May 19, 2025 County Council Special Called Meeting

EACH, EACH .

IF THAT'S, I THINK THAT WILL WORK WELL.

SO LET'S GET STARTED.

PUBLIC COMMENT.

EACH MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO IS RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK SHALL LIMIT COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES AND OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING PROTOCOL, ADDRESS THE CHAIRMAN.

AND IN SPEAKING, AVOID DISRESPECT TO COUNCIL AND ANY PERSONALITIES CONFINE THEMSELVES TO QUESTIONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL.

BE MINDFUL AND RESPECTFUL OF THOSE WHO ARE PRESENT AND OTHERS WHO MAY BE WATCHING ON TELEVISION.

UH, THE FIRST PERSON THAT SIGNED UP IS DIETRICH.

ADVOCATE.

ADVOCATE WELL ENOUGH.

UH, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.

UH, COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS TOWN COUNCIL, UH, MR. MAYOR.

UM, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE TIME YOU'VE SPENT ON, UH, OUR 2 78 CORRIDOR.

UM, BUT I THINK WE ARE IN A BIT OF A PICKLE, UM, WITH ALL THE OBLIGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED IN THE PROCESS.

AND SO, UH, I AM ALL BEHIND OPTION ONE, AND I HOPE THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING THAT AS WELL.

I THINK, UM, THE, THE, THE, THE KEY IS TO NEGOTIATE, UM, OUT OF THE OBLIGATIONS CREATED WITH THE STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK.

AND I, I ALSO WOULD ADVOCATE FOR, UH, TOM DAVIS, SENATOR DAVIS TO, TO PLAY A MAJOR ROLE IN FACILITATING THAT PROCESS AS A SOMEWHAT INDEPENDENT SUPPORTER OF, OF THE WHOLE THING.

UM, I ALSO THINK THAT OVER THE YEARS WE HAVE, UM, ACQUIRED QUITE A BIT OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE, ON THE CORRIDOR, UM, BOTH WITH, WITH THE COUNTY, THE TOWN AND CITIZENS GROUPS.

AND I THINK THAT, UH, WE HAVE ABOUT $74 MILLION, UH, AVAILABLE TO LOOK AT THE CORRIDOR ON SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS.

THE BRITISH WILL TAKE A VERY LONG TIME.

THE, THE, THE PLANS FOR THE MACA BRIDGE HAVE NOT EVEN, UH, BEGUN.

SO WE ARE REALLY, UM, UH, ON A, ON A TRICKY TIMELINE ON THAT.

BUT, SO I WANNA SUGGEST THAT, UH, TOWN AND COUNTY, UM, PUT THEIR HEADS TOGETHER AS THEY'VE DONE IN THE PAST, AND CREATE A, CALL IT THE RAPID TASK FORCE TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT WE CAN AFFECT, UM, UH, QUICKLY.

UM, AND I ALSO WONDERED IN THE PROCESS WHY I'M DOING THIS.

WHY AM I STANDING HERE? WHY AM I SPENDING MY TIME ON THIS? AND IT IS REALLY BECAUSE THE SOLUTIONS ARE SO OBVIOUS IN FRONT OF ME AND FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE BLOCKED, WHEREAS THE, THE, THE ROAD TO, UH, ALLEVIATE CONGESTION TO MAKE TRAFFIC FLOW, BOTH FROM BUFORT TO, UM, TO BLUFFTON TO HILTON HEAD IS QUITE SIMPLE.

SO I HAVE A NUMBER OF, UM, SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS THAT, THAT ARE, ARE THE OBVIOUS ONES.

AND I WILL, UH, DISTRIBUTE THAT AS WELL TO YOU, UH, VIA EMAIL.

THE SYNCHRONIZATION OF THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS IS A FANTASTIC THING, AND WE'VE COME A LONG WAY WITH THAT, BUT IT'S NOT PERFECT.

WE CAN HAVE ACTUALLY A SYNCHRONIZATION THAT DOESN'T WORK IN CLUSTERS, BUT HAS A COMPLETE FLOW THAT ACTUALLY 29 SECONDS.

, GO AHEAD.

HANDS UP.

GO AHEAD.

UM, SO, UH, AND ALSO FOR THE COUNTY TO RUN AN ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC SYSTEM TO I 95 ALL THE WAY THROUGH BECAUSE, UM, UH, IT'S OBVIOUS IT'S ALSO NOT EXPENSIVE.

UH, THE EPA, IF THEY STILL EXIST, UM, BY THE TIME WE GET THERE, UH, REIMBURSES 80% OF THOSE COSTS.

UM, SO THAT, THAT'S A GOOD THING.

UM,

[00:05:01]

NOW, NOW IT'S MY TIME.

YES, SIR.

WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NOW YOUR TIME IS UP.

UM, THE NEXT PERSON ON THE LIST IS ELECTED OFFICIALS.

SO WE'LL DO THAT ONE IN A FEW MINUTES.

UM, THE NEXT TWO ARE ACTUALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD.

UM, LARRY MCBE, MICH.

LARRY, DID YOU, LARRY, DID YOU SIGN? YEAH.

IS COME ON UP.

THIS IS GONNA BE A THREE MINUTE.

