM, TO THOSE, UH, STATE AGENCIES.

AND THEN WE'RE ALSO REQUIRED TO DISTRIBUTE THAT DOCUMENT HERE INTERNALLY.

OBVIOUSLY ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WOULD RECEIVE A COPY OF THAT DOCUMENT AS WELL.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BECAUSE YOU SEE THAT YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED ORDINANCE THERE IS THAT WE HAVE TO DISTRIBUTE THIS BODY OR WE HAVE TO DISTRIBUTE THIS, UM, ANALYSIS BEFORE THE ORDINANCE.

AND IT DOESN'T REALLY GO ON TO STATE WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION IS CONSIDERED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BROADER PICTURE OF THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN ACT 57, WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS REFERRING TO IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT.

SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE LANGUAGE SAYS IS THAT BEFORE WE ADOPT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE HAVE TO INCLUDE A HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS WITHIN THIS.

WE AT THE TOWN HERE HAVE ALREADY DEVELOPED A VERY EXTENSIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE'VE BEEN IMPLEMENTING FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

AND WITHIN THAT IS A HOUSING ELEMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY EXAMINED MANY OF THE SUBJECT MATTERS THAT ARE COVERED WITHIN THIS STATUTE TO INCLUDE OUR NEED TO DEVELOP WORKFORCE HOUSING.

AND SO WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS AND SAYING IS THAT WE'LL NEED TO EITHER RATIFY OUR, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR AMEND IT TO INCORPORATE THE DOCUMENT, BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE NEED TO RESTART THE ENTIRE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN.

WE JUST NEED TO MARRY THE HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND AGAIN, THAT HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE WE CAN APPROPRIATE ANY FUNDS FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING UNDER THE STATE ACCOMMODATIONS TAX.

THE OTHER THING I'VE HIGHLIGHTED HERE IS IT SAYS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST SOLICIT INPUT ON THE ANALYSIS FROM HOME BUILDERS, DEVELOPERS, CONTRACTORS, AND HOUSING FINANCE EXPERTS.

THOSE ARE PEOPLE THAT WE ARE ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING WITH TO GATHER FEEDBACK ON THE ANALYSIS.

BUT ULTIMATELY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL OPEN UP THAT TO THAT, THOSE STAKEHOLDERS AS WELL AS ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD WANNA COMMENT ON IT.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY THEY'LL MOVE IT FORWARD TO THE PUBLIC PLANNING COMMITTEE.

AND THEN FROM THE PUBLIC PLANNING COMMITTEE TO TOWN COUNCIL TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO, LIKE I SAID, EITHER RATIFY OR AMEND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUT TO MARRY THOSE TWO ITEMS TOGETHER.

ALRIGHT, SO JUST KIND OF REVIEW THOSE PROCEDURAL STEPS.

SO WE'VE GOTTA COMPLETE THE HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS, WHICH AS I INDICATED HAS BEEN DONE, UH, WILL BE DISTRIBUTED HERE, UH, IN NOVEMBER.

UH, WE NEED TO UPDATE, RATIFY THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SHARE THE HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SOLICIT INPUT FROM THE VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS THAT HAVE IDENTIFIED IT IN THE STATUTE, AND THEN ADOPT AN ORDINANCE INCORPORATING THAT DOCUMENT INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

UM, I MENTIONED HERE THAT IF FUNDING IS GOING TO BE REALLOCATED BECAUSE PART OF THIS WAS IN OUR, UH, ADOPTED F Y 2324 BUDGET FOR BOTH OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL.

SO DEPENDING UPON WHAT THE ACTION IS THE COUNCIL WANNA TAKE, YOU MAY NEED TO REDO A BUDGET AMENDMENT IF YOU'RE GONNA TAKE FUNDING FROM ONE AREA AND MOVE IT OVER TO ANOTHER.

BUT AS WE'RE GONNA TALK HERE IN A MINUTE, THERE IS AN AVAILABLE BALANCE THAT WOULD NOT NECESSITATE THAT FROM THIS PARTICULAR, UM, POT OF MONEY.

WE JUST STILL NEED TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE PROCEDURAL STEPS BEFORE WE COULD GET TO THE POINT OF ACTUALLY AWARDING IT.

