[00:00:01]
CLOSED CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY BUFORT COUNTY.
I'D LIKE TO CALL THE COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH, 2024.
UM, WE'RE GOING TO, UM, WE'RE USUALLY THE STANDARD PRIDE.
HE'S NEVER ON HERE, SO I'M GONNA ADD IT.
FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE, WHICH IS STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH REDEEMING JUSTICE FOR.
AND NOW IF WE CAN ADOPT, UH, OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY.
SO MOVE ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND, AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 8TH, 2024.
ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.
AND KIM, ARE THERE ANY, UM, CITIZEN APPEARANCE BY CITIZENS FOR TODAY? YES, MA'AM.
UM, GAIL SOKA SKA DID SAY THAT RIGHT.
MY NAME IS GAIL SGA AND I LIVE ON MARGARITA COURT IN HORTON PLANTATION.
I'VE BEEN CLOSELY FOLLOWING THE TOWN'S PROGRESS TOWARD REGULATING THE UNCHECKED USE OF PESTICIDES SINCE I WITNESSED A LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.
PARDON? I WITNESSED A CONTRACTOR WHO WAS SPRAYING HERBICIDES AT THE MID ISLAND TRACK WHERE I WAS WALKING MY DOG.
I STOPPED AND SPOKE WITH HIM AND ASKED HIM WHAT HE WAS DOING, AND, UM, HE TOLD ME THEY WERE DOING THAT SO THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BOTHER TO MOW AROUND THE TREES.
I ASKED IF HE WAS GOING TO POST WHERE HE HAD SPRAYED SO I COULD AVOID WALKING THROUGH IT, AND HE JUST LAUGHED.
OTHER RESIDENTS HAVE SPOKEN HERE ABOUT THEIR WORRIES FOR THE HEALTH AND THE HEALTH OF THE PETS AND THE OTHER WILDLIFE ON THE ISLAND BECAUSE OF THE TOXIC CHEMICAL USE, INCLUDING ROUNDUP THAT'S BEEN USED ON OUR BEACHES, OUR PARKS IN OTHER OPEN COMMON AREAS.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ISSUE BOILS DOWN TO WHETHER OR NOT THE WELLBEING OF THE CITIZENS WHO VOTED FOR YOU TO REPRESENT THEM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRISTINE LANDSCAPE AND PROTECTING THE CHEMICALS, UM, THAT THEY ARE USING.
I'M STUNNED THAT THERE'S ANY QUESTION ON WHICH ONE IS MORE IMPORTANT, PARTICULARLY SINCE THERE'S PROVEN FISCALLY FOUND ORGANIC ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE.
PARTICIPATION IN THE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS IS SPONSORED BY THE COMPANIES THE TOWN PURCHASES.
THE CHEMICALS FROM USING OUR TAXPAYER MONEY SHOULD BE BANNED.
IT PERPETUATES BUYING MORE AND MORE CHEMICALS THAT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE AND IT DISINCENTIVIZES USING SAFER METHODS.
SO LASTLY, I'M URGING YOU TO TABLE OR REJECT ANY PROPOSED IPM BEFORE THE CURRENT ONE IS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TOWN COUNCIL.
WHY WOULD YOU REPLACE WHAT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN AND HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YEAH, AND, AND JUST, IT SOUNDS LIKE EVEN WHEN WE STICK AND I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANY ADJUSTMENT THAT CAN BE MADE, UM, TO THE, WAS IT BETTER AT THE END? END A LITTLE BIT BETTER? BUT IT'S ECHOING.
HELLO? OH, IT'S SORT OF IS ECHOING.
IS THAT BETTER? SO FAR SO GOOD.
I'M PAMELA MARTIN OVENS AND I'M HONORED TO BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY.
I DROVE TO REEDSVILLE, GEORGIA LAST THURSDAY.
IT'S A TWO AND ONE HALF HOUR TRIP.
THERE WAS NOT ONE DEAD BUG ON MY CAR.
IT MAKES MY HAIR STAND ON END.
WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE TO THE ENVIRONMENT, IT MAKES MY HAIR STAND ON END AND I HAVE EXPERIENCED THAT FIRSTHAND.
WHILE SAILING IN A THUNDERSTORM, I WATCHED THE HILTON HEAD RECTOR CAMERA AND THERE ARE TWO ADULT OWLS AND TWO OUTLETS OCCUPYING THE NEST THAT EAGLES SHARED LAST YEAR.
I WATCHED THE MALE BRING A RAT TO THE FEMALE BEFORE HER EXIT HATCHED.
IT WORRIED ME THAT THE RAT COULD HAVE BEEN EAT, COULD HAVE EATEN
[00:05:01]
A RODENTICIDE.THE MALE BROUGHT ANOTHER RAT TO THE NEST YESTERDAY.
WHEN WE POISON THE RATS, WE POISON THE RAPTORS.
PLEASE, PLEASE ALLOW THE RAPTORS TO DO THEIR JOB.
THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO CONTROL THIS.
IF YOU INTRODUCE A FAMILY OF CATS TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE ARE NO RATS.
IN THE NEW IPM ON PAGE 33 OR FIVE, IT SAYS, RODENTICIDES CHEMICALS THAT TARGET RODENTS.
RODENTS INCLUDE RATS, MICE, SQUIRRELS, AND THE WORD ET CETERA.
RODENTICIDES WILL AFFECT ALL LIVING THINGS, SPECIFICALLY BIRDS OF PREY.
THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE ADDED IN UNDER G.
A SECOND SENTENCE SHOULD GO UNDER HERBICIDES.
IN THE IPM, THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT SHOULD BE MADE.
THIS IPM WILL SUPERSEDE ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IPMS UNDER POLICY ON THE FIRST PAGE AFTER THE WORDS HILTON HEAD ISLAND.
IT SHOULD SAY, WITH THE GOAL OF EXPANDING THIS TO THE ENTIRE ISLAND UNDER B.
SMALL LETTER A WHERE IT SAYS PROPER MAINTENANCE OF PLANTS, SAY AS THIS RELATES TO POLLEN PRODUCTION.
PART F, GLYPHOSATE PLEASE ADD.
AND OTHER KNOWN CARCINOGENS LIKE PARAQUAT, ROTAN KNOWN, ET CETERA.
I AGREE WITH COUNCIL ONE BRYSON, THAT ANY STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC LOSS OR IMPACT WILL BE DECIDED BY TOWN STAFF AND NOT BY THE APPLICATOR.
ON PAGE FOUR, WHERE IT SAYS APPROVALS AND APPLICATION OF CHEMICAL PESTICIDES UNDER FIVE, REGARDING SIGNAGE, PLEASE SAY SIGNAGE MUST INCLUDE APPROVED PESTICIDE AND APPLICATION DATE AND A LINK TO THE TOWN'S WEBSITE.
THE LINK DIRECTS YOU TO THE IPM PROGRAM AND THE LIST OF ALL APPROVED PESTICIDES.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH COUNCILWOMAN BRYSON'S.
CHANGING WORDS WILL TO SHALL PAGE FOUR.
NUMBER THREE, WHERE IT SAYS CHEMICALS MAY BE APPLIED, THEY SAY ON SITE.
THANK YOU MRS. S CAN I ASK PAM, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? SO IS, AND THERE'S A DOCUMENT THAT WAS LEFT AT EACH OF OUR SEATS.
IS ANYTHING THAT YOU JUST COMMENTED ON WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT? NOT EVERYTHING BUT JUST THE LAST LITTLE THING THERE.
CAN I JUST ASK YOU A FAVOR? 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE ALWAYS EXTREMELY ACTIVE AND INTERESTED.
IF WE CAN GET IT AHEAD OF TIME SO THAT WE CAN DIGEST IT BEFORE WE COME TO OKAY.
FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME ANYTHING AND IF YOU WANNA JUST EMAIL TO ME, I'LL MAKE SURE THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE GETS IT.
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
DO YOU GUYS REMEMBER WHEN THERE WERE SMOKING SECTIONS ON PLANES? AS A KID, I REMEMBER THINKING ADULTS CLEARLY KNEW BETTER.
RIGHT? YET HERE WE ARE ONCE AGAIN, WHERE IN SOME UPSIDE DOWN UNIVERSE, HEAVILY SPONSORED BY THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY.