HE'S NOT AN ELECTED .

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

I CAN'T TALK FIVE MINUTES.

SO SHE SENT YOU BACK.

POLICE WILL TAKE YOU BACK THEN.

YES.

ANYWAY, UM, LARRY CHUDA, I LIVE ON, UM, IN SEA PINES.

AND WHAT I WANT TO ASK IS WHAT HAPPENED? I DON'T WANNA FIND BLAME, MAKE BLAME, BUT I READ FLEECE, READ ALL THE STUFF THAT WAS WRONG, OR WHY THEY, THE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK DIDN'T AGREE.

I'VE BEEN TO ALL THESE MEETINGS AND I SEE PEOPLE SAY, HEY, I'M GOING UP TO TALK TO THESE.

WHAT HAPPENED? HOW COME YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON? AND, AND OBVIOUSLY IF YOU'RE AN ENGINEER, AND I KNOW A LOT OF THESE GUYS ARE, THEY KNOW THAT ENGINEERING PHILOSOPHY OF FINDING OUT WHAT A PROBLEM IS AND HOW TO RESOLVE A PARTICULAR PROBLEM.

WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS OVER AND OVER TO ME AT THIS POINT.

YOU FIX THE EXISTING BRIDGE AND THEN YOU HAVE TIME BECAUSE THE OTHER BRIDGES ARE GOOD, YOU HAVE TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO.

WE'VE BEEN PLAYING AROUND WITH THIS FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS SO FAR.

AND WE NEED TO MANAGE THE TRAFFIC, NOT BUILD MORE FOR MORE TRAFFIC.

AND THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT THE, THE CONCEPT IS, IS WE'RE BUILDING SOMETHING FOR MORE TRAFFIC INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MANAGE WHAT YOU HAVE.

IF YOU WANNA REALLY MANAGE IT, FIND ANOTHER WAY ONTO THE ISLAND.

[6. DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN BEAUFORT COUNTY AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE BANK (SIB) CONCERNING IMPROVEMENTS OF HIGHWAY US 278 FROM MOSS CREEK DRIVE TO SPANISH WELLS ROAD AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE SIB AT THEIR MEETING ON MAY 12, 2025- Mike Moore, County Administrator & Jared Fralix, Assistant County Administrator, Infrastructure]

SO THE, ALL THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WILL DO SO AFTER, UH, MIKE MOORE AND JARED FLIK DO THEIR PRESENTATION ABOUT THE OPTIONS.

I'D LIKE TO REMIND THE PUBLIC THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION IN THE BACKUP MATERIALS ALSO THAT, UM, GOES, KIND OF TELLS A HISTORY.

BUT I THINK YOU'RE GONNA GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF A HISTORY LESSON NOW TOO.

YES, MA'AM.

UH, THE, THE DETAILS THAT, UH, THE SIB WAS LOOKING FOR.

UH, GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR COUNCIL.

UM, WE ARE HERE TO PRESENT, UH, ESSENTIALLY WHAT OCCURRED WITH THE SIB, UM, WHERE WE ARE WITH THE PROJECT, A BRIEF BACKGROUND, AND THEN DISCUSS SOME OPTIONS.

AND WE'RE ALSO GOING TO, YOU KNOW, DISCUSS THE, WE HAD A, A TELE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH THE SIB CHAIRMAN LAST WEEK.

AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE WERE TOLD, UM, FOLLOWING THE SIB DECISION, BUT ON, UH, AS I MENTIONED TO YOU ALL LAST WEEK, WE DID GET A, A UNANIMOUS DECISION FROM THE SIB TO REJECT, UM, THE PROPOSAL, UH, WHICH WAS IN THE JOINT RESOLUTION THAT BOTH COUNTY COUNCIL AND, AND THE TOWN OF, UH, HILTON HEAD COUNCIL PASSED.

AND, UM, WE ESSENTIALLY WERE, UH, THE, UH, BOARD WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, MADE THEIR DECISION, CAME OUT AND ESSENTIALLY EXPLAINED THAT, UH, THE CHARLESTON PROJECT HAD BEEN TERMINATED AND BOTH THE YORK COUNTY AND THE BEAUFORT COUNTY PROJECTS HAD BEEN REJECTED.

AND THEY ALSO DISCUSSED THEIR OPTIONS TO COME BACK.

AND SO IN OUR DISCUSSION, UH, LAST THURSDAY, WE HAD, UM, THE, UH, CHAIRMAN, UH, MR. JOHN WHITE, AS WELL AS OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION, UH, SENATOR DAVIS AND REPRESENTATIVES NEWTON AND HERB KURTZMAN.

AND, UH, THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS WERE CITED AS, AS CONCERNS FOR WHY OUR PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED.

UM, THE REVISED FUNDING SEQUENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, WHICH SPECIFIED THAT CIP FUNDS SHOULD BE USED FIRST, NOT LAST.

UM, THEY, THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD'S CONTRIBUTION WAS LAND RIGHT AWAY AND NOT CASH TO THE PROJECT.

UM, THEY ALSO NOTED THAT THE SCALE BACK PLAN, UH, THAT, UH, WAS INCLUDED IN THE JOINT RESOLUTION, UM, REDUCED THE NUMBER OF LIENS, WHICH HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY, UM, AGREED UPON.

