* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:01]
          ALL RIGHT. 
          GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY. 
          THANK YOU FOR COMING TO THE SPECIAL CALL 
          [1. CALL TO ORDER]
AT PUBLIC FACILITY SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING ON TUESDAY, JUNE 4TH. 
          UH, IT IS 10:00 AM IF YOU COULD STAND AND RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 
          I PLEDGE OF ALL, ALL TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. 
          ALL RIGHT, AND LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM TO CONDUCT BUSINESS TODAY. 
          UM, A COUPLE NOTES ON HERE BEFORE WE MOVE ON. 
          UM, ONE IS SAYS THERE'S AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE BOTTOM. 
          WE ACTUALLY DO NOT HAVE ONE. 
          I THINK WE JUST HAD THAT LEFT ON THERE. 
          THAT'S WHY THERE'S NO ITEMS LISTED. 
          UM, WE'LL GO ON TO NUMBER THREE, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. 
          THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, POSTED, AND DISTRIBUTED IN COMPLIANCE TO SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. 
          AND WE HAVE ONE AGENDA ITEM TODAY. 
          [4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
CAN I GET AN APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA? SO MOVE A SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          THAT A SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? THIS WILL BE DONE WITH NO OBJECTION AND I SEE NO OBJECTION. 
          ALRIGHT, 
          [5. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED 2024 TRANSPORTATION SALES AND USE TAX ORDINANCE AND REFERENDUM.]
WE'LL JUMP RIGHT IN. 
          I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS WORKING WITH ME LAST MONDAY ABOUT COMING OUT SO WE CAN SPEND SOME MORE TIME ON THIS. 
          UM, IT IS A BIG IMPACT FOR PROBABLY THE NEXT COUPLE DECADES OF THE COUNTY. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA GO RIGHT INTO NUMBER FIVE. 
          GIVE JARED A COUPLE TIME TO COME UP HERE. 
          IT'S GONNA BE DISCUSSION IN THE POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO PROPOSE 2024 TRANSPORTATION, SALES AND USE TAX ORDINANCE AND REFERENDUM. 
          JARED, THANKS AGAIN, BUDDY. 
          YEAH, THANK YOU ALL. 
          APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY. 
          UM, UH, WE HAD A LOT TO TALK ABOUT AND NOT RUSHING THROUGH AND ACTUALLY GIVING ITS OWN TIME, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          UH, I JUST HAVE A HANDOUT. 
          IT WAS IN YOUR BACKUP MATERIALS, BUT IT'S, THIS IS A WORKSHOP, LIKE I MENTIONED LAST TIME, NOT JUST A, A PRESENTATION. 
          SO I WANT YOU GUYS TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION. 
          I PASSED IT OUT LAST TIME. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY BROUGHT THAT HOME OR BACK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BUT JUST IN CASE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, I BROUGHT THIS BACK. 
          I BROUGHT THEM BACK. 
          WELL, Y'ALL, Y'ALL ARE GOOD STUDENTS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANKS. 
          BUT MINE'S IN COLOR. 
          IT'S THIS ONE, RIGHT? YES, SIR. 
          LET'S BE USE ONE. 
          YOU BROUGHT YOUR HOMEWORK. 
          YEP, WE DID BRING OUR HOMEWORK. 
          YES. 
          HOMEWORK. 
          UM, TODAY, THERE'S SOME EXTRA STUFF IN HERE THOUGH. 
          OH, THIS IS EXTRA. 
          YEAH, THERE'S A WHOLE BREAKDOWN IN THE BACK. 
          THE ONLY, UH, ON, ON THIS, THERE'S ONE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT, I THINK, OTHER THAN WHAT'S, WHAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP MATERIALS ONLINE. 
          AND I'LL COVER THAT AS WE GO. 
          SO, NOT GONNA SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS FIRST PART. 
          SO, AND THIS IS PDFS, SARAH, SO I'LL NEED YOU TO, UM, MOVE IT. 
          UM, OH, LET'S SEE. 
          LOOK AT THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO NOT GONNA SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME ON WHAT WE HEARD ON THE INFORMATION AND REALLY JUST GET TO THE BRASS TACKS OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. 
          AND IS WHAT WE HAVE AS THE CURRENT PROGRAM. 
          UM, WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC AND THE THINGS THAT WE ALL HEARD AND ARE THERE MODIFICATIONS THAT WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT. 
          SO LAST TIME WE LEFT OFF, JUST RAN THROUGH FOUR OPTIONS THAT STAFF PRESENTED OF DIFFERENT TIME INCREMENTS. 
          AND AS YOU REDUCED THE TIME, IT ALSO AFFECTS THE, THE VALUE. 
          AND SO PROJECTS START TO EITHER LOSE VALUE OR THEY LOSE ALTOGETHER, UH, ON THIS LIST. 
          SO IT'S MORE OF A LIST OF ATTRITION VERSUS ADDITION. 
          UH, NOT ADDING NEW PROJECTS TO THE DISCUSSION POINTS. 
          ALL THESE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, OR PROJECTS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED FROM THE SALES TAX COMMITTEE. 
          UM, SO THE WORK THAT THEY DID IS STILL PERTINENT AND THE BACKUP INFORMATION IS THERE, UM, FOR THE SPECIFICS ON WHAT WAS INTENDED UNDER THE PROGRAM, PROJECTS, AND EVEN THE SPECIFIC PROJECTS, UM, FOR EVERYBODY'S INFORMATION. 
          JUST TO TO REVIEW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. 
          SO JUST TO RECAP WHAT THOSE FOUR OPTIONS WERE. 
          SO OPTION ONE WAS A STAYING WITH A 15 YEAR OPTION, UM, BUT INCREASING A COUPLE PROJECTS, WHICH CREATES A DECREASE ON OTHER SIDES OF THE LEDGER. 
          ONE WAS INCREASING 2 78 FOR $190 MILLION. 
          THAT'S THE FULL FUNDING GAP. 
          UH, SECOND WAS INCREASING FUNDING FOR GREEN BELTS. 
          UH, ANOTHER WAS INCREASING THE TRIANGLE PROJECT FOR THE FULL VALUE OF THAT PROJECT FOR 245 MILLION. 
          AND ONE, I FORGOT TO MENTION LAST TIME ON THE MUNICIPAL PROJECTS, ONE THING WE HEARD IN BLUFFTON WAS NO FIVE B. 
          SO AS WE GO THROUGH THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS WITH THE MUNICIPAL PROJECTS, THEY MAY REDUCE IN VALUE, BUT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM WILL SAY NO FIVE B FOR BLUFFTON. 
          SO THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT THAT I FORGOT TO MENTION. 
          AND THEN YOU CAN SEE TO THE RIGHT HOW ONCE YOU ADD FUNDING FOR 2 78 AND THE TRIANGLE, THEN IT STARTS SUBTRACTING FROM SOME OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS ALSO. 
          UM, LASTLY, 
          [00:05:02]
THE FOUR THINGS. 
          SO THE FOUR THINGS THAT WILL BE CONSISTENT THROUGH THE OPTIONS ARE THE INCREASED 2 78, THE INCREASED TRIANGLE, UM, THE NO FIVE B, AND THEN THE SEPARATION OF DIRT ROAD AND RESURFACING. 
          THE FULL VALUES THERE, THE 180 MILLION THAT WAS STARTED WITH IN THE ORIGINAL PROGRAM. 
          WE JUST SEPARATED THE CONTEXT. 
          SO DIRT ROAD WAS SPECIFIC THERE. 
          UM, AND THEN AS WE GET THROUGH DIFFERENT VARIATIONS, THE RESURFACING, UM, DROPS OFF AND DIRT ROAD REMAINS. 
          ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS MODIFIED VERSION OF A 15 YEAR PROGRAM? SAME VALUE. 
          1.625 BILLION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SECOND OPTION WAS A 12 YEAR PROGRAM, UH, VALUED AT 1.2 BILLION. 
          SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS, I'M NOT GONNA GO OVER ON EACH OF THE SLIDES, THE FOUR CONSTANTS, BUT I'LL START WITH WHAT CHANGES. 
          SO GREEN BELT CHANGES HERE. 
          ORIGINALLY IT WAS AT 85 AND WE MOVED IT UP TO 110. 
          SO THIS, IN MOST OF THESE OPTIONS, YOU SEE GREEN BELTS, WE WERE AROUND 5%, UH, IN THE INITIAL FIVE 15 YEAR. 
          AND THEN ALL OF THESE ARE, ARE CLOSER TO A 10 YEAR, UH, UH, 10% INCREASE. 
          UM, MASS TRANSIT WAS ORIGINALLY AT A HUNDRED MILLION. 
          IT GOT A SLIGHT DEDUCT TO 90 MILLION ARGENT BOULEVARD STAYS OR TRIANGLE STAYS, MUNICIPAL PROJECTS. 
          UM, SO THEY WERE ALL ORIGINALLY AT 60 MILLION. 
          AND THESE, IN THIS ITERATION, THEY GET DROPPED DOWN TO 30 MILLION. 
          SAFETY PROJECTS WAS INITIALLY AT TWO 50, UM, AND IT GOT DROPPED TO ONE 50. 
          SAFETY PROJECT WAS THE BIGGEST PROGRAM. 
          ALL IN ALL, UH, JUST BECAUSE MOST ANY PROJECT THAT WE TOUCH HAS A SAFETY ELEMENT, UH, WHETHER THAT'S A, A INTERSECTION PROJECT, A WIDENING PROJECT. 
          AGAIN, MOST ANY TRAFFIC PROJECT HAS A SAFETY ELEMENT. 
          SO THAT'S WHY THAT BUCKET WAS THE BIGGEST. 
          AND IT STAYS THE BIGGEST, EVEN AS THE OTHER BUCKETS GET REDUCED. 
          UH, DIRT ROAD PAVING AND RESURFACING, UH, BOTH OF THOSE DROP FROM 90 MILLION TO 50 MILLION IN THIS VERSION IN PATHWAYS. 
          IT REDUCES FROM 90 MILLION TO, UH, EXCUSE ME, FROM 180 MILLION TO 90 MILLION. 
          AND THEN LASTLY, THREE PROJECTS DROP OFF THE RESILIENCY AND EVACUATION ROUTES, THE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ACCESS ROADS, AND THEN THE FUTURE PROJECTS DROPS OFF IN THIS ITERATION. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? CAN WE MAKE COMMENT? IT REALLY CONCERNS ME TAKING THE EVACUATION AND RESILIENCY OFF ON THIS OPTION. 
          UM, BECAUSE ANYONE THAT LIVES ON AN ISLAND, YOU KNOW, IT. 
          I I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU TOOK IT OFF TO MAKE THE DOLLARS WORK, BUT I DON'T LIKE IT. 
          , NOPE. 
          UNDER UNDERSTAND. 
          AND YOU'RE PROBABLY GONNA LIKE IT LESS AS WE MOVE FORWARD. 
          UM, SO EVERYBODY HAS SOME PROJECT THAT THEY PROBABLY HAVE SOME AFFINITY TO. 
          AND THERE YOU'LL SEE THESE GET CHOPPED. 
          THIS IS JUST A STAFF VERSION. 
          AND THE HOPE ONCE WE GO THROUGH THESE OPTIONS IS GERALD WILL QUIT TALKING AND YOU'LL START TALKING AND THAT COMMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE. 
          SO IF IT'S SOMETHING YOU DECIDE ON WHATEVER YEARS AND INCREMENTS, UM, THEN THAT COMMENT, WHETHER IT STAYS IN OR, OR GETS IMPROVED OR DECREASED OR INCREASED, DEFINITELY PERTINENT. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, THE NEXT OPTION THREE IS A 10 YEAR PROGRAM FOR IT WOULD ANTICIPATE TO COLLECT 950 MILLION. 
          AND SO WHAT WE SEE HERE IS THE GREEN BELTS REDUCED OR IS STILL AN INCREASE FROM THE ORIGINAL FROM 85 TO 95, BUT IS STILL IN THE 10%, UH, AREA. 
          THE TRANSIT MASS TRANSIT IS REDUCED FROM A HUNDRED MILLION TO 80 MILLION. 
          REMEMBER, IN MASS TRANSIT, WHAT, WHAT'S IN THAT HEADING IS OBVIOUSLY PALMETTO BREEZE AND THEIR NEEDS, UH, THEY DO NOT HAVE A FUNDING SOURCE, A YEARLY FUNDING SOURCE, AND THEY'RE BEGGING TO THEIR MUNICIPAL PARTNERS YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT FOR A FUNDING SOURCE. 
          UM, BUT ALSO IT HAS FERRY AND COMMERCIAL AIRPORT. 
          SO HILTON HEAD AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS, ALL THREE OF THOSE ELEMENTS ARE INSIDE MASS TRANSIT. 
          SO, UM, THEN ON THIS ONE, UM, THE MUNICIPAL PROJECTS ARE REMOVED COMPLETELY OUT OF THIS VERSION IN OPTION THREE. 
          SO 10 YEAR, 950, THE SAFETY PROJECTS ARE FURTHER REDUCED FROM TWO 50 TO 55 MILLION. 
          THE DIRT ROAD AND RESURFACING THOSE STAY CONSTANT FROM OPTION TWO AT 50 MILLION. 
          UH, THE PATHWAYS IS AGAIN, REDUCED FROM THE ORIGINAL 180 TO 50 MILLION. 
          AND AGAIN, LIKE OPTION TWO, ALL THREE OF THE RE THE, UH, LAST PROJECTS, RESILIENCY, EVACUATION, UH, TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES AND FUTURE PROJECTS ARE ELIMINATED IN THIS VERSION. 
          ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITERATION? ALRIGHT, AND LASTLY, UH, IS 
          [00:10:01]
IS THE EIGHT YEAR VERSION. 
          SO THIS IS EIGHT YEARS FOR $725 MILLION. 
          AND THIS IS WHERE WE REALLY START TO SEE SLIC AND DICE GOING ON. 
          SO, UM, GREEN BELTS IS THIS TIME REDUCED FROM 85 ORIGINALLY TO 75. 
          STILL STAYS IN THE 10% RANGE, BUT IT'S REDUCED FROM THE INITIAL 15 YEAR ELEMENT. 
          MASS TRANSIT TAKES ITS BIGGEST HIT. 
          SO IT IT IS REDUCED FROM A HUNDRED MILLION TO 45 MILLION. 
          UM, ON THE SPECIFIC PROJECTS, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU SEE A SPECIFIC PROJECT DROP OFF. 
          SO SC 46 IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE OUT TO JASPER COUNTY LINE, THAT $20 MILLION PROJECT DROPS OFF AND THE MUNICIPAL PROJECTS HAD ALREADY DROPPED OFF IN ITERATION THREE. 
          AND THEN IN THIS ONE, ALL THE PROGRAM PROJECTS DROP OFF EXCEPT DIRT ROAD FUNDING FOR A $25 MILLION ALLOCATION. 
          UM, OBVIOUSLY THE ALLOCATIONS CAN BE ADJUSTED. 
          UM, WHAT THIS BASICALLY DOES, IT GETS US TO THE EXISTING PROJECTS, GREEN BELTS, MASS TRANSIT, AND SPECIFIC PROJECTS, IS WHAT THIS DOES. 
          AND THEN LASTLY, THIS WAS, UM, NOT INCLUDED, BUT ONE THING, UH, I WANT TO, TO TALK ABOUT BEFORE YOU GUYS GET INTO NUTS AND BOLTS IS, UH, WE HAD A, JOHN AND MYSELF HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO COLUMBIA THIS PAST WEEK TO TALK ABOUT 2 78 WITH THE STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK AND THE SIP. 
          AND AS WE DISCUSSED, WE HAVE $190 MILLION GAP ON 2 78. 
          AND IN EACH OF THESE ITERATIONS, WHICH WERE CREATED ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO BEFORE THIS MEETING, WE HAD $190 MILLION IN THERE. 
          AND ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD BACK IN COMMON, NOT SPECIFICALLY, UM, BUT JUST IN GENERAL, IS THAT WE HAD $80 MILLION IN 2018 OUT OF THAT PRO PROGRAM, 66% OF THE PREVIOUS PROGRAM GOING TO THE BRIDGE PROJECT. 
          NOW, IN THIS PROJECT, IF WE DID $190 MILLION OUT OF THIS, THIS IS ANOTHER, UH, LARGE CHUNK THAT'S GOING TO THAT ONE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SPECIFICALLY SOUTH OF THE BROAD. 
          AND THAT WOULD, WHAT WE EXPRESSED TO THE SIB AND TO, TO DOT IS IF WE DID THAT. 
          UM, THERE'S, THERE'S TWO, THERE'S TWO ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW IN 2 78. 
          FIRST IS MUNICIPAL CONSENT, WHICH THE TOWN IS WORKING ON THAT THIS MONTH AND SECOND IS THE FUNDING. 