WE ARE ALLOWING KNOWN CARCINOGENS TO BE SPRAYED WHERE OUR CHILDREN AND PETS PLAY.
WHY? FOR PURELY COSMETIC REASONS, AGAIN, AS ADULTS, SHOULDN'T WE KNOW BETTER? SADLY, FOR THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD, THE ANSWER IS NO.
FOR NOW, AFTER MEETING WITH TOWN STAFF IN 2022, CONCERNING THE TOWN'S UNCHECKED USE OF ROUNDUP, HERE WE ARE IN 2024 AND OUR PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, BEACHES AND PUBLIC SPACES AND SOCCER FIELDS WHERE OUR CHILDREN PLAY SAFE FROM ROUNDUP? NO.
HOW IS STAFF CONTINUING TO IGNORE THE MOUNTING AND PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE, INCLUDING THE RESEARCH FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY THAT GLYPHOSATE KILLS OR INJURES 93% OF THE TOTAL LIST OF ENDANGERED SPECIES, BOTH PLANTS AND ANIMALS PER THE EPA GLYPHOSATE ALSO ADVERSELY MODIFIES CRITICAL HABITAT FOR 96% OF ALL SPECIES WHICH CRITICAL HABITAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED.
AGAIN, WHY DOES STAFF CONTINUE TO ONLY WORK TO PROTECT CONTINUED USE OF THIS KNOWN ECO SIDE PER THE EPA WHO IS FINANCIALLY BENEFITING FROM THE CONTINUED USE OF ROUNDUP? WHY IS STAFF REFUSING TO INCLUDE A SIMPLE WAY TO SAFEGUARD PUBLIC FUNDS FROM THE SAD REALITY OF THESE PREPAID CASHBACK PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE VISA GIFT CARDS? THE REALITY IS IT INCENTIVIZES INCREASED USE OF
[00:10:01]
CHEMICALS, MAKING IT RAIN.PREPAID VISA GIFT CARDS IN THE MORE YOU SPRAY, THE MORE WE PAY PROGRAMS MORE ALARMING.
ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION AT CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD HAS AN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY IN PLACE.
AN IPM THAT TOWN STAFF CONFIRMED YET HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE.
I HAVE BROUGHT PRONOUNCED FROM BOTH DPR AND TOWN STAFF TO BE INCLUDED FOR PUBLIC RECORD AS A TOWN AND COMMUNITY.
ALL OF YOU UP THERE ON THE DIOCESE HAVE A TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUENTS, WILDLIFE, AND OUR ISLAND.
JUST LIKE SMOKING SECTIONS ON PLANES, THANKFULLY THAT ARE THING IN THE PAST ROUNDUP IN PARKS WHERE THE MOST VULNERABLE PLAY MUST BECOME HISTORY.
IT'S TIME TO LEAVE BEHIND THIS DARK AIR RELYING ON A KNOWN CARCINOGEN FOR PURELY COSMETIC REASONS.
HILTON HEAD IS BETTER THAN THIS.
UM, NEW BUSINESS JOSH IS GOING TO PRESENT US WITH A CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE EIGHT CHAPTER THREE OF THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADD SECTION 8 3 1 1 4 TITLED ABANDONED WATERCRAFT.
UM, I JUST WANT TO GO OVER SOME OF THE MATERIALS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE PAST.
THIS SUBJECT WAS SOMETHING THAT STAFF WAS ASKED TO RESEARCH BASED UPON A NUMBER OF CITIZEN COMPLAINTS THAT HAD BEEN GENERATED, UM, OVER ACTUALLY THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A NEW ISSUE.
NORMALLY I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE HEARING ME.
I USUALLY GET THE OPPOSITE THAT I'M USUALLY TOO LOUD.
UM, AGAIN, I'LL, I'LL RE KIND OF RESTART.
SO THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS COME UP OVER, UH, THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT NEW, UH, BUT IT'S AN ISSUE OF KIND OF DEALING WITH ABANDONED AND DERELICT VESSELS THAT ARE ANCHORED IN THE WATERS THAT ARE SURROUNDING HILTON HEAD ISLAND.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING BOTH INTERNALLY AND WITH EXTERNAL GROUPS TO TRY AND ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UM, WE'VE LOOKED AT IS THAT IN ORDER TO REGULATE THIS AREA, THE STATE HAS ESSENTIALLY SAID IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING WITH REGARDS TO REGULATING WATERCRAFTS, THEY HAVE SET OUT THE CODE BY WHICH, UH, IF WE WANT TO PUT SOMETHING INTO OUR CODE, THEY'VE DICTATED TO US WHAT IT IS THAT WE MUST ADOPT.
THERE IS NO FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF ADOPTING SOMETHING ELSE, MAKING MODIFICATIONS.
THEY'VE SAID, IF YOU WANT TO DO IT, THIS IS THE WAY THAT IT'LL BE DONE.
AND SO WHAT IS PRESENTED IN YOUR PACKETS TODAY IS A COPY OF THAT INFORMATION, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IF YOU'VE READ THROUGH THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, A LOT OF IT REQUIRES COORDINATION WITH STATE AGENCIES WITH REGARDS TO IDENTIFYING THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL, MAKING EFFORTS TO NOTIFY AND HAVE THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL, UM, TAKE POSITIVE ACTION TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION.
AND ONLY AFTER THOSE STEPS HAVE OCCURRED DO WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE EITHER THE STATE AGENCY OR OTHERS CAN INTERVENE AND POTENTIALLY TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THAT VESSEL.
AND SO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED TODAY IS AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ADOPT THAT LANGUAGE INTO OUR LOCAL CODE AND THEREBY GIVE, UH, CLEAR GUIDANCE ON HOW WE WOULD PROCEED WITH DEALING WITH ABANDONED WATERCRAFT IN OUR TERRITORIAL WATERS.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
UH, DO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT THE, THIS WILL APPLY FIVE MILES OUT INTO THE OCEAN AND HALFWAY ACROSS, UH, DUSKY AND S SKULL CREEK.
SO THERE'S OBVIOUSLY OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS, WHICH IS WHY STATE AGENCIES INVOLVED.
YES, IN THEORY, THE REACH OF THIS COULD GO TO THE EXTENT THAT'S OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE.
IN PRACTICE, I THINK WE'D BE DEALING WITH MUCH MORE, UM, CLOSER DEFINED AREAS AROUND HILTON HEAD.
YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT MIGHT BE FOUR MILES OFFSHORE AREN'T SOMETHING THAT PARTICULARLY AFFECT US ALL THAT MUCH, WHEREAS A BOAT THAT'S ANCHORED UP IN SKULL CREEK AND THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO LOOK OUT THEIR BACKYARDS DAY IN AND DAY OUT, THOSE ARE THE KIND OF CALLS THAT WE GET AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO TRY AND ADDRESS.
UM, I'M HAPPY THAT WE'RE TAKING THIS UP.
UH, WE'VE, ALTHOUGH WE MAY NOT HAVE A PACKET OF ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS, WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE THERE.
UM, THE ABANDONED VESSELS DO START TO TAKE A TOLL ON,
[00:15:01]
UM, THE WILDLIFE THAT WE ALL ENJOY ON HEALTH IN.UM, I UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE GOING AS FAR AS OUR CODE AND HOW HAVE TO ALIGN WITH STAKE CODE.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA HOW LONG THE PROCESS WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT HAVING A VESSEL CLAIMED AND REMOVED? YOU KNOW, IT KIND OF VARIES.
UM, AND THE REASON WHY IT VARIES IS IT ALL GOES BACK TO HOW EASILY OR HOW DIFFICULT IS IT TO IDENTIFY THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL.
SO SOMETIMES IT'S AN EASY THING.
WE CAN GET IN TOUCH WITH THE OWNER.
THE OWNER CAN THEN SIGN A FORM WAIVING THEIR RIGHT, WHICH REALLY EXPEDITES THE PROCESS.
AND THEN ONCE THAT FORM'S IN HAND, EITHER THE STATE OR US, UM, WE WOULD HAVE THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY THEN TO GO OUT AND REMOVE THAT VESSEL.