AND, UH, THEY DID NOT.

AND, AND MR. WHITE INDICATED THAT THEY DID NOT THINK THEY WOULD MAINTAIN THE FULL $120 MILLION COMMITMENT, WHAT THAT WOULD BE, THEY DIDN'T INDICATE EITHER.

UM, THEY STATED THAT THE COUNTY NOT CLEARLY OUTLINED A STRATEGY FOR CO COVERING THE COST OVERRUNS, AND THEY SUGGESTED THE COUNTY BONDING CAPACITY OF UP TO $87 MILLION TO BE PLEDGED.

UH, YOU KNOW, STAFF IS NOT GONNA RECOMMEND THAT.

UH, WE ALREADY HAD A DISCUSSION WITH YOU ALL FALL IN THE FIELD REFERENDUM WHERE, UM, WE DISCUSSED NOT ADDING ANY MORE FUNDING TO THIS PROJECT.

SO WHAT WE HAD GOING IN WAS OUR 80 MILLION FROM THE TRANSPORTATION REFERENDUM AND THEN THE $20 MILLION FROM, UH, IMPACT FEE.

UH, THEY, WE ALSO DID NOT HAVE A DETAILED PROJECT TIMELINE FOR CONSTRUCTION.

UM, AS, AS WE KNOW, WE DISCUSSED HAVING DESIGN BUILD, UH, APPROACH TO THAT.

SO WE DID NOT HAVE,

[00:10:01]

UM, THEY INDICATED THEY WERE LOOKING FOR AN IN INCREASED FINANCIAL COMMITMENT FROM BOTH S-C-D-O-T AND THE COUNTY, UH, TO REDUCE, TO MAKE UP FOR ANY REDU REDUCTION OF CIB FUNDING.

AND THEN LASTLY, UM, IN THEIR VIEW, THE IGA HAD BEEN, UM, VIOLATED SINCE CONSTRUCTION DID NOT COMMENCE IN 2024.

UH, FOLLOWING THIS, UH, JARED AND MYSELF CONSULTED WITH SECRETARY POWELL AND, UH, HE INDICATED THAT HE WOULD BE SENDING US A LETTER, WHICH HE DID SEND FRIDAY, ESSENTIALLY WITH 30 DAYS.

AND, AND JUST TO REITERATE, YOU KNOW, HE HAD, HE HAD ASKED THE SIP TO MAKE A, A, A FAIRLY QUICK DECISION BECAUSE HE PRESENTED US IN MARCH, MARCH 31ST WITH A DEADLINE DUE TO THE, UH, CONDITION OF THE MACKEY CREEK SPAN.

AND SO ESSENTIALLY NOW WE'RE ON 38 CLOCK UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS THEY, THEY WILL, UH, UH, THE IGA WITH THE, WITH DOT WILL BE CANCELED AND WE'LL HAVE TO, UH, DEVELOP A NEW STRATEGY.

SO, UM, WITH THAT, WE DO HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, ONE OPTION AND, AND I'M, JARED'S GONNA COME UP AND TALK THROUGH IT, BUT I JUST WANT Y'ALL TO UNDERSTAND THE OPTION TO WHICH WE GO BACK TO JUST THE EASTBOUND SPAN IS ACTUALLY OPTION SIX.

WE PRESENTED YOU ALL, UH, BACK IN, UH, I BELIEVE JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, BOTH THE TOWN AND THE COUNTY COUNCIL, WHICH WAS JUST REPAIR OF THE SPAN.

AND, UH, WHEN WE WENT FORWARD WITH OUR, UM, PROPOSAL, YOU KNOW, WE INDICATED WHERE ALL THE FUNDING WAS GONNA COME FROM AND, UH, AND, AND WE, YOU KNOW, RECEIVED THE DECISION FROM THE SIB.

AND THEN SECONDLY, YOU KNOW, OPTION TWO WOULD BE TO CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE AN AMENDED, UH, IGA WITH THE SIB.

HOWEVER, WHAT'S LEFT TO BE DISCUSSED IS WHERE ADDITIONAL FUNDING WOULD COME FROM AND AT, AT THIS PRESENT TIME BASED ON COUNCIL DIRECTION.

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A SENSE THAT THERE'S ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO BRING TO THIS PROJECT.

SO UNTIL WE IDENTIFY AN ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCE, I THINK ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SIB WOULD, WOULD NOT YIELD ANY, ANY, UH, BENEFITS THERE.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT.

UM, I'LL INVITE JARED UP.

HE'S GOT A POWERPOINT THAT WE'LL KIND OF WALK THROUGH THIS IN MORE DETAIL AND WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSION AFTER THAT.

SO THERE WILL BE TRAFFIC INTERRUPTIONS DEFINITELY AT NIGHT.

ALL RIGHT, SO I JUST WANNA TAKE OFF FROM WHERE MIKE SAID AND, AND TALKED THROUGH REALLY, UM, WHAT DOT PRESENTED US BACK IN FEBRUARY.

IT WAS FEBRUARY 12TH WHERE THEY PRESENTED US OPTIONS.