SO THE REQUEST FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION, UM, THE TOWN ATTORNEY SOUGHT THE OPINION A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.

AND ACTUALLY AS I MENTIONED YESTERDAY, WE JUST RECEIVED THE REPORT

[00:35:01]

BUT WITHIN THE REQUEST WE IDENTIFIED FOUR SEPARATE QUESTIONS THAT WE WANTED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO WEIGH IN ON.

SPECIFICALLY.

THE FIRST IS DOES ACT 57 AUTHORIZE THE DEDICATION OF 15% OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OR DOES IT AUTHORIZE THE DEDICATION OF 15% OF THE 65% FUND THAT WAS DESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE? THE SECOND IS JUST A BROADER QUESTION OF MAY LOCAL GOVERNMENT ALLOCATE ALL OR ANY PART OF THE FUNDS DESCRIBED IN THE ACT TO A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION TO BE USED TO DEVELOP WORKFORCE HOUSING SO LONG AS THE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE.

AND THEN WE TOOK THAT SAME QUESTION AND REWORDED IT TO ASK IF THE SAME ACTION WAS PERMISSIBLE, IF WE WERE GONNA BE CONTRACTING WITH A FOR-PROFIT ENTITY TO DEVELOP WORKFORCE HOUSING SO LONG AS IT WAS DONE IN THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTES.

AND THEN LASTLY, WE ASKED THE QUESTION OF IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS IDENTIFIED A LACK OF WORKFORCE HOUSING AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO ECONOMIC GROWTH, HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF THE COMMUNITY.

AND IF THAT LANGUAGE LOOKS FAMILIAR, IT'S BECAUSE THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WOULD MAKING A DONATION OR A GRANT FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S GENERAL FUND TO A NONPROFIT ENTITY THAT DEVELOPS AFFORDABLE HOUSING MEET THE PUBLIC PURPOSE DOCTRINE UNDER THE SOUTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION AND NOT VIOLATE OR PROHIBIT, UH, BE A PROHIBITION AGAINST PLEDGING OF THE CREDIT OF THE STATE AS SET OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

SO THOSE QUESTIONS WERE SPECIFICALLY ASKED OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IN THE OPINION THAT WE RECEIVED BACK YESTERDAY, WE'LL HAVE ANSWERS TO THOSE REQUESTS.

ALRIGHT, SO LET'S DIVE INTO THE ACTUAL NUMBERS.

SO THE VERY TOP HERE, WE'VE GOT THE LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX.

SO IN TERMS OF AVAILABILITY, THE 2023 COLLECTIONS WERE $6,948,465.

AND AS I INDICATED, AS PART OF THE ADOPTED GENERAL FUND BUDGET, ALL $6,948,465 WERE PROCREATED AS PART OF ME MEETING THAT BUDGET.

AND SO WHAT THAT LEAVES IS A $0 BALANCE.

NOW, IF COUNCIL WANTED TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS, THE PERMISSIBLE AMOUNT THAT COULD BE ALLOCATED FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING UNDER THE 15% CAP IS $1,042,270.

SO FOR STATE ACCOMMODATIONS, TAXES FROM LAST YEAR, WE HAD AN UNSPENT RESERVE OR A CARRYOVER OF $1,139,729.

OUR COLLECTIONS FOR THIS YEAR WERE $13,344,903.

THE FIRST 25,000 OF THAT GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND THAT REDUCES THAT DOWN TO 13,000,319.

THE NEXT 5% GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND, 30% TO THE D M O.

AND THEN IN OUR ADOPTED BUDGET, WE MADE A TRANSFER BOTH TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATIONS AND TO OUR CAPITAL BUDGET.

SO WE DID THREE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS TO THE GENERAL FUND.

WE DID $3 MILLION TO OUR C I P BUDGET.

AND THEN WE HAVE PENDING BEFORE OUR ACCOMMODATIONS TAX REVIEW COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR THIS YEAR'S GRANT AWARD CYCLE IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,773,193.

SO IF YOU PLUG AND SHRUG FROM THE TOP ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BOTTOM, WHAT THAT LEAVES IS A CURRENT AVAILABLE BALANCE OF $3,537,007 THAT COULD BE APPROPRIATED THE 15% CAP THAT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING.