BUT A NUMBER OF TIMES A VESSEL WILL GET ANCHORED AND THE SERIAL NUMBERS WILL BE REMOVED, AND OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ENDS UP BEING REMOVED.
AND IF YOU CAN'T IDENTIFY THE OWNER, THEN IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GO DOWN THAT PROCESS BECAUSE THE WAY THE STATE HAS THEIR REGULATIONS LAID OUT, IT'S ALL ABOUT FINDING AND NOTIFYING THE OWNER BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING.
SO IN THOSE INSTANCES, IT COULD TAKE CONSIDERABLY LONGER BEFORE WE WOULD GET TO THE POINT THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY THEN DECLARE IT ABANDONED.
I THINK IT HAS TO BE POSTED FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.
AND THEN AFTER THAT TIMEFRAME IS RUN, THEN IT'S CONSIDERED TO BE OPEN AND AVAILABLE FOR US TO REMOVE.
AND YOU MUST HAVE HAVE TO ANSWER THIS RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW, ARE WE AS A TOWN NOW TAKING THE, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE IDENTIFICATION PROCESS? OR WAS THAT SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA BE HANDING OFF TO SOMEONE ELSE? IT IT, THE WAY I THINK REALISTICALLY WE SEE THIS SAYING OUT, IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE A PARTNERSHIP.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK WITH THE STATE.
UM, AND IT MAY REQUIRE US TO THEN BECOME RESPONSIBLE FOR SOME PORTION OF IT.
BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD PLAN.
UM, WE WOULD WORK INTO A BUDGET WE WOULD BRING TO TOWN COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
SO THE ADOPTION OF THE CODE DOES NOT IN AND OF ITSELF OBLIGATE US TO ANYTHING.
IT JUST GIVES US THE ABILITY TO TAKE ACTION IF WE THINK THAT THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
UM, BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF STATE AND FEDERAL GRANTS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TRY TO GO CHASE FOR THIS PROJECT AS WELL.
AND SO IT REALLY KIND OF DEPENDS.
I THERE, THERE'S NO FINANCIAL COMMITMENT BY ADOPTING THIS, BUT IT ALLOWS US TO POTENTIALLY BECOME MORE INVOLVED IN A FUTURE SITUATION, UM, THAT COULD HAVE US WITH SOME FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
WELL, I'M, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP 'CAUSE THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING AS FAR AS THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IS CONCERNED.
AND, UM, TO ME, UM, THIS IS A LOT BIGGER THAN ISSUING SOMEONE A FINE AND EXPECTING THEM TO MAKE GOOD ON THE REMOVAL.
UM, THERE ARE SOME CASES WHERE WE MAY HAVE TO INTERVENE AND HAVE IT REMOVED OURSELVES.
SO I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT THERE ARE GRANT OPPORTUNITIES.
UM, AND IF THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO, UM, IF WE IDENTIFY OWNERSHIP AND REMOVE VESSELS, UH, TO MAYBE HAVE SOME REIMBURSEMENT DOWN THE ROAD WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN MY MIND.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS I THINK WE'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR, IN OUR WATERWAYS.
SO THAT, THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.
UM, CERTAINLY IN ADDITION TO ISSUES RAISED THE, UH, AESTHETICS AND, AND THE, UH, FOOD THAT WE ENJOY FROM THE WATERWAYS IS ALSO OF COURSE A SAFETY ISSUE.
UM, SOME FOLKS ARE MELANCHOLY ABOUT IT AND SOME FOLKS WANT IT REMOVED.
BUT CERTAINLY A SAFETY ISSUE IS IMPORTANT.
AND, AND I WAS WONDERING BECAUSE IN THE COVER LETTER IT TALKS ABOUT, UM, PERMITTING AND FEES AND, AND, BUT YOU KNOW, THE ORDINANCE ITSELF DOESN'T SEEM TO ESTABLISH I COULDN'T FIND FEES OR FINES.
UM, AND, AND SO MY QUESTION WAS HOW ARE WE GONNA FUND THIS? UM, WELL THAT'S, THERE IS NO INTERNAL FUNDING MECHANISM.
SO AS PART OF YOUR, I BELIEVE ANNUAL WATERCRAFT REGISTRATION, PART OF IT IS YOU'RE PAYING INTO A FUND WHERE THE STATE THEN HAS MONEY THAT IT CAN USE TO PROVIDE CLEANUP AND, AND ABANDONED VESSEL REMOVAL MATTERS.
BUT IN AND OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, THERE IS NOTHING THAT CREATES A SPECIFIC FEE.
UM, IT COULD BE THAT BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THERE, THAT IT COULD BECOME A VIOLATION TO ABANDON THE VESSEL AND AT WHICH POINT A FINE COULD BE IMPOSED THROUGH THE NORMAL CODE CITATION PROCESS.
BUT THERE'S NOTHING WITHIN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WHERE WE THE TOWN WOULD BE GENERATING OR COLLECTING A FEE IN ANY MANNER.
YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I THINK ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR, WE HAVE LOTS OF FOLKS WHO OWN BOATS HERE AND LOVE 'EM.
UM, 'CAUSE I ONLY HAD A KAYAK, SO I DIDN'T REALLY, I I NEVER ABANDONED MY KAYAKS
UM, BUT ANYHOW, UM, YOU KNOW, I I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT GENERATING ANOTHER FEE FOR OUR LOCAL BOAT OWNERS.
UM, BUT THEN NOW WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO RELY UPON THE STATE'S FUND.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING, UM, ABOUT HOW THAT
[00:20:01]
WOULD BE MANAGED.I'M, I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE STATE WOULD PROVIDE US WITH ASSISTANCE, BUT, UM, THERE'S ALWAYS A QUESTION ABOUT THAT KIND OF RELIANCE.
SO, BUT, BUT I DEFINITELY, UM, AM AM SUPPORTING SOMETHING TO DO AWAY WITH THE ABANDONED VOTES BECAUSE OF THOSE REASONS WE'VE LISTED.
SO FIRST OF ALL, GREAT QUESTIONS FROM EVERYONE.
SOME, MANY OF MINE HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.
UM, BUT THE FEE, UM, THAT'S RELATED TO A CODE CITATION MM-HMM.
UM, AGAIN, BECAUSE THE STATE HAS REALLY PREEMPTED THIS AREA, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IS GOING TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT IS UNIQUE TO US.
I BELIEVE IT ALL TAKES PLACE AT THE STATE LEVEL.
WHAT IT DOES ALLOW US, THOUGH, BY ADOPTING IT INTO OUR CODE, IT ALLOWS US TO THEN INVOKE THE GENERAL PROVISIONS, WHICH SAYS A VIOLATION OF THIS CODE IS PUNISHABLE BY A CITATION.
AND SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE OUTSIDE OF THE STATE LANGUAGE, BUT BECAUSE THE STATE SAYS IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADOPT IT, YOU HAVE TO ADOPT OUR LANGUAGE.
THAT'S HOW IT GETS BROUGHT IN THERE.
SO ON THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE, IF THERE WAS A TICKET, A CITATION GIVEN, THERE IS SOMETHING ALREADY EXISTING WITHIN OUR MUNICIPAL POST YES.
THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO CORRECT.
IT'S A FINE ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE FOUND GUILTY.
UM, AND, AND IT'S, UH, ANYWHERE FROM ZERO TO $500 AT THE DISCRETION OF THE MAGISTRATE COURT.
AND OH, SO IT WOULD, THE MAGISTRATE WOULD ASSESS THE FEE? CORRECT.
AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE GRANTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE, MM-HMM.
IT'S GONNA BE MORE WRITING SOMETHING LIKELY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE STATE.
UM, WE HAVE SERVED AS KIND OF A, UM, A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FOR GRANTS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES HAS SOUGHT FOR THIS SPECIFIC ACTIVITY.
AND SO WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE OUT THERE, THEY'RE TRYING TO IDENTIFY MONEY.
I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT IT'S A SPECIFIC POT THAT SAYS, YES, WE'LL BE ABLE TO TAP INTO THIS MUCH.
I THINK THE HOPE IS THAT WE CAN PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSAL THAT SAYS, WE'VE IDENTIFIED EIGHT VESSELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN OUR WATERS.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL THE STEPS, WE'VE NOTIFIED EVERYBODY, IT'S ALL TEED UP NOW THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY BE REMOVED.