AND I KNOW THIS IS HARD TO SEE, UM, SO I'LL DESCRIBE IT AS BEST AS POSSIBLE, BUT THESE WERE ALL PRESENTATION, UH, MATERIALS THAT COUNCIL THAT WE HAD AT OUR JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE TOWN THERE AT BOOK WALTER REC CENTER IN FEBRUARY.

AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE SPREADSHEET IS, IS SIX OPTIONS, UM, THAT THEY DEVELOPED AND PRESENTED TO US AT THAT TIME.

THE FIRST TWO OPTIONS WERE JUST THE BRIDGE ONE, UH, WAS BRIDGE WITH NO MULTI-USE PATHWAY AND TWO HAD A MULTI-USE PATHWAY.

OPTIONS THREE AND FOUR WERE THE ENTIRETY, AND THAT WAS JUST A ONE DIRECTIONAL BRIDGE.

UM, OPTIONS THREE AND FOUR WAS ONE DIRECTIONAL BRIDGE AND ROAD WORK FOR THE ENTIRE FOUR MILES.

UM, THREE WITH NO MULTI-USE PATHWAY AND FOUR WITH A MULTI-USE PATHWAY.

FIVE.

OPTION FIVE WAS THE ORIGINAL, UH, PROPOSED SIX LANE OPTION, THE $490 MILLION OPTION.

AND OPTION SIX, UM, WAS JUST THE DOT REPLACED THE SINGLE SPAN OVER MACKEY CREEK.

SO AGAIN, UM, I KNOW IT'S SMALL ON THE SCREEN AND I'M GONNA POINT BACK TO HERE WHERE IT'S A LITTLE LARGER.

SO FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE, IT'S A, WELL, THE POINTER DOESN'T WORK ON THAT SCREEN EITHER.

I'M JUST GONNA DESCRIBE IT AND YOU GUYS TRUST ME THAT THE, THAT THE TEXT THERE SAYS WHAT I'M GONNA DESCRIBE IT AS.

BUT ESSENTIALLY THE THREE LANE BRIDGE, THIS WAS THE ONLY OPTION IN FEBRUARY THAT FIT WITHIN THE $300 MILLION THAT WE HAD AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, ASSUMING THAT THE SIB WAS GOOD WITH OUR REVISED PROPOSAL.

AND WHAT IT PROVIDED FOR WAS FIRSTLY THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EASTBOUND MACKEY CREEK BRIDGE.

UM, IT WAS A THREE LANE DOT CALLED A LIFELINE BRIDGE THAT WENT ALL THE WAY FROM BLUFFTON TO HILTON HEAD, EASTBOUND TRAFFIC ONLY.

AND WE RETAINED THE TWO WESTBOUND LANES COMING BACKWARDS IN THIS ITERATION AT THE TIME.

IT ALSO CONSIDERED, UM, A U-TURN MOVEMENT, A TURNAROUND MOVEMENT AT WINDMILL HARBOR, TURNING LEFT ONTO THE, THE SIDE ROAD, UH, THE FRONTAGE ROAD AND THEN GETTING TRAFFIC BACK TO, UM, PINCKNEY ISLAND.

WE HAD FURTHER DISCUSSION SINCE THEN ABOUT DIFFERENT OPTIONS, BUT IN GENERAL, THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE OPTION OF OPTION ONE.

THAT TOTAL COST WAS $272 MILLION.

AND WHEN YOU ADD IN THE DOT NEGLECTED TO ADD IN THE REMAINING ENGINEERING FEE OF $15 MILLION, SO IT BROUGHT IT TO ABOUT $285 MILLION.

SO, UM, THE NEXT SLIDE, I'VE GOT THAT, THE NEXT SLIDE IS

[00:15:01]

OPTION SIX.

AND WE DIDN'T REALLY SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON OPTION SIX BECAUSE WE WERE HOPEFUL THAT OPTION ONE WAS GONNA BE THE TICKET IN FEBRUARY.

BUT WHAT OPTION, UM, SIX IS, IS JUST THE SIMPLE REPLACEMENT OF THE MACKEY CREEK EASTBOUND LANE.

AND WHAT IT'S DOING IS, UM, THIS IS A, A TWIN BRIDGE TO THE SOUTH OF THE EXISTING SPAN.

UM, IT IS A LIGHT FOR LIKE REPLACEMENT, SO TWO LANES TODAY, TWO LANES TOMORROW.

UM, AND THAT WAS THE CONCLUSION OF THAT OPTION.

THE TWO LANES, UM, OVER THE COST OF THE, OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT, THE COST HAS GROWN AND DOT'S COMMITMENT HAS GROWN, UM, THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT.

AND THAT WAS THE ADDITIONAL 16 MILLION THAT THEY ADDED.

THEY HAD DONE A RECENT COST ESTIMATE JUST TO REPLACE THAT ONE SPAN.

THEY HAD PRESENTED US A LETTER, UM, SOME, SOME TIME AGO ABOUT THE COST TO REPAIR WAS ABOUT 50 MILLION AND THE COST TO RECONSTRUCT AS IS TWO LANES WAS 90 MILLION.

SO THAT'S, THEY WENT FROM 75 TO 90 WITH THAT UPDATED COST ESTIMATE.