          SO THERE'S $190 MILLION GAP, AND IF SALES TAX DOESN'T COVER IT, THEN WHAT ELSE? AND IF THERE IS NO OTHER FUNDS FROM, FROM THE STATE OR FROM THE SIB, THAT WOULD BE THE, THE, UM, ONUS IS ON THE COUNTY TO COME UP WITH THOSE FUNDS. 
          SO IF $190 MILLION ISN'T IN SALES TAX, WHERE ELSE WOULD IT COME FROM? AND FOR US, THAT WOULD BE GEO BOND, WHETHER THAT GEO BOND, THAT IS PRETTY MUCH OUR EXTREME MAX, WHAT WE HAVE CAPABLE UNDER OUR 8% THRESHOLD TODAY, OR IF THAT WASN'T A COUNCIL DECISION AND WE WEREN'T SUCCESSFUL WITH SALES TAX OR A FULL MEASURE WASN'T INCLUDED IN THIS, THEN, UM, A SPECIFIC GEO BOND REFERENDUM, MUCH LIKE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REFERENDUM WAS A GEO BOND REFERENDUM, UM, OF $190 MILLION. 
          SO AS WE WERE TALKING THROUGH THAT WITH THE S CIB AND THE STATE, THEY UNDERSTOOD OUR DISPOSITION. 
          AND SO $190 MILLION IS WHAT WE PUT UP THERE TWO WEEKS AGO. 
          BUT IT MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT NUMBER. 
          THERE WAS A GOOD CONVERSATION. 
          WE, THE BEST THING WAS WE DID NOT GET KICKED OUT OF THAT ROOM. 
          UH, WE, WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW THAT MEETING WAS GONNA GO WHEN YOU GO ASK FOR $190 MILLION. 
          BUT WE HAD MADE A, A MORE APPROPRIATE ASK TO SHARE THAT COST AND IT WAS RECEIVED WELL, WE DIDN'T GET A CHECK. 
          WE DIDN'T COME BACK AND SAY WE HAVE THE MONEY. 
          ALL THAT TO SAY IS $190 MILLION DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE NUMBER THAT'S REFLECTED HERE. 
          IT JUST NEEDS TO BE A MEASURE. 
          UM, THAT PUTS US IN A OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE CAN STILL EXERCISE, UH, ADDITIONAL FUNDS IF NEEDED LOCALLY OR IF WE CAN GRADE STATE FUNDS EVEN ALL THE BETTER. 
          AND SIMILAR TO THAT NOTE IS THE TRIANGLE PROJECT. 
          SO WHAT WE DID TWO WEEKS AGO WAS WE INCREASED THAT TO THE FULL MEASURE OF THE PROJECT. 
          IT WAS SITTING AT A HUNDRED MILLION AND WE MOVED THAT TO 245 MILLION. 
          AND, UM, AS WE PRESENTED TO THE SIB, THERE WAS A GRAPHIC, AND I, I I DON'T HAVE IT TO SHARE, BUT BASICALLY, UH, SINCE 2020, THE FALL OF 2020 FEDERAL HIGHWAY DOES AN INDEX OF THE COST OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY COST OF CONSTRUCTION OR, UH, HIGHWAY COST CONSTRUCTION. 
          AND FOR THE PAST 11 QUARTERS, THAT HAS WENT UP INTO THE RIGHT EVERY SINGLE QUARTER OVER THE LAST 11 QUARTERS. 
          AND COLLECTIVELY, 
          [00:15:01]
THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION HAS OUTPACED THE INFLATIONARY CPI, THE PRODUCER'S, PPI, AS WELL AS THE LABOR COSTS SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE TUNE OF 69%. 
          WOW. 
          SO THE FACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SHORING UP OUR 2018 PROBLEM, UH, 2018 SALES TAX PROJECTS ISN'T BECAUSE THE 2018 SALES TAX WAS ERRONEOUS OR WE DIDN'T GET THE JOB DONE. 
          THIS IS A BLACK SWAN EVENT FROM COVID. 
          THE INFLATIONARY PRESSURES THAT WE'RE ALL FEEL TIMES CONSTRUCTION COSTS, UH, HAS CREATED A 70% NATIONAL AVERAGE OF INCREASED COST OVER THE LAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS. 
          SO, UH, THE FACT THAT WE WOULD BE ADDING ANY AMOUNT TO THOSE PROJECTS IS, IS THAT'S, THAT'S THE REBUTTAL. 
          IF PEOPLE SAY, WELL, YOU HAVEN'T GOT PROJECTS DONE IS, WELL, WE HAVEN'T SEEN A 70% INCREASE LIKE THIS BEFORE. 
          SO I SAY THAT TO SAY THAT THE TRIANGLE PROJECT, IF YOU FULLY FUND SOMETHING, UM, IT DOESN'T ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHER FUNDING TO MARRY UP WITH THAT PROJECT. 
          SO WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN 2 78 IN ATTRACTING DOT FUNDS AND STATE FUNDS AND THE TRIANGLE PROJECT. 
          UM, THE JASPER COUNTY'S DOING THE SAME PROCESS. 
          SO THEY'RE GONNA BE ATTRACTING FUNDS AS WELL THAT WE CAN PUT TOGETHER WITH POTENTIAL STATE FUNDS. 
          SO ALL THAT TO SAY IS THAT $245 MILLION, UM, MAY BE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT TOO. 
          UH, IF YOU WANT TO COME OFF THAT NUMBER TO SPREAD IT OUT TO OTHER PROJECTS, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME. 
          AND ONE LAST THING FOR ME TO QUIT TALKING, AND THEN I'LL HAND IT TO YOU GUYS A HUNDRED PERCENT IS, UM, THE OTHER THING THAT WE'VE LEARNED, UM, WE'RE ALL GETTING SMARTER TOGETHER AND ESPECIALLY I'M GETTING A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS CAPACITY. 
          UM, THERE'S CERTAIN PROJECTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THAT BECAUSE WE'VE STARTED, IF WE WANT TO ATTRACT FEDERAL FUNDS, WE WOULD HAVE TO START THE PROJECT OVER. 
          SO IN ESSENCE, BECAUSE WE'RE SUBSTANTIALLY DOWN THE DESIGN PATH ON A COUPLE PROJECTS, UM, THOSE PROJECTS ARE PROBABLY GONNA BE LOCAL PROJECTS. 
          THEY'RE NEVER GONNA RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING. 
          AND THOSE TWO PROJECTS ARE LADIES ISLAND CORRIDOR AND THE SC UH, 46 IMPROVEMENTS DOWN IN BLUFFTON. 
          SO WE'VE STARTED ENGINEERING ON BOTH OF THOSE. 
          AND SO IT MAY BE SOMETHING TO DISCUSS THAT WE BUMP BOTH OF THOSE UP JUST A LITTLE BIT KNOWING THAT WE WILL NEVER RECEIVE OUTSIDE GRANT ON THOSE TWO PROJECTS. 
          SO CAN YOU TAKE JUST BRIEFLY TELL US WHY? YEAH. 
          SO, UM, AGAIN, LEARNING PROCESS HAD A GREAT DISCUSSION WITH FEDERAL HIGHWAY AND DOTA COUPLE WEEKS AGO. 
          AND THE FEDERAL PROCESS IS ONCE YOU FEDERALIZE IT, UM, YOU'RE, YOU CAN'T BE A LITTLE FEDERALIZED. 
          IT'S EITHER YOU'RE PREGNANT OR YOU'RE NOT PREGNANT. 
          AND, UM, SO ONCE YOU START THE PROCESS, UH, THAT YOU'RE IN THE PROCESS, EVEN IF IT STOPS FOR TWO YEARS OR FIVE YEARS, IF THE PROJECT EVER COMES BACK, YOU STILL GOTTA GO DOWN THE FEDERAL PROCESS. 
          SO IF YOU HAVE ANY INCLINATION THAT THIS IS THE PROJECT THAT YOU'RE GONNA RAISE YOUR HAND FOR A FEDERAL GRANT, THEN YOU HAVE TO START THAT PROJECT FROM THE VERY ONSET FOR IT TO RECEIVE THAT GRANT. 
          AND SO YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE NEPA PROCESS AND THE LPA PROCESS AND THERE'S A, SO IT SIGNIFICANTLY SLOWS A PROJECT AND SIGNIFICANTLY ADDS TO THE PROJECT. 
          BUT IS THAT THOSE TWO, UM, NEGATIVES WORTH THE POSITIVE OF STICKING YOUR HAND UP FOR FEDERAL FUNDING? OKAY. 
          AND YOU HAVE TO DECIDE THAT AT THE VERY BEGINNING. 
          AND UNFORTUNATELY, UH, WE DIDN'T MAKE THAT DECISION ON THOSE TWO PROJECTS, AND WE'RE VERY FAR ALONG IN THE DESIGN ON EACH OF THOSE. 
          SO, JARED. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, IF I MIGHT ASK QUESTION FOR HIM. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, ON THE TRIANGLE, UM, PROJECT. 
          YES, SIR. 
          UM, YOU SAID THAT THE OPTIONS INCREASE AS WE GO FOR, AS WE REDUCE THE, THE, UM, THE YEARS, UM, TO 2 45. 
          YES. 
          UM, AND YOU ALSO MENTIONED THAT JASPER COUNTY MIGHT, WELL, WILL CONTRIBUTE TO SOME OF THAT WORK. 
          UM, WHAT TIMEFRAME ARE WE LOOKING AT AND IS, IS THAT THROUGH THE ONE CENTILE TAX THAT THEY'RE GONNA DO ALSO? YEAH, SO WHAT THEY HAVE, THEY DON'T HAVE THE ROAD LIST SPECIFIC YET. 
          UM, BUT THEY'RE CURRENTLY THEIR VERSION, THEY'RE LOOKING AT A 15 YEAR PROGRAM TO COLLECT ANYWHERE FROM 250 TO $400 MILLION OUT OF THAT PROGRAM. 
          A LOT OF THEIR FUNDING IS TARGETED TOWARD THE TRIANGLE AND 2 78 WIDENING BACK TO I 95 AND SC 1 70 46 IMPROVEMENTS IN SOUTHERN, UM, JASPER COUNTY. 
          I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS WHETHER IT'S 20 MILLION OR 50 MILLION THAT THEY HAVE OBLIGATED, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEIR PRIORITIZATION AND FOCUS IS AROUND. 
          OKAY. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN 
          [00:20:01]
YOU'RE READY, I'LL GO AFTER YOU'RE DONE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS, I MEAN, I KNOW ALL OF US HAVE QUESTIONS AND WE ALL HAVE PROJECTS THAT WE WANT TO HIT. 
          THERE'S NO DENYING THAT. 
          UM, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO HIT THOSE AND GET TO IT. 
          BUT I THINK THE FIRST THING WE HAVE TO DO AS A GROUP IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY YEARS WE'RE GONNA DO. 
          YES. 
          WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW MANY YEARS WE'RE GONNA DO. 
          WE DON'T KNOW HOW, WHAT OUR BUDGET IS AND WHICH PROJECTS WE CAN START LISTING AND SEEING HOW MUCH MONEY IS GONNA GO TO THOSE PROJECTS. 
          SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO AS A GROUP IS IF WE CAN CHART TO TARGET DOWN HOW MANY YEARS WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING FOR SO WE CAN GET AN ACTUAL ROUGH ESTIMATE OF A BUDGET THAT'S GONNA LET US KNOW WHICH PROJECTS WE CAN FOCUS ON, WHICH ONES WE NEED TO HIT. 
          UM, WE KNOW WE HAVE SOME PROJECTS FROM 2018 THAT HAVE TO GO ON THIS LIST. 
          THEY HAVE TO GET COMPLETED AND WE KNOW WE HAVE TO HIT PROJECTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RIVER, AS YOU PEOPLE WANNA SAY IT. 
          SO THAT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED, BUT I DON'T SEE US GETTING ANY RESOLUTION ON THOSE ANSWERS UNTIL WE KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PUT INTO THESE BUCKETS. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE OF MY QUESTIONS FOR JARED IS GONNA HELP ME FOCUS A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH. 
          IS IT POSSIBLE? I YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          OKAY. 
          BACK IN APRIL, YOU SHARED WITH US WE COLLECTED A ROUGHLY $146 MILLION 2018 THAT WE STILL HAVE IN OUR, UM, REFERENDUM ACCOUNT FOR 2 20 18. 
          OF THAT WE EARMARKED 80 MILLION FOR THE CORRIDOR 2 78 CORRIDOR. 
          IS THAT STILL STAND CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHATEVER YOU'RE DOING HERE, ADDITIONAL IS GONNA BE ADDED TO THAT. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          YEP. 
          AND THEN ONE THING THAT I DIDN'T HAVE IN EVERYBODY'S BACKUP, BUT IT'S IN THE HANDOUTS I JUST PROVIDED, IS THIS TABULATION? MM-HMM. 
          , AND THIS WILL HELP IN THIS DISCUSSION. 
          SO IF YOU PULL THAT OUT, WHAT THAT IS IS GIVEN OUR GROWTH RATE AND WHAT WE EXPECT TO, UM, EARN IS HOW MUCH EACH YEAR. 
          SO IF YOU DO A FIVE YEAR, YOU DO A 15 YEAR, YOU DO A 25 YEAR, THAT'S THE NUMBER THERE. 
          SO IF AS Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT YEARS MAKE SENSE AND YOU WANT TO KNOW BASICALLY WHAT THAT UM, IS, IS DOLLAR WISE, THAT SHEET WILL HELP GUIDE THIS DISCUSSION. 
          HOPEFULLY. 
          CHAIRMAN, YOU INDICATED THAT THERE ARE SOME ESSENTIAL ITEMS WE HAVE TO CONSIDER AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE ESSENTIAL ITEMS HAVE A DOLLAR NUMBER ON THEM, BUT, UH, IF WE HAVE CONSENSUS TO BUILD A ESSENTIAL ITEM LIST THAT MAY HELP US DECIDE WHAT OPTION YEAR WISE WE WANT TO, UH, WE WANT TO USE HERE. 
          YEAH. 
          IS, IS THERE, CAN WE BUILD SOME CONSENSUS ON THE ESSENTIAL ITEM? I HAVE A GREAT IDEA. 
          CAN YOU THROW UP, UH, THE 15 YEAR PLAN SINCE IT DOES HAVE ALL THE LIST ON THERE, THAT JUST GIVES US A NICE ROUND LIST OF ALL THE PROJECTS HERE. 
          WELL BACK WHAT I HAD WHILE HE'S PULLING THAT UP, I MEAN THE US 2 78 WAS ON OUR 28 REFERENDUM. 
          THE LADIES ISLAND CORRIDOR WAS ON THE 28 REFERENDUM AND THEN THE PATHWAYS, UM, PATHWAYS AND THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED BECAUSE OF RISING COST INFLATION, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT. 
          RIGHT. 
          THE FACT IS WE PASSED A REFERENDUM AND WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN THAT DONE YET. 
          I BELIEVE THOSE THREE HAVE TO BE ON THAT LIST. 
          NOW THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS CAN BE DISCUSSED AND CHANGED. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, JARED JUST ACTUALLY TALKED A SECOND AGO ABOUT 2 78, MAYBE NOT NEEDING 190 MILLION MAYBE, YOU KNOW, WE DO SPLIT THAT WITH THE STATE AND WE DROP IT DOWN TO 80 TO A HUNDRED MILLION. 
          WHAT WERE THOSE THREE ESSENTIALS YOU JUST MADE RIGHT THERE? UH, IT SHOULD BE THE TOP THREE UP THERE. 
          UM, COMPLETION. 
          I SEE IT. 
          YEP. 
          LADIES ISLAND. 
          YEP. 
          THAT WHOLE SECTION, THAT SECTION OFF THE YEP. 
          THOSE WERE ALL IN 2018 THAT WERE NOT COMPLETED OR 'CAUSE THEY WERE NOT FULLY FUNDED WITH THE RISING COST OR DELAYS. 
          GOT IT. 
          FOR WHATEVER THE REASON. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT IF WE CAN'T COMMIT TO FINISH THE THINGS THAT WERE IN THAT 2018 REFERENDUM, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THE OTHER REFERENDUM. 
          SO AS PART OF THE, NOT THE ADVOCACY, BUT THE EDUCATION HERE, WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO GET FOCUSED ON FINISHING OUT THE PROJECTS OF THE NINE WE IDENTIFIED. 
          WE APPARENTLY HAVE NUMBER THREE, THE SIX STILL OUTSTANDING. 
          WE HAVE TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE GONNA GET FOCUSED ON THOSE, UH, AS PART OF WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO GOING FORWARD. 
          I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE THOSE. 
          WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND, AND RECLAIM THEM, YOU KNOW? I AGREE. 
          IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW MUCH WILL IT COST JOE? UM, EIGHT IS TOO FEW YEARS, SO I THINK WE SHOULD ELIMINATE EIGHT. 
