* 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] THE UNITED, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WHICH STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, LIBERTY FOR AND JUSTICE. AND, UM, DO WE HAVE [3. Adoption of the Agenda] AN ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA, UH, MOVE FOR ADOPTION? AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SECOND THAT, BUT I'M MOVING MY GAVEL OFF TO THE SIDE SINCE I DON'T HAVE ANYONE TO TURN IT OVER AS I SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY. AND THE SAME WITH THE [4. Approval of the Minutes - April 21, 2025] APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 21ST, 2025. MOVE FOR APPROVAL. SECOND. AND ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY. TYPICALLY, OUR NON AGENDA, PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, IS AT THE END OF OUR MEETINGS. BUT BECAUSE, UM, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF YOU HERE TODAY AND NOT WANTING TO ASSUME THAT YOU ARE ALL HERE FOR SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA AND MAY HAVE OTHER THINGS YOU'D LIKE TO GET TO, UM, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO HAS ANY COMMENTS NOT RELATED TO ANY AGENDA ITEM TODAY? OKAY. CURTIS. CURTIS DOES. HI, CURTIS. IT'S ON. YOU WOULD NEED TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO DO THAT. OKAY. UM, WELL, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTED TO COMMENT, SO I'M JUST GONNA GO BACK TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. NO ANSWER. YES, . ALL RIGHT. UNDER NEW BUSINESS, WE HAVE A [5.a. Consideration of an Ordinance of the Town of Hilton Head Island to Amend Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code, the Land Management Ordinance, to Amend the Traffic Impact Analysis Plan Requirements and Traffic Analysis Standards in Land Management Ordinance Sections 16-2-103, 16-5-106 and Appendix D, and Providing for Severability and an Effective Date - Missy Luick, Director of Planning] CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND TO AMEND CHAPTER 16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE LAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, TO AMEND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS STANDARDS IN THE LAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE THAT MAY HAVE SKIPPED A LINE, SECTION 16 2 1 0 3, 16 5 1 0 6, AND APPENDIX D AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. AND MISSY LUECK, OUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, IS HERE TO PRESENT THAT TO US. MORNING MISSY. THANK YOU. UM, I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH OUR STAFF REPORT AND, UM, LET'S GET THIS MOUSE CLOSER BY. OKAY. UM, SO YES, BEFORE YOU IS AN AMENDMENT TO OUR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PLAN REQUIREMENTS, AND, UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 16TH. UM, AND AFTER THEY REVIEWED THE AMENDMENT, THEY MADE, UH, A UNANIMOUS, UH, RECOMMENDATION THAT TOWN COUNCIL APPROVE THIS PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT. AS YOU'RE AWARE, THESE TEXT AMENDMENTS ARE PART OF OUR GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY THAT'S PART OF THE TOWN'S STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN. UM, AND THE TEXT AMENDMENT PROCESS OR THE, THAT PROCESS IS TO AMEND OUR CODE IN TWO PARTS, BOTH THE FULL CODE AMENDMENT AND THE PRIORITY AMENDMENTS, OF WHICH THIS IS A PRIORITY AMENDMENT. LAST SEPTEMBER, WE HAD A TOWN COUNCIL WORKSHOP IN WHICH WE REVIEWED, UM, THE PRIORITY AMENDMENTS WITH COUNCIL, AND WE HEARD THE FOLLOWING, UH, DIRECTION RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS. ONE WAS TO CHANGE THE NAME FROM TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TO TRANSPORTATION TO REFLECT A MORE MULTIMODAL APPROACH, MEANING THAT ALL USERS OF THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ARE CONSIDERED INCLUDING VEHICLES, PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLES, TRANSIT, ET CETERA. UM, ALSO TO REDUCE THE THRESHOLD, UH, DEVELOPMENT NEEDS IN ORDER TO MEET THE, THE THRESHOLD OR THOSE TRIGGER REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH A PLAN. SO, UM, RIGHT NOW IT'S 100 PEAK HOUR TRIPS, AND IT IS PROPOSED TO BE REDUCED TO 50 PEAK HOUR TRIPS. ALSO TO INCLUDE MULTIMODAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PLAN ANALYSIS. THAT MEANS, AGAIN, BIKE PATHS, SIDEWALKS TRANSIT, UM, INCLUDED IN THE PLAN DOCUMENT ITSELF. UM, INCLUDE MORE IMPACT MITIGATION OPTIONS SO THAT THERE IS AN EXPANDED LIST OF, UH, MITIGATION SHOULD MITIGATION BE REQUIRED AS A RESULT OF THE PLAN'S ANALYSIS. ALSO, TO CLARIFY THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER APPROVAL IS THE TOWN ENGINEER INSTEAD OF THE LMO OFFICIAL, AS THIS IS A HIGHLY SPECIALIZED, UH, SECTION OF THE CODE. AND ALSO TO ADD UNSIGNED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD, INCLUDING MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND REMOVE THE DISCOUNTING IMPACTS OF BACKGROUND TRAFFIC, WHICH MEANS THE TRIPS THAT ARE GENERATED BY PREVIOUSLY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. UM, THE STAFF REPORT OUTLINES A SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENT AS WELL AS A SECTION, UH, OF ANALYSIS, AND A VERY DETAILED TABLE, UM, THAT OUTLINES THE, THE TEXT AMENDMENT. UM, BUT A BROAD OVERVIEW IS THAT, UM, THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IS ESSENTIAL FOR MANAGING GROWTH AND ENSURING MOBILITY AND SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ON HILTON HEAD ISLAND. UM, AS THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPS, PROJECTS DO INTRODUCE [00:05:01] ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND THOSE NEED TO BE ASSESSED. UM, RIGHT NOW, UH, THAT ASSESSMENT OCCURS DURING OUR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. UM, AND WE THEN WOULD, IF IT MEETS THE THRESHOLD, REQUIRE A DETAILED STUDY, UM, OF THAT PROJECTED, UH, DEVELOPMENT, UM, WHEN THERE ARE, UM, WHEN WE HAVE STUDIES AND WE ASSESS HOW NEW PROJECTS AFFECT TRAFFIC. UM, AND THEN THAT PLAN ANALYSIS, UM, ADDRESSES THE NEED AND ADEQUATELY, UM, ADDRESSES THE MITIGATION THAT'S REQUIRED, UH, AS A RESULT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. SO AS PART OF THE PRIORITY AMENDMENTS, UH, THE TOWN IS LOOKING AT UPDATING ITS CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE STUDIES, UM, REQUIRING THAT IT BE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH THAT BETTER REFLECTS ALL USERS OF THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. UM, AND THEN THE AMENDMENT IS SUMMARIZED, UH, BROADLY IN THESE BULLETS. UM, IT EXPANDS THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY BEYOND JUST TRAFFIC TO TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING ALL MULTIMODAL INFRASTRUCTURE, REDUCING THE THRESHOLD FOR REQUIRING A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS STUDY OR TRANSPORTATION IN THE NEW, UH, REVISION FROM 100 PEAK HOUR TRIPS TO 50, EXPANDING THE TYPE OF MITIGATION OPTIONS THAT CAN BE USED TO ADDRESS THOSE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS. AGAIN, SHIFTING THE AUTHORITY FROM THE LMO OFFICIAL TO THE TOWN ENGINEER, ADDING NEW STANDARDS FOR UNSIGNED INTERSECTIONS AND ELIMINATING EXEMPTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH TRIPS THAT ARE GENERATED BY PREVIOUSLY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. SO AT A HIGH LEVEL, THAT IS WHAT, UM, THESE AMENDMENTS, UH, PROPOSE TO SOLVE. UM, AND THEN THERE ARE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF RECENT PROJECTS THAT HAVE REQUIRED A, AN ANALYSIS PLAN THAT INCLUDES, UM, 147 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON JONESVILLE ROAD, UH, PROJECT, AND, UM, 132 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UH, PROJECT THAT IS ON OFFICE WAY. SO THOSE TWO PROJECTS WERE REQUIRED UNDER OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS TO, UH, COMPLETE A, UH, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PLAN. AGAIN, UM, AS DISCUSSED, THAT THRESHOLD IS PROPOSED TO BE LOWERED FROM 100 PEAK HOUR TRIPS TO 50. UM, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, UM, THERE WERE TWO RECENT PROJECTS THAT WERE NOT REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THE ANALYSIS PLAN. UM, BECAUSE OF THE TRIPS FACTORED IN FOR PREVIOUSLY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, AND WITH THE PROPOSED NEW AMENDMENTS, UM, A TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT ON FOLLY FIELD ROAD AND A WATERFRONT RESTAURANT ON SQUIRE POPE NEAR THE ROWING AND SAILING CENTER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PLAN. AND WE WOULD'VE, UH, REQUIRED THAT IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS, UM, WITH THE CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THE CURRENT AMENDMENT. UM, ADDITIONALLY, AS DISCUSSED, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS REQUIRE THAT EVALUATION OF THAT MULTIMODAL INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, AS WELL AS THOSE EXPANDED MITIGATION OPTIONS. UM, THE, THE TABLE IDENTIFIES IN GREAT DETAIL HOW, UM, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP AND, UM, CONSIDERED AT THAT SEPTEMBER WORKSHOP. THE TABLE IS VERY EXTENSIVE, UM, AND, UH, I BELIEVE THAT IT IS, UH, BETTER TO GO THROUGH THE ACTUAL TEXT AMENDMENT. UM, BUT I'LL ASK YOU, UM, COMMITTEE MEMBERS IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH THE TABLE, UM, OR IF I CAN, UH, GO THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF THE STAFF REPORT AND THEN DIVE INTO THE ACTUAL TEXT AMENDMENT ITSELF. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO, UM, THERE WOULD BE NO NONCONFORMITIES THAT ARE CREATED WITH THIS POTENTIAL TEXT AMENDMENT, SO THAT IS NOT APPLICABLE. UM, ALL TEXT AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET TEXT AMENDMENT REVIEW STANDARDS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE CODE. UM, IT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT THIS PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT DOES MEET THOSE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS IN THAT IT SUPPORTS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S REQUIRED DUE TO INCREASED TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION. IT ADDRESSES THE DEMONSTRATED COMMUNITY NEED. IT ENSURES THAT OVERALL TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION EFFORTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. IT RESULTS IN A SAFER AND LESS CONGESTED STREETS AND INTERSECTIONS, UM, AND AS WELL AS MINIMIZING THE OVERALL IMPACT AND TOWN WIDE DEVELOPMENT AND RESULTING TRAFFIC. THERE IS, UM, OF COURSE AN ORDINANCE AND A TEXT AMENDMENT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AND, UM, THE AMENDMENT ITSELF, UM, I BELIEVE IS AN EASIER WAY TO WALK THROUGH THE POTENTIAL CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED HERE. UM, AGAIN, THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT, TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC IS REPLACED WITH TRANSPORTATION, AGAIN, TO REFLECT THAT MULTIMODAL ASPECT. UM, APPLICABILITY IS AMENDED HERE TO AGAIN, [00:10:01] UM, REDUCE THAT THRESHOLD TO 50 OR MORE PEAK HOUR TRIPS. THERE ARE SOME, UM, REFERENCES THAT ARE CHANGED, UM, REGARDING THE OFFICIAL TO THE TOWN ENGINEER. AND THEN SOME OF THE REFERENCE DOCUMENTS HAVE SOME CLARIFICATIONS IN THEM THAT YOU CAN SEE WITHIN THE TEXT. UM, IT INCLUDES, UM, AGAIN, SOME OF THE CHANGES HERE TO THAT APPLICABILITY THRESHOLD. UM, WHAT IS NOT CHANGING IS, UM, THAT THE THRESHOLD IS CURRENTLY 200 PEAK HOUR TRIPS. UM, WHEN THE PROJECT IS CONSIDERED TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CURRENT AMENDMENT TO THAT PARTICULAR THRESHOLD IN THIS TEXT AMENDMENT. UM, THE, UM, THE PROCESS THEN, UM, IF THERE'S NO OR MINOR MITIGATION REQUIRED, HAS SOME CHANGES IN IT. UM, AND THEN, UH, THERE ARE MORE CHANGES, UH, THAT ARE REFLECTED IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IF THERE'S MAJOR MITIGATION REQUIRED. AND THAT'S WHERE, UM, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL, UH, MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE CODE ON PAGES EIGHT AND NINE. AND I'LL JUST SCROLL DOWN TO SOME OF THOSE. UM, SO THE, THE MITIGATION, UM, OPTIONS ARE INCLUDED HERE. UM, THERE'S A LOT OF CLARIFICATION, AGAIN TO, UM, THE, THE REGULATORY NATURE OF, UM, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IN SOME OF THE DETAILS. BUT OVERALL, UM, TRAFFIC, UH, IMPACT ANALYSIS PLANS HAVE BEEN A REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE CODE. UM, WE DO HAVE TWO STAFF PERSONNEL THAT REGULARLY REVIEW, UM, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, UH, AND THEY ARE HERE, HERE TO ALSO GO THROUGH, UM, HOW WE REVIEW THESE CURRENTLY AND WHAT THAT, WHAT THESE AMENDMENTS MEAN TO THAT REVIEW PROCESS AS WELL. UM, AGAIN, SOME OF THE REFERENCE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN UPDATED. UM, THERE'S, UM, SOME CHANGES HERE TO THE, UM, NONS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS, UM, THAT ARE PROPOSED AS WELL. UM, AND THEN, UM, AS WE GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE PLAN, UM, IT IDENTIFIES, UM, THE PLAN PARAMETERS. HERE'S WHERE, UM, SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, UM, ARE BEING MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE REQUIREMENT OF THAT MULTIMODAL INFRASTRUCTURE. AND, UM, CHANGES ARE BEING PROPOSED AGAIN TO REFERENCE SOME REFERENCE MANUALS. UM, AND HERE'S WHERE THE NON-MOTORIZED TRAVEL IS BEING, THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PLAN STUDY, UM, CAPACITY. UM, AND I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH WRAPS UP THE TEXT AMENDMENT ITSELF. UM, SO LARGELY THE AMENDMENT IS TO AGAIN, UM, REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS, UM, WITH A LOWER THRESHOLD WOULD GO THROUGH THIS LEVEL OF ANALYSIS AND STUDY THAT IT INCREASES. UM, YOU KNOW, THAT MULTIMODAL APPROACH INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF MITIGATION OPTIONS THAT ARE ON THE TABLE TO ADDRESS ANY POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT. UM, AND THAT, THAT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT CHANGE IS MADE THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. SO THAT IS A HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF WHAT THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS AND WHAT IT INTENDS TO ACHIEVE. THANK YOU. THAT WAS GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MISSY. IS THIS, IS MULTI, UM, MODAL USED ELSEWHERE? THE TERM, THE TERM MULTIMODAL, UM, OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU CREATE, YOU GUYS CREATED? OH, NO, THAT IS A TERM THAT'S USED IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING. UM, MULTIMODAL, IT JUST MEANS THAT IT IS, UM, REFLECTIVE OF ALL USERS AND, UM, BUT IT IS IN MANY REFERENCE MANUALS. I UNDERSTAND. IT'S, IT'S USED. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IS WHEN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED ANYWHERE ELSE THAN ANY OTHER MUNICIPALITY, DO THEY, HAVE THEY RENAMED IT? UM, YES, THERE ARE MUNICIPALITIES. I I CAN'T SPEAK TO, UM, SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, BUT, UM, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL USERS IS A SHIFT THAT'S BEEN OCCURRING IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, UH, FOR SOME TIME. SO THAT, THAT IS A TREND. UH, SO THIS WOULD BE MOVING TOWARD A BEST PRACTICE. UM, WAS THERE ANY, THIS HAS ALL HAPPENED BEFORE I WAS ELECTED, OBVIOUSLY, AND, BUT I MEAN, IT'S GOOD WORK. I, UM, I'M JUST CURIOUS, WAS THERE ANY ANALYSIS DONE ON THE TWO MENTIONED, UH, SPECIFICALLY OFFICE PARK, UH, BEFORE AND AN AFTER? WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD'VE BEEN IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT? [00:15:02] WELL, THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT, UM, WAS ONE OF THOSE THAT DID NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD FOR AN ANALYSIS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT, WE DO NOT HAVE ONE. NOW, WHEN THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT WAS GOING THROUGH A TEXT AMENDMENT PROCESS, THEY VOLUNTARILY DID A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. UM, AND SO WE DO HAVE THAT, BUT IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED BY OUR, OUR PARTICULAR ORDINANCE. BUT UNDER THESE NEW STANDARDS, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE? UM, IN, IN, IN, IN BIKE PATHS, INTERSECTIONS, UH, LANE WIDENING ACCELERATION, DECELERATION LANES, ALL ALL THE ABOVE. DO YOU, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE? NO. UM, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ASSESS THAT BECAUSE THEY DID, UM, AN ANALYSIS PLAN BASED ON THE EXISTING REGULATIONS AND DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, AGAIN, ALL OF THAT MULTIMODAL INFRASTRUCTURE OR ANY OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE PROPOSED. UM, AND SO IT WOULD REQUIRE US TO REVIEW THAT. NOW, I THINK THAT IF, UM, EITHER DARREN OR THERESA WANTED TO, UM, ALSO WEIGH IN AS THEY'RE THE ONES THAT WOULD REVIEW THESE ANALYSIS PLANS, I WOULD, I WOULD WELCOME THEM IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO ANSWERING THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION. YEAH, THE REASON, THE REASON I ASK, I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE AND I'M ALL FOR 100% FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BUT WHAT CONCERNS ME A LITTLE BIT IS THE FACT IS ONE SECOND. MAY I NEED, I NEED TO STOP. THANK YOU. WHAT CONCERNS ME JUST A LITTLE BIT IS THAT WE'RE, UH, NOT LOOKING DEEP ENOUGH INTO THE FUTURE. AND WHEN, AND THE REASON I BRING UP OFFICE PARK IS BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE THAT WAS THE BIG DEAL HERE, AND IT'S A, YOU KNOW, A BLIGHTED AREA THAT NEEDS TO BE REDEVELOPED OR TORN DOWN OR BOUGHT OR WHATEVER. IS THAT WHAT IT WOULD LIMIT US? AND GETTING BLIGHTED AREAS, UM, GET ATTENTION TO THE BLIGHTED AREAS. AND IT MAY BE SOMETHING, IT, WE MAY BE GETTING SOMETHING THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE DON'T WANT IN THE FUTURE. YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M COMING FROM? IT'LL BE SO, IT'LL BE SO FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE NEW DEVELOPER THAT, THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA DO IT. THE REASON THESE BLIGHTED AREAS ARE AS THEY ARE NOW IS BECAUSE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE OR SOMEONE WOULD ALREADY BE HERE DOING IT. UM, AND WE'RE MAKING IT WORSE. SO, I MEAN, I, I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND OF COURSE, I WANNA MOVE THIS ON TO THE FULL COUNCIL FOR SURE. UH, I THINK IT NEEDS SOME DISCUSSION BASED ON THAT AREA, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THE TOWN THAT WE'VE HAD FOR A LOT OF YEARS, AND WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT. AND IF WE LEAVE IT BEHIND OR KEEP ADDING, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GIVEN SOME LENIENCY TO, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT MAYBE THESE BLIGHTED AREAS AND DOING SOMETHING FOR A BLIGHTED AREA TO, TO ATTRACT SOME KIND OF A, UM, MITIGATION FOR IT. AND I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT, UM, AS AN OPTION TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN, STEVE, THERE IS A, A SECTION IN, IN HERE THAT PROVIDES AN EXEMPTION FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING AND PERHAPS BASED ON THE LOCATION AND IF IT WERE SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE A REDEVELOPMENT OF A BLIGHTED, UM, BUILDING AND DIDN'T, I THINK THE, THE ONLY CAVEAT FOR ME WOULD BE THAT A LOT OF THIS HAS TAKEN PLACE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT IS NOW CAUSING DIFFICULTY WITH THE QUALITY OF LIFE MORE BROADLY. BUT, UM, IF, IF THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING THAT, AS YOU'RE DESCRIBING IT IN A BLIGHTED AREA THAT NEEDS REDEVELOPMENT WERE TO BE INCLUDED IN AN AS AN EXEMPTION UNDER WITH CONSIDERATION, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WORD IT. THAT'S NOT MY THING, BUT WHEN YOU WORD IT, I'LL LOOK AT IT. UM, IT DOES. WOULD THAT SATISFY SOLVING SOME, WELL, IT CONCERNS ISSUE. ITS ME AND I WOULD HOPE THAT IT CON WOULD CONCERN EVERYONE THAT WE WOULD NEVER GET THESE BLIGHTED AREAS. YEAH, IT'S A CONCERN REVITALIZED. UM, IF WE KEEP, IF WE KEEP POUNDING ON POUNDING LAYERS, UM, WE DO WANNA MAKE DOING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THOSE AREAS ATTRACTIVE. UM, BUT WE ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND. AND IT'S NOT ON THE LIST LIST, BUT THE, UM, TIMESHARES ON FOLLY FIELD IS ANOTHER REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE WHERE, UM, THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DIDN'T LIVE UP TO WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED IN THAT IT FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT. UM, SO WHAT WOULD, WOULD IT, DARREN OR WHOEVER, WOULD IT BE DIFFICULT BEFORE THIS GOES TO COUNCIL TO DO THAT ANALYSIS ON A COUPLE AREAS TO SEE WHAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED, WHAT THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY [00:20:01] TO THE, THE INCOMING DEVELOPER WOULD'VE BEEN? I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S SIGNIFICANT. I THINK IT WOULD MAKE MAKE SENSE JUST TO KNOW. SURE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BUILT IN HERE TOO, AND MISS HEAT, MAYBE YOU WANNA SPEAK TO IT A LITTLE BIT MORE, IS AS I WAS LOOKING AT THE MITIGATIONS, UM, I ALSO WAS NOTICING THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS, UM, WHERE AN APPLICANT, WHILE IT IS AN APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY INITIALLY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS WHERE THE APPLICANT CAN FIND ASSISTANCE OR REQUEST ASSISTANCE, UM, EVEN FROM THE TOWN OR TO BE INCLUDED IN A CIP PROJECT MOVING FORWARD. UM, SO THERE'S SOME COMFORT THERE THAT IT WOULDN'T A HUNDRED PERCENT ALWAYS FALL BACK ON THE, UM, AS A BURDEN FOR THE DEVELOPER, UM, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE WANT THOSE AREAS TO, TO BE REDEVELOPED. ALRIGHT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? HI, SEAN. HI. WELCOME. UH, GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS. UH, WE GO TO THE COMMITTEE . UM, SO AS IT RELATES TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR WHAT COMES OUT OF THE TRAFFIC OR THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS, THERE WILL CERTAINLY BE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ARE, THAT ARE FOUND THAT REVIEW WILL GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND SO THERE IS A CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL ABOUT WHAT THE FINDINGS OF THE TIAP FOR, UH, THE ACRONYM THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. AND THERE, THERE'S A BACK AND FORTH CONVERSATION WHERE WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS WHERE THIS IS A REDEVELOPING REDEVELOPMENT AREA. UM, SO THERE, THERE IS SOME, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ATTEMPT TO BE SOME BALANCE TO THIS, AT LEAST AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL. IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT SO RIGID THAT ONCE THE, THE, THE REPORT COMES BACK AND SAYS, WELL, YOU NEED TO, AT A TURN LANE, YOU NEED TO MODIFY THIS SIGNAL. THAT THAT IS, THAT IS A MATTER OF FACT. IT IS, IT IS STILL A CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. YEAH. BUT IT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE. THERE'S ALWAYS GONNA BE SOME SUBJECTIVITY AND TO ELIMINATE ALL OF THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S ALWAYS THE CHALLENGE WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU CRAFT REGULATIONS LIKE THIS, THERE WAS, THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH, UM, AND NOT JUST THIS PRIORITY AMENDMENT, BUT ANOTHER PRIORITY AMENDMENTS ABOUT HOW DO YOU BALANCE THAT, THAT SUBJECTIVITY. UM, MR. WILLIAMS HERE IN THE AUDIENCE, HE HAS BEEN ONE THAT'S BEEN, BEEN REALLY CHALLENGING US ON THAT SUBJECTIVITY. AND WE'RE, WE'VE TRIED TO LIMIT THAT TO THE, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN. BUT WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU HAVE WHAT, WHAT IS REDEVELOPING TO SOME, SOME PERIOD PEOPLE COMPARED TO OTHERS, AND THERE, THERE'S ALWAYS A LITTLE BIT OF SUBJECTIVITY TO THAT. SO YEAH, I MEAN, WELL YOU KIND OF BALANCE IT WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH THE 20%, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S JUST, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S SOMETHING SURELY THAT ALL OF US ARE IN FAVOR OF IS, IS DOING SOMETHING WITH THESE BLIGHTED AREAS. SO I BELIEVE IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT US TO CONSIDER, WE WOULD'VE TO TAKE THAT BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION. UH, 'CAUSE ANY CHANGE TO THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN BROUGHT BACK FORWARD, UH, FOR, FOR THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER BEFORE IT WENT TO TO 10. COUNCIL, DO I HAVE THE RIGHT, I ACTUALLY THINK IT GOES, GOES TO COUNCIL. I WOULD SAY IT GOES TO COUNCIL FIRST AND THEN WOULD, WOULD BE REMANDED BACK, BUT I WOULD DEFER TO THE TOWN ATTORNEY ON THAT. WELL, IF, IF I MIGHT, MR. DESIMONE, THE, IF I'M HEARING YOUR CONVERSATION CORRECTLY, YOUR FOCUS IS ON THE POLICY QUESTION OF WHETHER THE TOWN SHOULD DO THIS AT ALL, BECAUSE YOU SENSE THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED, UH, PERHAPS ARISING FROM THIS. AND I THINK THAT IS A DISCUSSION THAT IS BEST HAD WITH THE FULL COUNCIL AS OPPOSED TO HERE WHERE, UH, THE FOCUS I BELIEVE SHOULD BE ON DOING THE NITPICKY, IF YOU WILL WORK OF, OF WORKING THROUGH THE TEXT AND SEE IF YOU SEE ISSUES WITH THAT. BUT YOU HAVE A LARGER POLICY DISCUSSION THAT I THINK IS ONE THAT THE ENTIRE COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE. UNDERSTOOD. WELL, WE HAVE A COUPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE AS A MATTER OF FACT, AND I'D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU. UH, WE HAVE MELINDA TENNER FROM WARD SIX, AND, UM, ALEX BROWN, WARD ONE, AND PATSY BRYSON FROM WARD TWO. IF ANY OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CHIME IN WITH A THOUGHT ON THIS, WE MIGHT GET A PULSE OF, OF WHERE THAT MIGHT, WOULD END THE QUESTION, MISSY AS WELL. UM, WHEN WE'RE DONE. WELCOME. GOOD MORNING. UH, FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA SAY THAT GIVEN THAT THE ISLAND IS FAIRLY BUILT OUT AND ALREADY HAS A LOT OF TRAFFIC CHALLENGES, I BELIEVE IT'S PRUDENT TO REQUIRE MORE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. UM, AND I DO RESPECT, UM, MR. DEON'S CONCERNS REGARDING BLIGHTED AREAS. AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION TO BRING UP. UM, MOVING FORWARD. UH, I DID HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. UM, AND IT GETS BACK TO THE PROCESS ITSELF. HOW BIG OF AN AREA IS ANALYZED WHEN THEY DO A TRANSPORTATION STUDY? SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE TIMESHARES, UM, NEAR ISLANDERS. [00:25:01] DOES IT JUST LOOK AT THAT ROAD? DOES IT LOOK AT, UM, YOU KNOW, FOLLY FIELD AND COGGAN WAY? DOES IT LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS ON WILLIAM HILTON PARKWAY WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TO TURN LEFT TO TO TURN? I, I'M JUST NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH THE PROCESS TO KNOW HOW BIG IS THE AREA WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT A TRANSPORTATION, UM, STUDY? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. IS THERE A PARAMETER? IS THERE A PERIMETER THAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY EXTENDS OUT TO IN EACH DIRECTION? WHAT IS THAT DISTANCE? I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, MELINDA. YES. IS THERE, OH, THANK YOU. SO WE WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE NEAREST SIGNAL, ALSO ANY MAJOR UNSIGNED INTERSECTION. THAT PERFECT, THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU. AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS, HOW DO YOU TRANSITION TO THIS POLICY? SO WE KNOW THAT, UH, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT ARE IN VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT. UM, HOW IS THIS IMPLEMENTED? IS IT JUST ANYONE NEW MOVING FORWARD, OR IS IT ANYONE IN PROCESS? I JUST HAD A QUESTION REGARDING THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, MISSY, DO YOU WANNA TAKE THAT LAST QUESTION? OKAY. YEP. THANK YOU. SO ANY APPLICATION THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW AND RECEIVED, THIS WOULD NOT APPLY. IT WOULD BE FOR NEW APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN SUBMITTED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. AND, AND THEN, UM, MR. BROWN, MS. BRYSON, WOULD EITHER OF YOU LIKE TO COMMENT OR ASK A QUESTION? WELCOME MORNING. UH, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY, PATSY BRYSON, FOR THE RECORD. UM, YEAH, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS RAISED BY MS. HUNTER, AND THAT IS WHAT'S THE DOWNSTREAM REVIEW? AND I HEARD THE RESPONSE FROM STAFF, I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I'M, UH, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT LANGUAGE IS INCLUDED, UH, ABOUT THE DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THAT FOLLY FIELD AREA AS WELL, THE STOPLIGHT AND THE IMPACT ON THE TRAFFIC THERE, BUT ALSO JONESVILLE ROAD, UM, AND TURNING FROM JONESVILLE ROAD ONTO SPANISH WELLS ROAD. WOULD THAT BE INCLUDED OR NOT? UH, NOW I DON'T THINK IT IS. SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE INCLUDE DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS AND MAKING SURE, IF YOU COULD POINT, IF THE STAFF COULD POINT OUT SPECIFICALLY WHERE THAT LANGUAGE LIVES. UM, THEN, UH, I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE BEING AN F BEING GOOD ENOUGH. NOW, I KNOW IT'S NOT THE SAME AS WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL, BUT MY SISTER STILL TEACHES, AS DOES HER DAUGHTER, AND THEY SAY AN F IS FAILING, AS DO I. SO I THINK THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AT F IS TOO LOW, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE KEEP SAYING F IS GOOD. I THINK WE NEED TO RAISE THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE TO HIGHER THAN AN F UH, AS TO BLIGHTED, UM, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IDEA. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT NOT HAVING A DEFINITION OF BLIGHTED. I DON'T, UH, WE ARE NOT IN THE HOUSING DEMOLITION BUSINESS HERE OR BUILDING DEMOLITION BUSINESS HERE. USUALLY HAVE THAT WHERE YOU HAVE AN URBAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA. I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE A CURRENT TERM FOR BLIGHTED. AND SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CAREFULLY DEFINED BECAUSE ONE PERSON'S IDEA OF BLIGHTED, FOR INSTANCE, YOU MIGHT, YOU KNOW, COME AND LOOK AT MY HOUSE AND SAY IT'S BLIGHTED , AND ANOTHER PERSON MIGHT SAY, NO, THAT'S A GREAT HOUSE. SO HOW DO YOU DEFINE BLIGHTED IS A KEY TERM. BEFORE WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, BUT THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU. AND, UM, TO YOUR POINT ON THE LEVEL OF SERVICE, IT SAYS HERE, LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR ANY VEHICULAR TRAFFIC MOVEMENT DOES NOT DECLINE BY MORE THAN ONE LEVEL PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL, NOT TO A LEVEL OF SERVICE OF F. SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON FAILING, BUT YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN. NO, IT NEEDS TO BE UP YES. ABOVE F ABSOLUTELY. AND, AND UNDERSTOOD. SO, UM, OKAY, MR. BROWN, MORNING. MORNING. I AGREE WITH ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THUS FAR. THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING AND CHALLENGING TOPIC IN, IN MY MIND. UM, I CAN APPRECIATE, I GUESS, TWO FACTS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE. ONE IS HILTON IS SO CLOSE TO BUILD OUT, AND WE ALSO HAVE AREAS THAT ARE SCREAMING FOR REDEVELOPMENT. AND TO MR. DECIMAL'S POINT, IF YOU WERE TO [00:30:01] TAKE A SAMPLING, WE MAY FIND THAT THERE ARE AREAS THAT ARE NOT LOOKING FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT, AND THE INTERSECTIONS AROUND THEM ARE ALREADY FAILING, RIGHT? SO I GUESS I'M GONNA TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH ON THIS AS WE CHALLENGE STAFF MOVING FORWARD. UM, THE CURRENT PROPOSED POLICY WILL LEAD TO FURTHER DISCUSSIONS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL. WE NEED TO GET OUR ARMS WRAPPED AROUND WHAT MULTIMODAL REALLY MEANS AND DOES, UM, CURRENTLY WHEN IT COMES TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION, MASS TRANSIT AND THAT SORT OF THING, WE DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THOSE SERVICES TO APPLY TO SITUATIONS THAT MAY COME IN THE FUTURE. UH, SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT AS WE MOVE INTO THIS AREA, IT WILL LEAD TO BIGGER CONVERSATIONS AS TO HOW WE MITIGATE. OKAY. I, I, I'M, I'M, I'M HAPPY THAT WE HAVE SOME EXAMPLES, BUT I THINK WE NEED MORE MEAT ON THE BONE MOVING FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN REALLY MAKE THIS WORK. I THINK THAT STARTS TO HELP WITH THOSE AREAS THAT ARE SORT OF CONFLICTING AT THE MOMENT, QUALITY OF LIFE WITH OVERDEVELOPMENT AND THE NEED FOR REDEVELOPMENT. SO JUST A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THE CONVERSATION, WHAT I WANTED TO INTRODUCE. THANKS. THANK YOU. IT WAS ALL GREAT POINTS, AND, UM, APPRECIATE IT. AND I KNOW THAT STAFF IS BUSY TAKING NOTES ON WHAT THEY'VE HEARD. UM, I, AND I DON'T WANNA INTERRUPT THE CONVERSATION, BUT I HAD ONE QUESTION, MISSY, DOES ANY OF THIS, IS ANY OF THIS CONSTRAINED BY THE, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ROADS? SO ANY, NOT THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PLAN, PER SE ANALYSIS PER SE, BUT THE PLAN MOVING FORWARD, IF WE DON'T OWN THE ROADS, HOW CAN WE REQUIRE A MITIGATION PLAN, UM, TO TAKE PLACE? AND SO FOR ME, IT ALWAYS GOES BACK TO THE QUESTION OR THE COMMENT THAT WE SHOULD OWN OUR ROADS ON HILTON HEADS SO THAT WE DON'T RUN INTO THESE TYPES OF PROBLEMS. OR IS THIS AN AREA WHERE IT'S REALLY NOT A PROBLEM? SO, UM, AN ANALYSIS PLAN IS CURRENTLY REQUIRED, AS YOU STATED, THE TOWN DOES NOT HAVE OWNERSHIP OF MANY OF OUR RIGHTS OF WAYS, UM, TO DO THE WORK. IF THERE'S MITIGATION THAT'S REQUIRED, THE PROPERTY DEVELOPER HAS TO SECURE THE NECESSARY APPROVALS FROM THAT ROAD AGENCY, AND THAT'S HOW MITIGATION IS INSTALLED. SO IN THE CASE OF THE 147 UNIT DEVELOPMENT OFF OF