WHAT THIS DOES, IT TIES IN ON THE MAINLAND AND TIES BACK IN AT PINCKNEY, COMES ACROSS PRETTY MUCH THE EXISTING BOAT LANDING AND THEN THE EXISTING, UH, MACKEY CREEK IS DEMOED OUT AND WE ARE LEFT WITH, UM, ONE NEW SPAN AND THREE OLDER SPANS, ALL OF TWO LANES EACH.

SO AS WE TALK ABOUT TODAY, UM, THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT MIGHT JUST TALKED ABOUT, UH, WHAT WE'RE NOW CALLING OPTION ONE IS ESSENTIALLY OPTION SIX FROM FEBRUARY.

UM, THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE THAT, THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH SECRETARY POWELL IS IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS OPTION SIX, OPTION ONE NOW, UH, THE, HIS GOAL WOULD BE TO CONTINUE TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE.

SO THE BRIDGE THAT WE'RE GONNA DESIGN, WHETHER IT'S A ONE BRIDGE, WHETHER IT'S TWO BRIDGE, WHATEVER, BRIDGE HAS A LIFESPAN OF ABOUT 75 YEARS.

SO THE CURRENT BRIDGES ARE ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD.

SO AT SOME POINT, WHETHER IT'S THE NEXT, UH, 10, 20 YEARS, THOSE BRIDGES ARE GONNA DO FOR A REPLACEMENT THEMSELVES, THE OTHER REMAINING THREE BRIDGES.

AND WE ALREADY KNOW THAT CAPACITY IS AN ISSUE TODAY, LET ALONE IN 25 YEARS.

SO, UM, HIS PREFERENCE AND GOAL WOULD BE TO NOT JUST REPLACE A $90 MILLION, LIKE FOR LIKE, BUT TO ADD A THIRD LANE, UH, TO WHICH IF, IF, UM, BEAUFORT COUNTY WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT, THEN THE REQUEST FROM DOT TO BE, TO PAY FOR THE REMAINING, THE EXTRA COST FROM THE 90,000,002 LANE BRIDGE TO A THREE LANE.

HE DOES NOT YET HAVE A COST ESTIMATE FOR THAT, BUT HE WANTED TO OFFER THAT AS, UM, AS A POTENTIAL OPTION IF WE MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.

SO JUST IN SUMMARY, UM, WHAT WE HAD AS FAR AS FUNDING, THIS IS IN FEBRUARY WE HAD OUR MONEY 101 MILLION DOT INCREASED THERE AS TO 90 MILLION.

WE HAD HILTON HEADS LAND DEDICATION OF THREE AND A HALF, 3.35.

AND THEN THE STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK OUT OF THAT, WE HAD EXPENDED THAT'S 315.

AND OUT OF THAT WE HAD ALREADY EXPENDED 13 MILLION.

AND IF YOU TAKE THE DEDICATION AS CASH AND TAKE THAT OFF THE BALANCE SHEET, WE HAD $298 MILLION TO SPEND.

THAT WAS WHAT WE WENT TO TO WITH.

SO WHERE ARE WE TODAY? MIKE JUST COVERED IT.

UM, THIS IS THE, I KNOW IT'S A LOT ON THE SCREEN, BUT THIS IS ALSO FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION SO THEY CAN HAVE THIS PRESENTATION AND REVIEW.

BUT THIS WERE THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED BACK IN OUR PHONE CALL ON MONDAY OF LAST WEEK.

WE DID NOT GET ANY FEEDBACK FROM SIB.

IT WAS JUST A RESOLUTE NOTE OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE SENT UP TO THE, TO THE BOARD.

AND SO WE WERE THANKFUL FOR THE DEBRIEF FROM CHAIRMAN WHITE THAT HE DID GIVE US A, UM, A LOOK AROUND TO SEE WHAT THE, THE IDEAS THAT THEY HAD IN CONFLICT WITH OUR PROPOSAL WERE.

SO I'M NOT GONNA READ THOSE.

THOSE ARE WHAT MIKE JUST DESCRIBED TO US ALL.

AND THEN, UM, SUBSEQUENT WE HAD THE MEETING WITH CHAIRMAN WHITE AND THEN SECRETARY POWELL AND THEN HERE TODAY.

AND THEN LASTLY, ARE THE OPTIONS, JUST AS AGAIN, AS MUCH FOR YOU GUYS AS IT IS FOR THE PUBLIC, UM, IS JUST A REMUNERATION OF WHAT MIKE DESCRIBED AS THOSE OPTIONS.

UM, WHEN WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS WITH SECRETARY POWELL, ONE THING TO MENTION, AND WE KNEW IT WOULD BE A QUESTION, SO WE WENT AHEAD AND ASKED, IS IF WE DID OPTION ONE, JUST THE SINGLE REPLACEMENT, UM, WITH OR WITHOUT DOT, IF THEY DID IT BY THEMSELVES OR IF THE COUNTY ADDED FUNDING TO THEIR PROJECT, WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO TRAFFIC? AND HE SAID THERE WILL BE A BURDEN TO TRAFFIC BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT GOING ON.

HOWEVER, MOST OF THE PROJECT WILL BE OFF ALIGNMENT AND WILL NOT IMPACT TRAFFIC.