LET'S GET A QUOTE AND AN ESTIMATE AND THEN TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE GONNA SHARE THAT COST TO REMOVE IT.
OR, YOU KNOW, IDEALLY THE FUNDING IS THERE AT THE STATE LEVEL FOR THIS.
THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH WOULD THEY BE WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE, UM, TOWARDS IT? AND THEN ANY DIFFERENCE IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD THEN LOOK TO POTENTIALLY BRING FORWARD OURSELVES.
AND, AND I THINK ALEX'S QUESTION TO TIMEFRAME, WHICH WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, IS KIND OF ONE OF THOSE BIG QUESTIONS.
AND I THINK WE'VE WORKED COLLABORATIVELY WITH OTHER DNR WHOEVER TO REMOVE A BOAT OR TWO RECENTLY.
WHAT WAS THE PROCESS THEN? SO THE, THE PROCESS I THINK IS STILL SOMEWHAT THE SAME IN THAT IT'S ALL ABOUT DUE PROCESS, MAKING SURE THAT YOU NOTIFY THE OWNERS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY'RE IDENTIFIABLE.
AND IF THEY'RE NOT, THEN GOING THROUGH THE REQUISITE NOTICE AND ADVERTISING PROCESS SO THAT YOU CAN, HOW LONG DID THAT TAKE? UM, WAS IT A MATTER OF WEEKS, MONTHS? IT, IT WAS MONTHS.
UM, AND, AND MY DIRECT INVOLVEMENT, UH, WAS PREVIOUSLY WITH THE COUNTY THAT WAS FOLLOWING HURRICANE MATTHEW, WHERE WE HAD A NUMBER OF THEM.
AND SO WE WENT THROUGH THIS LONG PROCESS AND ULTIMATELY, I WOULD SAY WITHIN ABOUT EIGHT TO NINE MONTHS, WE HAD GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF, THEY'D BEEN OUT, THEY'D DONE THEIR INVESTIGATION, THEY'D DONE THEIR POSTING, THE TIMEFRAME HAD PASSED, AND THEN WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND REMOVE THEM AT THAT POINT USING FEMA MONEY TO, TO REMOVE THOSE VESSELS.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'LL BE INTERESTING OVER THE COURSE OF SOME TIME, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT TIME IS, TIMEFRAME AGAIN.
SO, SO ONCE WE SEE THAT PICTURE, I THINK IT'LL BE, UM, IT'LL TELL US A BIT OF INFORMATION THAT YEP.
SO WE WENT OUT AND WHEN I SAY WE, IT WAS, UH, THE MAYOR, THE TOWN MANAGER, MYSELF AND BOB, UH, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAPPING AND IDENTIFYING THOSE VESSELS THAT APPEARED TO BE ABANDONED OR HAD BEEN, UM, LEFT IN A VERY DERELICT CONDITION.
AND, AND I THINK AT THAT TIME WE IDENTIFIED THE WHEAT VESSELS AROUND THE ISLAND AND WE'D ACTUALLY TAKEN PHOTOGRAPHS
[00:25:01]
OF THEM.AND THERE'S A, A WEBSITE THAT THE STATE MAINTAINS, UM, WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO SUBMIT THEM ALONG WITH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE, UM, THE GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION FROM YOUR PHONE ABOUT THEIR SPECIFIC LOCATION.
SO WE KNOW THAT THE STATE HAS BEEN NOTIFIED OF THESE EIGHT VESSELS.
WE KNOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN MARKED AS BEING IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION SO THAT THEY KNOW WHERE TO GO DOWN AND CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION.
AND AS OF TODAY, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE AWARE THAT ANY OF THEM HAVE ACTUALLY HAD A LOT OF MOVEMENT FORWARD.
AND SO WE'RE HOPING THAT BY PUTTING THIS IN PLACE, THIS IS JUST GONNA GIVE US MORE ABILITY TO STEP IN AND TRY TO FORCE THE ISSUE WITH THEM ABOUT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION.
I KNOW IN BROAD CREEK, I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE THAT WERE REMOVED, SO THAT WAS GOOD NEWS.
ALRIGHT, WELL THOSE WERE ALL MY QUESTIONS AND LOTS OF, UM, GREAT INFORMATION.
UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? ALRIGHT, I'LL TRY TO GET MINE TO TURN BACK ON.
UH, YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FINE.
UM, IN, IN LOOKING AT, UH, WE RECEIVED AN OPINION LETTER FROM MAC DEFORD, UM, WHO IS, UM, OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE TOWN IN THIS MATTER.
AND, AND HIS LAST, UH, SECTION TALKS ABOUT EXISTING LOCAL REGULATIONS IN BEAUFORT AND JASPER.
AND HE ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE CITY OF BEAUFORT.
I HAVE ORDINANCES THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH STATE LAW LIKELY ILLEGAL BECAUSE, PARDON ME.
AND THE LAST ONE IS LEVY A $500 FINE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE WOULD HAVE, BUT THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY, WHICH RUNS A FOUL WITH THE STATE'S $1,000 MINIMUM.
AND SO, UH, IT SEEMS TO BE ODD, BUT ANYHOW,
SO NO, THAT'S A GREAT POINT BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE CITY OF BEFORD, TOWN OF PORT ROYAL AND IT'S NOT THAT WHAT THEY PUT IN PLACE WAS CONTRARY TO THIS, IT'S THAT IT'S BEEN OVERTAKEN BY THE STATE'S ACTIONS.
AND SO THE STATE HAS COME IN AND AS INDICATED IN, IN MAX'S LETTER SAID, IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO ADOPT REGULATIONS, HERE'S THE REGULATIONS THEY'RE GONNA ADOPT.
WELL, ALL OF THOSE OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAD REGULATIONS IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE STATE PASSING THOSE CHANGES.
AND SO YES, THEY'RE INCOMPATIBLE WITH WHAT THE STATE SAYS, BUT CERTAINLY IT WASN'T BY ANY FAULT OF ANY OF THOSE JURISDICTIONS.
AND IT, BUT YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE FINE YES, THAT DOES CHANGE.
WHAT IT CHANGES IS THE JURISDICTION OF THE MAGISTRATE COURT BECAUSE NORMALLY THE MAGISTRATE COURT'S JURISDICTION IS A FINE PUNISHABLE BY $500 OR 30 DAYS IN JAIL OR CIVIL MATTERS UP TO $7,500.
SO WHAT THAT DOES IS IT RAISES THE MAGISTRATE COURT'S JURISDICTION IN TERMS OF THEIR ABILITY TO LEVI A FINE BEYOND THAT.
AND SO YES, WE WOULD STILL ISSUE A CITATION IN THE SAME MANNER IN WHICH WE WOULD PROSECUTE OTHER CODE VIOLATIONS, BUT THIS SECTION WOULD ALLOW THE COURT IF IT FOUND GUILTY UNDER THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION TO IMPOSE A $1,000 FINE IN EXCESS OF THEIR JURISDICTION OKAY.
SO, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE MUNICIPAL CODE, UH, CURRENTLY, UH, HAS A CATCHALL CALL 'EM CATCHALL FINES YEAH.
UM, THAT YOU'RE CITING WITHIN THE MAGISTRATE'S JURISDICTION.
SO, UM, BUT IF STATE LAW SAYS IT'S GOTTA BE A MINIMUM OF 1000 AND WE'VE GOT TO COMPLY WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THEN HOW DOES THAT WORK? MY BELIEF IS THE STATE LAW WOULD DICTATE THAT A MAGISTRATE, IF THEY'RE GONNA FIND SOMEBODY GUILTY OF THAT VIOLATION, MUST ISSUE THE FINE IN THE AMOUNT SET FORTH IN THE STATUTE.
SO A SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION IS GOING TO OVERRULE A GENERAL STATUTORY PROVISION, AT WHICH POINT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE THE THOUSAND DOLLARS FINE.
BECAUSE IT'S SPECIFIC TO THAT VIOLATION.
AND WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER FOR OUR ORDINANCE TO HAVE A PROVISION TO SAY THAT THE PENALTY AS REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE AS OPPOSED TO THE FALLBACK TO OUR $500 CATCHALL? WELL, SO OURS, OURS IS JUST PROPOSING TO ADOPT THE STATE'S CODE, WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE OUR INTERPRETATION IS.
IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING, THIS IS WHAT WE MUST DO.
AND SO THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THERE SHOULD STATE THAT IT IS A THOUSAND DOLLARS MINIMUM.
I THINK WHAT MAX POINTING OUT IS THAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS CODES, WE CAN'T LOOK TO THAT BECAUSE OF TIMING ISSUES.
THEIRS ARE NOT IN LINE WITH WHAT THE STATE IS, BUT OURS IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH THE STATE'S CODE.
AND I GUESS THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION OF WHY DIDN'T THE DRAFT INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE ABOUT THE PENALTY OR FINE, AS OPPOSED TO THE FALLBACK TO MUNICIPAL CODE OF 500 BUCKS AND NO MORE THAN 30 DAYS.
MAYBE I, THAT'S WHAT I WAS, COULD HAVE BEEN, I WAS BLINDED BY ALL THE BLACK LINES.
I'M NOT SURE
I I JUST DIDN'T, WHEN I LOOK FOR FINES OR PENALTIES, I ALWAYS LOOK FOR A NUMBER AND YEAH.
AND, AND IN THIS INSTANCE, ALRIGHT.
[00:30:01]
TALKING ABOUT, ITS PRESCRIBED UNDER TITLE 50 OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS, SO IN THIS SECTION I THINK IT'S REFERRING TO THE STATE PROVISIONS WITH REGARDS TO PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT.UH, I CAN SEE A MAGISTRATE SAYING YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT SEXUAL UP IN YOUR ORDINANCE.
BUT ANYHOW, I I'LL LET THE LAWYERS GO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
JUDGE DOESN'T, UH, DO I TALK TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION? IT DOES, IT SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO THAT.
IF YOU ARE FINE, IT MUST NOT BE LESS THAN $1,000.
'CAUSE AGAIN, THAT'S COMING STRAIGHT OUT OF THE STATE CODE.
WELL, IT'S KIND OF CONTRADICTORY.
NOT LESS THAN I HATE LABOR, BUT FINE.
NOT LESS THAN $1,000 NOR MORE THAN 5,000.
SO SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THERE, THE MAGISTRATE HAS DISCRETION.
SO EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED BETWEEN, IT'S STATING TITLE 50 OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS.
AND THAT STATEMENT UNDER D TWO, AS ALEX POINTED OUT, THAT IS ALL EMBEDDED IN THIS ORDINANCE.
UH, BEFORE WE DO THAT, LET US TAKE THE MOTION AND THEN I'LL ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
I MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE FORWARD THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
AND ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS MATTER? YES, PAM.
I'M PAMELA MARTIN OVENS AND I OWN A 62 FOOT PAUL WOOD SCHOONER THAT WE CHARTERED.
I HAD MY A HUNDRED TON SAILING LICENSE AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
AND THEN IF THEY CAN'T DO IT, THE COAST GUARD CAN.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE TRYING TO BE THE WATER POLICE.
UM, ANYONE ELSE? MELINDA? UH, GOOD MORNING, MELINDA TONNER.
UM, AND IT HAD TO DO WHETHER THE LANGUAGE REQUIRES THAT YOU MUST REMOVE THE, UH, WATERCRAFT OR CAN REMOVE THE WATERCRAFT.
UM, THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT IS I CAN, I CAN IMAGINE THAT ANY ABANDONMENT NEAR OUR WATERS IS GONNA BE A SMALLER VESSEL, BUT IF THE, UM, THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN IS UP TO FIVE MILES OUT OFF OF, UM, OUR BEACHES INTO THE OCEAN, UH, IT COULD BE A LARGER, UH, WATERCRAFT.
SO IT WAS MUST REMOVE OR CAN REMOVE IS MY QUESTION.
UM, ANY SPECIFIC FEEDBACK ON THE QUESTION AS TO MUST OR CAN THIS SECTION ALLOWS FOR A GOVERNMENT TO BECOME INVOLVED? IT IS NOT MANDATED THAT A GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT INVOLVED.
IT JUST SAYS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO, THIS IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH YOU WOULD GO THROUGH.
YES, ALEX, IF WE'RE DONE WITH PUBLIC COMMENT, JUST WANTED TO MAKE, UH, ONE ADDITIONAL, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF AS WE ARE PUSHING THIS THROUGH TO FULL COUNCIL.
UM, GLAD THAT, UH, THAT, AND WE HAD FOLKS GO OUT AND LOOK YOU THE MAYOR AND OTHERS.
UM, SO NOW THAT WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE EIGHT, I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT WE AS COUNCIL PROBABLY NEED TO HAVE ANSWERED ALONG THE WAY IS IF WE WERE TO BE SUCCESSFUL WITH GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS TO HAVE THEM REMOVED, WHAT IS THAT GOING TO COST? OKAY.
UM, JUST SOME PRELIMINARY NUMBERS I THINK WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR US AS WE START TO DISCUSS BUDGET AS, AS FAR AS, UH, WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND NOT, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
UM, I, I KNOW FROM PAST EXPERIENCE WE'VE SEEN SITUATIONS WHERE WE'VE HAD WATERCRAFT THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED PRETTY, UH, QUICKLY.
AND THE TOWN HAS HAD TO STEP IN AND TAKE CARE OF THAT AND WAIT TO GET THEIR MONEY BACK.
SO I JUST WANT US TO BE MINDFUL OF THIS, UM, THIS AREA THAT WE ARE GOING INTO, WHICH AGAIN, I THINK IS IMPORTANT, BUT LET'S BE VERY TRANSPARENT AS TO WHERE WE'RE GOING.
AND I CAN TELL YOU, ALEX, AS SOON AS WE KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE A FINANCIAL NEED IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, WE CAN BRING THAT FORWARD, EITHER IDENTIFY IT WITHIN AN EXISTING BUDGET OR INCORPORATE THAT INTO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.
I THINK OUR HOPE AT THIS POINT IS BECAUSE, UM, THESE BOATS HAVE BEEN EXISTING FOR A WHILE AND BECAUSE WE'VE NOTIFIED THE STATE AND BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THE STATE SHOULD HAVE SOME FUNDS FOR THIS, WE'D LIKE FOR THEM TO STEP IN AND DO IT.
BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY BECAUSE THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO.
SO ONCE WE KNOW THAT INFORMATION, THEN WE CAN START BUILDING A PROJECT BUDGET AND, AND HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, SPECIFIC
[00:35:01]
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD CONSIST OF.AND TO, AND TO PAM'S POINT, AND FROM THE EXPERIENCE FROM THE ONES THAT I DIDN'T SEE OUT ON THE WATER, BUT CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN CALLED TO LOOK AT FROM THE SHORELINE AND SENT PIC, HAD PEOPLE SEND ME PICTURES OF THEM, THOSE HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
SO I I'M ASSUMING THAT THE OTHER AGENCIES HAVE WORKED COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE, UM, TOWN WHEN THEY WERE NOTIFIED.
SO THERE, THAT PROCESS STILL EXISTS.
SO WE ARE, WE'RE NOT CIRCUMVENTING, WE'RE NOT OVERRIDING, WE'RE NOT TAKING THE PLACE OF, WE'LL STILL GO THROUGH WHAT THE NORMAL CHANNELS ARE, ARE, BUT CORRECT.
SO THERE, THERE'S CONCURRENT JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE TOWN, THE COUNTY, AND THE STATE.
AND IN THEORY, IF YOU WANTED TO ADD IN BLUFFTON, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT SOME OF OUR WATER BODIES ARE SITUATED, AN ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE THAT THERE'S OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION THERE AS WELL.
SO I KNOW A COUPLE OF THE, THE VESSELS THAT HAVE BEEN RECENTLY REMOVED, I BELIEVE WERE REMOVED, REMOVED BY BUFORT COUNTY.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY RECEIVED SOME FUNDING FROM THE STATE TO DO THAT OR NOT, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY WERE THE ONES THAT WERE CONTRACTING FOR THAT SERVICE.
SO, UM, NO, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT STEPPING ON ANYBODY'S TOES.
WE ALL HAVE, UH, OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION, BUT A LOT OF THE QUESTION COMES DOWN TO WHO HAS THE RESOURCES TO ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING.