JONESVILLE, UM, THE PROPER APPROVALS WERE REQUIRED FOR THE TURN LANE THAT WAS INSTALLED, AND THAT WAS ALL PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, UH, PROCESS. AND SO, UM, SO I, THE MITIGATION OPTIONS, UM, ARE, IT, IT DOES NOT MATTER, I GUESS IS IS ONE WAY TO SAY IT. UM, BUT ALL APPROVALS ARE REQUIRED FROM THOSE AGENCIES, UM, THAT HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THOSE RIGHTS OF WAYS, WHICH MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE DI UM, DIFFICULT SOMETIMES, AS WE KNOW. SURE. WELL, UM, ARE THERE IS, WE NEED A MOTION SO I CAN ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THE, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF, IF YOU WANTED SPECIFICALLY, UM, IN THE AMENDMENT, UH, TO REVIEW THE APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS. SO WHERE IT STATES, UM, THE ANALYSIS OF PARTICULAR INTERSECTIONS, IT'S ON PAGE 13. I COULD PULL IT UP IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. SO HERE, THIS NEW ITEM EIGHT, UM, THE INTERSECTIONS THAT ARE ANALYZED ARE INCLUDED HERE IN, IN ITEMS A THROUGH D. ASK THE QUESTION THIS WAY WITH THE, UM, WITH THIS AS OUR NEW, UM, ORDINANCE AND, UM, POLICY MOVING FORWARD. WOULD SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES THAT WE SEE JONESVILLE SPANISH ROAD, UM, WELLS ROAD AND OTHERS, WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN A BETTER PLAN IN PLACE TO HELP RESOLVE THE TREMENDOUS, UM, BACKLOG AND DIFFICULTY AT THOSE INTERSECTIONS AND, UM, TIME TO CROSS 2 78 TO GET TO THE HIGH SCHOOL FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD? I MEAN, WE SEE THE TRAFFIC, WE KNOW THE PROBLEMS THERE. WOULD THIS NEW PLAN HELP IF IT HAD BEEN IN PLACE TO HAVE RESOLVED THOSE ISSUES? UM, WELL, IT'S HARD TO, UM, YOU KNOW, ANALYZE A PLAN THAT WASN'T IN PLACE WHEN THEY WERE COMPLETED FOR THOSE DEVELOPMENTS. UM, BUT, UH, IF THERE WERE, UM, THE STUDY AREA INCLUDED MULTIMODAL INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT THERE WERE OTHER MITIGATION OPTIONS THAT WERE ON THE TABLE, UM, IT MAY HAVE RESULTED IN POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT MITIGATION OR MORE MITIGATION, UM, AS A [00:35:01] RESULT. BUT IT'S, BUT IT'S HARD TO, UM, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE THAT WITH, WITH SPECIFICITY AS THAT WASN'T THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS, UM, ON THE BOOKS AT THE TIME. YEAH. AND THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS PERFORMED. I HEAR, I HEAR, I THINK COMMON SENSE TELLS US IT PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER, BUT, UM, AND I'M, AND I THINK THE REASON THIS IS IN FRONT OF US IS BECAUSE IT IS AN, IS A TOOL THAT THE TOWN STAFF WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE TRAFFIC AROUND THE ISLAND AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS. OH, I'M NOT, I, I'M NOT SURE HOW WE, HOW DO YOU MAKE A MOTION, UM, ON THIS SUBJECT KNOWING THAT WE NEED TO, UH, STILL INVESTIGATE SOME OF THESE ITEMS AND COME BACK WITH SOME MORE INFORMATION. WE CAN SEND IT, WE HAD THE, WE HAD THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THREE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE, UH, ROOM WHO ALSO HAD QUESTIONS. WE CAN, UM, SEND IT BACK TO STAFF TO REVISIT THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY HEARD, UM, AND THEN COME BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN. MAKE THAT MOTION. I NEED YOU TO DO THAT. OKAY. SO , IT'S REALLY ROUGH WITH THE TWO OF US AND WITHOUT THE THIRD PERSON HERE, TODAY'S, UH, FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PLAN TO BE REMANDED BACK TO STAFF FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND DISCUSSION BACK TO STAFF. BACK TO STAFF, OKAY. UM, IS, WELL, WE, WE'VE RUN INTO THIS ONCE BEFORE, AND MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU WOULD BE THAT YOU ADVANCE THIS TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO NOT DO THIS. IF THAT'S HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE TEXT OF THIS ORDINANCE. THE, AGAIN, THE ISSUES THAT I THINK YOU HAVE RAISED ARE POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO HOW THE ORDINANCE SHOULD FUNCTION OR WHETHER IT SHOULD FUNCTION AT ALL. AND THAT IS A DISCUSSION AND DECISION FOR THE ENTIRETY OF COUNCIL. SO I THINK THAT I MIGHT JUST DISAGREE A LITTLE BIT IF YOU'D LIKE TO. THEN NOW I'LL TRACK THAT. UM, AND IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S THE BE, I MEAN THAT'S WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ANYWAY, IS THE ENTIRE COUNCIL NEEDS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. SO THE MOTION NEEDS TO BE THEN TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION WITH THOSE CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU DISCUSSED, OR FOR, OR TO EVALUATE OUR DISCUSSIONS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL AND HOW EXTRA, HOW SHOULD I, WELL, I HAVE THE THREE OPTIONS. LET ME SEE IF I CAN, THAT ARE UP THERE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, DENIAL, OR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. WELL, WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. YEAH. AND I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, AND IT'S NOT OUT OF TRADITION AND ROUTINE, THAT A COMMITTEE WILL SEE DEFICITS, UM, THINGS NEEDING ATTENTION IN SOMETHING THAT'S BROUGHT FORWARD AND ASK STAFF TO ADDRESS THOSE AND THEN BRING THEM BACK, UM, AND THEN BRING THEM BACK, UM, TO THE COMMITTEE SO THAT WE CAN INFER, UH, VET AND CONFIRM THAT THOSE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. AND THEN MOVE IT ON WITH ONE OF THOSE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS TO, TO TOWN COUNCIL AND THE HISTORY OF THE TOWN. I BELIEVE THAT'S HOW WE'VE BEEN DOING THINGS IN THE PAST. UM, YOU COULD, IF YOU WANT, IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, I GUESS OPT FOR NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS THE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS TO THE TOWN COUNCIL. WE WANNA GET THIS APPROVED. I MEAN, THAT'S THE, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF, BETWEEN THE FIVE OF US, QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED THAT WE NEED TO HAVE, UM, CLARITY ON. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S CLARITY. 'CAUSE MISS EVE DONE A GREAT JOB OF DESCRIBING THE, THE ORDINANCE OF ITSELF, BUT IMPROVEMENTS MADE YOU, YOU CAN CHOOSE WHICH YOU WOULD TO DO MR. DWELL. YOU CAN HAND, YOU CAN HAND ME YOUR GRAVEL AND I, YEP, GO AHEAD. WELL, THEN YOU'RE GONNA GET MY TAKE ON HOW TO DO THIS, AND IT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION UPON, UM, UH, DISCUSSION OF FROM HEARING, UM, THE ORDINANCE LAID OUT BY OUR, UM, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, UM, IN THE MEETING THAT WE SEND IT BACK TO STAFF TO ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS. UM, AND THEN BRING IT BACK AROUND TO US FOR CONSIDERATION. AND THEN APPROVAL TO TOWN, RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVAL TO TOWN COUNCIL. OUR, OUR TOWN ATTORNEY RECOMMENDED NOT GOING BACK TO STAFF. I HEARD, THAT'S WHY I SAID IF YOU GAVE, IF YOU TOOK MY GAVEL AND ASKED ME TO DO IT, THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE GONNA GET. [00:40:01] . OKAY. SO I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU. UM, IF YOU DON'T WANNA SECOND THAT, UM, OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE, WELL, AND WE COULD TABLE IT TABLING. IT DOESN'T REALLY ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS. UM, BUT WHEN WE BROUGHT IT UP, PER PERHAPS STAFF WILL HAVE REVIEWED THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE, UM, BROUGHT UP HERE TODAY. OTHERWISE YOU HAVE TO, IF YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE FROM ONE OF THOSE THREE SURE. OH, OKAY. WITH THAT, I THINK THAT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THE MOTION BE FOR THE ORDINANCE TO BE FORWARDED TO COUNSEL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, NO, WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS X, Y, AND Z, WHICH YOU THINK YOU OUGHT TO DO, WHICH THEN PUTS IT BEFORE COUNSEL AND ALLOWS COUNSEL TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND DECIDE IF A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL WISHES TO DO THAT. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE GOT A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL HERE, BUT THIS IS NOT A COUNCIL MEETING. AND I THINK THE WAY TO DO IT IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS AS YOU SEE THEM, WHICH THEN ALLOWS COUNSEL TO HAVE IT ALL ON THE TABLE, DISCUSS THAT. AND IF COUNSEL'S DECISION IS STAFF NEEDS TO DO ONE THROUGH X, THEN COUNSEL DOES THAT, TRY THAT AGAIN. WELL SEE. THAT JUST GOES AND FALLS IN THE FOOT. SO HERE'S WHAT I WILL DO TO MOVE THIS ON BECAUSE WE'RE NOW 45 MINUTES INTO THE MEETING ON ONE TOPIC, AND I DO, UH, I, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, THE CONDITIONS BEING, UM, TO INCLUDE THE COMMENTS HEARD TODAY BY THIS COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE. UM, AND THEN FORWARD TO TOWN COUNCIL. SO THAT WAY Y'ALL WILL BE PREPARED FOR WHAT YOU THINK MAY, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU'S? GREAT. AND DOES THAT MEAN YOU'RE, YOU'RE APPROVAL AS WELL? OKAY. SO WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND AND ALL IN, OH, WAIT A MINUTE. WE'RE NOT VOTING. SORRY, WE ARE ASKING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU CHE, FOR STOPPING ME. I WAS ON A ROLL BEAR. UM, SO IS THERE ANYONE HERE TODAY WHO WOULD LIKE TO, UM, MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? IS THERE ANYONE WHO HAS SIGNED THAT DOES, CHAD HAS A COMMENT. I KNOW I'M WAITING FOR CYNTHIA, AND IT'S BEEN CONFIRMED. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. MY NAME IS CHESTER WILLIAMS. UM, LEMME START OFF BY POINTING OUT, IN ADDITION TO WHAT MR. COLTRANE SAYS, YOU KNOW, YOUR DISCUSSIONS BEING POLICY ISSUES, THERE ARE ALSO LEGAL ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. AND I'M GLAD HE'S HERE TO, TO LISTEN TO THIS CONVERSATION. I WOULD FIRST DIRECT YOU TO, UH, OUTTA THE PACKAGE PAGE 39 OF 1 0 1, WHICH IS THE REVISIONS TO PART OF THE REVISIONS TO, TO APPENDIX D, THE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. AND IN THE NEW SECTION, WHAT USED TO BE EIGHT IS NOW DESIGNATED 10. UH, THE THIRD SENTENCE READ APPLICANTS WILL, THERE'S A TYPO THERE. IT READS, APPLICANTS WILL ONLY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS OF THEIR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. NOW, THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT OF THE LAW. ON ACTIONS FROM THE US SUPREME COURT, YOU CAN REQUIRE A DEVELOPER TO MITIGATE THE ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT HIS OR HER DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO CAUSE. BUT YOU CANNOT REQUIRE A DEVELOPER TO MITIGATE PREEXISTING PROBLEMS OR PROBLEMS THAT HIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT, IS NOT CREATING. AND THAT, THAT SEEMS TO BE FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND, AND IT'S FAIR, YOU KNOW, YEAH, I'LL, I'LL, IF I'M THE DEVELOPER, YEAH, I'LL FIX ANYTHING THAT I BREAK. BUT IF THINGS ARE BROKEN BEFORE I COME ALONG, THEN THAT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY. THAT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE. AND WITH THIS LANGUAGE IN HERE, YOU'RE VIOLATING THAT TWICE. AND I WOULD NOW DIRECT YOU TO TAKE A LOOK. AND I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE, NOT, NOT OF THE WRITEUP. THE BIG PROBLEM IS WITH THE EXEMPTIONS, WHEN YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THE ABILITY TO DISCOUNT THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING TRAFFIC TRIPS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M A DEVELOPER AND MY PROJECT IS GONNA GENERATE A HUNDRED NEW PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS, [00:45:02] BUT I'M REPLACING A PROJECT THAT ALREADY GENERATES 50 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS, WELL THEN MY NET IS ONLY 50 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS BECAUSE THOSE 50 ARE ALREADY THERE, THE ORIGINAL 50. AND IF YOU TELL ME, WELL, I GOTTA ADDRESS THE ENTIRE A HUNDRED, THEN YOU'RE MAKING ME ADDRESS ISSUES THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO WHEN I CAME ALONG. AND I THINK THAT'S A CLEAR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT SHOWS UP ALSO. WELL, THE PROBLEM ALSO IS ON THE NEXT PAGE, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PLANS CONTAINING MITIGATION, OTHER THAN THAT ALLOWED IN APPENDIX D WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. I'D SUBMIT TO YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, AND THERE'S A, THERE'S A LIST OF WHAT THE PERMITTED MITIGATIONS ARE, BUT IF A DEVELOPER AND THEIR TRAFFIC ENGINEER CAN COME UP WITH ANOTHER MITIGATION THAT ADDRESSES ALL THE PROBLEMS AND CAUSES THE TOWN'S ADOPTED TRAFFIC SERVICE LEVEL GOALS TO BE IN, IN COMPLIANCE, BUT YOU SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, THEN THAT'S ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. YOU CAN'T, AND THIS, THE, ALL THIS GOES TO YOUR BLIGHTED ISSUES COMMENTS, MR. DESIMONE, YOU KNOW, IF, IF I'VE GOT AN OFFICE BUILDING LIKE OVER AN OFFICE PARK ROAD AND I WANNA REDEVELOP IT, AND YOU'RE GONNA TELL ME THAT I CAN'T GET CREDIT FOR THE EXISTING TRAFFIC IMPACTS THAT THE PROPO THAT THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT HAS ALREADY PUT INTO THE SYSTEM, WELL THEN WHY, WHY AM I GONNA BE THE ONE THAT HAS TO BEAR THAT BURDEN WHEN THAT'S A BURDEN THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED AND IS PROPERLY THE ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE? SO I THINK YOU'VE GOT SOME SERIOUS LEGAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS. UM, YOU'VE ALSO STILL GOT THE, YOU KNOW, THE OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE ISSUES. UM, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 35 OUT OF 1 0 1 UNDER THE TRAFFIC SERVICE LEVEL STANDARDS, THE DEVELOPMENT CAUSES SAFETY ISSUES OR DELAYS THAT REQUIRE MITIGATION AS DETERMINED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER. WELL, WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS THE TOWN ENGINEER USES THERE? HOW CAN A DEVELOPER LOOK AT A PROPOSED PROJECT AND KNOW WHAT THE TOWN ENGINEER IS THINKING? WELL, I DON'T, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, AND THE TALENT ENGINEERS THINK, I DON'T LIKE YOUR PROJECT, SO I'M GONNA COME UP WITH A PROBLEM THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE FIXED AND YOU GO FIX IT. AND IT MAY BE AN ISSUE THAT THAT ISN'T AT ALL GERMANE TO IT. SO IT'S, AGAIN, YOU KEEP SAYING, WE WANT TO GET THE SUBJECTIVE OUT, BUT YOU KEEP PUTTING THE SUB THE SUBJECTIVE BACK IN. SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO SEND IT BACK. AND UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS OUT OF TOWN AT THE APRIL 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THESE COMMENTS KNOWN THEN. IT MAY HAVE COME TO YOU IN A DIFFERENT FORM AT THAT POINT, BUT I THINK IF YOU CHECK WITH MR. COLTRANE, HE'LL TELL YOU YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S THE STATE OF THE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. UM, IS THIS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE, UM, TO ADDRESS IT, MR. COLTRANE? OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE JUST TAKING NOTES ON AND IS GOING BACK AND WILL BE ADDRESSED DURING THAT REVIEW? THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE TAKING NOTES ON AND WE'LL ADDRESS AS THIS MOVES THROUGH THE PROCESS. ALL RIGHT, GOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THE COMMENTS. WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENT? UM, WE HAVE QUESTIONS WITH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT, WELL THEN, UM, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. UM, AND ALL IN FAVOR? AND OPPOSED. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MISSY, FOR THE PRESENTATION AND EVERYONE WHO CONTRIBUTED. UM, THAT'S THE WAY IN THE LONG RUN, IT BECOMES A FAR BETTER, UM, ORDINANCE AND PLAN. SO NEXT ON THE AGENDA, [5.b. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the Program for Public Information 5-Year Update and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Community Rating System Updates - Missy Luick, Director of Planning] WE HAVE A CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION, FIVE YEAR UPDATE AND FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FEMA COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM UP. AND THAT'S AN UPDATE AGAIN BY MISSY LUECK, OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR. THANK YOU. UM, SO BEFORE YOU IS, UM, THAT THE COMMITTEE REVIEW AND CONSIDER THE LOW COUNTRY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNUAL UPDATE, THE REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS, ANNUAL UPDATE, AND TO FORWARD THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. AND THEN ALSO THAT THE COMMITTEE REVIEW A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2025 PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL. UM, THE TOWN HAS PARTICIPATED IN FEMA'S COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM PROGRAM SINCE OCTOBER OF 1991. THE TOWN [00:50:01] IS A CLASS FIVE COMMUNITY, WHICH GIVES ITS RESIDENTS IN THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA, 25% DISCOUNT ON THEIR FLOOD INSURANCE PREMIUMS. UM, THERE ARE THREE PLANNED DOCUMENTS THAT ARE IN THE PACKET. FOUR YEAR REVIEW. AGAIN, TWO OF THEM ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES AND ONE IS, UH, A RESOLUTION TO MOVE FORWARD AT A HIGH LEVEL. UM, THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN IS A PLAN, UM, BY THE LOW COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, UM, THAT IS MULTI-COUNTY. IT INCLUDES BUFORT, COLLETON, HAMPTON, AND JASPER COUNTIES. UM, AND THAT PLAN WAS ADOPTED BY TOWN COUNCIL IN OCTOBER OF 2021. THAT PLAN ADDRESSES THE COMMUNITY'S VULNERABILITIES TO NATURAL HAZARDS AND INCLUDES LONG-TERM STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THOSE HAZARDS. UM, THE REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS, UH, WAS ADOPTED BY TOWN COUNCIL LAST YEAR IN 2024 AS ACCREDITED ACTIVITY IN THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM PROGRAM. THE PURPOSE IS TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL CAUSES OF FLOODING IN AREAS THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY FLOODED, UM, AND PROPERTIES WITH REP REPEATED FLOOD LOSSES AND MAINTAIN REDUCED FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE PREMIUM COSTS FOR RESIDENTS. THE PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION, UM, WAS ADOPTED IN 2015 AND THE REQUIRED FIVE-YEAR UPDATE IN 2020. THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC, UH, OR PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION IS TO MAINTAIN THOSE REDUCED FLOOD INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND PROVIDE FLOOD RELATED INFORMATION TO PROPERTY OWNERS THROUGH OUTREACH AND EDUCATION. UM, THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENTS ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION, UM, OF THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. UM, ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE UPDATE ARE ONGOING AND THE PROGRESS FOR EACH MITIGATION ACTION HAS BEEN PROVIDED. THERE ARE NO NEW MAJOR INITIATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME. UM, IN THE REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS, THERE HAS BEEN ONE REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTY IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN MITIGATED DURING, UH, THE REPORTING PERIOD. UM, AND SO THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS, THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AND THE REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS, ARE PRESENTED AS INFORMATION, UM, AND NO OFFICIAL ACTION, UH, IS REQUIRED BY THE COMMITTEE. UM, THE PUBLIC PROJECT, UH, OR PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION, UM, INCLUDES OUTREACH ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE UPDATE PLAN. UM, TO MAINTAIN CREDIT WITHIN THE PROGRAM, IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT THE TOWN ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE FIVE YEAR UPDATE AND THAT RESOLUTION, UM, FOR THAT FIVE YEAR UPDATE IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. UM, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK SHERRY MENDRICK, OUR FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR FOR HER WORK, MAINTAINING THE TOWN STATUS IN FEMA'S COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS, STEVE? MM-HMM. NO. ALRIGHT. YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION, UM, FOR, UH, TO, UH, MOTION IS TO MOVE FORWARD THE LOW COUNTRY NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNUAL UPDATE, AS WELL AS ADOPT THE 2025 PROGRAM FOR THE PUBLIC INFORMATION AND FORWARD IT ON TO FULL COUNCIL, UH, FOR A RESOLUTION BY THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD, SOUTH CAROLINA TO APPROVE THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM PROGRAM FOR THE PUBLIC INFORMATION 2025 UPDATE. AND I'LL SECOND THAT. UM, MR. DESIMONE, DID YOU ALSO MENTION FORWARDING THE REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS IN YOUR MOTION? AND WHERE IS THIS? IT'S, UH, ATTACHMENT TWO. IT, ALONG WITH THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN IS TO BE FORWARDED TO COUNSEL FOR INFORMATION. OKAY. AND INCLUDING THE MOTION, THE, UH, FORWARDING THE REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS, ANNUAL EVALUATION REPORT. AND WITH THAT CHANGE, I WILL REAFFIRM MY SECOND ON THAT MOTION. UM, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT OR ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS BY OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE JOINING US THIS MORNING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO INCLUDE HERE? ANYONE, CINDY WHO SENT IN AND MR. WILLIAMS? NO, IT'S OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. ALRIGHT. HEARING OR SEEING NONE. UM, ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND NEXT WE HAVE A CONSIDERATION [5.c. Consideration of an Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Hilton Head Island, Amending Municipal Code Section 12-6-111, Definitions, and Section 12-6-115, Resident Beach Parking Pass Parking, to Authorize Beach Parking Permits for Qualified Residents in Beaufort County, South Carolina, South Carolina - Shawn Colin, Assistant Town Manager] OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 12 6 1 1 1 DEFINITIONS AND SECTION 12 6 1 1 5, RESIDENT BEACH PARKING PASS PARKING. OKAY. TO AUTHORIZED BEACH PARKING PERMITS TO QUALIFIED RESIDENTS IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. UM, AND SEAN, [00:55:01] WELCOME. UH, GOOD, GOOD MORNING. UH, MADAM CHAIRMAN, UM, COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE. UM, I'M HERE TO PRESENT A COUPLE OF ITEMS. ONE IS WELL, AND THEY'RE LINKED. THE FIRST IS AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A, UM, BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENT BEACH PASS, UM, AND MAKE SOME, UM, ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS TO THAT SECTION OF THE CODE REALLY TO, TO CLEAN IT UP AS IT RELATES TO ELIGIBILITY DEFINITION OF RESIDENT, AND, UM, AND TO ESTABLISH THE PROGRAM. AND THEN THERE'LL BE A SECOND ITEM, UH, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH, UM, TALKS ABOUT ESTABLISHING THE FEE AND THEN POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE FEE STRUCTURE REGARDLESS OF THE BUFORT COUNTY RESIDENT PASS. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE LINKED. I'M GONNA COVER MOST OF IT AS PART OF THIS FIRST, UM, UH, PRESENTATION. AND I'M TRYING TO FIND SADE, CAN YOU HELP ME FIND THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS ONE? I'M TAKE MY HAND OFF IT HERE. SO, AS IT RELATES TO THE ORDINANCE, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS REQUESTED OR BA TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO COMMITTEE AND TOWN COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. UM, THIS PROVISION IN THE CODE WOULD ALLOW FOR RESIDENTS OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, UM, TO FIND VERY SIMILARLY TO RESIDENTS OF HILTON AND ISLAND AS FAR AS LEGAL ADDRESS OR, UH, OCCUPYING, UM, A HOME, WHETHER AS AN OWNER OR A, A RENTER FOR MORE THAN 183 DAYS PER YEAR. UM, AND WHAT I INTEND TO COVER WITH THE COMMITTEE TODAY, UH, IS A REVIEW OF THE PROPO PROPOSED ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE ELIGIBILITY PASS LIMITS, UM, OR A SUGGESTION FOR PASS FEE AND THEN PASS USAGE. UH, WHERE, WHERE THE, UM, WHERE BUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS WOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THE PASS IF APPROVED. UM, GO THROUGH THE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND THEN HEAR FEEDBACK FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. UM, SO AS IT RELATES TO ELIGIBILITY, A COUNTY RESIDENT IS DEFINED BY A PERSON WHO MEETS ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, AND I HOPE WE CAN GET IT UP THERE. A PROPERTY OWNER OWNS A SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE ELIGIBILITY DOES NOT PER, UH, DEPEND ON 4%. UM, ASSESSMENT RATIO. UM, IF THE, IF A PROPERTY IS LEASED FOR MORE THAN 183 DAYS PER CALENDAR YEAR, UH, THE OWNER DOES NOT QUALIFY. SO IF YOU LIVE THERE, UM, OR IF YOU RENT THERE 183 DAYS A YEAR, SO IT'S JUST PAST HALF OF A YEAR, YOU WOULD QUALIFY. A LONG-TERM TENANT HOLDS THAT HOLDS A LEASE IS ELIGIBLE. AND A TIMESHARE OWNER THAT AGAIN, HAS TIMESHARE INTEREST OF 183 DAYS OR MORE PER CALENDAR YEAR WOULD QUALIFY. AND THAT'S VERY, IT'S, UH, MATCHES THE LANGUAGE FOR HILTON HEAD ISLAND, UH, RESIDENT PASS PASS ELIGIBILITY. SO IT MIRRORS THAT, UH, PASS LIMITS, UM, PASS LIMITS ARE, UH, LIMITED TO ONE PASS PER AVAILABLE HOUSEHOLD. UM, ON HILTON HEAD YOU CAN GET TWO, UH, FOR FREE. THIS WOULD BE ONE LIMITED TO ONE PASS PER ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD, A RECOMMENDED FEE, WHICH WILL ESTABLISH BY OR, UH, BY RESOLUTION ON THE NEXT ITEM, UH, RECOMMENDED, UH, FOR DISCUSSION IS $100 PER HOUSEHOLD, UH, PER CALENDAR YEAR. UM, AND AGAIN, WE'LL ADOPT THAT BY RESOLUTION. IF COUNCIL SUPPORTS THIS ACTION, UH, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE PASS USAGE, THE PASS WILL ALLOW PARKING IN ALL PAID PARKING AREAS, UM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ISLANDER BEACH PARK. AND SO THERE ARE FIVE, UM, PAID PARKING AREAS CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED BY TOWN COUNCIL, UH, ALDER BEACH LANE, UH, CHAPLAIN PARK, DREESEN, FOLLY FIELD, AND FISH HALL, UH, PARK. SO IT WOULD ALLOW, UM, PARKING FOR, UH, FOR PASS HOLDERS IN THOSE AREAS. NOW, HOLDERS IN THOSE AREAS, NOT IN ISLANDERS. AND AGAIN, KIG IS NOT, THERE'S NO CHARGE AT KIG AT THIS POINT. UH, PROGRAM OBJECTIVES WOULD ALLOW, UM, ENHANCED SPEECH ROUND ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS. UM, THE COLLECTION OF THE FEE WOULD HELP PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO PUT TOWARD OUR BEACH, UM, ASSET AND, AND THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OF THE, OF THE BEACH. UM, AND IT WOULD HELP STRENGTHEN REGIONAL CO COLLABORATION. UM, I THINK EXCLUSION OF THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PARK AT ISLANDERS IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR LONGSTANDING POLICY TO PRIORITIZE PARKING AT THAT FACILITY FOR HILTON HILTON HEAD ISLAND [01:00:01] RESIDENCE. UM, THE RESOLUTION TO SET THE FEE WOULD BE ADOPTED ANNUALLY BY TOWN COUNCIL, AGAIN IF SUPPORTED, UH, WITH THIS CHANGE. UM, IF THE, UH, IF THIS MOVES FORWARD FROM ADOPTION BY TOWN COUNCIL, UH, WE WOULD EXECUTE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WITH OUR PARKING MANAGEMENT COMPANY TO PUT THIS IN PLACE AND EXECUTE A COMMUNICATIONS PLAN SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS, UH, ONE, THAT IT'S AVAILABLE, UH, TWO THE COST, AND THREE WHERE, UH, ELIGIBLE PASS HOLDERS, UH, COULD PARK AND UTILIZE THAT PROGRAM. UM, THAT'S THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE, OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENT PASS FEE. AND, UH, IN SUMMARY, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AT THIS POINT. SURE. THANK YOU FOR THE, UM, PRESENTATION. STEVE, YOU WANNA, UM, GO, GO AHEAD. OKAY. UM, SO I BELIEVE IN THE RESIDENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UM, TO GET A PASS, A FREE PASS THERE IS, UM, THIS, WITH REGARD TO THE 6%, I'M TRYING TO SEE IT SO I CAN SAY IT THE WAY I I I REMEMBER READING IT'S 6%, UM, PROPERTY TAX, UM, IS CONSTRAINED BY WHETHER OR NOT THE HOME IS A SHORT TERM RENTAL. AND IF IT IS A SHORT TERM RENTAL, THEN THE THERE IS NO PASS ELIGIBILITY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. AND SO THEREFORE, IF WE WERE TO CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE THIS, UM, HOW WOULD WE DETERMINE WHICH OF THOSE 6% PROPERTY TAX PAYERS THROUGHOUT BEAUFORT COUNTY ARE SHORT TERM RENTALS? SINCE WE DON'T CONTROL THAT DATABASE? YEAH. UNDER THE WAY IT'S, OR UNDER THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT HAS TO BE YOUR LEGAL RESIDENCE OR YOU HAVE TO LIVE THERE AT LEAST SIX MONTHS PER THE, WELL, 183 DAYS PER THE YEAR. THERE IS NO DISTINCTION ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S SHORT-TERM RENTAL BEYOND THAT PERIOD. RIGHT. SO I THINK THAT IS AN ISSUE, UM, FOR, UM, FOR ONE. AND THEN WITH REGARD TO THE MULTIFAMILY OWNER, AN OWNER OF A MULTIFAMILY AND ONE PASS, I IMAGINE THAT CREATES, UM, DIFFICULTY FOR THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY TO DETERMINE WHO GETS THAT ONE PASS. UM, BUT THAT'S NEITHER REALLY HERE, NOR THAT JUST A COMMENT THAT'S, WELL, I THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE ELIGIBILITY IF THE OCCUPANT OF EACH OF THE UNITS WOULD QUALIFY AS A RESIDENT UNDER THIS PROVISION. SO IF I WAS A, A TENANT OF, UM, A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT AND LIVED THERE FOR AT LEAST 183 DAYS OF THE YEAR, I WOULD SUBMIT ELIGIBILITY FOR THAT UNIT. SO THERE'S A SUB QUALIFICATION THERE. THAT'S GREAT. UNDERSTAND. DO WE KNOW ROUGHLY, OR DO WE KNOW, I THINK IT'D BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW HOW MANY RESIDENTS, UM, IN BEAUFORT COUNTY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE. UM, WE, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT TRYING TO PUT SOME DATA TOGETHER. WE CERTAINLY BRING THAT FORWARD. UM, IF THIS ADV IF THIS ADVANCES ONTO TOWN COUNCIL, UM, YOU KNOW, INITIALLY WE THOUGHT RUN A 4%, UH, TO LOOK AT ALL 4% PROPERTIES, UH, IN BEAUFORT COUNTY. BUT BECAUSE OF THE RENTAL PROVISION AND, UM, YOU KNOW, BEYOND WHETHER OR NOT YOU RENT IT 90 DAYS A YEAR, IT GO, GETS INTO LONG-TERM RENTAL. AND SO, UM, THERE'S NOT A SORT OF STRAIGHTFORWARD MECHANISM TO TRANSLATE. WE COULD DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, THE NUMBER OF 4%, AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT LISTED AS SHORT TERM TO GIVE YOU SOME NUMBER. IT'S, I MEAN, IT'S SIZABLE. IT'S UH, THERE'S SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS OFF ISLAND AND I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE WE KNOW ON ISLAND ALREADY, UM, IN THE PA NOW AND IN THE PAST WHEN WE WERE CHARGING FOR PASSES, WE DISTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE PASSES FOR ISLAND RESIDENTS THAN WE HAVE SPACES AVAILABLE FOR THEM. AND NOW IF THAT WERE TO INCLUDE ALL OF BEAUFORT COUNTY AND THAT UNKNOWN NUMBER, BUT FAR GREATER THAN EXISTS HERE SIMPLY ON HILTON HEAD, WE WOULD HAVE THAT MANY MORE PASSES OUT AND AVAILABLE WITH AN EXPECTATION OF THOSE, UM, PASS HOLDERS WHO HAVE PAID MONEY IN ADVANCE FOR THEM, THAT THEY WOULD GET A SPOT HERE SOMEWHERE ON HILTON HEAD. AND I THINK RAISING THOSE EXPECTATIONS, THAT'S AN UNREASONABLE, UM, AND I THINK WOULD CAUSE LONG-TERM ISSUES, UM, ABOUT THAT. YEAH, I AGREE. AND I THINK IT'S, UM, IT'S HOW, HOW WE COMMUNICATE. UH, BEFORE TOWN COUNCIL ENACTED THE PAID PARKING PROVISION HERE FOR THIS SEASON, UM, THE SAME NUMBER OF, UM, POTENTIALLY [01:05:01] ELIGIBLE HOUSING, UH, UNITS IN BEAUFORT COUNTY. HE STILL COULD COME TO THE BEACH AND NOT PAY ANYTHING WITH AN EXPECTATION HOPEFULLY THAT THEY WOULD FIND A SPOT. SO SOME OF IT'S JUST MESSAGING, UM, JUST LIKE WITH OUR ISLAND RESIDENT PASS, OTHER MAY, IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A SPACE. UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT MEANS MORE PEOPLE ARE COMING BECAUSE YOU ISSUE A BEAUFORT COUNTY, UH, RESIDENT PASS 'CAUSE THEY WERE COMING BEFORE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT WAS FREE. UM, SO I THINK IT'S JUST SOME OF IT IN THE COMMUNICATION, UM, THAT IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE A PARKING SPACE, UM, IN ONE OF THESE FACILITIES. FAIR ENOUGH. STEVE, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COUPLE, UM, ONE, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON THE FEE? DO I HAVE AN OPINION ON FEE? UH, UM, WHILE I PUT IN A HUNDRED DOLLARS AS A START STARTING POINT FOR DISCUSSION? UM, I'M LESS OF A BEACH PERSON. UM, AND I WOULD BE ONE OF THESE, UH, POTENTIAL ELIGIBLE, UH, APPLICANTS SHOULD THE, UH, PROVISION GO IN IN PLACE, UM, AT A $3 PER HOUR. AND I KNOW WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT IN THE NEXT ITEM, BUT AT A $3 PER HOUR, UM, I DO NOT SPEND 33 HOURS PER YEAR AT THE BEACH. SO I WOULD PREFER TO NOT GET A PASS AND RIGHT. AND JUST PAY THE HOURLY. UM, AND SO I, I MEAN, A HUNDRED DOLLARS SEEMED LIKE A, A DECENT BALANCE IF YOU CAME TO THE BEACH, UM, YOU KNOW, FOUR OR FIVE WEEKENDS OVER THE COURSE OF THE, THE BEACH SEASON. AND I THINK THAT'S A POINT THAT'S WELL TAKEN, RIGHT? YOU HAVE TO DO THE MATH YOURSELF AND CALCULATE, UM, YOU STILL ARE QUITE WELCOME TO COME AND PAY THE HOURLY FEE, WHICH IS THE NEXT TOPIC. SO I WON'T ADD ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON THAT, UM, AT THIS TIME? UM, ONE LAST THING TOO FOR MY SISTER, UH, IT SHOULD BE HIGHER 'CAUSE SHE WOULD SPEND A HECK OF A LOT MORE TIME THAN I WOULD AT THE BEACH. BUT, UH, BUT ANYWAY, I THINK THAT, THAT, AT LEAST FOR A STARTING POINT, THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS SEEMED TO, SEEMED REASONABLE. AND, AND JUST FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF A CONVERSATION, UH, WHAT ABOUT, WHAT ABOUT LOCALLY OWNED BUSINESSES BY PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIVE HERE? YOU KNOW, THEY CONTRIBUTE TO OUR BEACH TREE NOURISHMENT. UM, FOR INSTANCE, SOMEONE LIVES IN POOLER AND THEY OWN A DRESS SHOP, AND AT FIVE O'CLOCK WHEN THEY SHUT DOWN, THEY MAY WANNA GO TO THE BEACH. SO HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT OR CONSIDERATION TO, TO BUSINESS OWNERS THAT DO NOT LIVE IN HILTON HEAD? WELL, WELL, NOT AS PART OF WHAT WE WERE ASKED TO BRING FORWARD, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS CONSIDERATION, IT WAS, I UNDERSTAND SHOULD WE HAVE A RESIDENT? RESIDENT SHOULD YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. BUT WE SHOULD PROBABLY GET IT ALL DONE AT ONE TIME, SO. SURE. AND, UH, I'M SURE IF, UH, IF THERE'S A BUSINESS OWNER THAT HAS A ESTABLISHMENT NEAR THE BEACH, THEY PROBABLY NOT WOULD, WOULD NEED IT. BUT THOSE THAT DON'T, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR TOWN COUNCIL. YEAH. AND, UH, BUT IT WASN'T PART OF THIS, IT WAS JUST RESIDENT PASS TO, TO, UM, TO, TO UTILIZE OUR MODEL WITH OUR ISLAND RESIDENT AND TO ALLOW THE POTENTIAL FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS TO HAVE ACCESS AS A PRIORITY, EVEN THOUGH, UH, THERE'S A FEE, UM, ACCESS TO THOSE ADDITIONAL SPACES. CAN YOU REMIND US OF, UM, THE TIME AND THE, THE TIMEFRAME WHERE A FEE IS, UM, REQUIRED? YEAH, AND I'M GONNA BRING UP, IS IT SEAN OR SHOULD I BRING UP MATT TO, TO ANSWER THIS? BECAUSE THERE IS SOME DIFFERENCES IN, UM, HOW WE ESTABLISHED IN THE RESOLUTION TO SET THE FEE AND THEN THE, UH, HOURS OF OPERATION ACTIVITY. SO I'M GONNA, UH, HAVE HIM BRING THIS UP AND HE HAS, UH, AND HE HAS SOME DATA. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, BUT IF THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT DATA, HE'S OUR GUY. SO, THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING AGAIN. UH, SEAN LANIER, ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGER. UH, AS FAR AS WHEN THE REGULATIONS OR WHEN THE FEE IS INTO EFFECT, IT IS FROM MARCH ONE UNTIL, UH, JUST AFTER LABOR DAY. I BELIEVE IT'S SEPTEMBER 7TH IS THE LATEST. AS, AS IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE. AND THE HOURS ABOUT, IN THE HOURS OF OPERATION, UH, 7:00 AM TO 5:00 PM UM, THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION TO THAT. IT IS DEALS WITH CHAPLAIN BERKS BEACH, UH, 'CAUSE THAT FIELD IS USED EXTENSIVELY FOR OUR, OUR YOUTH REC LEAGUES. SO THAT IS DELAYED ACTUALLY WENT INTO EFFECT TODAY UNTIL THE REC SEASON ENDS, WHICH IS USUALLY AROUND THIS WEEKEND, THE WEEKEND BEFORE MEMORIAL DAY. UH, THERE, WE DO NOT BEGIN CHARGING UNTIL AFTER THE, THE YOUTH REC SEASON IS OVER AT THAT BEACH PARK. THANK YOU. SO, TO YOUR POINT, WITH REGARD TO BUSINESS OWNERS WHO MIGHT WANNA GO TO THE BEACH AFTER THEY CLOSE UP, SHOP AFTER FIVE O'CLOCK, THERE IS NO, THERE IS NO FEE. OR MAYBE THAT SOLVES THAT ISSUE. I THINK IT MIGHT. AND, UH, SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS. NO. OKAY. AND, UH, I GUESS WE HAVE TO HAVE, UM, A MOTION, [01:10:01] RIGHT? YEAH. YEP, WE DO. OH, I'M SORRY. YEP. WE WOULD ANY OF OUR TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS, I WAS GONNA CALL YOU UP AFTER THE MOTION, BUT NOW IT'S JUST AS GOOD. UH, FIRST, UM, I'M GLAD THAT WE'VE GOT TWO OF OUR ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGERS HERE. SO THIS COMMENT, WE'LL START WITH, UH, AN APPEAL TO THEM. UM, THE MOST DIFFICULT PART OF THIS ITEM WILL BE CRAFTING THE MOTION . SO I'M ASKING THAT YOU ALL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE AND ALL THE COUNCIL TO HELP FACILITATE THE MOTION. OKAY. UM, SO FIRST OFF, UM, O OBVIOUSLY, UH, THIS ITEM AND THE NEXT ITEM ARE, ARE TIED TOGETHER. OKAY. UM, SO MY COMMENTS ARE, ARE, ARE MORE SO WRAPPED AROUND THE NEXT ITEM, BUT BEAR WITH ME. UM, WE HAD FLEXIBILITY IN THE NEXT ITEM BY PASSING RESOLUTION SO THAT WE CAN ADJUST THE FEES. OKAY. AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION AS WE WERE PUTTING THIS FORTH ORIGINALLY, THAT THERE'LL BE A HIGHER FEE ON THE WEEKENDS TO DETER TRAVEL TO OUR BEACHES. UM, NOW THAT WE ARE RECONSIDERING THAT, I'M COMING TO REALIZE THAT THE DATA THAT WE ARE USING CURRENTLY, YOU'RE NOT COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES. SO WE DON'T HAVE DATA FROM LAST YEAR WHEN IT WAS FREE, AND WE ARE CURRENTLY COLLECTING DATA AT TWO DIFFERENT RATE SCHEDULES. SO YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THIS A YEAR FROM NOW TO DETERMINE IF A HIGHER FEE ACTUALLY DETERRED TRAFFIC OR NOT. SO IN THE SPIRIT OF BEING NEIGHBORLY, I CAN APPRECIATE US PICKING A NUMBER OUTTA THE AIR AND SAYING, WELL, LET'S OFFER COUNTY PASSES AT THIS AMOUNT, BUT I'M MORE INCLINED FOR US TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE SATURDAY OR WEEKEND FEES AND TRY TO REDUCE THAT. SO THERE'S NOT SUCH A BURDEN ON THOSE THAT ARE COMING TO THE BEACHES, PARTICULARLY. THOSE ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO US IN BEAUFORT COUNTY. UH, SO AT, AT THIS POINT, UM, I'M NOT QUITE SURE THAT I'M READY TO SUPPORT AN OVERALL ANNUAL PASS FOR ALL BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS. BUT IN LIEU OF THAT, TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE FEE STRUCTURE SO THAT IT IS NOT SO BURDENSOME. AND JUST A QUICK STORY SO THAT IT IS RELATIVE. I I WAS NOT REALLY, UM, TRYING TO BIAS MYSELF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER UNTIL THIS SATURDAY WHEN, UM, I HAD A COUSIN AT MY HOUSE WHO ASKED ME FOR A RIDE TO THE BEACH BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANNA SPEND 20 BUCKS. THANK YOU. FAIR ENOUGH. UH, WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS A BIG CHANGE. CHARGING FOR PARKING ON THE BEACH FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE IS DEFINED BY HILTON, HAD RESIDENTS WITHIN THIS PROGRAM. AND WITH THAT CHANGE, IT SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISING THAT WE'RE GETTING FEEDBACK, UH, AND WE'RE GETTING RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL. UM, I'VE RECEIVED OVER A HUNDRED EMAILS, AND I'VE TRIED MY BEST TO RESPOND TO EACH ONE PERSONALLY. AND THE FEEDBACK WAS REALLY FELL INTO THREE CATEGORIES. THE FIRST ONE IS DON'T CHARGE FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS. AND THERE WERE MANY REASONS GIVEN, UH, AND ONE OF THE MAIN ONES WAS THAT THEY PAY BEAUFORT COUNTY TAXES. AND SO THEY FEEL THAT THAT, UH, QUALIFIES FOR FREE PARKING. THE SECOND PIECE OF FEEDBACK WAS HAVE HOURLY PARKING ON THE WEEKENDS VERSUS THE FLAT FEE. AS MANY PEOPLE DON'T SPEND ALL DAY AT THE BEACH, THEY MAY COME FOR AN HOUR OR TWO, AND THEY FELT THAT THE $20 FLAT FEE WAS TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THAT EXPERIENCE OR OFFER AN ANNUAL PASS FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS. I'M ALIGNED TO THE SECOND SUGGESTION, AND THAT IS HAVING HOURLY PARKING ON THE WEEKEND. AND I THINK IT RECOGNIZES THE FACT THAT PEACH PEOPLE USE THE BEACHES IN DIFFERENT WAYS. SOME STAY ALL DAY AND SOME ONLY COME FOR AN HOUR OR TWO. AND BY HAVING HOURLY AVAILABLE ON THE WEEKENDS, IT REALLY REFLECTS, UH, THE DIFFERENT USES OF THE BEACH. AND WE DON'T WANNA FORGET IN ALL OF THIS THAT CALLIA IS STILL FREE. SO I BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE $4 AN HOUR ON THE WEEKEND WITH THE CURRENT CAP OF $20 AND RETAIN THE $3 PER HOUR ON THE WEEKDAYS WITH A CAP OF 15. AND THAT CHANGE WOULD BE EASY TO COMMUNICATE AND [01:15:01] IMPLEMENT. PERSONALLY, I THINK THERE ARE TOO MANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE TO CREATE AN ANNUAL PASS FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS OR MAKE OTHER LARGE CHANGES. THE FIRST ONE HAS ALREADY BEEN TOUCHED ON TODAY, HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS PROGRAM, AND IT WOULD BE TENS OF THOUSANDS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT TENS OF THOUSANDS WOULD PAY, AS WE HEARD FROM SEAN. UM, HOW ARE WE MEETING THE DEMANDS OF HILTON HEAD RESIDENTS AND VISITORS TODAY IN REGARDS TO BEACH PARKING? HOW WOULD WE, HOW WOULD WE BE ABLE TO MEET THE INCREASED DEMAND OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS THAT WOULD PAY WHAT'S OUR CAPACITY ON THE ACTUAL BEACH ITSELF AND THE BEACH EXPERIENCE? UH, AND DOES IMPLEMENTING A BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENT ANNUAL PASS PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHARGE AT KIG BEACH? AND WHAT ARE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES? SO, QUITE A LOT OF QUESTIONS I THINK THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER BEFORE YOU ADD, UM, PAID PARKING FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS. I BELIEVE WE SHOULD SPEND THIS YEAR MONITORING THE RESULTS OF OUR BEACH PARKS, GATHER FEEDBACK FOR ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL LEARNINGS THAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT IN THE FUTURE. ANY LARGE CHANGE AT THIS TIME OF YEAR WILL BE DISRUPTIVE TO OUR RESIDENTS AND NOT ALLOW FOR THOROUGH IMPACTS OR UNDERSTANDING OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MELINDA. PATSY, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE? YES, I AGREE. YEAH, WELCOME. THANKS AGAIN, MADAM CHAIR. I'M, I'M A LITTLE RETICENT TO COMMENT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE HAVE FOLKS HERE IN THE PUBLIC I KNOW WHO WANT TO COMMENT. SURE. BUT SINCE I'M FOLLOWING THE CHAIN HERE YES. I'LL, I'LL HOLD ONTO THE CHAIN AND COMMENT. UH, FIRST OF ALL WITH REGARD TO THE TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE, I HAVE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF COUNTY RESIDENTS. UM, AND I THINK THAT IT REALLY DOES OPEN THE FLOOD GATES. I DON'T THINK WE'VE TIED IT DOWN ENOUGH TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY POSSIBLE COUNTY RESIDENTS THERE ARE. FOR INSTANCE, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THERE'S A LOOPHOLE HERE. IF YOU OWN A SHORT TERM RENTAL, THEN YOU CAN GIVE A PASS TO EVERYONE WHO COMES TO YOUR SHORT TERM RENTAL TO GO TO THE BEACH. UM, AND THEN, UH, I SEE THE TIMESHARES ARE INCLUDED AS WELL. UM, , I, I, I'M, I'M WONDERING ABOUT THE QUESTION OF IF YOU WANT A TIMESHARE, BUT IT'S GOT A TOTAL MORE THAN 183 DAYS IN ANY ONE CALENDAR YEAR. I'M JUST THINKING OF IF YOU WANT A TIMESHARE AND YOU HAVE TO PAY THE ANNUAL FEE FOR THAT MANY TIMESHARES, THAT'S QUITE EXPENSIVE. UM, SO I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PRACTICALITY OF THAT. THE OTHER THING THAT THE PROPOSED TEXT DOES IS IT ACTUALLY CHANGES, UM, TOWN RESIDENTS, UH, FROM, UH, LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO PASSES. AND IT DOESN'T SAY PER HOUSEHOLD. UM, SO I GUESS MY HUSBAND COULD GET TWO AND I COULD GET TWO. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE ADOPT THOSE 10 CHILDREN THAT ARE OF THE AGE THAT COULD DRIVE BETWEEN 16 AND 18, THEY HAVEN'T REACHED MAJORITY. WE'LL GIVE EACH ONE OF THOSE 10 A COUPLE OF PASSES TOO. SO THERE'S SOME, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THE TEXT ITSELF. UM, AND THEN LOOKING AT THE DATA, WE'VE BEEN RECEIVING DATA NOW FOR, UH, THE NEW RATES. IT'S BEEN MENTIONED BY MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I'M LOOKING AT, WE HAVE IT ALL FOR MARCH, AND THE LAST REPORT, UH, WAS AS OF APRIL 24, AND WE HAVE IT THROUGH SUNDAY, APRIL 20TH. UM, AND THEN WE HAVE YEAR TO DATE PARKING REVENUE. SO WE'RE STARTING TO COLLECT DATA. I AGREE WITH MR. BROWN. IT'S HARD TO COMPARE APPLES AND ORANGES, ALTHOUGH I DO LIKE THEM BOTH. UM, BUT, BUT ANY RATE, ONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS ASKED ME THIS QUESTION. THERE'S A PROJECTED REVENUE FOR FY 25, 26 OF $650,000 FOR BEACH PARKING REVENUE. SO WHAT IF WE CHANGE THE REVENUE STREAM? NOW, WHAT IS THE FISCAL IMPACT? AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER YET WITH REGARD TO THE REVENUE QUESTIONS. SINCE, UH, THESE ARE TIED TOGETHER, ALL THOSE SEPARATE ACTIONS, UM, I TOO THINK AT THIS POINT, UM, TO ADJUST THAT WEEKLY, UH, FLAT FEE RATE. TAKE THAT OUT AT $20, UH, PER SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, ALTHOUGH IT'S A LIMITED TIME OF THE YEAR. AND IN FACT, YOU CAN PARK FOR FREE AT K CLICKY. SO I'M GOING, WELL GO THERE. . UM, UNLESS, UNTIL WE DO CHARGE FOR PARKING AT KIG, I THINK WE CAN'T MEASURE THE IMPACT OF TRYING TO DETER, UH, TRAFFIC ON THE BEACHES. WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR PROPERTIES. WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR BEACHES, AND THAT'S A PURPOSE OF CHARGING FOR BEACH PARKING. BUT WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF IT, AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE FACTS AND DATA UPON WHICH WE BASE OUR DECISIONS. AND I'VE TRIED TO SHARE SOME OF THAT DATA JUST LOOKING AT YEAR TO DATE PARKING REVENUE FOR MARCH 40, 2000, $144 FOR APRIL. UH, NOT ALL THE WAY THROUGH APRIL 50, $8,566 TO MY CONSTITUENTS QUESTION, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DOES THIS DO TO PROJECTED REVENUE FOR NEXT YEAR? AND IS THAT GOING TO UNBALANCE OUR BUDGET [01:20:01] IF WE CHANGE THE REVENUE STREAM AT THIS POINT? THANK YOU, MA'AM. THANK YOU. AND, AND, UM, NOW WE NEED A, UM, MOTION, PLEASE. WELL, PERSONALLY, I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE QUITE THERE YET. WE'VE GOT TO GET OUR OWN DUCKS IN AN ORDER WITH OUR PARKING, AND WE'RE STILL, UH, WORKING ON YOU HAVE, ARE YOU HERE FOR A COMMENT? UM, I'M, I'M HERE TO ANSWER AND HOPE. OKAY. AND LISTEN, YOU LOOKING FOR A MOTION? UM, YES SIR. WELL, AT THIS POINT, I, I, UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TO TOWN COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO DENY AT THIS POINT. AND I'LL SECOND THAT. AND NOW, IF WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM ANYONE WHO IS ATTENDING TODAY? YES, MA'AM. PARDON ME. MR. WILLIAMS. MR. WILLIAMS? NO. AND ANIS. THANK YOU. WE HAVE SOME FOLKS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP, BUT OFF CALL. HI, MY NAME IS JANICE HERE. UM, I'VE BEEN APART. MY FAMILY HAS BEEN PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE ISLAND, UH, SINCE THE EARLY EIGHTIES AND FULL-TIME. UH, FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. WE HAD NEVER HAD ANY ISSUE WITH HAVING TO PAY FOR AN ANNUAL POP, UH, PARKING PASS, MORE THAN REASONABLE. UM, HAVING LIVED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY PRIOR TO OUR FULL-TIME STATUS HERE, I'VE NEVER BEEN TO A BEACH WHERE YOU HAVEN'T HAD TO PAY PARKING. UM, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS EVEN BEING OFFERED TO BEAUFORT COUNTY WHEN MY FAMILY AND MY GRANDCHILDREN COME TO VISIT. THE BEACHES DURING SEASON NOW ARE SO CROWDED THAT WE CAN'T EVEN REALLY FIND A SPOT TO SIT ANYWAY. UM, WHEN MAIDEN CAIN OPENS, UNFORTUNATELY ISLANDER BEACH IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE CONEY ISLAND. IT'S NOT JUST THE PARKING, BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WALK ON THAT DON'T PARK. MY QUESTION IS, WHY WOULD THIS BE OFFERED TO BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS WHEN, AS IT IS NOW, OUR BEACHES ARE SO CROWDED THAT ISLAND RESIDENTS HAVE DIFFICULTY? I, FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. UM, I'VE SEEN A LOT OF CHANGES ON THIS ISLAND IN THE LAST 40, EXCUSE ME, 40 OR SO YEARS. SOME OF 'EM I'VE LIKED. SOME OF 'EM I HAVEN'T LIKED. I UNDERSTAND CHANGE, UH, HAPPENS. THIS ONE JUST BAFFLES ME. IT'S ONE, I DON'T, IT'S OPENING A PANDORA'S BOX. AND I THINK IT IS JUST, IT IS NOT GONNA MAKE OUR ISLAND BETTER. IT IS GONNA MAKE IT WORSE. IT'S MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. THANK YOU FOR SHARING. THANK YOU. WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO HAD SIGNED IT? OKAY, WELCOME. GOOD MORNING, UH, RICHARD. BUSY INDIGO RUN. SO WHY IS IT THAT WE'RE HERE THIS MORNING DISCUSSING AND DEBATING BEACH PARKING MEMORIAL DAY ONE WEEK FROM TODAY? OKAY. WE ALL THOUGHT THE ISSUE HAD BEEN RESOLVED. WELL, THE MAYOR APPARENTLY GOT FLOODED WITH EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS FROM NON-RESIDENTS WHO WERE NOT HAPPY WITH THE NEW BEACH PARKING POLICY. AFTER FOUR YEARS OF DEBATE, THE TOWN COUNCIL FINALLY DECIDED TO IMPOSE BEACH PARKING FEES, AS IS THE CASE IN VIRTUALLY ALL COMMUNITIES IN THE SOUTHEAST. THE DECISION WAS MADE LAST SEPTEMBER. AND AT THAT MEETING, MAYOR PERRY SAID, AND I QUOTE, THIS IS A RESOLUTION SO THAT WE CAN COME BACK IN A YEAR. IF IT'S NOT WORKING, WE NEED THE DATA TO MAKE A GOOD DECISION. WELL, GUESS WHAT? YOU HAVE VIRTUALLY NO DATA. SINCE THE NEW POLICY JUST TOOK EFFECT ON MARCH 1ST. AND AT THE APRIL 8TH TOWN COUNCIL MEETING, THE MAYOR SAID HE WAS ASKING THE TOWN MANAGER TO BRING THE COMMITTEE A REQUEST FOR A BEAUFORT COUNTY BEACH PASS. BECAUSE, AND I QUOTE AGAIN, WE HAVE 14,000 PEOPLE WHO COME HERE EVERY DAY TO WORK, AND WE NEED TO SHOW THEM THE SAME LOVE THEY SHOW US. DO ALL THE 14,000 NON-RESIDENTS WHO WORK ON HILTON HEAD LIVE IN BEAUFORT COUNTY? WELL, WE ALL KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. THE MAYOR AND HIS HASTE TO MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY AGAIN, NEVER THOUGHT THIS THROUGH. HE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS. THE SPEAKER SET UP PANDORA'S BOX. ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING IS IT THE MAYOR OPENED UP A CAN OF WORMS. SO HOW IS IT THAT THE MAYOR CAN INSTRUCT THE TOWN MANAGER TO REWRITE A RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL, INCLUDING HIS YES VOTE? I KNOW WE HAVE SOME LAWYERS HERE, [01:25:01] BUT WHERE'S IT WRITTEN THAT HE HAS THAT AUTHORITY? CAN ANOTHER TOWN COUNCIL MEMBER ASK THE TOWN MANAGER TO BRING THE COMMITTEE A REQUEST FOR SOMETHING ELSE? OR WOULD THE TOWN MANAGER IGNORE A REQUEST? THE MAYOR DIDN'T ASK THE TOWN COUNCIL TO VOTE ON HIS REQUEST. I BELIEVE WHAT HE DID IS ILLEGAL. AND IF IT'S NOT, IT'S UNETHICAL AND A BIT SHADY. AS THE MAYOR, HE'S THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE TOWN COUNCIL. HE GETS TO GO TO ALL THE RIBBON CUTTINGS. HE GETS TO READ ALL THE PROCLAMATIONS, AND HE HAS ONE VOTE ON THE TOWN COUNCIL. JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, I URGE THIS COMMITTEE TO REJECT ANY CHANGE TO THE BEACH PARKING POLICY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? OH, YES, WE HAVE ONE MORE COMING UP. WELCOME. SORRY. FIRST THANK YOU. D ANTHONY, UH, JONESVILLE ROAD. MS. BRYSON, THANK YOU FOR ANSWER FOR ASKING THE BUDGET QUESTION. 'CAUSE THAT WAS MY QUESTION. HOW, HOW DOES THAT CHANGE THAT? THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT. UM, FIRST OF ALL, WE WERE TOLD WE NEEDED TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND OFFER A PARKING PASS. THEN WE WERE TOLD WE HAVE 14,000 WORKERS COMING ACROSS THE BRIDGE DAILY TO WORK, AND WE NEED TO SHOW THEM SOME LOVE. SO WE OFFER A BEACH PARKING PASS TO BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENTS. ARE WE SAYING TO THE WORKERS FROM THE OTHER COUNTIES THAT CROSS THE BRIDGE, WE DON'T LOVE THEM. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOME OF THE DOLLARS GENERATED FROM THE PARKING WILL HELP FUND A MUNICIPAL COURT. WHAT DOES THIS NOW MEAN FOR A MUNICIPAL COURT? ARE WE GIVING PASSES TO NON ISLANDERS AND MAKING A MUNICIPAL COURT FURTHER OUT OF REACH? THAT AGAIN, LEADS TO ITS ISLAND? ARE TO THE ISLANDERS NEEDS BEING NOT BEING A PRIORITY? AS FAR AS CURRENT PARKING, WE ACTUALLY HAVE MORE PAR FREE PARKING THAN PAID PARKING. ACCORDING TO OUR TOWN WEBSITE, WE HAVE 823 FREE SPACES, 605 PAID FACE PAID SPACES. SORRY. ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE. AT MOST ALMOST 40,000 ISLAND RESIDENTS, WE HAVE AT ALMOST 40,000 ISLAND RESIDENTS, WE HAVE ONLY 154 PARKING SPACES DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTS. ONLY IF A COUNTY RESIDENT RECEIVES A DIS DISCOUNTED PASS, PAYS FOR THAT PASS, MAKES MULTIPLE TRIPS WITH NO SUCCESS IN PARKING. HOW MANY COMPLAINTS AND EMAILS ARE THE TOWN AND TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS GOING TO RECEIVE? I SAY LEAVE CURRENT, ALREADY VOTED ON PARKING AS IT AS IS GIVE IT A YEAR, AS WAS VOTED ON TO HAVE REAL DATA TO CONSIDER WHEN WE REEVALUATE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? YES, MA'AM. WELL, I'VE ONLY LIVED HERE FOR FIVE YEARS, RETIRED, AND I THOUGHT THIS WAS BLISS. UH, MY FIRST TIME AT ISLAND BEACH, I PAID THE, 'CAUSE I WASN'T A HOMEOWNER YET. I PAID THE AMOUNT. IT RAN OUT BY 20 MINUTES. MY CAR WAS TOWED ON THE TRUCK. I COME OFF THE BEACH. THANK GOODNESS HE WANTS $80. I HAVE 60 CASH, NO RECEIPTS. IF HE TAKES IT TO HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS, IT'S $250 CASH, NO RECEIPT. THERE WAS A, I DON'T KNOW IF IT, IT WAS, UH, THERE WAS A PERSON THERE THAT, NOT JUST THE DRIVER OF THE TOW TRUCK. WHEN MY FAMILY COMES, NOW, WE PAY THE PARKING. OKAY. WE HAVE, I HAVE THREE NEPHEWS. WE, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE PARAPHERNALIA NOW, WE ALL HAVE TWO SPOTS, BUT I ONLY GET ONE 'CAUSE IT IS JUST ME. WE PAY, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. BUT WE ALSO SEE PEOPLE WITH TWO SPOTS. THEY COME AND PARK THEIR CAR AND TAKE THE OTHER ONES HOME FOR LUNCH, COME BACK, COME BACK, AND THEY ALWAYS KEEP THEIR SPOT. SO THERE'S SO MUCH GOING ON AT PLUS THE, YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT TRAFFIC FOR THE OTHER THINGS. I MEAN, YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE FOR THE LIGHT PARADE ALONE. CAN YOU IMAGINE ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA BE COMING HERE FOR FREE SPOTS OR OPENING IT UP TO PEOPLE THAT DON'T? I MEAN, THEY PAY TAXES TO BEAUFORT COUNTY, BUT THEY DON'T PAY 'EM WHERE I LIVE. SO I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS. I MEAN, EVERYTHING'S, [01:30:01] SOMETIMES WE'RE TRYING TO FIX SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BROKEN. YES, MA'AM. CAN YOU JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND, OH, I'M SORRY. SUSAN MAYNARD. OKAY. AND, UM, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU IF YOU WANNA FINISH. NO, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. YOU KNOW, I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE LONG TERM, THE SPACES, THE CRIME, THE, WE HAVE PEOPLE PARKING ON, YOU KNOW, PARKING THEIR STUFF ON THE DUNES NOW. AND THE LIFEGUARDS CAN'T ADDRESS IT. I CALLED THE POLICE, THEY CAN'T ADDRESS IT. EVEN ON NEXT DOOR, SOMEONE DID IT. AND I, I'M NOT ONE TO BE TECHNICAL, BUT I RESPONDED, YOU'RE PARKING ON THE DUNES. SHE HAD A PICTURE. AND I SAID, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. AND SHE SAID, WELL, WHERE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE? AND I SAID, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO WAIT PATIENTLY. LIKE THE REST OF US. SHE DIDN'T RESPOND. THANK YOU FOR PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT. WE APPRECIATE THATS, WE CAN ALL REMEMBER TO DO THAT IN THE FUTURE. IT'S JUST, THERE'S NO, I DON'T KNOW WHO TO CALL WHEN WE SEE THAT, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT, UM, BACK AND BACK. YEAH. I, I SUGGEST YOU SEE MR. BROMAGE. YEAH. HE WILL GIVE YOU ALL THE INFORMATION BECAUSE THAT ALONE MAY PAY FOR SOMETHING. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I SUGGEST IF YOU DON'T GET A RECEIPT, YOU SEE MR. BROMAGE YEAH. ON BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS. I KNOW. YES, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY. AND WITH THAT, I'LL BRING IT BACK. UM, I THINK WE'VE HAD A LOT OF, UM, GREAT COMMENTS. UM, WHILE IT IS CERTAINLY, UH, WE CERTAINLY DO WELCOME THE FOLKS FROM ALL OF BEAUFORT COUNTY AND THOSE BEYOND TO OUR ISLAND TO ENJOY. UM, WITH REGARD TO THE PARKING, THERE'S BEEN PLENTY, UM, STATED ALREADY THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE AS WE ARE, UM, WITH THE PASSES, FREE PASSES, UM, FOR HILTON HEAD RESIDENTS, UNDER OUR DEFINITION, FAR TOO LONG WERE HILTON HEAD RESIDENTS BEING CHARGED FOR PASSES AND EVERYONE ELSE COMING ONTO THE ISLAND WERE FREE. AND THAT SEEMED A LITTLE BACKWARDS TO ME, SO I'M GLAD WE'VE CORRECTED THAT. BUT, UM, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COUNCILMAN DESMO. OH, WE ALREADY DID THAT. THANK YOU. UM, WELL THEN, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY TO MOVE TO TOWN COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO DENY OPPOSED. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE, FIND MY AGENDA AFTER ALL OF THAT CONSIDERATION OF [5.d. Consideration of a Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Hilton Head Island, Establishing the Fee for a County Resident Beach Parking Pass in Accordance with Section 12-6-115(B)(2) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Hilton Head Island and Modify Fees for Saturday and Sundays Beach Parking - Shawn Colin, Assistant Town Manager] RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL, OF THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND, ESTABLISHING THE FEE FOR COUNTY RESIDENT BEACH PARKING PASS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 12 6 115 B TWO OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND, AND MODIFY FEES FOR SATURDAY AND SUNDAY BEACH PARKING. AND SEAN IS HERE AGAIN TO ADDRESS THAT WITH US. UH, YES, MA'AM. UM, THANK YOU FOR, FOR, FOR, UH, PROVIDING CLEAR DIRECTION ON THE LAST ITEM. SO WE'RE GONNA TRUNCATE, UM, THE FEE FOR RESIDENT BEACH PARKING. WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT. UM, BUT I WANNA TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE, THE HOURLY RATE, AND THE MAXIMUM DAILY FEE THAT'S INCLUDED, UM, THAT TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTED, UH, VIA RESOLUTION. AND THEREFORE, ANY CHANGE WOULD BE A RESOLUTION OF TOWN COUNCIL TO, TO CHANGE THE FEE. SO I'M GONNA SCROLL DOWN, UM, HERE. SO AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENT FEE. IT'LL GO BEFORE COUNCIL YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO NOT ADVANCE THAT ORDINANCE, TO CHANGE THE CODE. UM, BUT I WANNA TALK ABOUT THE WEEKEND PAID PARKING ADJUSTMENT. WE'VE HEARD MEMBER, UM, UM, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC TALK ABOUT THAT. UM, CURRENTLY THE FEE IS $3 PER HOUR. UM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, THERE IS A $15 MAXIMUM DAILY RATE THAT APPLIES, UM, DURING, UH, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. AND THEN THERE IS A $20 FLAT DAILY RATE FEE OF, OF 20, UH, OF $20 THAT'S APPLIED TO ALL PAID PARKING AREAS. AND SO THERE, UH, UNDER THIS RESOLUTION, IT PROPOSES TO GO BACK TO A $3 HOURLY RATE, UM, FOR SEVEN DAYS A WEEK UNDER THE CURRENT RESOLUTION. IT KEEPS THE $15 MAXIMUM DAILY RATE OF, UM, AT, UH, FROM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND SUGGEST A MAXIMUM $20 PER DAY, UM, DAILY RATE FOR SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. UM, NOW THAT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. UH, WE HAVE TALKED TO OUR, UH, OUR PARKING MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS. IT WOULD BE CERTAINLY MUCH EASIER TO APPLY A UNIFORM HOURLY RATE SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, AND IT WOULD BE EASIER TO HAVE A MAXIMUM DAILY RATE THAT IS THE SAME SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. UM, AND, UM, AND SO THEY'RE, UM, I'M READY TO ANSWER [01:35:01] ANY QUESTIONS ON, ON THAT. BUT, AND MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE A UNIFORM, HOURLY, AND DAILY MAXIMUM RATE, UH, FOR, FOR US TO, UH, BE ABLE TO OPERATE. UM, I THINK, I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA HAVE SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL OR BUDGETARY, UH, CONSIDERATIONS. IT WOULD BE EASIER TO COMMUNICATE THAT IF YOU COME FOR ONE HOUR, YOU'RE GONNA PAY $3. IF YOU'RE THERE MORE THAN FIVE, THEN YOU'RE CAPPED AT 15 ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. AND THEN THERE'S NO, UM, THERE'S NO CONCERN ABOUT, UM, SETTING SORT OF VARIABLE OR, OR DIFFERENT RATES FOR EACH, UM, EACH FACILITY. SO HOPEFULLY THAT SUMMED IT UP. UM, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME BYPASS THE FIRST PART OF THIS AND JUST TALK ABOUT THE DAILY, THE DAILY RATE AND MAXIMUM FEE. THANK YOU, SEAN. SO ACTUALLY, WHEN THIS WAS BEING DISCUSSED BY THE PRIOR COUNCIL, I'M SETTING IN THE AUDIENCE, AND I COULD SEE THIS GOING BACK AND FORTH, UM, WITHOUT, WITHOUT AN OPINION AT THE TIME. BUT, YOU KNOW, AS TIME MOVES ON, WE ALL HAVE OUR OPINIONS. I, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT HAVING PARKING IN KIG, FOR INSTANCE. I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO GAIN DATA, BUT WE'VE BEEN GAINING DATA FOR YEARS. UH, I WOULD HOPE THAT INFLUENCE WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NOT HAVING PARKING AND COLIGNY AT THIS TIME. UM, BUT LOOKING AT IT FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW AND TO TRY TO SERVICE OUR BUSINESSES AT THE SAME TIME, SERVICE OUR RESIDENTS, IT SEEMS TO ME, JUST LOGICALLY SEEMS TO ME THAT WE WOULD WANT TURNOVER. WE WOULD WANT THE PARKING LOTS TO TURN OVER. WE WOULD NOT WANT WHAT THIS LADY, UH, SPOKE OF A MOMENT AGO WHERE YOU COME IN AND SWITCH CARS AND GO AND LEAVE AND COME BACK. AND THE CAR'S BEEN PARKED THERE FOR 12 HOURS. UM, AND TO ME THAT WOULD, THE, THE INTENT IS TO GET MORE PEOPLE TO ENJOY THE BEACH, UM, GIVE OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE TO COME AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND HAVING PARKING SPOTS AVAILABLE. SO I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE A CAP. I THINK WE SHOULD PUT A FEE ON IT AND, AND NOT HAVE A CAP. IF PEOPLE WANNA SHOW UP AT NOON, THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, AND WE QUIT CHARGING AT WHAT TIME? FIVE FIVE 5:00 PM SO THEY PAY THAT FEE FOR FIVE HOURS. IF THEY JUST COME AT EIGHT IN THE MORNING, THEY PAY THAT FEE FOR 10 HOURS. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, HOW MANY PEOPLE STAY ON THE BEACH FOR 10 HOURS? YOU KNOW, NOT MANY. BUT I CAN SEE THEM LEAVING THEIR CARS, GOING INTO THE BUSINESSES AND, UH, AND THEN COMING BACK THAT AFTERNOON AND PICKING THEIR CAR UP. UH, I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR BUSINESS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THIS HAPPENS IN THE IGNIA AREA TO SPUR TURNOVER. SO PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO PARK AND GO TO THE BEACH AND WALK UP AND HAVE LUNCH WILL NOW HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND, AND I CAN SEE IT INCREASING BUSINESS RATHER THAN, THAN CUTTING BACK ON BUSINESS. AND THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. I THINK TO FEE A $3 IN MY OPINION, IS NOT ENOUGH. I THINK IT SHOULD BE A $5 AN HOUR FEE WITHOUT A CAP. UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GONNA GO TO FULL COUNSEL AND THAT DISCUSSION WILL BE HAD. UM, I'M GONNA HOLD OFF AND WAIT UNTIL WE HEAR. YES. CAN I MAKE JUST ONE COMMENT RELATED TO TURNOVER? YES. JUST SOME, JUST SOME HISTORY. SO, UM, GOING BACK UNTIL THE LATE NINETIES, UM, BEACH ACCESS WAS A, HAS BEEN AN ISSUE ON HILTON HEAD FOR, FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. AND GOING BACK TO SOME STATE, UH, MONEY THAT WAS PROVIDED. AND THEN IN SUPPORT OF OUR LOCAL BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN, THERE WAS A PROVISION THAT THE TOWN WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE 3,500 PARKING SPACES. UM, THAT LED TO ACQUISITION OF CHAPLAIN AT, AT ONE POINT. UM, AND THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AND AN EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO SAY THAT EVERY PARKING SPACE EFFECTIVELY AS TWO AND A HALF IN ANY ONE DAY BECAUSE OF TURNOVER. AND SO THAT 3,500 NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES WAS REDUCED DOWN TO 1400, WHICH WE WERE ABLE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH. AND SO TURNOVER IS A BIG PART OF, UM, PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND OPERATIONAL SUPPORT FOR YOUR BEACH, UH, SERVICE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD IT. YEAH, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. I WAS ACTUALLY ON COUNCIL WHEN THAT HAPPENED AND WE, WE WERE CONFRONTED WITH, YEAH, 3,500 SPOTS. I REMEMBER THAT. THANK YOU. YEAH, THANK YOU. THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT PART, UM, PIECE OF THE PUZZLE TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS. UM, UH, IS THERE, DO WE NEED A MOTION FIRST? GO BACKWARDS TODAY. YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION? NO, THEY DON'T. NO. DON'T MAKE A MOTION YET. DON'T, UM, I'LL MAKE MY COMMENTS AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL GO FROM THERE. [01:40:01] SO MY COMMENTS, UM, ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS THEY HAD BEEN OVER THE SEVERAL YEARS WHERE WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS. UM, I'M NOT PLEASED AT WHERE IT LANDED WITH $3 AN HOUR WITH A MAXIMUM, UM, AND A FLAT FEE ON THE WEEKENDS, IN MY OPINION, AS YOU STATED, SEAN. UM, UH, I, THERE'S A, THERE'S A SAYING OUT THERE, AND SO I'M PUTTING IT IN QUOTES TO KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID. AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE YOU, YOU DON'T NEED TO OVERCOMPLICATE OR OVERTHINK THINGS THAT SHOULD BE FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, ACCEPT IT AND, AND MOVE ON. AND IN THIS CASE, A FLAT FEE REGARDLESS OF DAY. SO SEVEN DAYS A WEEK WITH NO MAXIMUM. UM, KEEPING IN MIND THE IDEA OF TURNOVER AND HOW WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME OBLIGATION TO HELP FACILITATE THAT TURNOVER, UH, MAKES SENSE TO ME. IT ADDITIONALLY TO THE QUESTION OF BUDGET AND HOW ANY OF THIS WOULD IMPACT BUDGET, UM, I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE CHARGING IN KAGEY AT THIS POINT. UM, WE SHOULD HAVE FROM THE BEGINNING. AND, UM, I HAVE NOT SEEN OR HEARD OF ANY REAL REASON FOR US NOT CHARGING AT KAGEY, UM, NOW. AND SO I WILL AGAIN, UM, STATE MY PREFERENCE THAT WE ARE CHARGING AT ALL THE BEACH PARKS. UM, $5 AN HOUR SOUNDS FINE WITH ME. THE, THE IDEA THOUGH, AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, IS THAT TYBEE CHARGES $4 AN HOUR. WE CANNOT BE LOWER THAN TYBEE. SO, UM, I THINK $5 AN HOUR IS CERTAINLY FAIR AND REASONABLE, BUT IT, IN MY MIND, MUST BE, UM, MORE THAN WHAT TYBEE IS CHARGING. SO WITH THAT, UM, I'M AT $5 AN HOUR, NO FEE, UM, AND NO CAP AND CHARGE AT COLIGNY AS WELL. AND I WILL NOW ASK FOR A MOTION. UM, YOU MAKE THAT MOTION. OH, OKAY. SO, UM, I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD TO FULL TOWN COUNCIL, A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE THAT WE, UM, CHARGE A FLAT FEE SEVEN DAYS A WEEK OF $5, UM, PER HOUR WITH NO MAXIMUM, AND THAT WE BEGIN CHARGING AT KAGEY, UM, WITHIN THE MOST REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO FACILITATE THAT BY THE STAFF AND OUR PARKING PARTNERS. UH, I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. AND, UH, WE'RE GONNA OPEN THAT FOR DISCUSSION. I'D LIKE TO FIRST CALL UPON WHICH OUR TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE JOINED US TODAY IN AN UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY. BUT MELINDA, UM, ALEX PATSY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING? ALAN'S HERE AND, WELL, AND I'M SORRY, ALAN IS ALSO HERE WITH US. MAYOR IS SITTING IN THE BACK. UM, APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. WE'RE, WE ARE ALMOST ALL HERE, AND SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN IN AS WELL, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. UM, FIRST I'D LIKE TO, UH, REITERATE, UM, SOME OF MY COMMENTS FROM EARLIER, UM, WITH REGARDS TO US MAKING A VERY DELIBERATE DECISION AND PUTTING THE FEE STRUCTURE AND RESOLUTION VERSUS THE ORDINANCE. SO THAT GIVES US FLEXIBILITY TO RECONSIDER. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE MAYOR FOR CHALLENGING US. JUST TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS. NOW THAT WE HAVE HAD SOME COMMENTS, NOT ONLY FROM OUR HILTON HEAD RESIDENTS, BUT OUR NEIGHBORS. AND I THINK IT'S BEEN SORT OF AN EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE BECAUSE WE TEND TO THINK THAT HILTON HEAD RESIDENT PROPERTY TAXES, OR BEAUFORT COUNTY PROPERTY TAXES ARE PART OF THIS DISCUSSION WHEN IT COMES TO HOW WE TAKE CARE OF OUR BEACHES. BUT IF YOU'VE BEEN FALLING OUR BUDGETARY DELIBERATIONS, YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE THAT THERE ARE REVENUE STREAMS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BEACH, EITHER BEACH FEES AT TAX DOLLARS, AND SO ON THAT SUPPORT OUR BEACH OPERATIONS, NOT HILTON HEAD OR COUNTY PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS. OKAY. I THINK WE CAN'T SAY THAT ENOUGH AS WE TRY TO EDUCATE THE CONSTITUENTS. NOW WITH THAT, UM, WE, WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS ORIGINALLY AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB WITH MANAGING THE TRAFFIC AROUND OUR BEACHES. WE TALKED ABOUT THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO HELP US WITH THAT. OKAY. AND I GUESS I'M GOING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, [01:45:01] BUT I'M CHALLENGING STAFF ON THAT AS WELL, BECAUSE THERE WAS HOPE THAT WE COULD DEVELOP AN APP THAT WOULD START TO TELL FOLKS BEFORE THEY COME TO HILTON HEAD, WHICH BEACHES ARE FULL. THAT IN ITSELF WILL HELP IF WE ARE LOOKING TO DETER WHEN IT COMES TO OVER CAPACITY. I THINK THAT'S A, A PIECE THAT WE ARE LEAVING ON THE TABLE THAT WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY IMPLEMENTING THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT. NOW, AS FAR AS THE FEE STRUCTURE IS CONCERNED, UM, AS THIS MAKES ITS WAY TO TOWN COUNCIL, UM, I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE SEVEN DAYS PER WEEK. UM, JUST SO, UH, THE, THE COMMITTEE HERE WHERE I STAND ON THE, THE FEE STRUCTURE. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. AND I, IF I RECALL FROM, UM, THE PRESENTATION TO TOWN COUNCIL, AND I THINK IT WAS IN 22 OR BY, UM, PCI, UM, THAT WE, I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE COMPANY THAT WE GOT THE PRESENTATION FROM AND WHO WE ULTIMATELY WENT WITH. THERE WAS A TECHNOLOGICAL COMPONENT OF IT WHERE THERE WOULD BE, UM, DATA SO YOU WOULD KNOW WHICH BEACH HAD, WHAT TYPE OF OPENINGS AVAILABLE FOR SPACE. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE IMPLEMENTED THAT OR IF WE JUST DID AWAY WITH THAT PIECE OF IT. UM, I DON'T RECALL, BUT I DO REMEMBER THAT THAT BEING PART OF THAT PRESENTATION TO TOWN COUNCIL BECK, AND I THINK IT WAS 22, THAT'S HOW LONG WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS. SURE. WOULD YOU LIKE US TO BRING UP IT? IT REALLY ISN'T ALL THAT IMPORTANT. I MEAN, ALTHOUGH I DO THINK THAT, UM, THE POINT IS BEING MADE THIS THE, FOR EASE OF FINDING A SPACE, IT'D BE HELPFUL IF THAT APP EXISTED, UM, BEFORE PEOPLE MAKE THE TREK DOWN TO HILTON HAD, MAYBE THEY'D OPT TO GO ELSEWHERE IF THEY SAW THAT THERE WAS NO PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE. SO, UM, ANYONE ELSE? MAYOR PATSY, UM, TANNER. MRS. TANNER. SORRY. MELINDA. THANK YOU, MA. UM, AGAIN, I'M ALL ALWAYS INTERESTED IN WHAT OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, SINCE I, NOW I'M A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, I GUESS, . UM, BUT I, I LOOK BACK AT, AND I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO, UM, THE, THE MOTION MADE AND THE DRAFT RESOLUTION. I THINK THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN THE WAREHOUSES THAT'S GONNA CONFLICT. WE, WE HAVE AN EXISTING RESOLUTION, UM, WITH REGARD TO FEES THAT WAS ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024. AND IT'S NOT CLEAR FROM THIS LANGUAGE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT ONE. UM, IT, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IT SAYS IT'S, UH, AMENDING THE FEES, BUT IT ONLY DEALS WITH CERTAIN FEES. SO I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT THROWING OUT THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE FROM THE, UM, SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024 RESOLUTION. THAT'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE. BUT I ALSO LOOK BACK AT, UH, ACTION TAKEN WHEN I WAS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE LAST YEAR. UM, AND THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 19TH, 2024 HAD ME MAKING A MOTION , UM, TO AN, UH, FORWARD TO THE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION INCLUSIVE OF ITEMS ONE THROUGH EIGHT LISTED ABOVE FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL. AND AT THAT TIME, WE COULDN'T DECIDE QUITE ON WHAT OPTION TO FOLLOW WITH REGARD TO SETTING THE PARKING RATES. WE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN THIS STATE AND GEORGIA AND, UH, RECALL IN, IN FLORIDA AS WELL. SO WHAT WE RECOMMENDED WAS TO LOOK AT THREE OPTIONS, $3 AN HOUR, WITH A MAXIMUM DAILY RATE OF 15. UH, SO IF SOMEONE WAS THERE, UM, MORE THAN FIVE HOURS, IF THEY WERE THERE SIX HOURS, UM, THEN THEY WOULD STILL PAY A, A MAXIMUM DAILY RATE AND A FLAT RATE OF $20 PER DAY ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS. SECOND OPTION, $3 WITH A MAXIMUM DAILY RATE OF 15 MONEY THROUGH FRIDAY, FLAT RATE OF 20 ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS DURING THE MONTHS OF JUNE, JULY, AND AUGUST. . AND THIRD OPTION WAS $5 AN HOUR WITH A MAXIMUM DAILY RATE OF 30 FROM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, AND A FLAT FEE OF 25 ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS. SO WE, WE GAVE THE TOWN COUNCIL SEVERAL OPTIONS, UH, 'CAUSE WE COULDN'T DECIDE OURSELVES. SO AT THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024, UM, THE RESOLUTION I MENTIONED BEFORE, UM, INCLUDED $3 AN HOUR, UM, AT ALL BEACH PARKING FACILITIES WITH THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE A MAXIMUM DAILY RATE OF OPTION OF 15 PER DAY, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, AND A FLAT RATE OF 20 PER DAY ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS. UM, WITH A SEASONAL COLLECTION, MARCH ONE TO SEPTEMBER SEVEN, IT ESTABLISHED HOURS OF OPERATION AND WHEN PARKING FEES WOULD BE COLLECTED, 7:00 AM TILL 5:00 PM UH, WITH CHAPLAIN BEACH PARK REMAIN EXEMPT FROM BEACH PARKING FEES DURING ALL YOUTH RECREATIONAL SPORTS SESSIONS AND BEACH PARKING AREAS WITHIN THE POPE AVENUE BUSINESS DISTRICT WILL REMAIN FREE OF CHARGE, BUT ARE SUBJECT TO BE REVIEWED AND [01:50:01] REVISED AT LATER DATE. IT WAS A SECOND TO THAT MOTION WITH DISCUSSION. MS. BECKER AND I VOICED OUR OPPOSITION TO PROVIDING FREE PARKING IN THE K CLINICY AREA AFTER PURCHASING PROPERTY FOR PARKING. SO I MADE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION, UM, TO, AND NOT TO EXCLUDE THE POPE AVENUE BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH WAS SECONDED BY MS. BECK BECKER. IT FAILED ON A VOTE OF TWO TO FIVE. SO I AGREE WITH, UH, THAT WE SHOULD, UH, NO LONGER EXCLUDE KIG FROM PARKING. WE WERE SUPPOSED TO THAT AREA FROM PARKING IDENTIFIED AS THE POPE AVENUE BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH IS STILL UNDEFINED. UM, BUT, UM, THAT WE, WE OUGHT TO, THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN A COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE DATA. I HAVE NOT HEARD OF A COMMITTEE BEING APPOINTED. I KNOW DATA'S BEING COLLECTED. I JUST READ ABOUT DATA BEING COLLECTED. UM, SO I KNOW THERE'S SOME, SOME ADMINISTRATIVE TASK AND SOME, UM, UH, PERHAPS TECHNICAL, UH, UH, CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO CHANGE PARKING RATES THIS LATE IN THE SEASON. UM, AND SO I, I WOULD RESPECT TIMING ON THAT. BUT I DO THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO RECONSIDER, UM, EXCLUDING PARKING AT KIG BECAUSE OUR BEACHES ARE OVERCROWDED. JUST ASK THE SEA TURTLE PATROL, JUST ASK OUR BEACH SERVICES ABOUT COLLECTING TRASH. WE HAD 21,000 VIOLATIONS ON THE BEACH LAST YEAR. THAT TELLS YOU SOMETHING. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT OUR PROPERTY, PROTECT OUR BEACHES, AND PROTECT OUR VISITORS WHO COME AND GO FROM HAVING THAT BEACH EXPERIENCE. AND THIS IS A WAY OF MANAGING IT. THANK YOU. AND I'M, I'M NOT SURE I CAN AGREE WITH $5 AT THIS POINT. WE DEBATE IT BACK AND FORTH. I'D RATHER KEEP IT AT THE THREE. AND, AND DEAL WAS TAKING OUT, UM, THAT, UH, UH, FLAT RATE ON THE WEEKENDS, UM, AND, UH, MOVING FORWARD WITH CHARGING AT KIG. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I, I, I APPRECIATE THE FACT YOU TALK ABOUT TRASH ON THE BEACH. AND, YOU KNOW, I HAD MENTIONED TO MS. BECKER THAT I RODE MY BIKE. UM, MY WIFE AND I RODE OUR BIKES ALL THE WAY DOWN INTO SEA PINES PAST KAGEY. AND, UH, I HAD NOT RIDDEN THROUGH THAT AREA IN A LONG TIME. 'CAUSE I DON'T GO TO THE BEACH AT, AT KAGEY. I GO TO THE BEACH AT MY HOUSE. AND, UH, AND IT, IT WAS REALLY BAD. WE WENT DOWN ABOUT 3 30, 4 O'CLOCK, AND WE CAME BACK ABOUT SEVEN 30 AND THERE WAS TRASH ALL OVER THE BEACH. I MEAN, IT, IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WERE IN ONE AREA JUST PICKED UP THEIR CHAIRS AND LEFT AND JUST LEFT ALL THEIR TRASH. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S JUST UNFORTUNATE. AND I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK OUR RESIDENTS ARE THE CULPRITS. SO, UM, WE NEED, WE NEED TO DO, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE HIGHER RATE FOR PARKING COMES INTO PLAY AS WELL. MAYOR, WHO DID I MISS? OH, SORRY, MELINDA. IT'S MORE JUST OF, UH, REITERATION OF WHAT I SAID BEFORE. I'M LOOKING FOR, UM, A SMALL CHANGE. AND THAT IS TO HAVE HOURLY PARKING ON THE WEEKENDS AND, UM, NOT MAKE ANY OTHER MAJOR CHANGES. AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE SAID WE WERE GONNA TEST THIS FOR A YEAR. WE WERE GONNA HAVE LEARNINGS. UM, AND WE NEED TO BE VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT ALL THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF DOING SOMETHING BROADER. SO THAT'S WHERE I AM. THANK YOU. AND NOW LAST BUT NOT LEAST, SORRY I DID NOT SEE YOU BACK THERE, BUT TO HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED YOU IN THE ROOM, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS MORNING. NO PROBLEM. SO FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR TAKING UP THE DISCUSSION. UM, I AGREE THAT REDUCING OR CHANGING THE FEES ON SATURDAY, SUNDAY IS THE BETTER OPTION TO GO. AND WE GET AT THESE BETTER OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH DISCUSSION. AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING TODAY. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. UM, I TOO RECEIVED WELL OVER, I WISH I ONLY RECEIVED A HUNDRED EMAILS. UM, BUT PLENTY OF PEOPLE HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS AND WE WANNA MAKE CERTAIN THAT IT IS THE BEST POSSIBLE PROGRAM FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AND I AGREE, WE WANT TURNOVER. THAT'S WHERE THE REVENUE'S GONNA COME FROM. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS LOOKING AT AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE $650,000 LINE ITEM ON THE BUDGET. HOW DO WE MAKE CERTAIN WE MEET THAT? AND BY ADJUSTING THOSE FEES, CREATING THAT TURNOVER, I THINK WE DO THAT. UM, SO I'M IN COMPLETE SUPPORT OF THAT. I'M IN COMPLETE SUPPORT OF NOT ALLOWING THE, UM, COMMUNITY PASS OR, OR COUNTY PASS, I'M SORRY, UM, TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE CAN ADDRESS. AND I ALSO AGREE THAT WE KEEP EVERYTHING ELSE IN, IN SYNC AS IT IS NOW. UM, MAYBE ADJUST THAT SATURDAY SUNDAY FEE FROM $3 TO $4, UM, BUT NOT UTILIZE THE OBSERVED DATA FROM THE PAST, BUT ACTUALLY HAVE REAL DATA GOING FORWARD. SO I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT Y'ALL ARE DOING HERE, AND, AND I STAND WITH Y'ALL, SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I COULD LIVE WITH THE $4 IF THAT WAS A [01:55:01] COMPROMISE THAT OTHERS WANTED, BUT, UM, SO I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT. ALL RIGHT. UH, IS THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM OUR PUBLIC WHO HAVE JOINED US TODAY? PAM? OH NO. OH, SORRY. I'M SORRY. CINDY, MAY I GO IN ORDER? MS. EVANS, YOU MAY. I'M PAM. I APOLOGIZE. I'M OUT OF THE SEQUENCE THAT SANDA HAS THAT SHE'S OUT OF ORDER. I'M OUT OF ORDER. I WASN'T GONNA SAY IT THAT WAY, MR. BE IN TWO WAYS. OKAY. CAN LET MR. BEY GO FIRST AND THEN I'LL CALL YOU BACK UP. AND I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, SIR. MR. BUSY. GOOD MORNING AGAIN. UM, I WASN'T PLANNING TO SPEAK AGAIN, BUT SEEING THAT WE HAVE VIRTUALLY A, UH, A QUORUM HERE, SIX OF THE SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS, I DECIDED TO REITERATE, UH, A COUPLE OF POINTS. ALTHOUGH THE, UM, THE COUNCIL ACTED LAST SEPTEMBER IN APPROVING A POLICY, UH, IT DECIDED TO ALLOW FREE PARKING AT OUR LARGEST PARKING LOT AT KAGEY. AND FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT MAKES ANY SENSE, THE LARGEST PARKING LOT, BUT IT'S FREE NOW. KAGEY SHOULD NOT BE FREE, EXCEPT OF COURSE TO HILTON HEAD ISLAND RESIDENTS. I GUESS IT MAKES AS MUCH SENSE IN THE MAYOR ASKING THE TOWN MANAGER LAST MONTH TO REWRITE A POLICY APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL, INCLUDING HIS YES, VOGUE. WE DESERVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. AND I DID READ ON SOCIAL MEDIA THAT THE MAYOR CLAIMS HE DISCUSSED THIS IDEA WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS WITH A MAJORITY. WHILE OF COURSE, THAT COULDN'T BE DONE 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL. SO WHO WAS PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE MAYOR? IS IT HIS FRIENDS AT THE CHAMBER? WHO IS IT? AND FROM HIS REMARKS THAT I JUST HEARD, I GUESS HE'S OKAY NOW WITH NO PASS FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY RESIDENCE, IF I HEARD HIM CORRECTLY. AND FINALLY, A POINT THAT I MADE AT A PRIOR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING, UH, DESERVES TO BE REPEATED. THINK ABOUT IT. IF THE BEACH PARKING POLICY IS AMENDED TO PLEASE THE MAYOR, THINK ABOUT WHAT IT DOES TO THE INTEGRITY AND TRUST OF THE TOWN COUNCIL. YOU'LL LOSE ANY TRUST BECAUSE THE PUBLIC WILL BELIEVE THAT VIRTUALLY ANY VOTE YOU TAKE MAY VERY WELL BE REVERSED MONTHS LATER. AND I DO HAPPEN TO THINK $5 AN HOUR IS REASONABLE. UH, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, AND MAKING COLIGNY PAID PARKING, I THINK YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT COURSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENDA. YEAH. UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL MS. OVENS BECAUSE SHE'S RIGHT THERE. YEP. THANK YOU. . I'M PAMELA MARTIN OVENS. I'M NOT RELATED TO DAVID MARTIN, BUT I WANNA MAKE THIS STATEMENT IN HIS STAFF BECAUSE I WAS AT COMMITTEE MEETINGS WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE CHARGING AT KAEGY. THE REASON WE IS BECAUSE DAVID MARTIN'S BUSINESS WOULD BE OVER. HE, HE RUNS THE PIGGLY WIGGLY THERE, HE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY CUSTOMERS. 'CAUSE EVERYBODY PARKS FOR THE BEACH THERE IF THEY CHARGE, IT'S, IT'S BAD ENOUGH. ANYWAY, SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. ARE WE BACK ON TRACK? SANDA? YE YES MA'AM. UM, I SEE MS. GREER LEFT. UM, MR. WILLIAMS, THAT'S ALL. OKAY. AND IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING THAT DIDN'T SIGN UP? OKAY. ALRIGHT THEN. UM, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE DO, WE DO. GO AHEAD. I JUST WANTED, SO IF I JUST WANTED, SO FOR CLARIFICATION, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADVANCE THIS RESOLUTION WITH MODIFICATIONS TO INCLUDE A HOURLY, FLAT HOURLY RATE OF $5 PER HOUR. IS THERE, OR ISN'T THERE A DAILY MAXIMUM IN YOUR RECKON CAP? SO THERE'S NO DOLLARS AN HOUR NOTE CAP, NO DAILY MAXIMUM. AND YOU, UM, ARE INCLUDING IN THERE TO, UM, BEGIN CHARGING IN AT COLIGNY AS WELL? THAT IS THE FIRST AND SECOND, YES. OKAY. AND ARE WE, IS IT, UH, JUST A QUESTION POPE AVENUE BUSINESS CORRIDOR OR IS IT THE KIG BEACH LOT? SO SINCE IT'S NOT AS I BELIEVE, UM, COUNCILWOMAN BRYSON MENTIONED, NOT REALLY DEFINED, I THINK WE COULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC WITH REGARD TO, I ASSUME THAT MEANS, AND THE, AGAIN, I MAY BE WRONG, UM, THE NEW PARKING WHERE ENCHILADAS WAS AS WELL AS THE PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE AT WILD WINGS, IS THAT WHAT WAS INTENDED IN THAT? THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE UNCONTROLLED, UNMONITORED AND UNABLE TO COLLECT A FEE? WELL, THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I WANNA MAKE SURE, BECAUSE IN THE STAFF REPORT IT SAYS POPE POPE AVENUE BUSINESS QUARTER QUARTER. THAT'S WHAT WAS REFERENCED WHEN THERE WAS DISCUSSION [02:00:01] LAST LATE, LAST SUMMER AND EARLY FALL. I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE IN A POSITION TO ACTIVATE THE ENCHILADAS OR OTHER, UM, AREAS AT THIS TIME. I THINK THERE, I THINK THAT PROVISION EXISTS IN THE BEACH PARKING, THE, THE LARGE BEACH PARKING AREA THAT K SO WHEN I, IN MY MOTION MENTIONED KAGEY, I WAS ONLY THINKING OF THE KAGEY BEACH PARKING PROPER, THAT BY CELEBRATION PARK THAT WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH AND NOT THE EXTENDED NEW PROPERTIES THAT THE TOWN HAS PURCHASED. OKAY. SO $5 FLAT HOURLY RATE SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. THERE'S NO DAILY MAXIMUM. AND WHEN YOU MENTIONED TO BE, TO CONSIDER CHARGING AT KIG, YOU MEANT THE KIG BEACH PARKING CORRECT. LOT. OKAY. SPECIFICALLY, YES, CORRECT. YOU STILL OKAY WITH YOUR SECOND? ALRIGHT, SAME THING. YES. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AND OPPOSED. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH AND THANK YOU ALL FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE CONVERSATION. WE HAVE ONE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY. LET, LET ME, LEMME SAY ONE THING BEFORE WE MOVE ON. UM, MS. OVENS HAD SPOKEN ABOUT MR. MARTIN. YOU KNOW, I'VE SPOKEN TO SEVERAL BUSINESS OWNERS IN THE AREA AND, UH, OVERWHELMINGLY, OVERWHELMINGLY, UM, THEY DO NOT DISAGREE WITH CHARGING AT KAGEY. UH, MAYBE CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU MIGHT WOULD THINK FOR OTHER REASONS, BUT I WAS THERE. WELL, YEAH, WELL, I, I PERSONALLY SPOKE TO WHO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT ANYWAY, UM, THEY WERE NOT, THEY WERE NOT OPPOSED. OKAY. UM, SO LETTER E, CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION [5.e. Consideration of a Resolution Amending the Adopted Integrated Pest Management Policy - Shawn Leininger, Assistant Town Manager] AMENDING THE ADOPTED, INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POSSIBLY AND POLICY. AND SEAN, UH, LIGHTENER IS HERE TO ASSIST US WITH THAT, I GUESS. GOOD AFTERNOON. NOW, UH, IT IS, UH, SEAN LINE, YOUR ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGER. UH, AND I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF RECOGNIZING THAT WE'RE A COUPLE HOURS INTO THE MEETING. UM, 'CAUSE THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING POLICY THAT WE ADOPTED BACK IN OCTOBER OF 20, UH, OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR. UH, AND THIS REALLY STEMS FROM THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN, THE 20 23 20 25 STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN WHERE THERE IS A FOCUS AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY. UH, SPECIFIC IN THAT, IN IN THAT FOCUS AREA, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY, WHICH, WHICH WE DID, AS I MENTIONED IN, IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR IN ADOPTING THAT POLICY. JUST SO EVERYONE IS CLEAR ON WHAT THIS POLICY IS, UH, WE WORKED AND LOOKED AT OUR EXISTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ABOUT HOW WE, HOW WE THINK ABOUT AND APPLY PESTICIDES TO OUR PROPERTIES. AND THAT'S ALL TOWN OWNED PROPERTIES, WHETHER IT'S TOWN HALL, OUR PARKS, OUR BEACH PARKS, EVEN PROPERTIES THAT WE, WE, WE, WE JUST OPERATE. UM, WE LOOKED AT ALL OF THOSE, THOSE, THOSE CONSIDERATIONS. WE MET WITH, UH, UH, COMMUNITY GROUPS, NON-TOXIC NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, IS ONE GROUP. UH, THEY ARE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE AND HAVE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN HELPING US CRAFT THIS. UM, WE ALSO LOOKED AROUND THE COUNTRY TO UNDERSTAND HOW OTHERS ARE, ARE LOOKING AT THIS. AND THIS IS REALLY JUST A NEW WAY OF DOING BUSINESS THAT'S MORE, MORE, MORE SUSTAINABLE AS FAR AS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT. UM, AND LOOKING AT THE, THOSE, THOSE PEST MATERIAL OR THOSE PRODUCTS THAT WE USE TO, TO TREAT PESTS. UM, TO BE CLEAR, PESTS ARE WEEDS, PESTS ARE, CAN BE RODENTS. THEY CAN BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS. UM, BUT IT APPLIES EQUALLY TO, TO EVERYTHING. UM, I WON'T GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE, THERE'S, I HAVE IN THE STAFF REPORT, I'LL JUST RELY ON THE, THE BENEFIT OF HAVING A WRITTEN STAFF REPORT THERE. THIS IS WHAT THE IPM ESTABLISHES. IT'S A WHOLE HOST OF THINGS. UM, WHETHER IT'S PROHIBITING GLYPHOSATE, WHETHER IT'S PROHIBITING THE USE OF, OF, OF, OF CHEMICALS OR PRODUCTS THAT HAVE, HAVE CARCINOGENS IN THEM. HOW WE ALSO COMMUNICATE WHEN WE APPLY PESTICIDES ON, ON OUR, ON OUR FACILITIES AND OUR PARKS. UH, IT, IT IS COMPREHENSIVE. IT, IT TALKS ABOUT, UH, HOW WE, HOW WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AS WE'VE BEEN IMPLEMENTING THIS OVER THE LAST EIGHT MONTHS OR SO TO THIS POINT. UH, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF AREAS THAT, THAT WE BELIEVE ARE IMPORTANT FOR US TO AMEND BECAUSE IT'S HOW WE'RE DOING BUSINESS ALREADY. SO THE POLICY SHOULD REFLECT WITH HOW WE'RE DOING BUSINESS. SO EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE CHANGES TO THE POLICY THAT I'M PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY, THESE, THESE, THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING IN HOW WE, HOW WE IMPLEMENT THIS. THERE ARE, I BELIEVE SIX THERE ARE, I'M SORRY, THERE ARE EIGHT AMENDMENTS JUST FROM A HIGH LEVEL. UH, SOME OF THEM ARE JUST TO REMOVE PHRASES LIKE LEAST TOXIC. UM, THE POLICY RELIES ON, ON ENVIRONMENT OR ON EPA SIGNAL WORDS TO DETERMINE TOXICITY. UH, AS WE'VE STARTED TO IMPLEMENT THIS, THERE'S MUCH MORE TO DETERMINE TOXICITY, WHETHER THAN THERE'S JUST WHAT THE EPA LABEL IS THAT'S ON, ON THAT PESTICIDE. OUR PRIMARY FOCUS IN THIS POLICY IS TO BE ORGANIC FIRST. THAT IS HOW WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED, I CAN SAY WE HAVE NOT TO THIS DATE IMPLEMENT USED A SYNTHETIC, UM, SINCE THE POLICY HAS BEEN IN, IN EFFECT. [02:05:01] SO WE ARE SIMPLY MODIFYING THAT LANGUAGE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH, WITH HOW WE ARE MAKING ORGANIC SELECTIONS FOR OUR PESTICIDE USE. UH, THE SECOND POINT IS THEN, OF COURSE, STILL MAIN ENHANCING THAT OR ENFORCING THAT ORGANIC FIRST APPROACH. THE THIRD CHANGE IS, IS TO REFLECT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THESE DECISIONS AS PART OF THE FY 26 BUDGET, AS YOU HEARD FROM THE TOWN MANAGER. UH, AS PART OF THAT, THERE IS A NEW POSITION, UH, THAT'S PROPOSED WITHIN THE FACILITIES DEPARTMENT. IT IS AN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST. THAT PERSON IS COMING HERE TO ONE, HELP US IMPLEMENT AND, AND, AND, AND DO BETTER AT THE CARRIED FORWARD THIS POLICY. BUT ALSO TO HELP US NOW ALSO DO OUR OWN TREATMENTS. MUCH LIKE A LOT OF OTHER POLICIES OR A LOT OF OTHER PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE, WE DO RELY HEAVILY ON, UH, THIRD PARTY CONTRACTORS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE WANT TO START TO BRING IN HOUSE. AND THIS ALLOWS US TO DO THAT AS PART OF THIS JUST GOOD PRACTICE. IN ORDER TO HAVE AN IPM INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY, WE DO NEED TO HAVE SOME THIRD PARTY OVERSIGHT. THAT OVERSIGHT THOUGH, IS ONLY WHEN WE APPLY EPA LEVEL SYNTHETICS. AND THAT'S MORE OF AN EDUCATION, THAT'S MORE OF A TRANSPARENCY. UM, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME OVERSIGHT FROM OTHER, OTHER, OTHER, UM, FIRMS IN, IN, IN PROFESSIONALS IN THE FIELD THAT IT CAN HELP PROVIDE US GUIDANCE ON. WELL, INSTEAD OF DOING THIS, YOU SHOULD HAVE, YOU COULD HAVE CONSIDERED DOING IT THIS WAY. SO THAT IS AN ANNUAL REVIEW. UM, IN OUR CURRENT IPM POLICY, WE HAVE DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF FACILITY THAT IT IS, WHETHER YOU'RE GONNA USE THIS LEVEL OF ORGANIC OR THIS LEVEL OF EPA, UM, UM, PESTICIDE. IN PART WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING AWAY THAT, THAT THAT REQUIREMENT ON THE EPA LEVEL, UM, TRIGGER OR A SIGNAL WORD. UH, BUT THE OTHER PART IS TO JUST HAVE A CONSISTENT APPROACH TO ALL OF OUR, ALL OF OUR TOWN FACILITIES, WHETHER IT'S A PARK, WHETHER IT'S, UH, THE FRONT OUT OUT HERE AT TOWN HALL, WHETHER THAT'S A RIGHT OF WAY. WE ARE GONNA USE THE SAME TREATMENT, THE SAME SELECTION CRITERIA FOR SELECTING PESTICIDES. UH, REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF FACILITY THAT IT IS, AGAIN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DOING TODAY. WE ARE NOT CHANGING HOW WE SELECT PESTICIDES BASED ON, ON, ON WHERE THE FACILITY IS OR THE TYPE OF FACILITY THAT IT IS. UH, WE MADE CLEAR THAT WE WERE, WE WERE, WE MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO WHAT THE COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR IS. UM, SOUTH CAROLINA HAS A WHOLE HOST OF LICENSES THAT ARE, THAT ARE AVAILABLE ACTUALLY ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR. THEY HAVE A NON-COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR THAT IS, IS REALLY GEARED TOWARDS PUBLIC, UM, AGENCIES LIKE OURSELVES WHERE, UH, A NON-COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR LICENSE, SOMEONE HOLDING A NON-COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR LICENSE COULD, COULD APPLY PESTICIDES ON, ON TOWN PROPERTY. SO WE ARE REFLECTING THAT IN OUR, UM, IN OUR POLICY. THERE ARE ALSO DIFFERENT LICENSES BASED ON WHAT TYPE OF PESTICIDE TREATMENT YOU'RE DOING. AND THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED AS, AS PART OF THIS, THESE A AMENDMENTS, AGAIN, CHANGING THE EP LEVEL SIGNAL WORD OF WHICH I MENTIONED. UH, AND THEN LAST THING IS IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE AN ANNUAL REVIEW, AND ALSO JUST TO, TO, TO SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC, THE, THE GOOD WORK THAT WE BELIEVE WE'RE DOING IS TO NOW PRODUCE AN ANNUAL REPORT. WE HAVE A WEBPAGE THAT'S DEDICATED TO THIS TOPIC ON OUR, ON OUR WEBSITE. AND SO WE'LL PRODUCE AN ANNUAL REPORT AND PLACE THAT ANNUAL REPORT, UH, UP ON THE PAGE. UM, I AM HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THE, THE POLICY ITSELF AND, AND WALK YOU THROUGH WHERE THESE CHANGES ARE LOCATED. UH, BUT GENERALLY THEY ARE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THERE ARE ONLY A FEW, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE EIGHT LISTED, THEY, THEY, THEY EXIST IN JUST A FEW SECTIONS IN THE DOCUMENT. THEY TEND TO BE REPETITIVE AS YOU GO THROUGH IT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO WALK YOU THROUGH THAT IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL DETAIL. OTHERWISE I ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. NO, I DON'T NEED ANY ADDITIONAL DETAIL, I DON'T THINK. BUT, YOU KNOW, A COMMENT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GONNA, UH, APPLY THIS, UH, EVENLY ACROSS THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM, UM, FOR ONE, IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE. IT'S, AND LET ME LET BACK UP. I'M FOR WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. UM, I BELIEVE IT'S, UM, ANOTHER WAY OF MANAGING OUR, OUR SITUATION. IT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO GO. UH, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE EFFORT'S GONNA BE MUCH GREATER. UM, WE HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE AESTHETICS ARE IMPORTANT, LIKE OUR MEDIANS AND, BUT YOU'RE NOT GIVING ANY, UM, RELIEF IF YOU'RE GONNA RUN IT ACROSS THE BOARD. THE SAME FOR EVERYTHING. UM, I, I, I THINK WE NEED TO PICK AND CHOOSE, YOU KNOW, MEDIAS ARE KIND OF UNINHABITED AREAS, UM, AND THEY'RE VERY A STEADY THE ISLAND, UM, UNDERSTANDING, AND IT'S NOT DEEP, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING, SPEAKING WITH, UH, COMPANIES THAT DO THIS, THAT IT HAS BEEN LESS THAN STELLAR. [02:10:02] UM, AND THEY'VE HAD TO REVERT BACK TO THE OLD SYSTEM. UM, BUT I'M ALL IN FAVOR AND, UH, OF THE RIGHT TO TRY. SO TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THIS DOESN'T GIVE US ROOM TO, TO MANEUVER, UH, THE POLICY ITSELF, ITSELF DOES GIVE US ROOM TO MANEUVER. SO WE START WITH OUR ORGANIC PESTICIDE. IF THAT ORGANIC IS NOT SUCCESSFUL IN TREATING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, THEN WE, WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY THEN MOVE ON TO OTHER PRODUCTS, WHICH COULD INCLUDE THOSE, THOSE, THOSE, THOSE SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS THAT WE'VE HISTORICALLY HAVE UTILIZED, UTILIZED IN THE PAST. THERE'S, WHO MAKES THAT DETERMINATION? WHAT'S THAT? AND WHO MAKES THAT DETERMINATION? SO, UH, RIGHT NOW WE ARE WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OUR, WITH OUR CONTRACTORS. THEY HAVE LICENSED APPLICATORS ON STAFF THAT WE WORK, UH, TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. UM, WE ALSO REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR GUIDANCE BECAUSE WE'RE LEARNING ABOUT THIS AS WELL. ULTIMATELY THOUGH, WE WILL HAVE A PROFESSIONAL ON STAFF THAT THAT'LL, THAT'LL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AND WORK WITH OUR APPLICATORS TO, TO DO THAT. THERE'S A LOT TO LEARN IN THIS AND WE'RE STILL LEARNING. YEAH, THERE'S A LOT TO LEARN. UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? SURE. OKAY. UM, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD TO AMEND THE ADOPTED, UH, INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY TO, FOR USE WITHIN THE TOWN PARKS AND PROPERTIES. I'LL SECOND THAT. AND ARE THERE ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS OR MAYOR WHO ARE HERE WITH US WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE CONVERSATION? MS ONE TO THE RIGHT? PARDON ME? WAIT, WHAT? OH, WRONG ONE. OUR TOWN ATTORNEY HAS A CON AND TO CLARIFY YOUR MOTION, ARE YOU ADVANCING IT WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL? YES. NO. NO. UH, ADVANCE TO FULL COUNSEL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, THE RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD TO AMEND THE ADOPT AND ADOPT THE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY FOR USE WITHIN THE TOWN PARKS AND PROPERTIES. AND I SECOND THAT. I MISSED, I HEARD WHAT I HAD READ , SO I SAID I HEARD WHAT I HAD READ, SO I EXPECTED IT TO BE THERE. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. WE APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT. UM, ARE, HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP, CINDY, TO SPEAK? YES, MS. OVENS. OH, MS. CONTE. OKAY. YOU CAN GO FIRST CHAIR. THANK YOU SO MUCH YOU GUYS. UH, THANK YOU, SEAN AND MARK AND EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL THAT HAS TAKEN THIS SERIOUSLY. 'CAUSE IT, IT HAS BEEN NEW. YOU KNOW, WE WENT FROM KIND OF NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING HOW THE PARKS ARE TREATED TO WHAT SEAN JUST SHARED, THAT KNOW SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES HAVE BEEN UTILIZED AND IT'S, IT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. SO MY SON TREVOR, HAD PRACTICE WITH THE HURRICANES FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR THE TRAVEL SEASON THIS SUMMER AND IT WAS JUST, IT WAS SO NICE 'CAUSE IN WORKING WITH DEREK AND WE HAD OUR MEETING GOING THROUGH WHAT CAN BE UTILIZED AND TO MAINTAIN AN EXCEED EXPECTATIONS OF AESTHETICS IS ACHIEVABLE. IT WAS JUST SO NICE NOT TO WORRY ABOUT HIM S SLIDING OR BEING EXPOSED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO I THINK, UM, TO THE POINT THAT WE BROUGHT UP BEFORE IS THAT PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT'S GOOD BUSINESS AND THIS WILL HELP BRING AN INCREASE ECOTOURISM PEOPLE THAT CARE MORE ABOUT OUR BEACHES, THAT WILL PICK UP THE TRASH AND NOT JUST LEAVE THEIR BROKEN BEACH CHAIR AND ALL THE TRASH FOR, UM, THE SEA TURTLE FOLKS TO ALSO HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF AND IN CHARGE OF, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO HELP THE TURTLES. BUT WE JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU. THIS IS REALLY EXCITING. UM, DEFINITELY A FIRST FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. BLUFFTON IS FOLLOWING IN YOUR FOOTSTEPS. THE CITY OF CHARLESTON IS ALSO IN PROCESS. SO JUST THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING THE LEADER AND IT'S REALLY SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PUTS US IN THE CLASS OF, UH, WORLD CLASS. UM, MS. EVANS. PAM, I'M PAMELA MARTIN OVENS AND I JUST WANNA SAY, AND YOU SEAN, SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU PATSY BRYSON WHO WORKED REALLY, REALLY HARD TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE. AND THANK YOU, MARK ORLANDO. THANK YOU BOTH, WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, PAM. HAS ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP? SANDA, MR. WILLIAMS, CHAD, MR. NO. OKAY. NO MA'AM. NO. AND IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO IS HERE WHO DIDN'T SIGN UP, WHO'D LIKE TO COMMENT? OKAY. AND, UM, SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AND OPPOSED. THANK [02:15:01] YOU SO MUCH. AND WITH THAT, ALTHOUGH I SEE SEAN IS COMING BACK, OH NO, YOU'RE JUST WALKING PAST , ALTHOUGH WE'RE WILLING TO LISTEN. UM, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY. IT WAS A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN, UM, I'D LIKE IT TO BE, BUT I THINK WE ACCOMPLISHED A LOT OF GREAT, UM, GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR AFTERNOON. * 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.