AND WHEN THEY DO HAVE TO MAKE THE TIE IN CONNECTIONS, THAT WORK WILL BE DONE AT NIGHT.

UM,

[00:20:01]

UM, BUT HE COULDN'T SAY TODAY IF THERE WOULD BE ANY LONG-TERM, UM, WHETHER IT'S A COUPLE DAYS OR A COUPLE WEEKS AT A TIME LONG-TERM INTERACTION THAT WAS BOTH, UH, NIGHT AND DAY.

BUT DEFINITELY WITH ANY CONSTRUCTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE, WE EXPECT NIGHTTIME LANE CLOSURES.

UM, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO A, A MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC PLAN TO DETERMINE IF THERE WOULD BE ANY LONG-TERM, LONG-TERM, LIKE I SAID, A COUPLE DAYS OR A COUPLE WEEKS OF, UM, DAYTIME CLOSURES.

SO THAT IS, IS NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT KNOWN AT THIS TIME, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, UM, IT STILL WOULD BE SEVERAL, UH, PROBABLY, UH, 24 MONTHS TO 30 MONTHS BUILD TIME.

AND MOST OF THAT WOULD BE, UH, NON-OBTRUSIVE TO THE DAYTIME PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC.

AND THEN, UM, SO IF WE DID THIS ROUTE, IT WOULD NOT INCLUDE, OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD NOT BE AFFECTING ANY TOWN OWNED PROPERTY, SO THERE WOULD NEED NO HILTON HEAD RIGHT OF WAY DONATION NECESSARY.

AND THEN THE STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK WOULD NOT BE IN PLAY EITHER, SO THAT WOULD LEAVE AVAILABLE FUNDING.

UM, WHAT WE HAVE IS 190, UH, 1 MILLION TOGETHER WITH DOTS 90.

UH, THE PROJECT COSTS AS REFERENCED IN FEBRUARY WAS 88 MILLION.

UM, BUT NOT INCLUDED WAS THE MONEY THAT WE'VE ALREADY EXPENDED, WHICH IS 13.

SO THE TOTAL PROJECT COSTS OF THIS SPAN IS FOR TWO LANES, IT'S $101 MILLION.

UM, AGAIN, WE'VE ALREADY EXPENDED 13, SO TOTAL OUT IS ABOUT, UM, $88 MILLION LEFT.

AND UM, WE DO NOT HAVE, LIKE I SAID, FIGURES YET FROM SECRETARY POWELL ON WHAT THE COST OF A THIRD LANE WOULD BE.

UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU A ROUGH IDEA.

AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, IF UH, TWO LANES COST A HUNDRED MILLION, THEN YOU CAN ORDER A MAGNITUDE.

THREE LANES IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 30 TO $50 MILLION.

SO JUST USING THAT AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE.

UM, AND WE'LL, WE'LL ASK ENGINEERS FROM DOT TO GIVE US A FINE TUNE NUMBER ON THAT.

SO, UM, OPTION TWO AS DESCRIBED IS CONTINUING TO GO WITH WITH SIB AND MAKING A REVISED PROPOSAL TO THEM.

AND AS MIKE REFERENCE WITH SECRETARY POWELL'S, UM, LETTER THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO TIME CLOCK FROM THE SIB, UM, THEY GAVE US 60 TO 90 DAYS AS WITH YORK COUNTY TO COME BACK WITH AN ALTERNATE PROPOSAL IF DESIRED.

DOT HAS PUT A TIME CLOCK, UM, OF 30 DAYS FOR THE COUNTY.

UM, IF WE CAN COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATE SOLUTION, IF OPTION TWO IS DECIDED UPON, AND THEN SECRETARY PAL SAID IN HIS LETTER, HE WOULD REMOVE THAT TERMINATION NOTICE AND CONTINUE WORKING ON THAT REVISED SCOPE.

UM, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT TO WHAT THOSE OPTIONS LOOK LIKE SPECIFICALLY AND TECHNICALLY, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, THIS IS ABOUT THE END OF THE ENGINEERING TECHNICAL PRESENTATION.

SO THE REST OF IT IS, UH, IS FOR YOUR DISCUSSION.

I'M GONNA OPEN IT UP FOR COUNTY COUNCIL TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS.

YES MA'AM.

IT, WHAT ABOUT THE PSD PIPE? IS THAT NOT AFFECTED HERE? YES.

SO, UM, ON THE, ON THE LARGE PROJECT, ON THE THREE LANE PROJECT, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COUNTY OR THE DOT ENGINEERS WERE WORKING ON, AND THEY THINK THEY HAVE A POSSIBLE SOLUTION IF A OPTION TWO IS SELECTED TO AVOID THE PIPE WITH SOME CONFIGURATION.

IF WE GO WITH OPTION ONE, IT IS IN PLAY BUT ONLY HALF OF THE PIPE.

SO IT COMES UP AND KIND OF CHANGES ANGLE AT PINCKNEY.

UM, BUT HALF OF THE PIPE WOULD MOST LIKELY BE IN CONFLICT.

ANY OTHER YES, SIR, MS. PASSMAN, IF IN FACT WE CHANGE TO THE OPTION WHEREBY WE REPLACE THE MACKEY BRIDGE AS A TWO LANE OR THREE LANE AND THE SIB DOES NOT GIVE US ANY MONEY, THEN WE NEED NO, IGA, IT'S US WITH S-C-D-O-T.