THAT 1,298,691, THAT IS 15% OF THE 65% FUNDS THAT ARE LEFT.

SO THAT IS THE MORE CONSERVATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THAT STATUTE.

THAT WAY OF COUNCIL MOVES FORWARD WITH THAT.

THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN GO WRONG WITH UTILIZING THAT FIGURE, BUT KNOW THAT THE OPINION MAY COME BACK AND ALLOW FOR A LARGER CAP TO BE APPLIED.

THE ONE THING I'LL SAY, AND AND JOHN WILL I THINK WOULD GET UPSET WITH ME IF I DON'T AT LEAST MENTION IT, THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF 3,537,000 DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY, UM, PURCHASES OF REAL PROPERTY OR OTHER EXPENDITURES THAT COULD BE TAKEN UP AS PART OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT AND HAD BEEN SPOKEN TO AT LEAST AT ONE POINT IN TIME OR ANOTHER BY COUNSEL ABOUT POTENTIALLY UTILIZING AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

SO, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T WANNA GET IN TROUBLE WITH JOHN WITH FAILING TO MENTION THAT AT SOME POINT THAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED, ALTHOUGH NO FORMAL ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN.

SO NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE TIMELINE.

SO IF WE WERE GONNA USE, UH, LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAXES, UM, I UPDATED THIS SLIDE YESTERDAY ONCE WE RECEIVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION.

SO IT WAS RECEIVED YESTERDAY.

UH, I MENTIONED THAT WE WOULD NEED TO UPDATE OUR TOWN CODE THAT WOULD TYPICALLY TAKE THE FORMAL PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH COMMITTEE FROM COMMITTEE TO COUNCIL, UH, WITH AN ORDINANCE BY TWO SEPARATE READINGS.

SO WE INDICATED THAT JUST AS A AN ESTIMATE, THE TIME THAT WE WOULD TAKE THAT FORWARD, UH, COULD BE THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2024 WITHIN A FIRST AND SECOND READING OF COUNSEL FOLLOWING THAT.

SAME WITH ABUT ORDINANCE, BECAUSE WE CAN'T APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS UNTIL WE CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF OUR CODE, WE WOULD NEED TO START THAT PROCESS FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE.

AND THEN, UM, I'VE PUT UP HERE WHAT THE ADOPTION OF THIS UPCOMING YEAR'S

[00:40:01]

AND SO, UM, WHAT WE WOULD DO IS TAKE UP THE AFFILIATED AGENCY PRESENTATIONS AT THE MARCH FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE.

UH, AND I KNOW WE'VE NOT SET THOSE DATES YET, BUT CURRENTLY THE COMMITTEE MEETS THE THIRD, UH, TUESDAY OF EVERY MONTH.

AND SO MARCH 19TH IS THE THIRD TUESDAY OF 2024.

SIMILARLY, UM, WE WOULD COME FORWARD AND THE COMMITTEE WOULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL AT THEIR NEXT MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE APRIL 16TH.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY THOSE WOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE BUDGET FOR FIRST READING SOMETIME IN MAY AND SECOND READING SOMETIME PRESUMABLY IN JUNE.

SIMILARLY.

BUT AGAIN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THOSE ADDITIONAL STEPS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE FOR STATE ACCOMMODATIONS, TAXES, UM, WE'VE RECEIVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION, WE'VE COMPLETED THE HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS.

STAFF IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING IT FOR SUFFICIENCY, UH, AND COMPLETENESS.

AND ONCE WE'RE DONE WITH THAT, OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE THAT, UH, DISTRIBUTED TO ALL OF THOSE ENTITIES THAT I DISCUSSED, UH, SOMETIME IN NOVEMBER.

AND THEN GOING FORWARD WITH, UH, OP UH, ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO UPDATE OR RATIFY OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WOULD START OFF WITH A PUBLIC HEARING AND PLANNING COMMISSION FOLLOWED BY THE PUBLIC PLANNING COMMITTEE AND THEN TWO READINGS BY TOWN COUNCIL, SIMILARLY WITH THE BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WOULD NEED TO FOLLOW IT.

AND THEN AGAIN, I PUT THE AFFILIATED AGENCY PROCESS TIMELINE UP HERE JUST SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE TWO KIND OF IN PARALLEL.