UM, I DON'T HAVE THIS, UH, AS A FACT, I'VE JUST HEARD THIS IN THE WIND, JOSH
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO BE AWARE OF.
THAT'S NOT REGULATORY, RIGHT? NO, NO, NO.
THOSE ARE GOOD SAMARITANS WHO ARE WANTING TO HELP CLEAN UP BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, THE AESTHETIC CONCERNS AND OTHERS.
UM, AND THEY ARE WORKING DIRECTLY WITH THE STATE, UM, TO BASICALLY GET THE ABILITY TO THEN INTERCEDE AND, AND TAKE SOME ACTION WITH REGARDS TO THOSE VESSELS.
AND SO YES, UH, WE CAN CONFIRM THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE ENTITIES THAT ARE OUT THERE DOING THAT AS WELL.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, I'M SORRY, RAISED ANOTHER QUESTION FOR ME.
AND AS IT SOUND AS, AS THOUGH WHAT WE'RE MISSING IS SOME PURPOSE OR INTENT, UM, TO ESTABLISH THE NEED FOR THIS, FOR LOCAL JURISDICTION, UM, AND WHAT I HEARD WAS EIGHT, EIGHT, YOU KNOW, EIGHT'S RELATIVE NUMBER.
IT SOUNDS REALLY BIG, IT SOUNDS REALLY SMALL.
UM, AND WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS, UH, AS WELL ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE, IT LOOKS AS THOUGH, AND MAYBE MR. BROWN KNOWS WHERE THE PURPOSE INTENT IS, AND I HAVEN'T FOUND, UM, BUT UH, IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH WE NEED SOME JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS.
AND I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE RECITALS, UH, NOR IN THE QUICK GLANCE AT THE ORDINANCE THEFT ITSELF.
AND SINCE THIS IS A POLICE POWER, IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH WE NEED SOME JUSTIFICATION.
UH, WELL, I CAN TELL YOU FROM A DOCUMENTATION STANDPOINT, IF YOU GOOGLED ABANDONED VESSEL, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU MENTIONED LITTLE BLUE, WHICH WAS A MEDIA SENSATION FOR A WHILE, THAT'S NOT A NEW ISSUE.
THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S COME UP AS, AS DOES HAPPEN WITHIN COASTAL COMMUNITY.
SO I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY BUILD IN SOME LANGUAGE IF NEED TO, THAT, THAT DEMONSTRATES THE REASON WHY WE'RE ADOPTING THIS.
AND IT'S TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO REGULATE WHAT WE KNOW TO BE TAKING PLACE, WHICH IS PEOPLE ABANDONING VESSELS FROM OTHER AREAS IN OUR JURISDICTION.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A SECOND AND, UM, COMMEND THIS COMMITTEE.
I, I THINK, UM, WHEN YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AND WE TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN SOMETHING THIS IMPORTANT TO, TO TALK IT OUT AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE ALL HEARD EACH OTHER AND HEARD FROM STAFF, I THINK WE COME UP WITH A VERY GOOD PRODUCT IN THE END THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND AND THOSE WHO ARE LISTENING CAN ALSO UNDERSTAND BETTER.
SO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO BE PREPARED, ASK QUESTIONS AND, AND TALK FURTHER INTO THE CONVERSATION AS WE'RE MOVING ALONG.
UM, I THINK IT'S, SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
AND IF ALL THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN, UM, ASKED AND DISCUSSED, ARE WE READY FOR, UM, A VOTE? YES.
ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
NEXT WE HAVE SOME UNFINISHED BUSINESS WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING GROUNDS MAINTENANCE PRACTICES.
AND BRIAN
UM, SO I'VE BEEN BEFORE YOU A COUPLE TIMES NOW, UH, IN NOVEMBER WE BROUGHT THIS TO YOU.
MOVE FORWARD TO THE RIGHT, TO THE RIGHT
SO, UM, JUST A STEP BACK, WE'VE BEEN BEFORE YOU A COUPLE TIMES NOW.
UM, I THINK AT THE NOVEMBER COMMITTEE MEETING WE PRESENTED THIS AND RECEIVED FEEDBACK, UH, TO PROCEED WITH A, UH, DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT OF A TRIAL STUDY TO IMPLEMENT, UM, THESE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE PRACTICES.
[00:40:01]
UM, WE PRESENTED A DRAFT POLICY AND BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMITTEE, UH, WE BROUGHT THIS BEFORE YOU TODAY, I BELIEVE IT'S ATTACHMENT TO IN YOUR PACKET, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED, UM, THE PROPOSED POLICY.UM, IN ADDITION, WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS A, IS A PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION, A RESOLUTION, AND THE REVISED, UH, IPM POLICY FOR TOWN COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.
SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
UM, WE DID GET SOME, UM, COMMENTS FROM COUNCILWOMAN BRYSON RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE, I'VE HAD, I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO REVIEW IT COMPLETELY, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO DISCUSS THAT YET, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU ALL MIGHT HAVE.
WE HAVE HERE A ATTACHMENT TOOL THAT WAS HANDED OUT THIS MORNING.
MM-HMM,
THAT'S THE ONE I SENT OUT TO THE COMMITTEE THIS MORNING.
AND IT'S A HARD COPY OF WHAT I SENT OUT AND SHOWS, UM, IT, IT FOLLOWS THE POLICY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD LAST TIME, BUT THERE WERE SOME PLACES WHERE I DIDN'T THINK THE STAFF, UM, WHERE, UH, NOT BY INTENT PERHAPS, BUT OMITTED SOME LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT CLEAR.
THIS IS SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE RED MARKED DETACHMENT IN OUR PACKET.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO, UM, I'M HAPPY TO PROCEED WITH THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, COUNCILMAN BRYSON, THAT YOU SENT OUT AN ATTACHMENT THIS MORNING AT NINE 17, WHICH I DIDN'T GET TO OPEN EXCEPT FOR AS I WAS WALKING OUT THE DOOR AND THEN FORGOT MY PACKET.
SO THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR FILLING IN MY PACKET FOR ME, UH, THIS MORNING.
BUT I WAS TRYING TO READ IT AS I WAS GETTING HERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO FULLY UNDERSTAND EVEN THE NUANCES IN THE LANGUAGE THAT WERE PROVIDED, AS WELL AS THERE WERE, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, UM, I HEARD.
UM, BUT I HAVEN'T NECESSARILY HAD A CHANCE TO HEAR.
AND EVEN IF I WERE TO READ THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS ON THE DIOCESE THIS MORNING, IT DIDN'T COMPLETELY, UM, CAPTURE EVERYTHING THAT, THAT PAM THAT YOU BROUGHT BEFORE US.
SO, UM, MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE PROCEED WITH IT AS IT WAS PRESENTED TO US IN OUR PACKETS.
UM, AND THEN AS WE DO WITH ANYTHING AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO BACK AND READ THE RED LINES AND THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND SEE WHAT TO DO, UM, WITH THAT AT A, A FUTURE, UM, MEETING, THAT'S ONE ALTERNATIVE.
UM, THE OTHER WOULD BE TO, UM, PLACE IT.
UM, WE WOULDN'T WANNA TABLE IT RIGHT JOSH, BECAUSE THEN IT, OR HOW WE WOULD SET IT ASIDE FOR THIS MEETING AND THEN BRING IT UP AT THE NEXT MEETING AFTER THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN DONE.
I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN WORKING HARD.
I KNOW THESE ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY, BUT I ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE, UM, APPROVING OR RECOMMENDING TO FULL-TIME.
COUNSEL, MADAM CHAIR, IF I COULD SPEAK TO ABSOLUTELY.
UM, BELIEVE ME, I, I WORKED ON THIS FRIDAY, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY
UM, AND I KEPT GETTING A LOT OF INFORMATION, SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I COULDN'T, I COULDN'T FINALLY DO IT UNTIL, UH, WELL I FINISHED IT YESTERDAY LATE.
UM, BUT THE, THE EDITING THAT I SET FORTH IN HERE IS, IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING.
ONE IS THAT, UH, WE SAID THAT OUR POLICY WAS THAT, UM, APPLICATIONS WOULD BE, UH, APPROVED OR DETERMINED BY TOWN STAFF AND NOT BY THE CONTRACTORS.