CORRECT.

THE ONLY, THE ONLY AGREEMENT WE WOULD NEED.

SO WE WOULD TERMINATE OUR IGA WITH THE SIB WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

IT'S NOT REFERENCED AS A IGA, BUT A, A FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH DO OT, WE WOULD NEED TO RETOOL THAT AGREEMENT AND THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY AGREEMENT NECESSARY.

AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT, UH, HE, HE NOTICED THIS ON? YES, THAT WAS THE ONE.

SO, UM, THE MARCH 7TH WAS THE LATEST, UM, SUPPLEMENTAL TO THAT FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT THAT HE REFERENCED THE TERMINATION CLAUSE.

YES, DAVID.

UM, IF WE DID END UP GOING WITH OPTION ONE AND CONTRIBUTING FUNDS FOR THE THIRD LANE, COULD WE GO AHEAD AND ACTUALLY INCORPORATE ENGINEER INTO THEIR WALKING PATH TO PINCKNEY FROM THE MAINLAND? IT COULD BE LOOKED AT, YES.

80 MILLION FROM THE TRANSPORTATION REFERENDUM COVERS, YOU KNOW, FROM MOSS CREEK TO SQUIRE POPE, SO THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, TAKE IN OTHER FUNDS FOR THAT PURPOSE IF WE CHOSE OPTION ONE MACKEY CREEK DESIGN BUILD IT STILL? NO, MORE THAN LIKELY.

COULD YOU, COULD THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE, THE

[00:25:01]

UM, NO, THEY, THEY WOULD, THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF THE INFORMATION, UM, AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ELEMENTS TO BE FIGURED OUT.

UM, SO THEY WOULD MOST LIKELY PROCEED WITH A DESIGN BID BUILD TRADITIONAL, UM, DELIVERY METHOD QUESTION.

SO THE MONEY, THE 80 MILLION, WHICH IS NOW REDUCED 'CAUSE WE'VE SPENT SOME OF IT, IF THE PIPE HAS TO BE MOVED, THAT'S OUR EXPENSE, RIGHT? UM, NO, SO IT IS PARTIALLY WOULD BE OUR EXPENSE.

SO, UM, WE HAVE A REDUCED THE, THE UTILITY RELOCATION THAT, THAT, UM, THE STATE, IT'S SOME OF THAT IT'S BASED OFF THE CONSTRUCTION VALUE.

SO NOW WE HAVE A LOWER CONSTRUCTION VALUE, SO A LOWER AMOUNT WOULD GO TOWARDS THAT RELOCATION.

SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S A, SAY INSTEAD OF A $20 MILLION RELOCATION, NOW MAYBE WE'RE AT A 10 MILLION, BUT INSTEAD OF HAVING A $300 MILLION PROJECT AT 4%, YOU HAVE A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PROJECT AT 4%.

SO THERE STILL WOULD BE A DELTA THAT WOULD, UM, MOST LIKELY LOOK WE COULD BE UTILIZED WITH LOCAL FUNDS.

AND IF WE HAD THE THIRD LANE THAT'S OUT OF THE 80 MILLION? CORRECT.

SO THAT 80 MILLION'S DISAPPEARING POSSIBLY IF, IF THAT'S NOW COUNTY COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THIS, DOT WILL REPLACE THE TWO LANES AS IS AND THERE'S NO MONEY OUTTA THE 80 MILLION REQUIRED.

THAT'S JUST A CHOICE FOR COUNTY COUNCIL, IS THAT OPTION ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? OPTION ONE.

AND SO THE THREE LANES YOU CAN CALL OUT OUT ONE A, THAT WOULD BE, UM, IF, IF COUNTY COUNCIL CHOSE TO ADD SOME OF THEIR FUNDS TO PARTNER WITH DOT ON THAT REPLACEMENT.

DID WE, WHAT DID WE SPEND THE 13 MILLION FOR ALREADY? ENGINEERING, UM, AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND NEPA.

NEPA.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, MARK, JUST AGAIN, SITTING HERE LISTENING TO EVERYTHING, AND I'VE HEARD IT ALL MANY, MANY TIMES, SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE SC DOT WILL REPLACE TWO LANES OF, OF, WITH A MACKEY BRIDGE, WHETHER WE DO ANYTHING OR NOT, THAT THAT IS THEIR PLAN TO DO THAT.

IF WE WANNA PARTICIPATE, UM, WE WOULD NEED TO PARTICIPATE WITH OUR 80 MILLION THAT WE'VE GOT SET ASIDE MINUS THE 13 OBVIOUSLY.

UM, AND ENHANCE THAT BRIDGE IF WE CHOSE TO DO THAT WITH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DOT.

AND, AND MIKE MIGHT HAVE EXPLAINED THIS, BUT SO, SO BACK AGAIN TO THE SIB, UM, THAT THEY HAVE, AGAIN, THEY, THEY'VE, THEY DIDN'T TERMINATE US, THEY REJECTED US.