SO I KNOW THAT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION, BUT HOPEFULLY THAT PAINTS THE BROADER PICTURE OF LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS, TAXES VERSUS STATE ACCOMMODATIONS, TAXES, AND HOW ACT 57 APPLIES TO BOTH OF THOSE SEPARATELY.

AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

THANK YOU, JOSH.

QUESTION WITH YOU, BECCA.

SURE.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE OVERVIEW.

UM, CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ALL THE, UM, HARD WORK.

UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED, UM, OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR HIS OPINION.

UM, I'M, I'M CURIOUS, UM, WITH SOME OF THE WORDING IN THE ACT AND WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THE AT TAX CAN BE USED WITHOUT, UM, A HOME OWNERSHIP COMPONENT 'CAUSE THAT'S RATHER VAGUE.

SO I I I WILL TELL YOU THAT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR IN OUR REQUEST, BUT I CAN POINT BACK TO THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN BOTH PROVISIONS, BOTH THE LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX AND THE STATE ACCOMMODATIONS TAX AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE TWO MIRRORS EACH OTHER.

AND WHAT IT SAYS IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING, WHICH MUST INCLUDE PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE HOME OWNERSHIP.

NOW, IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE BEYOND THAT.

SO IN THEORY YOU COULD HAVE A, UH, ENTITY THAT IS CREATING RENTAL BASED HOUSING, BUT AS LONG AS THEY'RE PROVIDING FINANCIAL LITERACY CLASSES TO ALLOW SOMEBODY POTENTIALLY TO OBTAIN HOME OWNERSHIP, AN ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE THAT THAT IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE PROGRAM TO PROVIDE HOME OWNERSHIP.

SO I, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE WAYS TO GET THERE, BUT I BELIEVE BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE UNDER BOTH SECTIONS IS THE SAME, THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED IN SOME WAY, EITHER AS PART OF THE PROPOSAL BY AN ENTITY OR WITHIN THE M O U THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED WITH THE TOWN.

UH, IN MY MIND, THE REASON THE QUESTION IS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE DRIVING THE ULTIMATE GOAL IN MY MIND AND FOR THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IS THAT HOME OWNERSHIP SHOULD BE THE PRIORITY.

AND WHEN WE'RE INVESTING PUBLIC FUNDS, WE WANT THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME.

AND I THINK WE CAN AGREE THAT HOME OWNERSHIP IS THAT, AND BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IS VAGUE AND IT SAYS MUST INCLUDE AND NOT SHALL INCLUDE, THERE'S A QUESTION THERE.

AND, YOU KNOW, OFFERING FINANCIAL AWARENESS, ET CETERA, THOSE DON'T NECESSARILY DO ANYTHING BUT, UM, FILL IN A GAP.

AND SO I I WOULD BE MORE CURIOUS AND TO A SPECIFIC, UM, WHAT THE REAL INTENTION WITH THAT REALLY WAS.

SO I CAN GIVE YOU A, AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF INSIGHT BECAUSE WE, THE TOWN HAPPENED TO BE AT THE FOREFRONT OF THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION, AS I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL AWARE, WE'RE THE ONES THAT INITIALLY DEVELOPED IT WE'RE THE ONES THAT ONES THAT CIRCULATED AMONGST ANOTHER OF COMMUNITIES.

AND THEN, UH, SENATOR DAVIS AS PART OF OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION HELPED TO SHEPHERD IT THROUGH THE PROCESS.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS WAS NOT PART OF WHAT WE HAD INITIALLY INTRODUCED.

UM, WE HAD JUST SET OUT DEVELOPMENT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING AS A PERMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE UNDER BOTH LOCAL AND ACOM, UH, UNDER STATE AND LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAXES.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE, UM, HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AT THE STATE LEVEL HAD HAD SOMETHING AKIN TO THIS IN THEIR POCKET, THAT THEY

[00:45:01]

AND SO WHEN THIS CAME FORWARD, IT WAS LOOKED AT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACH THIS TO IT.

SO I, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A SPECIFIC GOAL THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAD AS PART OF THIS OTHER THAN TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS SOME KIND OF ACTION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOME OWNERSHIP IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM AS PART OF THIS PROGRAM.