          I AGREE. 
          YEAH. 
          I WAS LEANING TOWARD 10. 
          WELL, LET'S, LET'S DO IT IN A LOGICAL MANNER. 
          ARE WE OKAY ELIMINATING EIGHT YEARS? YES. 
          BECAUSE IT'S TOO FEW. 
          TOO FEW DOLLARS, TOO FEW PROJECTS THAT ARE ESSENTIAL. 
          IS THAT THOSE THAT ONCE YOU JUST MENTIONED, UH, ARE THEY, UH, CAN I ASK, ARE THEY ELIMINATED OR ARE THEY STILL IN AT EIGHT? NO, THEY'RE, UM, PATHWAYS THEY WOULD STILL BE IN THERE, BUT GUESS THEY'LL STILL BE IN THERE. 
          BUT WE'RE NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE. 
          [00:25:01]
IF IN FACT, OVER AN EIGHT YEAR PERIOD OF TIME WE'D STILL HAVE ENOUGH MONEY AND WE CAN'T DO MANY OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ON THIS LIST. 
          I GOT YOU. 
          SO I THINK EIGHT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. 
          OKAY. 
          OF THAT 80 MILLION THAT YOU STILL HAVE IN THE, UH, REFERENDUM ACCOUNT, WHAT'S THE OTHER AMOUNT OF WELL, IT'S 146 MILLION RIGHT NOW. 
          MINUS THAT 80. 
          THAT'S EARMARK SIR. 
          CAN GET, THERE'S STILL 66 MILLION IN THERE FOR US. 
          THERE'S 146,000,066. 
          YEAH. 
          SO IT'S STILL 66 THAT WE CAN ADD TO THE REFERENDUM COLLECTION. 
          JARED ARE MY NUMBER ACCURATE? SAY THAT AGAIN? I'M SORRY. 
          146 MILLION COLLECTED STILL IN THE ACCOUNT. 
          80 EARMARKED TOWARD 2018 PORTAL. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO THERE'S 66 MILLION IN THERE. 
          WELL, SO, SO WE HAD 120 WAS INITIAL, SO 80, 30 10. 
          SO 30 FOR LADIES ISLAND, 10 FOR THE PATHWAYS. 
          UM, THOSE HAVE TO STAY IN THOSE PROJECTS. 
          THOSE HAVE TO STAY THOSE A MINIMUM AMOUNT. 
          ALL, ALL THE FUNDING FROM FROM 2018 HAS TO STAY IN THOSE THREE PROJECTS. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT HOW MUCH OF THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR US IF, REGARDLESS OF THE YEARS, HOW MUCH OF THAT MONEY IS AVAILABLE FOR THOSE ESSENTIAL ITEMS UNDER THE, UNDER THE UH, TSD THREE PROJECT? YEAH, SO OUT OF THE 2018 WHERE WE COLLECTED 145 INSTEAD OF 120, SO 25 EXTRA, UM, WE PUT 15, EXCUSE ME, 20 ALREADY. 
          COUNCIL, HOLD ON, LET ME GET MY NUMBERS RIGHT. 
          WE HAD 15 AND 10, UM, 15 OF THAT OVER COLLECTION OF THAT 25 OVER COLLECTION TOWARDS THE UNDERFUNDED PATHWAYS AND THEN THE, THERE'S 10 THAT HASN'T CAME BEFORE COUNSEL FOR OKAY, WHERE DO WE WANT TO ASSIGN THAT $10 MILLION? SO THAT'S THE ONLY WIGGLE ROOM LEFT IN 2018. 
          WOULD YOU WANT TO PUT THAT 10 TOWARDS LADIES ISLAND? WOULD YOU WANNA PUT THAT 10 TOWARDS 2 78 OR WOULD YOU WANNA PUT THAT 10 TOWARDS THE PATHWAYS? WHAT'S THE TOTAL? UM, 145 MILLION, BUT WE HAVE 80 ALREADY COMMITTED. 
          SO THAT LEAVES US 65 MILLION. 
          WE'VE GOT 120 ALREADY. 
          120 COMMITTED ORIGINALLY, THEN WE COMMITTED ANOTHER 15 TOWARDS THE PATHWAY. 
          SO WE HAVE 135 COMMITTED OUT OF 145 ON THESE ITEMS RIGHT HERE. 
          BUT LARRY, THAT WOULD JUST EXCUSE ME THAT WE JUST DEEMED ESSENTIAL. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THE ONLY DISCRETIONARY IS THE 10 MILLION, CORRECT. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          OUT OF THAT WHOLE ENTIRE PACKAGE, 10 MILLION IS, WELL THE THING IS, WE'RE NOT RELYING ON THIS REFERENDUM NOW TO COLLECT THAT 135 MILLION 'CAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE IT. 
          WELL JARED, THAT WAS GONNA BE MY QUESTION. 
          IS THIS MONEY ADDITIONAL TO WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE? WE NEED THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO THAT MONEY WE HAD BEFORE, WE HAVE TO ACT LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST. 
          IT'S THERE, BUT IT'S BASICALLY JUST COVERING THE COST OF INFLATION. 
          WELL IT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH REGARD TO THE YEARS. 
          YOU'RE GONNA SELECT WHETHER YOU WANT 725 MILLION OR WHETHER YOU WANT 950 MILLION, BUT THERE'S 135 MILLION THERE. 
          SO IF THOSE ARE ESSENTIAL AND WE HAVE THE MONEY, YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CONSIDER THOSE. 
          BUT LARRY, WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THESE NUMBERS HE'S GIVING US FOR WHAT WE NEED IS ALREADY CONSIDERING THAT MONEY IS THERE, WE STILL NEED THIS ADDITIONAL MONEY ON TOP OF THAT MONEY. 
          WE HAVE TO DO THAT. 
          DO THE ESSENTIAL ONE. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          SO, BUT MY QUESTION WOULD BE, JARED, WHAT DO YOU THINK WE COULD RELY ON WITH THE STATE OR THE SIB TO HELP US WITH THOSE TWO PROJECTS? ARE WE LOOKING AT 50%? 'CAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, YEAH. 
          SO WE CAN SAVE $225 MILLION. 
          IF WE DROP THE, UH, THE US PROJECT DOWN BY 90 MILLION, THAT PUTS US TO A HUNDRED. 
          YEP. 
          AND IF THE STATE OR SOMEBODY ELSE STEPPED UP FOR 90, THAT SAVES US 90 THERE. 
          AND THEN IF WE CUT THE OTHER ONE DOWN A HUNDRED MILLION OR 120 MILLION, THE TRIANGLE PROJECT, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO COMMIT TO THE OTHER A HUNDRED MILLION THAT SAYS IT'S 2.5? SO THE 2 78 TO START WITH. 
          SO WHAT WE PROPOSED TO DOT AND THE SIB WAS TO TAKE OUR CURRENT, UM, WHAT WE WENT IN WITH OUR GRANT APPLICATION THAT THERE WAS A RATIO, THE TOTAL COST WAS $272 MILLION. 
          AND UH, I DON'T REMEMBER THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS, BUT WE HAD ABOUT, I GOT IT, UH, 30 40% AND SIB HAD 45% AND THEN, AND THE STATE HAD 15%. 
          SO IF WE MOVE THOSE NUMBERS UP, OUR CONTRIBUTION AT THAT RATE WOULD BE 85 MILLION. 
          AND THEN DOT 15 MILLION AND THE CIB 95 MILLION. 
          THAT WAS WHAT OUR DISCUSSION FOCUSED AROUND WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE $190 MILLION DELTA WITH THE STATE LAST WEEK. 
          SO WE DIDN'T GET GUARANTEES THAT THEY'RE GONNA COME UP WITH THAT FUNDING. 
          BUT THAT WAS A STARTING POINT FOR DISCUSSION. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD I THROW ONE MORE THING OUT HERE? ABSOLUTELY. 
          SO, BECAUSE THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, WE REPRESENT AN AWFUL LOT OF PEOPLE. 
          UM, AS WE SIT HERE TODAY AND JAR, WE WENT OUT ON A A FIVE STOCK TOUR GIVEN FACTS. 
          YES. 
          UM, UM, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, I'M GONNA STOP YOU REAL QUICK, TOM, WHAT'S GOING ON? FIVE MINUTE RECESS. 
          YEAH, WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND RECONVENE AT AROUND 10 35. 
          AND I JUST LET 
          [00:30:01]
WE ARE BACK. 
          WE HAD SOME MATTERS TO ATTEND TO REAL QUICK, BUT WE ARE BACK IN DISCUSSION STILL TALKING ABOUT, UM, THE YEARS FOR THIS. 
          SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO, I KNOW, UH, MR. DAWSON HAS A QUESTION, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE STARTING TO GET BACK ON PROJECTS HERE. 
          WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE A COUPLE NECESSITIES THAT WE HAVE TO HIT, BUT IF WE CAN START REMOVING A COUPLE YEARS OR A COUPLE OPTIONS THAT THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. 
          UM, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS PALABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO GET THIS PASSED. 
          SO THAT NEEDS TO BE OUR FIRST DISCUSSION. 
          UM, I WE CAN'T ALWAYS MOVE AROUND MONEY IN IT, BUT WE NEED TO START NARROWING THIS DOWN TO TWO OPTIONS. 
          WE'RE JUST GONNA KEEP GOING AROUND AND AROUND AND AROUND FOR HOURS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          CAN I MAYBE THROW YOU OUT THE THIRD ONE THAT I WAS GONNA TRY TO SAY BEFORE WE TOOK A QUICK BREAK. 
          WE REPRESENT A TON OF PEOPLE AND WITH THE FIVE STOP TOUR WE HAD A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF FEEDBACK AND THE MAJORITY OF INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVED WAS, THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT TIME FOR THIS REFERENDUM. 
          AND I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          IS THAT THANK YOU. 
          IS THAT AN OPTION HERE OR IS THAT NOT AN OPTION? I MEAN, ANYTHING IS AN OPTION, BUT I CAN SAY THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE VOTED ON BY THE COMMITTEE IF IT MOVES FORWARD OR NOT. 
          YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO ADVOCATE FOR NO REFERENDUM. 
          YOU VOTE NO, NO MATTER WHICH OPTION IT IS. 
          BUT I WOULD SAY IN THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING NOW, IN CASE IT DOES PASS WHETHER YOU WANT IT TO OR NOT, THAT I WOULD PUT YOUR INPUT IN TO GET, IF IT DOES GO THROUGH THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED ONTO IT. 
          BUT THAT TIME WOULD COME DURING COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING TO SHOOT DOWN THE REFERENDUM. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, UM, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT WE MET WITH, UH, AND HILTON HAD AND ABROAD, UM, IS THIS IS NOT THE INFLATIONARY TIMES, THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT TIME FOR THIS TYPE OF PROGRAM. 
          NOT TO MENTION 2018, WE STILL HAVE $150 MILLION THAT WE HAVEN'T SPENT, WE HAVEN'T CHECKED, WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO COMPLETE THOSE PROJECTS BECAUSE THEY ARE DIVVIED UP INTO THOSE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          SO IT'S JUST GONNA SIT THERE. 
          WELL, INFLATIONARY TIMES LIKE THIS, UH, 30, 60 TO 9% OR 70% MORE COSTLY. 
          MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO TAKE A PAUSE WITH THIS AND COME BACK. 
          LET'S CHECK SOME BOXES. 
          LET'S GIVE THESE TAXPAYERS A 6% RATE FOR A WHILE. 
          SHOW 'EM THAT WE CARE ABOUT 'EM AND COME BACK WHEN IT'S THE TIME IS RIGHT AND THERE'S NOT THIS TYPE OF INFLATIONARY, UH, PRESSURE. 
          I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. 
          CAN I, OKAY. 
          CAN WE MOVE ON? THIS IS WHAT I WILL SAY. 
          YEAH, MR. CHAIRMAN OR MR. PASS, WE CAN MOVE ON, BUT THAT'S A VALID QUESTION. 
          IT'S NOT FOR ME FROM THE CONSTITUENTS. 
          SO DON'T PUSH THAT ALONG LIKE THAT. 
          IF YOU DON'T WANNA DO THIS, YOU GO HOME. 
          NO, I, WAIT, THAT IS, WOULD YOU JUST SAY, I MEAN I SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE AND MOVE ON. 
          WHY DO WE HAVE TO MOVE ON MR. CHAIRMAN? 'CAUSE WE ARE GOING TO DECIDE A NUMBER OF YEARS. 
          ALRIGHT, THAT'S FINE. 
          THE OPTION WE NEED TO HAVE RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR NO ON ANY REFERENDUM, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO DO THAT AND WE CAN HAVE THAT DEBATE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WHEN THAT TIME COMES. 
          BUT THE DEBATE WE NEED TO HAVE CURRENTLY IS ABOUT IF WE ARE GOING TO PICK AN OPTION AND WHICH ONE IS IT GONNA BE, MAY I SUGGEST THAT NOBODY'S SPEAKING UNLESS YOU CALL UPON THEM. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CALL UPON EVERYBODY BEFORE YOU. 
          THANK YOU EVERYBODY BEFORE YOU CALL UPON ANYBODY A SECOND TIME. 
          PERFECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M GONNA MOVE ON TO MR. DAWSON. 
          HE HAD A QUESTION BEFORE WE HEAD BREAK PLEASE. 
          YEAH. 
          BE BEFORE WE DECIDE, UH, WHAT LENGTH OF TIME, UH, AND THE YEARS THAT WE'RE GONNA SELECT, I I NEED A CLARIFICATION, JARED, ON THE, ON THE HANDOUT SHEET WE'VE GOT, UH, 24 PATHWAYS AND THEN DOWN BELOW WE GOT PATHWAYS. 
          NOW THE ONE AT THE BOTTOM IS THE PATHWAYS THAT WAS SELECTED FOR 2018. 
          YEAH. 
          AT THE TOP IS THE 24 PATHWAYS FROM 18. 
          AND SO THE REASON THERE'S ZERO IN THE TOP, UH, ROWS IS BECAUSE WE HAD PATHWAYS AS A PROGRAM PROJECT DOWN BELOW AND IT WAS A LARGE AMOUNT, $150 MILLION IS WHAT IT STARTED OUT. 
          SO WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY IS IF WE HAVE THAT PROGRAMS IN THE PROJECT THAT WE WOULD FIRST COMPLETE THE 2018 PATHWAYS OUT OF THAT BUCKET OF FUNDING BEFORE WE WOULD MOVE TO OTHER PATHWAYS. 
          YES, SIR. 
          THEN IN, ONCE YOU GOT TO YEAR EIGHT, THAT PROGRAM, UM, DROPPED OUT, BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STILL COMMITTED TO GETTING THE 2018 DONE. 
          SO WE PUT A $30 MILLION PLACEHOLDER IN THAT OPTION THERE. 
          SO THAT WAS WHAT THAT'S ABOUT. 
          OKAY. 
          WE, WE PROMISE, UM, THE, THE CITIZENS THAT, THOSE 24 PATHWAYS THAT WE INITIALLY LISTED, THAT, UH, THIS REFERENDUM WAS GOING TO PICK THE, THE TOTAL NUMBERS OF THEM, NOT, NOT JUST THE, NOT JUST THE FIRST TWO PRIORITIES THAT, THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, CHOSE IN 2018. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND THE REMAINDER, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE ENTIRE 24 THAT THIS REFERENDUM IS GOING TO PICK ALL OF THOSE UP. 
          SO NOW, UM, ACCORDING TO THE OPTIONS LISTED HERE, WE DON'T GET ANYTHING FOR THE PATH 24 PATHWAYS UNTIL YEAR EIGHT. 
          NO, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY IS, SO IN YEAR ONE WE HAD $150 MILLION IN PATHWAYS OR 180 MILLION, 
          [00:35:01]
UM, ORIGINALLY IN PATHWAYS. 
          AND TO FINISH THE 2018 PATHWAYS, THERE'S APPROXIMATELY $30 MILLION NEED. 
          AND SO OUT OF THAT $180 MILLION, INITIALLY 30 MILLION WOULD BE USED TO FINISH 2018. 
          THEN 150 MILLION WOULD BE USED FOR FUTURE PATHWAYS TO BE DETERMINED. 
          SO WE WERE, WE WERE COMMITTING TO DO THOSE 2000 EIGHTEENS. 
          THE WHOLE, IN ANY VERSION THAT'S UP THERE ON THE SCREEN, THOSE 2018 ARE TO BE DONE. 
          IT IS JUST WHERE IT'S PULLING FROM FUNDING WISE WHERE IT'S SHOWN. 
          REFLECTED. 
          YEAH. 