BUT THAT'S A KEY POLICY ISSUE.
AND THERE WERE A COUPLE PLACES WHERE THAT WAS MISSING IN THIS DRAFT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S PRIMARY.
SOME OF THE RED IS TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE DECISIONS ARE MADE BY TOWN STAFF AND NOT BY SOMEONE UNDER CONTRACT BECAUSE THAT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
UM, SO THAT'S A LOT OF THE RED MARK.
AND, AND THE SECOND POLICY DECISION WAS CLARIFYING THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC THAT, AND, AND, UH, MS. AKAS TESTIFIED OR STATED THIS MORNING THAT SHE WAS OUT WALKING HER DOG AND SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEIR SPRAYING THE CONTRACTOR WOULDN'T TELL HER.
UM, SO, UH, I KNOW I GOT A LOT OF EMAILS FROM FOLKS WHO WERE WALKING THEIR DOGS AND THEY SAW APPLICATIONS, UH, EITHER BEING MADE OR THAT HAD BEEN MADE.
SO THAT'S LIKE A KEY POLICY ISSUE IS CLARIFYING THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND, AND THAT'S WHAT SOME OF THE RED MARKS DO.
UM, AND THEN IN, UH, ANOTHER CASE WAS, UM, WHERE IN ONE PLACE IT MIGHT SAY, UM, THAT THIS APPLIES, UM, IN A PARK, UM, BUT THEN ANOTHER PLACE IT ONLY SAYS DOG PARKS.
UM, SO, UH, IT'S, IT'S BEEN CONSISTENT THAT WAY.
SO IT'S NOT, UM, CHANGING, UM, THE SUBSTANCE OF OUR POLICY DIRECTION.
AND, AND THE ONLY OTHER THING, UM, THAT I THINK NEEDS
[00:45:01]
TO BE MADE CLEAR, UM, AND I JUST NOTICED THIS IN THE RESOLUTION, AND THAT IS IF THERE IS AN EXISTING POLICY, AND I THINK THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS OR IS NOT, UM, THEN THE STATE THAT, UM, THIS POLICY SUPERSEDES ANY EXISTING POLICY AND THAT'S A MINOR CLARIFICATION THAT COULD BE MADE UNDER THE NOW, THEREFORE IN THE RESOLUTION.SO THEY'RE NOT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN MY VIEW.
THEY'RE CLARIFYING, UM, EDITS TO CARRY OUT THOSE POLICIES.
AND, AND I, I THINK IT, AS YOU NOTED, MADAM CHAIR IS GETTING READY TO BE SPRING, BELIEVE IT OR NOT,
UM, AND SO THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT MORE PEOPLE OUT OF DOORS IN OUR PARKS AND, AND PLAYING BALL ON OUR FIELDS.
UM, AND, AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS, UM, IS TO PROTECT, UM, OUR PUBLIC, OUR HUMANS, AND ALSO OUR, OUR, OUR PETS, OUR DOGS, OUR ANIMALS.
UM, I'VE SEEN PEOPLE WALK CATS AND, AND BIRDS
SO, UM, IT'S TO, TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF PROTECTION.
UM, AND I THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED BECAUSE OF, UM, THE TIMELINESS OF DOING THIS.
UM, AND, AND I THINK IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE MADE CLEAR THAT THIS APPLIES TO TOWN ON PARKS AND FIELDS, UM, AND, AND, UH, WATER AREAS.
UM, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO MY BACKYARD OR ANYBODY ELSE'S BACKYARD.
IT DOESN'T APPLY TO, UH, A LOT OF THE AREA AROUND ON THE ISLAND WITH 70% BEHIND GATED AREAS AND A LOT OF OCCUPATION BY, UM, OTHER USES AND OTHER OWNERS.
SO IT IS TOWN OWNED PROPERTY BUT FOCUSED ON WHERE THE PUBLIC COMES AND WHERE THEY'RE AFFECTED BY, UM, THE POSSIBILITY OF PESTICIDES BEING SPRAYED WITHOUT THEM KNOWING IT OR BEING ABLE, ABLE TO STAY AWAY FROM IT WITH THEIR PETS AND THEIR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN, NIECES, NEPHEWS, ET CETERA.
SO I, I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED AND I APOLOGIZE AND I HAD SOME LAST MINUTE EDITING THAT MAY HAVE CREATED A BUMP HERE.
UM, BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO AHEAD 'CAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? UM, I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BRYSON HAS PUT IN THIS.
UH, AND GENERALLY HER RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE A LOT OF MERIT, BUT I HAVEN'T READ 'EM SINCE WE ONLY, I ONLY SAW IT WHEN I GOT TO THIS DESK.
UM, MS. OWENS HAS ALSO MADE SOME LANGUAGE CHANGES.
PERSONAL PREFERENCE WOULD BE FOR THE MATTER TO GIVE, BE GIVEN FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY STAFF OF BOTH, BOTH OF THESE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS IN LANGUAGE.
UH, I SUSPECT MANY OF THEM ARE QUITE GOOD AND SO FORTH, BUT I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE HAVING KNOWN THAT STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THEM AND WHAT THEIR VIEW IS AND THAT I'VE LOOKED AT THEM BECAUSE I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT 'EM AT THIS POINT.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE MATTER BE OFF TO THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING.
UM, AND, AND TO THAT POINT, AS I'M TRYING QUICKLY TO ACCOMMODATE, UM, READ THROUGH, THERE ARE, THERE ARE A FEW THAT I'VE, UM, PULLED JUST, UM, ON A QUICK READ THAT, UM, THAT I THINK IT IS, IT DOES WARRANT STAFF BEING ABLE TO HAVE THEIR EYES ON IT.
AND FOR INSTANCE, UNDER PROCEDURES MONITORING, UM, NUMBER TWO, THERE'S A, THERE'S AN EDIT THAT CROSSES OUT.
UM, AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF THESE THAT CROSSES OUT OUR ADS LANGUAGE, BUT THIS ONE, IT WAS TOWN STAFF AND TOWN CONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE PEST POPULATIONS ARE INCREASING OR DECREASING AND STAYING THE SAME AND DETERMINED WHEN TO USE A CONTROLLED, UM, TACTIC.
AND, AND TOWN CONTRACTORS BEEN CIRCLED AND CROSSED OUT IN RED, WHICH LEAVES JUST TOWN STAFF.
AND, AND I JUST NEED TO KNOW THE PRACTICALITIES OF THAT.
THE FOLKS WHO ARE IN ON THE GROUND ALL THE TIME, THE CONTRACTORS, UM, WOULD BE THE ONES WHO IDENTIFY THAT I WOULD IMAGINE, UM, MORE READILY AND THEN A PHONE CALL OR A CONVERSATION WITH TOWN STAFF AS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT.
I CAN'T IMAGINE 10 STAFF BEING THE ONES IN THE, IN THE PARKS AND IN THE, UH, FIELD AS IT WERE, UM, TO, TO BE ABLE TO TAKE UP THAT ROLE.
SO IF, IF, IF WE CAN, UM, AGREE AND I WOULD EVEN BE HAPPY TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING OF COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
UM, AND ONCE IN ORDER TO REVISIT THIS, UM, ONCE EVERYONE'S HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT, I KNOW YOU WORKED HARD ON IT AND THERE'S IMPORTANT THINGS IN HERE AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE GOT, UM, THINGS THAT THEY WANNA BE HEARD ON.
SO IF WE COULD AGREE, UM, TO PUT THIS
[00:50:01]
ASIDE FOR TODAY AND BRING IT UP AT EITHER OUR NEXT COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING, WHICH IS WHEN CAM MARCH, UM, OR MAD CHAIRMAN, I MIGHT SUGGEST, I KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING SCHEDULING SOME INTERVIEWS, UM, BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING.SO PERHAPS AT THAT TIME WE COULD, UH, FOLD IN A SPECIAL MEETING ON THIS ISSUE AS WELL.
UM, 'CAUSE I AM CONCERNED ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE SPRING COMING AND PEOPLE BEING OUT AND ABOUT AND NOT HAVING NOTICED ABOUT WHAT'S BEING SPRAYED.