          GERALD, IF YOU LOOK AT OPTION NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS THE EIGHT YEAR, IT REMOVES THE PATHWAYS COMPLETELY, HE'S SAYING HE'S JUST SHIFTING THAT FUNDING FROM WHAT USED TO BE LISTED AS PATHWAYS TO JUST TARGETING THOSE 24. 
          BUT WHEN THE OTHER OPTIONS HAD PATHWAYS IN THERE, IT INCLUDED THE 24. 
          BUT NOW WE'RE, IF WE DO DROP OUT PATHWAYS COMPLETELY, IT'S SAYING THAT THOSE 24 FROM 2018 WILL BE FUNDED AND COMPLETED. 
          THAT THAT'S WHAT THAT FUNDING SCORE. 
          THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T KICK INTO YEAR EIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          ON THE OPTION FOUR. 
          OKAY. 
          IS BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE PATHWAYS OPTION BEFORE, BUT WE'RE REMOVING THAT OVERALL PATHWAYS OPTION TO JUST FOCUS ON THOSE 24. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL I I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I AGREE. 
          YEAH, THAT WE YEAH, WE WE GOTTA GET THOSE DONE. 
          I AGREE. 
          I MEAN, YEAH, MR. JONES, UM, IF NOT THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE A, A WINDSTORM OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY CRUCIFYING US. 
          I DON'T THINK IT PASSES IT ALL IF WE DON'T HIT THE, THE THREE THINGS THAT WE LISTED EARLIER FOR SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, TAB ASKED ME AND THEN WE'LL COME RIGHT OVER. 
          YES. 
          OH. 
          UM, SO I AGREE WITH THOSE. 
          WE HAVE TO DO, I WAS JUST GONNA COMMENT ON THE REFERENDUM ITSELF. 
          I ATTENDED FOUR OUT OF FIVE MEETINGS. 
          I HAVE EXTENSIVE NOTES IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SEE 'EM. 
          THEY, NO ONE SAID NOW IS NOT THE TIME. 
          THEY OBJECTED TO 15 YEARS. 
          THEY OBJECTED TO 1.62 BILLION. 
          THE B SCARES PEOPLE OUT AT IN GERALD'S. 
          IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE DIRT ROADS, IT WAS ABOUT PATHWAYS, IT WAS ABOUT NO FIVE BI ATTENDED FOUR OUTTA FIVE. 
          I DID NOT HEAR PEOPLE SAY THIS IS THE WRONG TIME TO DO A REFERENDUM. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP AND I HAVE ALL THE NOTES. 
          OKAY. 
          I HAD, I HAD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT CHAIRMAN SPEAK REAL QUICKLY. 
          HEY, HEY. 
          YEAH. 
          COME ON. 
          WHERE'D YOU COME FROM? CAN, UH, YES. 
          RIGHT AFTER MS. HOWARD, LIKE MORGAN FREEMAN, CAN I SPEAK TO BEFORE YOU MS. HOWARD, BECAUSE I MAY HAVE TO LEAVE. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          OKAY. 
          OH, THERE YOU ARE. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          UM, I'M, I'M IN THE OPPOSITE OF, UH, JOE PASSMAN AT THIS TIME. 
          I PREFER, UH, OPTION ONE OR 12 YEARS. 
          I PREFER THE 15 YEARS, 12 YEARS. 
          I THINK THAT ANYTHING LESS THAN THAT WILL COMPROMISE ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAPPEN IN MY DISTRICT. 
          I JUST WANNA SAY THAT, UH, RESILIENCY IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN MY DISTRICT. 
          UM, DIRT ROADS IS ANOTHER ONE, SO I JUST KNOW THAT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT, UH, WILL COMPROMISE THOSE EFFORTS. 
          UM, SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON RECORD. 
          THANK YORK. 
          WHICH, WHICH WHAT, WHAT'S THE YEARS THAT YOU ARE INSISTING ON 1225? I I 50? I PREFER 15 ALL THE WEEK BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, NOBODY REALIZE HOW MUCH THAT 6 CENTS, 7 CENTS TAX, UM, UM, UH, IMPACTED THEIR LIVES. 
          UH, THEY DON'T EVEN NOTICE IT. 
          SO YOUR OPTION, OPTION ONE IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY OPTION ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, WITH, WITH THE ADJUSTMENT OF ALL 12 YEARS, OPTION TWO IS THE LEAST I WOULD GO. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          YES MA'AM. 
          I HAD A COUPLE COMMENTS. 
          UM, ONE, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T THINK TOO MANY PEOPLE REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FLEXIBILITY IN GREEN BELTS THAT THERE COULD BE. 
          WE COULD ACTUALLY DO PATHWAYS AS PART OF GREEN BELTS. 
          IF WE PATTERN IT AFTER CHARLESTON'S, WHICH I'VE READ THEIR, UM, THEIR GREEN BELT, WE ARE STILL GONNA HAVE A LOT OF MONEY IN GREEN SPACE. 
          I THINK. 
          SO I KNOW WE HEARD FROM THE MAYORS, I THINK THE CHAIRMAN DID THAT THEY WANTED THE GREEN BELT INCREASED. 
          BUT I THINK THAT'S AN AREA THAT WE MIGHT KEEP IT AS IT IS, NO MATTER WHAT OPTION WE CHOOSE, BECAUSE PATHWAYS AND GREEN BELTS CAN GO TOGETHER IF WE FASHION IT THAT WAY. 
          UM, IT'S UP TO US. 
          I'M LOOKING TO TOM 'CAUSE I THINK HE'S READ CHARLESTON'S, GREENBELT, CHARLESTON DID, UH, GREEN BELTS. 
          YOU COULD DO SIDEWALK WITH, UM, GREENBELT. 
          AND THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER WAY TO BUILD IN RESILIENCY TOO WITH THE GREEN. 
          SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE KEEP GREENBELT AS IT IS. 
          I, UM, I LIKE THE 12 YEAR OPTION BECAUSE I'VE HEARD BACK FROM PEOPLE THEY THINK 15 YEARS IS TOO LONG, BUT, UM, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO BUILD IN SOME RESILIENCY AND EVACUATION. 
          AND I SEE 
          [00:40:01]
WE WOULD STILL KEEP, IF WE CAN STILL KEEP THE MUNICIPALITIES IN THE MIX, THEY, MY CONSTITUENTS, UH, REPRESENT TWO DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES. 
          THEY WANT TO SEE SOME, THEY WANT TO KEEP THAT IN THERE SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER, WHATEVER IT IS. 
          SO THAT'S MY COMMENT SO FAR. 
          IF I MIGHT. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          YEAH. 
          I, UM, TO ALICE'S POINT, IIII HAVE TO, UH, DISAGREE WITH HER. 
          UM, THE GREEN BELT TO ME IS, UH, UH, RECREATIONAL AND A LUXURY, UM, UH, UH, ITEM. 
          UH, TO CREATE A GREEN BELT THAT, UH, SOMEONE COULD, UH, RIDE OR TRANSIT FROM MAINE TO FLORIDA IS, IS A LUXURY. 
          UM, WELL THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHAT GREENVILLE IS. 
          WAIT, WAIT A MINUTE. 
          WAIT A MINUTE. 
          LEMME FINISH, LEMME FINISH. 
          THAT'S NOT IN MY MIND WHAT IT IS. 
          WELL, IT'S A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , UH, AND NEVERTHELESS, THE POINT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S A LUXURY AND IT'S RECREATIONAL, IT, IT DOESN'T, IN MY OPINION, DOESN'T RISE ABOVE THE NEED FOR MY CONSTITUENTS WHO LIVE IN THE RURAL PART OF THE COUNTY WHO STILL LIVE ON DIRT ROADS THAT ARE UNPAVED AND THAT ARE TOTAL MESS DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER. 
          NOW, NOW YOU, YOU WEIGH, YOU WEIGH THE TWO, A LUXURY PATH WITH GREENWAY FROM MAINE TO FLORIDA VERSUS DIRT ROADS IN THE 21ST CENTURY IN THE RURAL PART OF THE COUNTY THAT WE STILL HAVEN'T PAVE YET. 
          WELL, I WOULDN'T MIND IF WE TOOK GREENBELTS OUT COMPLETELY. 
          WELL, I I WASN'T SAYING I WAS, WAS PROMOTING GREEN BELT AT ALL. 
          WE CAN TAKE FUNDS FROM GREENBELT AND PUT IT INTO THE DIRT ROW. 
          WELL THAT'S WHAT, LET, THAT'S FINE. 
          SO WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING TO THE POINT AGAIN OF MOVING MONEY AROUND FROM OPTIONS WITH NOT KNOWING HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE PLAYING WITH YET. 
          UM, SO I'M GONNA TRY TO HONE SOME OF THIS DOWN. 
          UM, YOU GUYS MIGHT AGREE, YOU MIGHT DISAGREE AND WE CAN, WE CAN DEBATE ABOUT THAT. 
          UM, 15 YEARS, 160, UH, $1.6 BILLION DOESN'T SEEM LIKE SOMETHING IT'S GONNA PASS. 
          UM, THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE LONGEST REFERENDUM WE'VE DONE. 
          UM, I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO FUND ALL THESE PROJECTS, BUT WE ARE IN CERTAIN TIMES WHERE WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS COUNTY'S GONNA GO THAT LONG. 
          BUT WE DO HAVE TO GET SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA PASSED IF WE DON'T PASS THIS NOW OR ANOTHER TWO TO FOUR TO SIX YEARS DOWN THE ROAD TO BE ABLE TO TRY THIS AGAIN. 
          SO AS FOR YOU TWO, UM, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT OPTIONS OF FUNDING THAT NEEDS TO GO PLACES. 
          JARED JUST GOT DONE TALKING ABOUT THAT, THE US CORRIDOR PROJECT AND THE TRIANGLE PROJECT THAT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE IT CURRENTLY FULLY FUNDED BY OPTION NUMBER FOUR ALONE, WHICH IS EIGHT YEARS. 
          BUT HE IS SAYING THAT THE, THE STATE OR THE CITY WILL NOT HELP OUT IF WE HAVE IT FULLY FUNDED. 
          SO WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS TO GO GET THAT FUNDING IF PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, IF WE DROP THE US CORRIDOR PROJECT DOWN, IF YOU GUYS WANT TO GO TO OPTION NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IN OUR PACKET IS PAGE 13, IF YOU DROP THAT PROJECT DOWN US 2 78 TO 90 MILLION, THAT GIVES US AN EXTRA A HUNDRED MILLION. 
          IF YOU TAKE THE TRIANGLE PROJECT AND DROP IT DOWN TO 120 MILLION, THAT GIVES US ANOTHER 1 25, WHICH PUTS US AT $225 MILLION. 
          SO RIGHT THERE ON OPTION FOR THE OPTION NUMBER FOUR, THE EIGHT YEAR PLAN, WE HAVE AN EXTRA $225 MILLION TO ALREADY START DISCUSSING. 
          DO WE PUT THAT INTO DIRT ROADS? CAN WE GET SOME MORE FUNDING THERE? DO WE PUT THAT INTO EMERGENCY AND EVACUATION RESILIENCY? UM, IF I'M LOOKING AT EMERGENCY EVACUATION, WE ORIGINALLY ON YOUR 15 YEAR OPTION WAS 90 MILLION, WHICH IS SOMETHING MR. GLOVER JUST DISCUSSED ONLINE, THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING HE SAID HE NEEDED. 
          THAT'S 90 MILLION. 
          WE HAVE THE FUNDS FOR THAT. 
          IF WE REDUCE THOSE TWO OPTIONS AND WE ALSO STILL HAVE THE FUNDS TO INCREASE DIRT ROAD PAVING AND WE STILL HAVE MONEY LEFT OVER. 
          SO YOU THINK WE CAN GET TO 950 MILLION WITHOUT GOING 10 YEARS, BUT RATHER GO EIGHT YEARS WITH THOSE CUTBACKS? I THINK WE COULD, I, IF WE WANT TO APPEASE THAT KNOWING PEOPLE HAD, WE HAD PEOPLE AT 10, WE HAD PEOPLE AT EIGHT, WE COULD GO NINE AND NO ONE SAYS IT HAS TO BE A ROUND NUMBERED. 
          UM, WHERE'S THAT? NO, I'M SAYING YOU'RE WITH EIGHT YEARS AND THOSE CUTS, THAT GIVES US NINE 50, WHICH WAS THE PROJECTION FOR OPTION THREE, JUST ABOUT 7 25 PLUS 2 25. 
          AND IT GETS US RIGHT THERE IN THAT MIDDLE. 
          IF THAT ALL HAPPENS, IF THAT ALL HAPPENS  CORRECT. 
          IF IT PASSES, IT GIVES US THE FUNDS TO BE ABLE TO HIT TWO OF THE BUCKETS WITH THOSE, WITH THOSE, WITH THOSE REDUCTIONS. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN? YES SIR. 
          HEY, THIS, THIS IS MARK AND UH, I'M ONLINE OBVIOUSLY, BUT I JUST WANT TO PUT MY 2 CENTS IN THERE FROM, FROM WHAT I WAS, UH, THINKING AND IT'S NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN, UM, WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR FROM EVERYBODY ELSE. 
          UM, UH, IF, IF I HAD A MAGIC WAND, IT ACTUALLY, UM, UH, HAVE TO DO A TOLL ROAD TO HILTON AND SILVERED HAS, HAS, UH, HELD US UP, UM, TO PAY FOR THE BRIDGE. 
          HOWEVER, I SAY THAT TO JESS, SO, SO PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T 
          [00:45:01]
THINK THAT, UM, I'M SERIOUS. 
          I SAY THAT, BUT AGAIN, IT HAS COST US A LOT MORE NOW WITH A LOT OF THIS MONEY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMING BECAUSE OF IT. 
          BUT, UM, I THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE NAYSAYERS NO MATTER WHETHER WE GO WITH EIGHT YEAR PLAN, 10 YEAR PLAN, 12 YEAR PLAN, A 15 YEAR PLAN IS EVEN THE SAME GROUP OF FOLKS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT, THAT ARE GOING TO COME AFTER US. 
          UM, AND I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS TO TRY TO APPEASE MORE PEOPLE. 
          UH, THE PEOPLE I'VE TALKED TO, UH, AT LEAST IN MY DISTRICT, KNOW THAT, THAT THIS IS NEEDED. 
          THEY KNOW THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A LONG TERM PLAN. 
          WE KNOW WE NEED TO HAVE MONEY THAT THAT'S GONNA BE COMING IN FOR YEAR TO COME BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO SEE, UH, IT BE A PROPERTY TAX EVEN THOUGH WE AREN'T PAYING THE, THE 1 CENT. 
          UM, MYSELF INCLUDED, THE PEOPLE THAT I'VE TALKED TO WOULD RATHER, UH, PAY THE 1 CENT AND THEN HAVE AS MUCH OF THE THIS TAX BE A BURDEN ON THE TOURISTS THAT COME TO VISIT US. 
          SO FOR ME, UM, I WOULD BE FOR THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF YEARS, I THINK AGAIN, WE'RE STILL GONNA GET THAT SAME, UH, ADVERSARIAL GROUP THAT'S GONNA COME AFTER US THAT I THINK IS, IS ON THE MIND DOOR, SOME STUFF ON. 
          UM, SO ANYTHING IN THAT, IN THAT 10 TO 12 TO 15 YEAR TIMEFRAME, UH, IS, IS WHAT I WOULD BE, UH, INTERESTED IN DOING. 
          AND, AND AGAIN, THAT FALLS CLOSE TO WHERE YOU WERE WITH EIGHT OR NINE YEARS. 
          BUT, BUT AGAIN, JUST PEOPLE I'VE TALKED TO, UM, KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          UM, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE ALL, UH, KNOW THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. 
          THANK YOU MARK. 
          UM, WITH WHAT HE SAID AND THE STATEMENTS I MADE, WHAT, WHERE, WHERE CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS? GUYS? WE, WE, WE HAVE TO NARROW THIS DOWN. 
          WE'RE ALL ACROSS THE BOARD RIGHT NOW. 
          I, I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU GUYS, MY MAGIC NUMBER IS I, I'D TAKE NINE. 
          I KNOW IT SOUNDS WEIRD, BUT NINE PUTS US AT $825 MILLION. 
          WE MOVE THAT EXTRA MONEY AROUND THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED. 
          THAT GIVES US EXTRA $325 MILLION. 
          2 25. 
          WELL, WITH THE EXTRA YEAR IT PUTS US TO 3 25 TO FILL SOME OF THESE BUCKETS FOR DIRT ROAD PAVING SAFETY. 
          AND IF HE SAID BEFORE THE SAFETY PROJECTS ALLOWS US TO PUT THAT INTO A LOT OF DIFFERENT AREAS, SHOULD NINE YEARS YEAR TOTAL? YEAH. 
          UH, NINE YEARS PUTS US AT 825 MILLION. 
          NO, IT'S GOTTA BE MORE THAN THAT. 
          'CAUSE YOU HAVE 2 25, YOU SAVED THE OTHER WAY. 
          SO THE OTHER ONE WAS SEVEN 20. 
          THERE WAS ONLY NINE 50 WITH, WITH EIGHT YEARS WITH THOSE SAVINGS. 
          SO NINE YEARS WOULD BE, IT'S 8 29. 
          HE'S GOT IT RIGHT HERE ON THE LIST. 
          NINE YEARS GIVES 8 25. 
          THE ORIGINAL EIGHT YEAR WAS 7 25. 
          8 25 IS NINE YEARS. 
          OKAY. 
          PLUS THE SAVINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          WELL THE SAVINGS IS STILL IN THE BUDGET. 
          WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT MOVING THAT MONEY SOMEWHERE ELSE. 
          SO MONEY, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          OH, I GET IT. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? SO WE'RE JUST HAVING AN EXTRA $325 MILLION TO START FUNDING SOME OF THESE OTHER PROJECTS THAT NEED DONE IN OUR COMMUNITIES. 
          WE'LL REDUCE GREEN BUILD. 
          YOU CAN AND WE CAN, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT AS WELL. 
          'CAUSE I'M WITH YOU ON THE GREEN SPACE. 
          I BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN A GREAT PROGRAM SO FAR. 
          BUT IT'S STILL MAKING MONEY. 
          SO IT'S WELL, IT'S GONNA, IT WAS GOING TO. 
          YEAH. 
          AS LONG AS THEY KEEP INVESTING IN THE WAY THEY HAVE BEEN. 
          YES. 
          I, I'M, UH, I'M IN, UM, AGREEMENT WITH YORK AND UM, AND, AND MARK, UM, WHEN WE HELD THE, UH, COMMUNITY MEETING, UH, AT, AT UH, UH, MY DISTRICT AND UH, AT, UH, BATTLE CREEK HIGH SCHOOL, WE DIDN'T GET ANY, ANY PUSHBACK ON THE 15 YEAR, UH, TERM. 
          UM, THEY WERE JUST, UH, CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING SURE WE GET THE DIRT ROADS IN THERE AND WE GET THOSE PATHWAYS FINISHED. 
          SO, UM, LIKE MARK AND UH, YORK, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE 15 YEAR. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TIME FOR US TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS THEN YOU SAY 15 YEARS. 
          I DID TAB WHERE ARE YOU AT? SO, BUT I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION. 
          ARE WE ELIMINATING THE CAPITAL AS AN OPTION? BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO HALF PENNY CAPITAL, HALF PENNY TRANSPORTATION. 
          NO, FOR 10 YEARS. 
          WE'RE NEVER, WE'RE NEVER GONNA GET A LAW ENFORCEMENT SUMMARY. 
          I, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT IF CHAIRMAN. 
          YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          SO FIRST ALL ON THE CAPITAL EIGHT YEARS IS THE MAX ON THE CAPITAL UH, PENNY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN ON THE CAPITAL, UM, WE DO HAVE A CAPITAL PROJECT, SALES TAX COMMITTEE THAT'S ESTABLISHED AND WE WOULD HAVE TO RECONVENE AND THEN JUST LOGISTICALLY SPEAKING, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BRING FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO COMMITTEE, BACK TO COUNCIL THREE READINGS BEFORE AUGUST 15TH. 
          IT'S DOABLE, BUT WE'D HAVE TO HIT EVERY SINGLE MARK. 
          PLUS THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY PUBLIC EDUCATION ON THAT COMPONENT CORRECT YET. 
          UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER, UM, THERE'S 
          [00:50:01]
OVER THE NEXT YEAR AND A HALF OR TWO YEARS, UM, REGARDLESS WHETHER WE DID A PENNY OR NOT CAPITAL, PENNY OR NOT, WOULD BE THE DESIGN AND PERMITTING PROCESS. 
          AND SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT DONE CURRENTLY. 
          UM, SO REGARDLESS WHETHER YOU DID A CAPITAL PENNY IN 24 OR IT HAS TO BE IN EVEN YEARS FOR CAPITAL PENNY 26. 
          IF YOU DID IT IN 26, THAT HAS TO BE DONE. 
          SO IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO FUND THAT ELSEWHERE, THEN YOU HAVEN'T LOST ANY TIME ON THE FUNDING NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION. 
          SO JUST GOT IT FOR OKAY THEN I'M FOR, I'M AT 10 YEARS, BUT MOVING THE BUCKETS AROUND LIKE GREEN SPACE AND STUFF LIKE WE DISCUSSED. 
          OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS HAS NOT BEEN ADVERTISED AS A WORKSHOP. 
          IT'S ADVERTISED AS A MEETING. 
          SO I ASSUME YOU GUYS ARE GONNA MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. 
          SO I THINK YOU NEED TO FOLLOW YOUR PROTOCOL, WHICH IS ROBERT. 
          SO YOU NEED A MOTION, A MOTION A SECOND AND ALL OF THAT, I'M AFRAID TO SAY. 
          SO WE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS WHERE EVERYBODY STANDS WITHOUT A MOTION OR DO WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION? I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO. 
          I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO BE TAKEN VOTES ON IT. 
          'CAUSE IF YOU'RE GONNA DO THAT, I THINK YOU NEED TO GET A MOTION AND ALL THAT. 
          I DON'T THINK HE'S PICKING BOOKS TOM. 
          I THINK HE'S GETTING FEEDBACK, JUST TRYING TO READ WHERE EVERYBODY'S AT. 
          'CAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE THROWING DIFFERENT NUMBERS ACROSS THE BOARD AS LONG, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT VOTES. 
          YEAH. 
          I JUST THINK WE WOULD STILL NEED A MOTION TO DECIDE WHICH ONE WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD TO. 
          JOE, WHERE ARE YOU AT? UH, I'M TORN BETWEEN 10 AND EIGHT. 
          SO THE SWEET SPOT COULD BE NINE, NINE OR 10 FOR ME. 
          AND THIS IS MY, FROM MY CONSTITUENTS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           THEY WANT EIGHT BUT THEY DON'T WANT EXACT THESE EXACT UH, BUCKETS. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEY AGREE WITH MR. DAWSON. 
          THESE DIRT ROADS NEED TO BE REPAIRED WAY ABOVE THE GREEN BELT AND THE MASS TRANSIT. 
          OKAY. 
          MS. HOWARD? I'M FOR THE 12 BECAUSE OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS NEEDING SOME, UM, 12 OR 15, BUT 12 IS MY SPOT FOR 'CAUSE IT GETS, EVEN IF WE TAKE AWAY FROM SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS, WE STILL NEED TO RIGHT. 
          DO SOMETHING FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES TO GET THEIR VOTES TO. 
          I APPRECIATE ALL I'VE HEARD HERE. 
          UM, AND I THINK I'M GONNA STICK WITH MY NO VOTE. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, ALRIGHT. 
          DALLAS'S COMMENT. 
          YEAH. 
          CHAIRMAN, YOU GOT TWO ONLINE? YEAH, I, UM, I WAS JUST ABOUT TO ASK, UH, MR. GLOVER, ARE YOU STILL STICKING WITH 15, UH, 15 0 12? YES SIR. 
          MR. LAWSON STILL WAS SAYING 12 IS WHAT I HAD HIM DOWN FOR. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM. 
          UM, OBVIOUSLY IF WE'RE GONNA TAKE AWAY SOME OF THE GREEN SPACE, UM, AND THAT CREATES MORE MONEY OTHER PLACES, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT I'VE HEARD PEOPLE TALK ABOUT. 
          THE, THE, THE NINE TO 12 IS, IS SOMETHING I WOULD BE HAPPY TO VOTE FOR AS LONG AS THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS, UM, YOU KNOW, SUCH AS MR. DAWSON MENTIONED THE, THE, UM, UH, DIRT ROADS, UM, HOW THE THINGS ARE TAKEN CARE OF. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, BY DOING THAT, WE COULD, UM, CUT BACK FROM, FROM THE GREEN SPACE. 
          SO I, I AM IN THAT NINE 12 AND I CAN BE SWAYED OR BE, UM, PUSHED TO, TO VOTE IN ANY DIRECTION ON THAT. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          YES SIR. 
          DOES THE 10 YEAR PROGRAM ELIMINATE THE MUNICIPALITIES? YEAH. 
          THE WAY IT IS NOW? IT DOES NOT. 
          OH, NOW IT DOES. 
          YES IT DOES. 
          IT DOES. 
          WELL IT DOES ON THIS PAPER, BUT WE'RE NOT, WE THE REALLOCATED IT COULD BE REALLOCATED. 
          UH, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          I'M LOOKING AT EIGHT YEAR. 
          YEAH, WE FLIP BACK. 
          WELL, DID YOU WEIGH IN? UM, I DID NOT WEIGH IN, BUT I WILL AFTER YOU GUYS ARE DONE. 
          UM, THAT'S NINE. 
          I I'M AT THE NINE TO, UM, NINE TO 10, PREFERABLY NINE. 
          I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE UNDER 10 YEARS. 
          UM, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. 
          UM, I DO NOT HAVE ABILITY TO MAKE THE MOTION AS CHAIRMAN, SO THAT WILL BE UP TO SOMEBODY HERE ON COUNCIL TO DO. 
          I CAN TELL YOU WE HAVE, UM, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE AT THAT 10 OR BELOW RANGE BASED ON WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT. 
          UM, BUT IF WE CAN HAVE SOME TYPE OF MOTION FOR A YEAR, WE CAN START DISCUSSING AND MOVE ON WITH COUNSEL OF WHERE WE ARE GONNA PUT THESE BUCKETS. 
          AND THEN WE WILL HAVE A, A BUDGET SET. 
          I'LL, I'LL TRY A MOTION. 
          I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR A, A 10 YEAR PROGRAM, UH, TO COLLECT SUFFICIENT FUNDS THAT WILL INCLUDE FUNDING FOR, UH, REQUESTS FROM THE MUNICIPALITIES. 
          SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME FOR ME JUST SO I I HEARD EXACTLY WHAT IT 10 YEARS FOR WITH SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO INCLUDE THE, UH, REQUEST FROM THE MUNICIPALITY, THE REQUEST OF THEIR BUCKETS. 
          WELL, OR A REQUEST OF PROJECT. 
          WELL, THEIR PROJECTS NOT, NOT THE BUCKETS TO SIGN OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          'CAUSE THAT MAY BE, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE FLEXIBLE. 
          BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS FROM, UH, UH, HILTON HAD BLUFF IN PORT 
          [00:55:01]
ROYAL BEAUFORT, NORTHERN BEAUFORT COUNTY. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT I, ANY DISCUSSION? UM, I'M FOR THE 10 YEARS, BUT I, I WAS LOOKING AT THIS PROGRAM, I WOULD ELIMINATE THE MUNICIPALITIES THAT CAME UP SEVERAL TIMES. 
          WHAT IS IT? WHAT ARE THEY GONNA DO? WHO'S GONNA CONTROL IT? WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, SO I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THE MOTION. 
          IF WE INCLUDE THAT LARRY'S YOUR MOTION TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE BUCKETS OR WITH THE SPECIFIC LIST OF PROJECTS AHEAD OF TIME. 
          SO WHICH, WHICH YOU'RE REFERRING TO CERTAIN THINGS. 
          WHICH THINGS DO YOU AGREE? WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE AMOUNTS THAT ARE LISTED THERE. 
          TWO IN DOLLARS, BUT RATHER CONSIDERATION FOR PROJECTS FROM THE MUNICIPALITIES. 
          IT WOULD HAVE TO BE RENEGOTIATED, I THINK. 
          BUT WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO LISTEN. 
          IF THERE'S NOTHING THERE FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES, WHY WOULD THEY VOTE FOR IT? , MR. TRUE. 
          I JUST, ANOTHER COMMENT THERE WOULD BE AN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. 
          SO THE MONIES FOR THE CITIES WOULD HAVE OVERSIGHT BY THE CITIZENS' COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITIES. 
          SO TO THAT GIVES OVERSIGHT TO THAT MONEY. 
          IT'S NOT JUST HAND THEM $30 MILLION. 
          YEAH. 
          THE OVERSIGHT, THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE IS PART OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          IS PART OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          AS THE ORDINANCE DRAFTED PRESENTLY, AND LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT, I'M NOT TIED INTO THOSE NUMBERS ON THIS PAGE, BUT SOME CONSIDERATION FOR THINGS, EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE SCALED BACK. 
          SO THOSE NUMBERS MAY EVEN HAVE TO BE SCALED. 
          RIGHT. 
          THE ONLY COMMENT, LEMME ASK YOU THIS, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ADD TO THAT TO SAY, IF, IF WE DO A 10 YEAR PROGRAM, IT REMOVES FUTURE PROJECTS FOR THE COUNTY, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ADD THAT IT ALSO RE REMOVES FUTURE PROJECTS, MEANING NOT CREATING NEW ROADS FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES, IT HAS TO BE MAINTENANCE OR UPGRADES OF EXISTING ROADS. 
          WELL, I I THINK WITHOUT, WITHOUT BEING, UM, PINNED DOWN ON THAT, I THINK THAT'S THE THING THAT HAS TO BE NEGOTIATED. 
          ONE, ONE THING I WOULD OFFER WANNA MAKE THAT PART OF A MOTION AND INSIST THAT THAT'S WHAT WE DO. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          I'M JUST, IF YOU'RE UP FOR A DEBATE IS WHAT I'M SAYING BECAUSE WE'RE ABOUT TO DO THIS AGAIN HERE LATER, . 
          ONE THING I WOULD OFFER IN THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES IS COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING BACK TO COUNCIL, AND THEN COUNCIL IS EITHER GOING TO READ THROUGH IT AS SECOND READING OR A THIRD READING. 
          AND THEN, SO THERE'S A TIME ELEMENT, IF IT'S THE RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMITTEE IS JUST KIND OF GENERIC AND, AND TO BE DETERMINED, THEN WE'RE NOT READY TO HAVE SECOND OR THIRD READING AT A COUNCIL LEVEL UNTIL THAT'S FINALIZED WITH COORDINATION IN THE MUNICIPALITIES. 
          SO HOWEVER YOU WORD THAT, UM, JUST BE AWARE OF THE TIME COMMITMENT THAT WE'VE GOT TO FINALIZE COUNCIL'S WORK. 
          IS THIS 30 MILLION, IS THIS $90 MILLION THAT'S HERE FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS? NO, NOT AS IT'S REFERENCED NOW. 
          IT'S JUST, WELL, YEAH. 
          BUCKET AND THE NUMBER COULD BE FLEXIBLE. 
          YEAH, THE NUMBER COULD BE FLEXIBLE. 
          BUT IF YOU WANT TO GET RID OF THE BUCKET AND LIST SPECIFIC, SAY FOR INSTANCE HILTON HEAD ONE PROJECT OF NOTICE, CINE CIRCLE. 
          IF YOU WANTED TO DO SPECIFIC PROJECTS FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES PARTICULAR, UM, TO BE COORDINATED AND REPLACE THE BUCKETS FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES WITH THE, THEIR PROJECTS, THAT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME TO COORDINATE THAT, UH, TO GET IT BACK TO COUNCIL 10 YEARS. 
          BUT IF YOU LEAVE IT AS, AS KIND OF OPEN-ENDED AND JUST SAY HILTON HEAD AS IT IS AND JUST TWEAK THE, THE NUMBERS, WHETHER IT'S 30 MILLION OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THEN THAT STILL WOULD, WE'D BE FINE AT THAT POINT. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO. 
          OKAY. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, UM, DIDN'T MR. PHILLIPS, THE MAYOR OF PORT ROYAL AND ALSO THE MAYOR OF BEAUFORT, SAY THEY DIDN'T WANT US HAVING OVERSIGHT OF THEIR PROJECTS? CORRECT? DO I REMEMBER THAT? I'VE HEARD TWO MUNICIPALITIES SAY THEY DID NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT WE HAD OVERSIGHT. 
          I DUNNO ABOUT HILTON HAD, IF WE HEARD FROM THEM OR BLUFFING, BUT I HEARD THAT, I DON'T THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE HOW IT WOULD WORK NECESSARILY. 
          WHEN THEY SAID THAT THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, THE WAY THE SCHOOL DOES IT, WHICH WE'RE MODELING AFTER, DOES NOT DETERMINE WHAT GETS PAID. 
          THE SCHOOL BOARD DOES THAT, WHICH MEANS WE WOULD, THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE JUST MONITORS THE PROJECTS, LOOKS FOR OVERRUNS, MAKES SURE WE'RE SPENDING THEM OUTTA THE WAY. 
          THEY'RE NOT GONNA SAY, UH, SEA PINES HAS TO BE, BE DONE. 
          THAT'S NOT WHAT THEIR JOB SHOULD BE. 