I THINK THAT'S A COMPROMISE I CAN LIVE WITH IS, WOULD THAT MAKE SENSE TO STAFF? I THINK THAT WE'VE SET THOSE, MEET THAT THE 21ST, 24TH SOMETHING WE TRYING TO, I BELIEVE THE DATE WAS THE 27TH, BUT SOMEBODY WASN'T AVAILABLE.
SO WE REALLY HAVEN'T DECIDED ON A DATE YET.
WITH THAT SAID ALEX, GO AHEAD.
JUST A QUESTION ABOUT PROCESS YET.
UM, ONCE THE COMMITTEE HAS DECIDED ON WHAT WE FEEL IS APPROPRIATE TO MOVE ON TO FULL COUNSEL, WOULD THEN THE POLICY BE IN FRONT OF OUR LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE IT'S CONSIDERED A TOWN COUNSEL? YES, SIR.
UM, ALL WELL, TYPICALLY IF, IF IT'S A RESOLUTION, WHICH I BELIEVE THIS HAS A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE POLICY, ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ARE PROVIDED TO THE DOWN ATTORNEY WHO THEN REVIEWS THEM FOR COMPLETENESS CONFORM.
AND IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT REVIEW DONE BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING POSSIBLY.
ALTHOUGH I WILL SAY MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE TOWN ATTORNEY IS GETTING READY TO HEAD OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND WILL BE OUT FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
SO TIMING WISE, THAT MAY PRESENT SOME CHALLENGES, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY TRY.
BUT I THINK DURING THE ABSENCE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY, SOMEONE ELSE WILL STEP INTO THOSE SHOES AND SO THAT PERSON COULD DO THAT REVIEW.
WELL WE WOULD HAVE TO GET THAT FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY 'CAUSE HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT APPOINTMENT.
'CAUSE THAT'S, I THINK THE ONLY PERSON THAT CAN APPOINT LEGAL COUNSEL IS I THINK THE MAYOR HAS THAT AUTHORITY AS WELL.
BUT ANYHOW, OKAY, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
SO WE CAN UM, FIGURE THAT PIECE OF IT OUT.
YEAH, WE CAN LATER IF WE CAN, UM, AGREE AND AGAIN, PROCESS.
WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR US TO TAKE IT OFF OF THE, UM, TABLE FOR TODAY AND REVISIT IT? UM, WHAT I WOULD PRIOR TO OR, OR AT OUR NEXT, UM, COMMUNITY SERVICE MEETING, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS ENTERTAINING A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER TO A DATE CERTAIN, AND THAT WAY ASSUMING THAT THE COMMITTEE'S SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, WE'LL JUST AUTOMATICALLY ADD THAT TO THE AGENDA FOR THAT DATE.
WOULD THE MEMBER OF THE MOTION LIKE TO, UM, UM, OR DID WE HAVE A MOTION? I DON'T KNOW.
THE, I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVEN GOT TO THE MOTION, SO THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A DATE CERTAIN, WELL CAN, CAN YOU PUT ENOUGH FOR THE DATE CERTAIN TO BE THE NEXT, CAN WE STIPULATE THE NEXT COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY? IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO ARRANGE SOMETHING PRIOR TO THAT, WE CAN ALWAYS RECONVENE, RIGHT? YES.
SO CAN WE GET A MOTION TO DO THAT PLEASE? WELL, I, I'LL MOVE THAT THE RELU CONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTION BE POSTPONED UNTIL IT DATES A DATE CERTAIN, WHICH WILL BE THE, UH, NEXT GATHERING OF THIS COMMITTEE.
I'M OPPOSED THAT'S NOT A DATE CERTAIN.
MARCH 18TH OR NOW? AND IF WE CAN ACCOMMODATE SOMETHING SOONER, UM, WE WILL, YEAH, IF WE CAN DO THAT.
BUT I, I JUST THINK THE, ANYHOW, NOT GONNA SAY ANYTHING ELSE.
WE, IF WE CAN ACCOMMODATE SOMETHING SOONER.
UM, BUT FOR NOW WE'RE GONNA DELAY.
I PERSONALLY WOULD PREFER THAT IF STAFF LOOK AT THESE TWO PROPOSALS, UH, FOR CHANGES IN LANGUAGE, LET US KNOW WHAT YOUR VIEWS FOR OR AGAINST ARE.
SO, UM, BRIAN, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU, YOU HEARD THAT, BUT I'M SURE IT WAS CAPTURED.
AND, UM, IF YOU CAN JUST GIVE US FEEDBACK WITH REGARD TO THAT PRIOR TO OUR DATE, SIR.
[00:55:01]
I HAVE LOST MY AGENDA IN HERE, SO ALL THE PAPERS MOVED.UM, AND UH, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS, UM, APPOINTMENTS REGARDING BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES PURSUANT TO SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACTS SECTION 34 70 A ONE RELATED TO NUMBER ONE, BE PROTECT THE HOUSING TRUST.
AND NUMBER TWO, THE UM, HOUSING ACTION COMMITTEE.
WHO'S READY FOR FOOTBALL? IT'S FALL AND TIME FOR SPORTS FANATICS TO KICK IT INTO HIGH GEAR.
WHAT ELSE KICKS OFF WITH SPORTS TAILGATING? COLLEGE PARTIES AND TAILGATING ARE A RITE OF PASSAGE AND STUDENTS, IN ADDITION TO BEING UNDERAGE, ARE ALSO AT INCREASED RISK FOR ALCOHOL ABUSE AND BECOMING ALCOHOL DEPENDENT.
BINGE DRINKING DAY, DRINKING TAILGATING ARE ALL A RISK.
IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW HAS A PROBLEM WITH ALCOHOL ABUSE OR DEPENDENCE, SAY SOMETHING, SAVE A LIFE.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT BEAUFORT COUNTY C.GOV AND CLICK ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG.
THE ONE STOP SHOP IS LOCATED IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ON THE SECOND FLOOR IN ROOM 2 25 BEFORE THE ONE STOP SHOP.
PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE THAT YOU HAD TO GO UPSTAIRS, DOWNSTAIRS, AND POSSIBLY ONCE YOU WERE UPSTAIRS YOU HAD TO GO BACK DOWNSTAIRS TO SEE ANOTHER DEPARTMENT.
SO WITH THE ONE STOP SHOP, WE CONSOLIDATED THOSE.
SO IT'S ONE LOCATION, THE BUSINESS LICENSE DEPARTMENT, AND THE BUILDING COAST DEPARTMENT.
IT'S LITERALLY ONE STOP FOR YOUR PERMITTING AND LICENSING EXECUTIVE SESSION.
UM, I'D LIKE TO, UM, ADJOURN THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED A MOTION FOR THAT.
JUST, UM, EVERYONE HAVE A GOOD REST OF THE DAY.
THE FIX IT TICKET IS ACTUALLY REALLY GREAT 'CAUSE IT GIVES SOME ANIMAL OWNER A CHANCE TO FIX THE PROBLEM BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GIVE THEM A TICKET.
UM, AND IT RANGES FROM ANYWHERE FROM LICENSING AN ANIMAL, UM, VACCINATIONS, UH, FOR RABIES, WHETHER AN ANIMAL IS RUNNING AT LARGE, UM, UM, AND ESPECIALLY FOR THE PIT BULLS BECAUSE IT'S MANDATORY FOR THEM TO GET NEUTERED.
SO IT GIVES THE OWNERS A CHANCE TO GET THEM NEUTERED, GET THEM FIXED BEFORE WE ISSUE THEM A TICKET ALSO, YES, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT, UH, POPULOUS NUMBERS HAVE GONE DOWN, UM, YOU KNOW, GREATLY, UM, JUST THE ANIMAL, THE, THE, THE AMOUNT OF ANIMAL THAT WE INTAKE HAS GONE DOWN.
NOW, IF ANYONE NEEDS ASSISTANCE WITH FIXING, YOU KNOW, GETTING THEIR ANIMALS SPAYED OR NEUTERED, UH, PLEASE REACH OUT TO, UM, BEAUFORT COUNTY AND WE CAN ASSIST THEM, YOU KNOW, THE BEST THAT WE CAN IN MAKING SURE THAT THEIR ANIMAL IS FIXED AND UP TO DATE, UM, PER OUR CLINIC.