          I'M NOT SURE THE MAYORS WOULD NECESSARILY AGREE TO NO MONEY VERSUS SOME OVERSIGHT. 
          I'M JUST POINT. 
          I HEARD THAT WAS EARLY ON. 
          THAT WAS THE FIRST PUBLIC MEETING WHEN THEY SAID THAT. 
          SO, ALRIGHT. 
          WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. 
          UM, LISA WILL NARROW DOWN SOME YEARS AND THEN WE ARE STILL ABLE TO MOVE MONEY AROUND BEFORE WE DECIDE TO MOVE ANYTHING FORWARD TO COUNCIL OR NOT MOVE ANYTHING FORWARD TO COUNCIL. 
          SO, SARAH, CAN I HAVE A ROLL CALL AND CAN WE HAVE THE, UM, MOTION REPEATED SO EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THEY ARE, UM, UM, VOTING ON, I DON'T KNOW IF WE GOT THAT DOWN, TOM, OR DO YOU WANNA HAVE LARRY DO IT AGAIN? I WROTE IT DOWN AS, UH, MOVE, UH, TO SUPPORT 
          [01:00:01]
10 YEAR PROGRAM TO INCLUDE SUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR MUNICIPAL PROJECTS WITHOUT A FURTHER DEFINITION OR EXPLANATION OF WHAT THAT AMOUNT IS OR WHAT PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE DETERMINED IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SARAH, CAN WE TAKE THE ROLL CALL? YES, SIR. 
          VICE CHAIRMAN MCALLEN? YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER HOWARD? YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER RES? NO. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER LAWSON. 
          MARK LAWSON? YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN COUNCIL? NO. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER TABER? NO. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER GLOVER? UH, YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER DAWSON? YES. 
          JEREMY PASSMAN? NO. 
          COMMITTEE CHAIR CUNNINGHAM? NO. 
          THE MOTION FAILS. 
          UH, WE'RE, IT'S FIVE FIVE. 
          FIVE FIVE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER MOTIONS, UM, OR DISCUSSION OF WHY MAYBE THIS ONE DID NOT PASS? WAS IT THE YEARS? WAS IT LANGUAGE? I DON'T THINK WE UNDERSTOOD THE SPECIFICITY OF THE PARTICULAR PROJECTS. 
          UM, I I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A TENURE, YOU HAVE TO PUT IN WHAT CONSTITUTES THE PROJECTS THAT WE WOULD PUT OUT TO THE VOTERS. 
          I DEFINITELY THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD, OUR NEXT STEP WOULD BE DISCUSSING EXACTLY WHAT WOULD THAT THAT WOULD BE RIGHT. 
          UM, AM I ALLOWED TO RECOMMEND, RECOMMEND A MOTION TO SOMEBODY ELSE TO MAKE OR AM I NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT? CAN YOU TRY TO SOLICIT A MOTION? CAN I GET A MOTION THAT SAYS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TAB. 
          YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING WITH IT? YES, MA'AM. 
          I, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO WITH THE 10 YEAR 950 MILLION AND WE WORRY ABOUT THE BUCKETS AFTER WE AGREE ON THE YEARS. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. 
          I'LL SECOND THAT. 
          UH, ANOTHER ROLL CALL IF WE COULD, SARAH, UNLESS THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION. 
          I SEE NO DISCUSSION. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER TABER? YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN? YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER RES? NOPE. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER LAWSON. 
          MARK LAWSON? YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER HOWARD? YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER GLOVER? NO. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER DAWSON? NO. 
          VICE CHAIR MCGILLEN. 
          UM, MAY I HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS, TOM? YES, SIR. 
          UM, DOES THIS EXCLUDE THE MUNICIPALITY FOR CONSIDERATION? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. 
          AS I RIGHT NOW, OR DOESN'T? NO. 
          AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S THE, THE MOTION IS FOR 10 YEARS, UM, AND THE PROJECT TO BE IDENTIFIED AND DISCUSSED IN A BY YOU GUYS NEXT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          SO YOU'RE AGREEING ON THE MONEY ON THE YEARS AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND THE, AND THE PARTICIPANTS. 
          SORRY. 
          OPEN TO ALL THE PARTICIPANTS. 
          OPEN TO ALL PARTICIPANTS. 
          IT'S JUST THE YEAR AND THE MONEY OVER. 
          YES. 
          CHAIRMAN PASSMAN. 
          YES. 
          COMMITTEE CHAIR CUNNINGHAM. 
          YES. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          ALRIGHT, SO CURRENTLY WE ARE AT 10 YEARS 950 MILLION. 
          SO IF I GO BACK, CAN WE PULL THE 10 YEAR UP, UM, THE SLIDE PLEASE? JUST SO WE SEE WHAT WE'RE ALL WORKING WITH HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S SEE IF WE CAN IRON OUT SOME OF THIS STUFF. 
          SO CURRENTLY ON THIS ONE AS WELL, JUST LIKE ON THE EIGHT YEAR WE HAD, I CAN DO THE COMPARISON ON THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE LIST AS WELL THE WAY IT WAS, BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, THAT'S FINE. 
          THAT'LL WORK. 
          THIS IS THE ORIGINAL 15 YEARS ON THE LEFT. 
          AND THIS IS THE, SO PRETEND THAT JUST DO, YEAH. 
          AND JUST DO WORK ON THE NEXT SELL OVER THE NEXT COLUMN OVER AS OPPOSED WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO DO. 
          RIGHT. 
          CHAIRMAN? UM, WITH, I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT TOMORROW. 
          YEP. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M ABOUT TO DO, IS START SEEING WHAT EXCESS MONEY WE HAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ORIGINALLY ON THIS 10 YEAR, WE STILL HAD 190 MILLION FOR THE US CORRIDOR LIKE WE DID BEFORE. 
          IF WE MOVE THAT DOWN TO 90 MILLION, LIKE WE DISCUSSED BEFORE, THAT'S ALREADY AN 
          [01:05:01]
EXTRA A HUNDRED AND MILLION. 
          IF WE GO DOWN TO THE TRIANGLE PROJECT, AGAIN, THAT'S STILL AT 245, LIKE THE EIGHT YEAR PROJECT. 
          IF WE DROP THAT DOWN TO ONE 20, THAT GIVES US AN EXTRA 125. 
          NOW WE STILL HAVE THE GREEN BELTS ON HERE THAT ACTUALLY WENT UP. 
          SO NOW IT'S AT, ON THE 10 YEAR IT'S AT 95 MILLION. 
          IF WE DROP THAT DOWN TO, I'M JUST GONNA THROW A NUMBER OUT. 
          50. 
          WELL, I MET WITH THE MAYORS, JOE DID. 
          SO I'M, I'M JUST, PLEASE, I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO THE FOLLOWING. 
          LET'S NOT ARGUE OVER THE DOLLAR AMOUNT. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          LET'S ARGUE OVER THE PROJECTS WE WANT TO INCLUDE IN THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I'M GONNA MAKE A SUGGESTION YES SIR. 
          THAT THESE BE INCLUDED US 2 78 QUARTER PROJECT. 
          MM-HMM. 
           LADIES ISLAND QUARTER PROJECT. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          YEP. 
          SAFETY AND TRAFFIC FLOW, DIRT ROADS AND RESURFACING PROJECTS, RESURFACING GREEN BELT, THE TRIANGLE, PROJECT RIBO, ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, REBEL SC 46 IMPROVEMENTS, PATHWAYS, MASS TRANSIT, MUNICIPALITIES, AND RESILIENT RESILIENCY EVACUATION. 
          ALRIGHT, SO ACCORDING TO THAT RIGHT NOW, THERE'S TWO THAT WE NEED TO ADD TO THIS LIST, THEN THE RESILIENCY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND IT WAS THE THIRD ONE YOU SAID. 
          I'M SORRY, I DID NOT GET DOWN. 
          MUNICIPALITIES. 
          MUNICIPALITIES. 
          THERE'S ONE MORE THAT YOU SAID. 
          I BELIEVE THAT I DIDN'T GET ON MASS TRANSIT. 
          MASS TRANSIT. 
          THAT'S THERE. 
          10 YEARS AGO. 
          I, I CHANGED, UH OH, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          UH, I CHANGED FUTURE PROJECTS TO SAFETY AND TRAFFIC FLOW. 
          UM, YOU INCLUDED A PROJECTS TO WHAT? FUTURE PROJECTS? I CHANGED THAT TO, UM, SAFETY AND TRAFFIC FLOW. 
          SAFETY'S UP THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          SAFETY PROJECTS ARE UP THERE. 
          SO YOU'RE ADDING TRAFFIC FLOW TO SAFETY PROJECTS? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S JUST ADDING A NAME, UH, TO TRAFFIC FLOW, BUT IT'S SAFETY PROJECTS. 
          OKAY. 
          WHICH IS ALREADY ON THERE. 
          SO THE ONLY ADDITION IS MUNICIPALITIES AND RESILIENCY. 
          RESILIENCY. 
          WHEN YOU SAY MUNICIPALITIES, YOU DON'T WANNA KEEP 'EM LISTED LEFT AND NORTH OF WELL, THAT'S THE MUNICIPALITIES. 
          YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND EVACUATION, RESILIENCY, EVACUATION. 
          THAT WAS RESILIENCY EVACUATION. 
          DO THOSE GO TOGETHER OR ARE THEY SEPARATE? UH, WE COULD, WE HAD 'EM TOGETHER BEFORE WE, YEAH, WE COULD PUT A SUM OF MONEY IN THERE. 
          RESILIENCY AND EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROJECTS. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ALICE, I KNOW YOU WERE VERY BIG ON THAT TO BEGIN WITH AND YOU AND JOE BOTH HAVE BROUGHT IT UP. 
          NOW IS THE ORIGINAL 50 MILLION DO YOU THINK IS ENOUGH OF THAT PROJECT? AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING JARED CAN WEIGH UP ON THAT AS WELL. 
          THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL ON THE 15 YEAR WAS 50 MILLION FOR IT. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          I MEAN, I RELY ON JARED TO TELL US THAT THAT'S FAIR ABOUT RESILIENCY. 
          I'M SORRY IF YOU CAN REPEAT, IT'S 50 MILLION RESILIENCY. 
          50. 
          SO, I MEAN, RESILIENCY, YOU COULD SPEND A LOT OF MONEY THERE BECAUSE WHAT YOU REALLY TALK ABOUT RESILIENCY IS IF YOU HAVE, AND THIS IS JARED RE'S OPINION, IF, IF YOU HAVE A, UH, A CORRIDOR THAT'S GOING ACROSS THE WATER BODY AND IT NEEDS TO BE RAISED JOHN CREEK , UM, THEN, AND IF YOU CAN RAISE IT WITH EARTH, THAT'S THE, THAT'S, BUT THERE MAY BE OPPORTUNITIES WHERE YOU CAN'T RAISE IT WITH EARTH AND IT HAS TO BE A STRUCTURE, THEN IT REALLY SUCKS UP THAT MONEY. 
          REALLY QUICK. 
          QUICK, THERE'S A LOT OF STATE MONEY. 
          THERE'S A WHOLE NEW DEPARTMENT THERE. 
          THERE IS, THERE IS OPPORTUNITIES FOR, UH, GRANT OPPORTUNITIES ON, ON THAT. 
          UM, SO, SO $45 MILLION I THINK IS WHAT WE HAD IN THERE AT ONE POINT. 
          AND I MEAN, IT'S A NEW KIND OF PROGRAM, A NEW THOUGHT, A NEW, EVEN AT THE STATE, THE RESILIENCY BRAND NEW PROGRAM IS BRAND NEW. 
          SO WE DON'T KNOW, THIS IS KIND OF OUR FIRST PASS AT IT. 
          IF COULD USE A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY OR IT COULD USE A LOT OF MINIMUM. 
          SO I KNOW THAT'S NOT A GREAT ANSWER, BUT I THINK WE COULD GO AFTER GRANT MATCHING GRANTS. 
          IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE AN AREA THAT HAS BEEN PRIORITIZED BY THE STATE FOR, UH, TO GRANT CAN, JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THE, THIS IS, UH, THIS PROGRAM IS COLLECTING THE ENTIRE 1% FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, CORRECT? MM-HMM. 
          . 
          YES SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          MM-HMM. 
           FOR ROADS. 
          GOT IT. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, JUST SO EVERYONE SEES THE NUMBERS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN MY HEAD, IT'S JUST THE WAY I WORK. 
          I KNOW SOMETIMES IT'S ALL OVER THE PAPER, BUT I SEE US HAVING EXCESS OF $270 MILLION TO FILL THOSE AREAS. 
          I GET THOSE NUMBERS 
          [01:10:01]
FROM THE A HUNDRED MILLION WE SAVED IN THE US 2 78 CORRIDOR PROJECT. 
          UM, THE 125 MILLION SAVING FROM THE TRIANGLE PROJECT AND THE GREEN BELT'S DROPPING IT FROM 95 DOWN TO 50, WHICH SAVES US 45. 
          IF YOU ADD THOSE THREE NUMBERS UP, THAT'S 270 MILLION OF EXCESS TO FILL THE THINGS LISTED BY MR. PASSMAN AND LARRY. 
          AND THEN I DO THINK WE NEED TO PUT MORE MONEY INTO, WELL, RIGHT NOW, I GUESS WE DO HAVE IT IS, IT IS A HUNDRED MILLION TO RESURFACING PAVE ROADS. 
          UM, BUT WE NEED, IF THESE ARE OUR LISTS, OUR PROJECTS, IF WE'RE AGREEING ON THAT LIST, WE NEED TO START DIVVYING UP THAT EXTRA MONEY. 
          AND MAYBE IT IS BACK IN THOSE, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M JUST SAYING I, I BELIEVE WE CAN WORK WITH THAT TO START FUNDING SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE LISTED. 
          CAN WE PUT PATHWAYS IN? I I WILL OFFER YOU AMOUNTS OF MONEY. 
          YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE FLAG. 
          YOU HAVE TO FILL IN PATHWAYS, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          UM, WHERE ARE WE AT? PATHWAYS IS 50 MILLION CURRENTLY, WHICH WOULD FUND ALL OF EVERYTHING, THE 24 REMAINING WITH AN EXCESS OF 20 MILLION BASED ON THE PROJECTIONS THAT IT WOULD TAKE 30 MILLION TO COMPLETE THE EXISTING PATHWAY PROJECTS. 
          WE'D HAVE 20 MILLION LEFT FOR MORE PATHWAYS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          MY MONEY'S WORTH TODAY. 
          JARED. 
          LET'S DO IT. 
          YEAH, YOU'RE DOING IT. 
          WE'RE GONNA GET THROUGH THIS TODAY. 
          KEEP COME, KEEP YOU'RE DOING GREAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I'M ALL OPEN FOR EARS. 
          I'M ALL FOR YOU GUYS TELLING ME TO KICK ROCKS WITH MOVING MONEY AROUND PERIODS. 
          OH. 
          WHATEVER WORKS. 
          MR. CHAIR, LET'S JUST, LET'S JUST GO DOWN AND SEE WHERE WE'RE AT HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          MR. MR. DAWSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS TO START? I'M GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          TAB? UM, I WENT BACK TO DIRT ROADS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           AND I WOULD GO 50,000 OR 50 MILLION. 
          SORRY. 
          AND, UH, SAFETY 50 MIL, 55. 
          THE WAY IT WAS ON THE CHART, I REALLY BELIEVE IN THE RESILIENCY EVACUATION. 
          I PUT 50 MILLION THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND MASS TRANSIT, WE CAN'T IGNORE IT. 
          UM, IT'S ON THERE FOR 80 MILLION, CURRENTLY 80 MILLION. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA LEAVE THAT ON THERE AND RIDE OAK ROAD. 
          CAN'T IGNORE THAT ONE. 
          THAT WAS 75. 
          IS THAT 75 ENOUGH JARED? YEAH. 
          SO WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS FULLY WHAT REBO ROAD IS GONNA LOOK LIKE. 
          CORRECT. 
          WE'RE STILL GOING THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS. 
          WE JUST KNOW IT'LL TAKE AMOUNT OF MONEY. 
          UM, SO WE ARE SETTING THAT ONE UP FOR FEDERAL FUNDING. 
          SO IT WILL, SO WE SHOULD, OKAY. 
          SO I PUT 50 IN RESILIENCY EVACUATION. 
          AND WHAT'S RESURFACING? WE, I HAVE TO DO THAT ONE 50 THERE AND THOSE WERE ALREADY THERE. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO NEW MONIES ADDED WOULD BE ONLY, YOU'VE ONLY SPENT 50 MILLION OF THE NEW MONIES. 
          SO WE, UH, ON YOURS, SHE, THE ONLY THING SHE ADDED WAS 50 MILLION TO RESILIENCY EVACUATION. 
          SO THAT STILL GIVES US TWO 20. 
          CAN, CAN I BACK CHAIRMAN, CHAIRMAN CUNNING HERE? YES SIR. 
          UM, ONE THING TO NOTE, AS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, UM, ABOUT WHAT PROJECTS ARE FEDERALIZED AND WHAT PROJECTS ARE NOT FEDERALIZED, ONE THING ALSO TO THINK ABOUT IS THE LADIES ALLEN HAS BEEN AT 40 AS WELL AS SC 46. 
          THOSE TWO WILL NOT BE FEDERALIZED IF WE WANT TO BUMP THOSE UP. 
          SO YOU'RE SAYING WE MIGHT NEED TO PUT MONEY INTO THOSE. 
          SO LEMME ASK YOU A QUESTION. 
          IF WE PUT MONEY INTO THOSE AND END UP NOT USING IT BECAUSE THE PROJECT DIDN'T COST THEM UNLESS, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT REMAINING MONEY THEN THAT COMES BACK TO COUNTY. 
          SO IT GETS APPROVED AS THIS IS COMPLETED AND THEN IF THE PROJECT COMES UNDERFUNDED, IF THERE'S LEFTOVER FUNDS, IT COMES BACK TO COUNTY COUNCIL TO BE REALLOCATED TO ONE OF THE PROJECTS OR PROJECTS ON THE APPROVED REFERENDUM. 
          OKAY. 
          LOGAN? YES SIR. 
          CAN I, CAN I GO BACK AND PUT 50,000 FOR THE 24 PATHWAYS ONLY 50,000? YEAH. 
          ONLY 50,000 OR 50 MILLION. 
          50 MILLION. 
          I'M SORRY . 
          UM, YOU CAN, BUT LET ME, LET ME POINT SOMETHING OUT. 
          THIS IS THE QUESTION YOU ASKED JARED EARLIER. 
          IF YOU LOOK TO THE, ARE YOU ON THAT 10 YEAR OPTION? THREE PAGE? IT'S RIGHT HERE. 
          50 MILLION. 
          OKAY, GO AHEAD. 
          THERE IS CURRENTLY ALREADY 50,000,004 PATHWAYS AND 30 MILLION OF THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED TO THOSE 24 PATHWAYS THAT WERE DEEMED NECESSITY BECAUSE OF THE 2018 REFERENDUM. 
          IS THAT GOING TO COMPLETE ALL OF THEM? OR 24? YES SIR. 
          WITH AN EXCESS OF $20 MILLION. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          SO TO GO TOWARDS FUTURE PATHWAY DESIGNS AND IF IT'S EASIER TO REPRESENT, WE CAN SHOW THAT 30 UP TOP AND THEN 20 FOR NEW ONES. 
          LET'S, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          LET'S DO THAT FOR HIM. 
          SO PUT 30 THERE AND DROP THE OTHER PATHWAYS DOWN TO 20. 
          YEP. 
          FOR FUTURES THAT WOULD GREAT. 
          I'LL CLEAR THAT UP. 
          THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, JOE. 
          THAT'S GOOD. 
          ALRIGHT JOE, I'M NOT SURE I HAVE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT NUMBERS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           BUT PUT IN FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES 40 MILLION EACH. 
          THAT'S $120 MILLION. 
          LET'S SEE WHERE THAT PUTS US. 
          ONE 20. 
          [01:15:01]
SO THAT STILL LEAVES US WITH A HUNDRED MILLION. 
          A HUNDRED MILLION. 
          I HAD THE RESILIENCY EVACUATION AT 115 MILLION. 
          115. 
          YEP. 
          WOW. 
          WHAT WOULD THAT BE? IF YOU DO A HUNDRED MILLION, YOU'RE AT THE NINE 50. 
          WELL NOW WE STILL HAVE SOME LEFT OVER 'CAUSE THERE'S ALREADY 20 THERE. 
          WE'D STILL HAVE 20 LEFT OVER IF WE DID THAT. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN? YES MA'AM. 
          UM, ACCESS ROADS BY NOT PUTTING ANY MONEY IN THERE. 
          WHAT, WHAT WOULD, WHAT'S THE DANGER OF NOT PUTTING ANY MONEY IN THERE? YEAH, AND AND REALLY, UM, SO ACCESS ROADS, WHAT THE INTENT THERE AND TECHNOLOGY IS IF WE HAVE UM, A ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT SAYS THIS IS WHERE THE SIGNAL IS EITHER EXISTING OR FUTURE MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND THEN WE HAVE A COUPLE PARCELS THAT NOW HAVE A MEETING IN FRONT OF THEM AND CAN'T GET TO THE SIGNAL AND ACCESS ROAD WOULD BE WORKING TO FIND A WAY FOR THOSE PARCELS TO GET BACK TO THE SIDE STREET AT THE SIGNAL. 
          THAT WAS, THAT'S THE INTENT WITH ACCESS ROAD AND THE TECHNOLOGY. 
          UM, TECHNOLOGY CAN BE EXPENSIVE OR IT CAN KIND OF BE CHEAP AS FAR AS WHAT TYPE OF PROJECTS. 
          BUT A TECHNOLOGY PROJECT WOULD BE, UM, CONNECTING ALL THE SIGNALS WOULD FABRICATE, UH, CONNECTIVITY. 
          AND SO WHAT YOU GET IN A SCENARIO LIKE THAT IS, UM, YOU CAN SQUEEZE A LOT OF CAPACITY OUT BY RETIMING AND RESETTING THE SIGNALS FOR RELATIVE TO WIDENING THE ROAD. 
          IT'S A MUCH LOWER COST. 
          SO TECHNOLOGY SOMETIMES CAN BE A EASY TO INCREASE CAPACITY AND FLOW, UM, AT A RELATIVELY LOW DOLLAR LOWER COST. 
          SO WITHOUT HAVING THAT, THOSE OPPORTUNITIES, UM, WOULDN'T BE FUNDED. 
          OKAY. 
          YES SIR. 
          LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THAT THEN. 
          SO RESILIENCY AND EVACUATION, WHAT ALL CAN BE DONE WITH THAT? BECAUSE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING EARLIER IN YOUR PRESENTATION SAFETY, IT GIVES US MORE OF A RANGE TO USE IT ACROSS THE COUNTY ON MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PROJECTS. 
          CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THOSE ARE DIFFERENT AND HOW THOSE MONIES COULD BE SPENT? BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND, UM, CHAIRMAN PACMAN'S IDEA BEHIND IT, BUT I'M WONDERING IF WE DON'T USE IT AND IT'S SITTING THERE 'CAUSE IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC PROJECT, BUT IF WE PUT IT IN SAFETY NET COULD USE IN THAT SAME WAY LATER ON AS RESILIENCY AND EVACUATION. 
          IT GIVES US MORE FLEXIBILITY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO EVACUATION, UH, AGAIN, THESE ARE, THESE ARE KIND OF BIG IDEAS. 
          THEY'RE NOT FINALIZED AND THE DETAILS AREN'T, BUT SO EVACUATION IS OUR MAJOR ROUTES GETTING OUT OF BEAUFORT COUNTY AND THE OF A STORM. 
          WHAT ROADS ARE WE USING? AND THOSE ARE ALREADY SET BY DOT. 
          THESE ARE OUR EVACUATION ROUTES. 
          NOW WE MIGHT HAVE SOME MORE LOCAL ROUTES THAT FEED TO THE EVACUATION ROUTE THAT WE COULD STILL CONSIDER FOR TYPES OF IMPROVEMENT. 
          UM, BUT UH, AN EXAMPLE IS, I KNOW COUNCILMAN GLOVER TALKS ABOUT CHOW AND CREEK. 
          SO IF WE NEEDED TO WIDEN CHOW AND CREEK BRIDGE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AT LEAST FOUR LANES TO PASS THROUGH THAT ONE DIRECTION TO ALL THE SEA ISLANDS, THAT WOULD BE AN EVACUATION ROUTE IMPROVEMENT. 
          OR MAYBE WE NEED TO WIDEN A SECTION FROM TWO LANES TO THREE LANES TO ALLOW THAT, UM, ACCIDENT TO GET AROUND. 
          UM, RESILIENT. 
          SO THERE WOULD BE LIMITED ROADS OF WHICH EVACUATION WOULD BE UTILIZED ON THE FUNDS, COULD BE UTILIZED ON RESILIENCY THOUGH, COULD BE USED ON REALLY ANY LOW LYING ROADS. 
          NOW WE HAVE A LOT OF LOW LYING AREAS WITHIN THE COUNTY, BUT WE ALSO HAVE AREAS THAT THAT DON'T FLOOD. 
          2 78 DOESN'T FLOOD. 
          NOW 2 78 IS PROBABLY A POOR EXAMPLE BECAUSE IT IS AN EVACUATION ROUTE. 
          BUT, UM, ANYWAY, SO THERE'S ROADS THAT DON'T FLOOD EVEN THOUGH WE ARE IN A LOW LYING COUNTY. 
          UM, BUT THERE ARE AN AWFUL LOT OF ROADS THAT ARE LOW LYING ROADS THAT DO FLOOD. 
          AND SO, UM, SAFETY, UM, BACK TO CHOW AND CREEK. 
          AND AS A, AS AN EXAMPLE, IF WE'RE HAVING ISSUES WITH CHOW AND CREEK BECAUSE OF, UM, THERE'S REPETITIVE CRASH INCIDENTS THERE OR WE WANT TO BE AHEAD OF THAT, THEN IT COULD BE ATTRIBUTED. 
          THE INTENT WITH ALL THOSE PROGRAMS IS TO, UH, BE AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. 
          SO YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE EVERY TIME WE WANT TO DO A PROJECT. 
          YOU SAID, HEY, IF WE CREATE A PRIORITY LIST THAT HAS CERTAIN FACTORS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO, TO COUNTY COUNCIL, UM, AND THEN WHEN WE HAVE PROJECTS THAT ARE REQUESTED TO BE FUNDED AND WE FILTER THOSE THROUGH OUR PRIORITY LIST AND IF SAFETY HAS CERTAIN ELEMENTS, THEN IT, IT COULD BE ON AN EVACUATION ROUTE OR IT COULD NOT, DEPENDING ON IF IT NEEDS THIS. 
          SO IT COULD BE USED ON THAT WAS GONNA BE MY CORRECT. 
          IT CAN BE USED ON AN EVACUATION ROUTE. 
          YEAH. 
          SAFETY COULD BE USED ON ANY ROUTE. 
          SMALL, BIG, UM, THROUGHOUT COUNTY AND COUNTY. 
          COULD BE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, TRAFFIC LIGHT RIGHT OF WAYS. 
          TURNS, PATHWAYS, PATHWAYS POTENTIALLY. 
          AND WOULD YOU BE OPEN 
          [01:20:01]
TO FLOPPING THAT THEN MR. PASSMAN? SURE. 
          UM, TO FINISH OUT THE NINE 50, AS WE SAID, SINCE THE LOCAL PROJECTS ARE 46 AND LADIES ISLAND, I WOULD MOVE UP THE LADIES ISLAND PROJECT TO 70 MILLION AND THE SC 46 TO 50 MILLION THAT GIVES YOU THE 950 MILLION. 
          WHERE ARE THEY AT? BUT DO WE NEED THAT BEFORE WE DO THAT? YEAH. 
          SO IS THAT TOO MUCH THOUGH, JARED? YEAH. 
          WHAT WOULD YOU THINK, MR. PAT, WHAT WOULD YOU THINK OF 10 ON EACH TO GIVE IT THE EXTRA 10 MILLION BUFFER. 
          AGAIN, THE WHOLE IDEA IS 10 YEARS GIVES US $950 MILLION. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT WE COULD STILL PUT THAT MONEY INTO ONE OF THESE OTHER ONES WHEN WE GET AROUND. 
          I'M JUST FILLING THE BUCKETS OUT SO WE HAVE ALL NINE. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          50. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW IF WE ARE, IF WE ARE IN AGREEMENT YEAH, THAT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY GETS A PIECE OF THE PIE YEAH. 
          ACROSS THE COUNTY. 
          RIGHT? CAN WE GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT IN THERE TO HIT THE NINE 50 THEN AND THEN WE CAN WELL WE'VE STILL GOT THIS WHOLE OTHER SIDE OVER HERE TOO THEN. 
          WE'LL, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          WE'RE JUST GETTING TO THE NINE 50 THEN. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO PUT SOUTH CAROLINA 46 FROM 20 TO 50 AND LADIES ISLAND GOES TO 70. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO PUT THIS AT NINE 50. 
          THAT'S NINE, THAT'S NINE 60. 
          SOMEHOW THIS TAKE 10 OFF. 
          OH YEAH. 
          IT'S LADIES ISLAND. 
          YOU WENT UP 30 ON LADIES ISLAND. 
          IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 60 40. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          I HAVE 40. 
          YEAH. 
          UP TO ALRIGHT, MR. MCALLEN. 
          OH YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          I'M, UH, COMFORTABLE WITH THE NUMBERS. 
          I WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND THE MUNICIPALITIES COME IN AT THE 12 YEAR, UH, NUMBER OF 30, WHICH WAS A REDUCTION FROM THE 15 OF 50. 
          BUT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE 40. 
          I I CAN LIVE WITH THAT. 
          I HAVE NO OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          THAT WAS THE E EVERYTHING ELSE UH, SUITS ME JUST FINE. 
          IF YOU DID THE 30, WHERE WOULD YOU PUT THAT OTHER 30 FUTURE PROJECTS? WELL, I WOULD, I WOULD LEAVE THAT AVAILABLE FOR OTHERS. 
          I WASN'T, I WASN'T GONNA PUT IT ANYWHERE. 
          I MEAN, I'M GONNA AGREE WITH THIS. 
          THREE MORE PEOPLE HERE FROM WHAT'S THAT? I'M AN AGREEMENT ON YOU. 
          THE TWO. 
          HONESTLY, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU. 
          30. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL I, I MEAN THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO PUT UP THERE BECAUSE THAT IS THE MR. ROBINSON, YOU'RE ON THE COMPUTER, RIGHT? 12 YEARS. 
          YES SIR. 
          ONTO THE FAR RIGHT OF THE BLUFFTON, NORTH OF THE BROAD AND HILTON HEAD PROJECTS NEXT TO THE RIGHT OF YOUR EX. 
          CAN YOU JUST PUT A 30 ON ALL THREE OF THOSE HERE? YEAH. 
          AND THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT, SO THAT GIVES US AN EXCESS NOW IN THE 12 YEAR PROGRAM. 
          30 MILLION SOMEWHERE ELSE AS WELL, RIGHT? AND THIS ONE? YES SIR. 
          IF YOU COULD PLEASE IT GIVES US AN EXCESS OF 30 MILLION. 
          OKAY. 
          QUESTION. 
          ANYTHING ELSE MR. MCKELLEN? NO, NO, I'M GOOD MS. BROWN. 
          OKAY, SO I'M JUST REITERATE WHAT MY DISTRICT WANTS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          THEY WANT THE 2 78. 
          THEY WANT LADIES ISLAND HIT, HIT. 
          OKAY. 
          THE TRIANGLE. 
          MM-HMM. 
           REVO ROAD. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          SOUTH CAROLINA 46. 
          SAFETY, DIRT ROADS, PATHWAYS. 
          AND THAT ONLY COMES OUT TO UM, IF YOU HAD THE, YOU HAVE THE RESURFACING. 
          THAT WASN'T ONE OF THOSE, BUT IF YOU HAD THAT COMES OUT TO 950. 
          SO BASICALLY EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT IS EXACTLY OPTION TWO. 
          SO YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT. 
          VERY. 
          MR. ROBINSON, CAN WE JUST QUESTION FOR EYES FOR A SECOND? I'M COMING BACK, I PROMISE. 
          YEAH. 
          CAN WE FLIP THOSE ONES? MR. PASSMAN SAID HE AGREED THAT THAT'D BE OKAY. 
          THE SAFETY TO A HUNDRED MILLION AND RESILIENCY TO 55. 
          IT GIVES US MORE FLEXIBILITY TO WHERE TO USE THOSE FUNDS AND THEN RESILIENCY EVACUATION OF 55. 
          THANK YOU SIR. 
          MY TURN FINE. 
          YES MA'AM. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          UM, I THINK SAFETY IS A BIG BUCKET, WHICH I'M FINE WITH THAT. 
          AND I THINK TECHNOLOGY CAN BE INCLUDED BECAUSE IF YOU COORDINATE THE LIGHTS FOR INSTANCE, IT'S A SAFETY THING AND YOU, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE COULD, THAT'S AN OVER ENCOMPASSING, UH, BUCKET. 
          SO I'M GOOD WITH LEAVING IT, INCREASING IT TO A HUNDRED MILLION. 
          UM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO EDUCATE SOME PEOPLE ABOUT WHY WE REDUCE GREEN BELT, BUT I THINK THAT CAN BE DONE, UM, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE STILL GOING ON. 
          AND THEN, UM, RESILIENCY AND EVACUATION, UM, AND PATHWAYS. 
          UM, I WISH WE COULD PUT MORE IN PATHWAYS, BUT I THINK THAT'LL DO IT. 
          OKAY. 
          MS. HOWARD, LEMME ASK YOU THIS. 
          [01:25:01]
UM, OFF TO THE RIGHT THERE, WE, IF WE REDUCE THE PROJECTS FROM MUNICIPALITIES BY 10 MILLION EACH, THAT GIVES YOU AN EXTRA 30. 
          WOULD YOU WANT TO PUT THAT INTO THE BUCKET OF TECHNOLOGY AND ACCESS ROADS? NO, I DON'T. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE STILL HAVE THAT ACCESS. 
          I THINK TECHNOLOGY AND ACCESS ROADS WE CAN INCLUDE IN SAFETY AND JUST THINK BROADLY. 
          YEAH. 
          TOM, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANKS JAR. 
          WITH THE H HILTON HEAD PROJECT, THE 40 OR 30 MILLION, HOW MUCH OF THAT WILL BE FOR THE C PINE CIRCLE? I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY. 
          UM, THEY'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH WHAT THE, THE DESIGN, I MEAN WHETHER THAT WOULD BE A, A GO BACK TO A TRADITIONAL INTERSECTION OR A OVERPASS OR A IMPROVED ROUNDABOUT. 
          SO HAVE THEY SHARED WITH YOU ANY NUMBERS ON WHAT THAT, WOULD THAT CHOP UP IN THAT? NO. 
          I, I THINK, THINK, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY IN A 10 TO $25 MILLION PROJECT DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. 
          I MEAN, IT COULD BE, YEAH, THAT'S AS FAR AS, I MEAN IT'S VERY CONCEPTUAL WHAT THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING AT SO FAR. 
          SO THIS, THE 40 OR 30 IS NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR SEA PINES, IT'S FOR HILTON HEAD AND THEN THEY DOLL IT OUT AS THEY SEE FIT. 
          YEAH, THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE A LIST OF PROJECTS. 
          UM, THEY PROBABLY MORE THAN THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE A KIND OF CIP FOR ROAD PROJECTS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO ACHIEVE. 
          AND SO THEY HAVE PLENTY ABUSES TO SPEND THAT FUNDING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, MR. DAWSON, YOU SAID YOU HAD A QUESTION EARLIER? YES, SIR. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, WE'VE BEEN PAVING, UH, DIRT ROADS IN THE COUNTY NOW FOR THE LAST 12, 15 YEARS AND WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF UNPAID ROAD. 
          UH, WE STARTED THIS, UH, DRAFT WITH 180 MILLION FOR DIRT ROAD PAVING. 
          UM, AND WE HAVE SUGGESTED 50 MILLION. 
          WHY DON'T WE INCREASE THAT TO ANOTHER 50, GIVE IT A HUNDRED AND, UM, THAT WOULD GET JARED, WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD GET US? A HUNDRED MILLION WOULD GET US AS FAR AS TRYING TO COMPLETE THE BALANCE BEFOREHAND? JARED, MR. DAWSON, IT'S STILL AT A HUNDRED MILLION CURRENTLY. 
          THEY JUST SPLIT IT UP. 
          WELL, SO NO, IT'S AT, IT'S A HUNDRED MILLION. 
          IT WAS A BUCKET TOGETHER. 
          DIRT ROADS AND RESURFACING AND RIGHT NOW THEY'RE PRIORITIZED EQUALLY. 
          AND SO IT'S AT 50 MILLION CURRENTLY IS WHAT IT'S SHOWN AS. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY, BUT IT WOULD GET US A LOT FURTHER. 
          SO, UM, IT'S, WE HAVE 70 MILES OF DIRT ROAD TO BE PAVED AND WE HAVE ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR THAT'S COMING THROUGH OUR TAG FUND THAT WE PUT TOWARDS IT. 
          BUT AS DISCUSSED EARLIER ON 2 78, WHAT'S BEEN EATING AWAY AT OUR, UH, HOW FAST WE'RE DOING IT IS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 
          SO WE WERE GETTING MORE AND DIRT ROADS. 
          IT'S GONNA TAKE US A WHILE TO, TO ACHIEVE ALL THE DIRT ROADS IN BEAUFORT COUNTY TO BE PAVED. 
          UM, BUT THE, THE SLOWER WE DO IT, THE HIGHER THAT WE'RE SEEING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OUTPACE HOW FAST WE'RE, IF OUR MONEY HAS BASICALLY BEEN CONSTANT AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS GOING FASTER. 
          SO IF WE PUT MORE MONEY TOWARDS THAT EQUATION, UM, THAT'LL HELP US STAY WITH THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND FINISH THAT SOONER. 
          I KNOW THAT'S A ROUNDABOUT ANSWER. 
          30. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          BUT THEN THAT HAVEN'T BEEN SAID, TAKE, TAKE 10 IS AN EXTRA 30 FROM EACH OF THOSE AND MAKE IT 89. 
          IT'S 80. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO CAN WE DROP THE MUNICIPALITIES DOWN TO 30 ON THE, UM, 80 MM YEP. 
          AND THEN DROP THOSE DOWN TO 30. 
          WHERE ARE WE ADDING, I'M SORRY, UH, TO DIRT ROAD PAVING. 
          IS THIS 30 MILLION GOING INTO DIRT ROAD TO MAKE IT 80 FROM 50? YEP. 
          AND YOU'RE STILL AT THE 9 50 50? IT SHOULD BE AT THE NINE 50 AT THAT POINT. 
          SURE. 
          UM, YEP. 
          AWESOME. 
          JARED, DO YOU THINK TO ANSWER IT HELPS TO MR. DAWSON'S QUESTION? I KNOW YOU CAN'T GIVE A YES OR NO, BUT IS 80 MILLION GONNA GET US THERE? IT GETS US ALONG WITH OUR OTHER FUNDING SOURCE WE HAVE. 
          YEAH. 
          IT GETS US REALLY CLOSE. 
          UM, WHAT I DON'T WANNA SIT HERE AND SAY EITHER THOUGH IS THAT IT'S GONNA PAVE EVERY DIRT ROAD. 
          IT'S GOING TO PAVE EVERY DIRT ROAD, NOR WILL WE HAVE ALL THE DIRT ROADS PAVED IN EIGHT YEARS. 
          SO IT WOULD BE THE FUNDING MECHANISM TO, TO GET THE PROJECTS OUT OF THE DOOR. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          BUT, UM, THAT LEVEL OF PROJECTS, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CONTRACTORS TO SPEND TO BUILD $80 MILLION OR WE HAVEN'T HISTORICALLY $80 MILLION WORTH IN IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME. 
          WE HAVEN'T. 
          UH, BUT ALL THAT SAYS IS IT WILL GET US VERY CLOSE, UM, A LOT CLOSER THAN WE ARE TODAY. 
          UH, AND THAT IS A BIG CAVEAT. 
          IF WE DON'T TAKE OTHER ROADS, IF WE HAVE OUR ROAD INVENTORY IS, IS WHERE IT IS TODAY, THE STATUS QUO. 
          IF WE DON'T THINK OF ONE. 
          ALL RIGHTY, WE'LL PUT A MORATORIUM ON NOT ACCEPTING 
          [01:30:01]
ANY OF THE RULES INTO THE COUNTY. 
          SECOND. 
          HEY LOGAN, THIS IS MARK. 
          YES SIR. 
          HEY, I JUST, JUST WANT TO PUT MY 2 CENTS IN PLEASE. 
          I THINK, UM, THE COMPROMISE WE HAVE COME TO IS ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD COMPROMISE. 
          UM, IF I HAD MY CHOICE, I I WOULD'VE PROBABLY LEFT MORE IN MUNICIPALITIES AS JOE HAD MENTIONED EARLIER. 
          HOWEVER, I'M, I'M WILLING TO, UM, LET THAT GO AND MOVE THE MONEY AROUND LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. 
          I THINK THE MORE MONEY WE GIVE THE MUNICIPALITIES, THE MORE SUPPORT WE'LL GET. 
          BUT YEAH, I AM FINE WITH, UM, THE, THE, THE CURRENT, UM, SLOTS WE HAVE FOR, FOR MONIES, UM, UH, AND WHERE THEY'RE ALLOCATED. 
          ALRIGHT, SO WHEN WE EXPLAIN THIS TO THE PUBLIC, HOW ARE YOU GONNA EXPLAIN 2 78 AND THE TRIANGLE DROPPED OFF? BECAUSE REMEMBER WE ALREADY TOLD THEM ONE 90 AND 2 45. 
          SO YEAH, WE ALSO TOLD, I MEAN THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED BEFORE, BUT THOSE WERE ALSO ROUGH NUMBERS. 
          THAT'S WHY WE HAVEN'T PASSED ANYTHING OUT TO THE PUBLIC. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , THIS IS A VERY OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS. 
          WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS IN FRONT OF EVERYONE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT. 
          WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW ARE WE GONNA HELP THE ENTIRE COUNTY. 
          THIS ISN'T A PROJECT FOR ONE GROUP, ANOTHER GROUP. 
          THE HILTON HAD BLUFFTON. 
          THIS IS A PROJECT FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY AND I ALSO THINK IT SHOWS, WE DISCUSSED IT HERE THAT THE STATE IS INTERESTED IN THESE PROJECTS AS WELL. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE HOPING THEY COME THROUGH. 
          YEAH. 
          AND WE DIDN'T, IF NOT WE HAVE ANOTHER PLAN FOR IT. 
          WE, WE DIDN'T DROP IT, UM, FROM THE INITIAL, WE'VE INCREASED IT FROM THE INITIAL, UM, WE'VE JUST DROPPED IT SINCE THE LAST TWO WEEKS. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND, AND THAT'S BEEN BASED OFF DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THE STATE. 
          UM, AND, AND DOT ACTUALLY IF YOU, IF YOU GO BACK TO IT, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          THE FIRST ONE WE EVER, WE VOTED ON THE FIRST TIME BEFORE WE SENT IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE, WE ONLY HAD 60 MILLION FOR THE US 2 78. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND WE HAD THE TRIANGLE PROJECT AT A HUNDRED MILLION HUNDRED MILLION, WHICH WE ARE AT THE TRIANGLE NOW AT ONE 20. 
          SO WE ACTUALLY ADDED 20 MILLION AND ADDED 60 MILLION TO THOSE PROJECTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET COMPLETED AND HOPEFULLY MAKE THAT MORE PALABLE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO KICK IN AND HELP TO GET IT, GET THIS DONE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE I UM, HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS? UM, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT COMPROMISE. 
          TIME FOR MOTION. 
          YEP. 
          I THINK THIS IS A GREAT COMPROMISE TO GET THIS DONE ACROSS THE COUNTY. 
          I'M GLAD WE GOT THE YEARS IRONED OUT. 
          HOPEFULLY YOU KNOW THE REST OF THE LEGISLATION, THE STATE AND THE MUNICIPALITIES WILL BACK THIS UP AS WELL. 
          UM, WHETHER THAT'S OUR REPRESENTATIVES IN THE MUNICIPALITIES OR FOR US REPRESENTING AT THE STATE LEVEL. 
          UM, I WILL SAY MY ONLY CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS WE CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE ANY LANGUAGE, UM, THAT PROHIBITS NEW ROADS, WHICH BLUFFTON IS GOING TO FIGHT IF WE JUST GIVE A BUCKET OVER. 
          SO WE NEED TO BE CLEAR OF HOW BEFORE WE GO TO VOTE TO COUNCIL HOW THAT 30 MILLION CAN BE USED IN BLUFFTON. 
          I HAVE NO PROBLEM GIVING THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE MONEY 'CAUSE I THINK THEY HAVE, THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB IN BLUFFTON. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT ON THERE THAT SAYS NO FIVE B LEFT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS REFERENDUM. 
          I'M JUST BEING HONEST, IT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN MY AREA AND PAULA'S AREA AND PROBABLY YOUR AREA AS WELL. 
          TAB. 
          SO SO YOU'RE SAYING WE HAVE TO INCLUDE NO FIVE B AGAIN? I AM NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY MOTIONS AS CHAIRMAN. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT UM, I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY OTHER DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE. 
          WE HAVE TO SAY NO FIVE A MY CONSTITUENTS DON'T WANT THIS REFERENDUM JUST LIKE MR. REESE DOES. 
          BUT THEY, THEY WENT AHEAD AND GAVE ME THEIR OPTIONS AND OPTION THREE WAS THE BEST OPTION FOR THEM. 
          SO YOU KNOW THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS IN NOVEMBER THE TAXPAYER WILL VOTE YES OR NO ON HIS REFERENDUM. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE DO. 
          CORRECT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS OR MOTIONS TO BE MADE? SO I'LL MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT MOTION AND THAT WOULD BE, THERE IS NO MOTION. 
          OH, I THOUGHT YOU MADE A MOTION. 
          WELL THE MOTION WAS FOR 10 YEARS. 
          MOTIONS FOR 10 YEARS. 
          AND THAT, THAT'S BEEN ADOPTED NOW. 
          CORRECT? WE WE'VE FILLED IN THE BUCKETS. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          SO THAT WAS SO YOU CAN MOTION. 
          SO NOW WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE 10 YEAR REFERENDUM TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS. 
          YES. 
          SO I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. 
          BUT IT ALSO HAS THAT KEPT THAT OVER. 
          WHAT? HUH? SOMEBODY ON HONOR THAT YOU'RE GOOD. 
          OH, SO I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. 
          10 YEAR REFERENDUM AND IT INCLUDES THE BUCKETS WE'VE IDENTIFIED AND WE NEED TO FUNDS THE FUNDS. 
          BUT WE NEED TO TELL BLUFF AND NO FIVE B AND WITH A CAP 10 YEAR AT WHAT CAP? I THINK YOU CAN SAY MOTION. 
          WELL, SO, SO OTHERWISE THEY CAN DO I THINK WHAT YOU, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY AND UM, IS 10 YEARS OF, OR WE ALREADY HAVE THE 10 YEARS AND THE 950 THE PROJECTS AS IDENTIFIED AND 
          [01:35:01]
UNDER THE MUNICIPAL PRO PROJECT SPECIFIC TO BLUFFTON, THAT FIVE B IS NOT EXCLUDED. 
          IT IS FIVE B IS EXCLUDED. 
          EXCLUDED AS A PROJECT FIVE B IS EXCLUDED AS A PROJECT SAYING. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL? LET'S TAKE ONE SARAH, JUST TO BE SAFE IF WE COULD. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER . 
          YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER HOWARD? YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER RE NO. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER LAWSON. 
          MARK LAWSON? YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN? YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER GLOVER. 
          UH, I'M GONNA VOTE YES BECAUSE THIS 10 YEARS, UH, IS  WAS TWO YEARS AGO. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER DAWSON? YES. 
          VICE CHAIR MCALLEN? YES. 
          CHAIR PASSING THAT. 
          YES. 
          COMMITTEE. 
          YES. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          ALRIGHT, SO NOW WE HAVE SET FUNDING. 
          WE HAVE A SET YEARS, A CAP AMOUNT AS WELL AS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IF WE DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD TO COUNTY COUNCIL WHERE THOSE FUNDING SOURCES WOULD BE ALLOCATED TO. 
          UM, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE PUBLIC AS WELL THAT THIS WOULD, IF THIS IS PASSED IN NOVEMBER, IT GOES WELL THERE'S GONNA BE A GAP THERE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE PENNY, UM, GREEN SPACE REFERENDUM DROPPING OFF BEFORE THIS WOULD GO IN. 
          SO OUR SALES TAX WOULD ACTUALLY REMAIN THE SAME WHEN THIS GOES INTO EFFECT. 
          IT WOULD STAY AT THE SAME PERCENTAGE WE HAVE NOW. 
          SO NOW WE WOULD JUST NEED TO KNOW IF WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO SEND THIS FORWARD TO COUNTY COUNCIL FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 
          YEP. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND WE HAVE A MOTION. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT A TAB AT THE SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? CAN THIS BE DONE WITH NO OBJECTION TO SEND FORWARD TO COUNTY COUNCIL. 
          AMEN. 
          AND I SEE NO OBJECTION. 
          THIS WILL MOVE FORWARD TO COUNTY COUNCIL FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND THAT ACTUALLY LEAVES US WITH NO OTHER OPTION. 
          UM, AGENDA ITEMS HERE TODAY FOR THIS COMMITTEE. 
          I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS COMING OUT. 
          UM, I BELIEVE THERE IS ANOTHER MEETING AT ONE O'CLOCK. 
          YEP. 
          UM, LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU GUYS THERE. 
          WE ARE ADJOURNED. 
          THANK YOU.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.