SO, UM, I I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION THAT, THAT MIGHT GO TO SENATOR DAVIS, BUT, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE ARE WE OR HOW, WHAT ARE OUR CHANCES OF, OF THAT EVER COMING BACK WITH THE SIB PARTICIPATING ON THIS PROJECT OR ANOTHER PROJECT ON ANY OF THE BRIDGE PROJECTS? YEAH, THAT MIGHT BE A SENATOR DAVIS QUESTION, , UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. MOORE? JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE IMPACT FEE COULD ALSO BE USED AS PART OF THIS? YES, SO, SO WE HAVE 21 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES.

WE HAVE WE REFERENCED AS OLD IMPACT FEE AND NEW IMPACT FEES.

SO THESE WERE THE ONES FROM 2006.

THEY'RE ONLY SPECIFIC.

UM, IN ORDER TO UTILIZE IMPACT FEES, IT HAS TO BE A SAFETY OR CAPACITY PROJECT.

AND IT HAS TO BE ON THE CIP LIST IN THE ORDINANCE FOR THAT FROM THE ORIGINAL IMPACT.

TWO 70 IS ON THAT.

UM, SO IT CAN BE USED ON THE CORRIDOR PROJECT OR IT CAN BE USED ON OTHERS, BUT IT, THERE'S A SELECT LIST OF WHICH THOSE FUNDS CAN BE ALLOCATED AND PROJECT TYPE, WHICH THOSE FUNDS CAN BE ALLOCATED.

SO THAT WOULD BE A CHOICE COUNCIL COULD HAVE IS HOW YOU WANTED TO ALLOCATE THE IMPACT FEES.

THE 21, IT COULD GO TO THIS PROJECT, IT COULD GO TO OTHER PROJECTS IN THE COUNTY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? I, I'D LIKE TO INVITE THE, UM, HILTON HEAD ELECTED OFFICIALS.

UM, WE HAD MS. PAT, PATSY SIGNED UP FIRST.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AS PART OF YOUR COME ON UP, BUT YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS TOO THAT WE MIGHT NOT HAVE OUR COUNSEL MIGHT NOT HAVE THOUGHT OF.

MA'AM AS AN ATTORNEY, I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO ASK MAY I APPROACH, BUT MADAM CHAIR, MAD VICE CHAIR COUNCIL MEMBERS, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HERE.

THANK YOU FOR OUR JOINT MEETING, WHICH WE HAD.

I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK AS PARTNERS AND BUILDING BRIDGES TOGETHER.

HOW ABOUT THAT? OH, CUTE.

WITH WORKERS COMING BACK AND FORTH AND, AND SERVING BUSINESSES AND FOR OUR TOURISM INDUSTRY.

SO AS YOU KNOW, ACCESS IS KEY FOR US.

UM, IT'S, IT'S LIFE THREATENING.

IT'S, IT'S PART OF OUR, IT KNOW, HOW DO WE GET ON AND OFF THE ISLAND.

IT'S VERY KEY ALSO, IT'S LIVELIHOOD

[00:30:01]

SO IT'S SO IMPORTANT.

THERE'S PARTS OF THE APPLICATION, THE SIB APPLICATION THAT TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMIC IMPACT, THE REGIONAL IMPACT.

AND I, I'M GLAD THAT YOU SHARED THAT WITH US AND I HOPE YOU LOOK AGAIN AT THAT TO SHOW HOW VERY IMPORTANT THIS IS.

UM, SO, UM, THERE'S A NUMBER OF ACCESS QUESTIONS, SOME OF WHICH MR. FELIX ADDRESSED, BUT I THINK THERE'S STILL A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT, UH, HOW WOULD WE GET TO AND FROM THE ISLAND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BUT ALSO HOW DO YOU GET TO AND FROM PINKNEY ISLAND DURING CONSTRUCTION? AND WHAT ABOUT IF YOU PICK OPTION ONE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT ACCESS? WHAT IF IT'S THREE LANES VERSUS TWO LANES THERE? IT'S GONNA BE A NIGHTMARE AT PINKNEY ISLAND, IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME.

I'M GONNA HAVE TO GET MY ERECTOR SET OUT AND TRY TO BUILD THAT ONE.

UM, AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS AFTER MERGER, JUST AS I'VE SPOKEN ABOUT, UM, THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 80 MILLION, I'M GLAD YOU'VE BEEN ASKING THOSE THE SAME QUESTIONS I HAD ON THE LIST.

WHERE DOES THAT $15 MILLION ARROW OF S-E-D-O-T COME OUT OF? DOES IT COME OUT OF THE 80 MILLION? YOU KNOW, I, I THINK AS THE VICE CHAIR SAID, PRETTY MUCH SOON THE 80 MILLION'S GONNA BE GONE.

AND WHAT DO WE HAVE AFTER THAT? UM, I THINK THAT'S A SERIOUS QUESTION FOR US TO CONSIDER.

UM, THEN, UM, I THINK THAT, UM, AS A RETIRED ATTORNEY, WHEN I WAS PRACTICING, I ALWAYS LOOKED, I WAS SOLUTION FOCUSED, BUT I LIKE TO KEEP MY OPTIONS OPEN, ESPECIALLY FOR A CLIENT.

IF I'M TRYING TO NEGOTIATE, EITHER AMEND AN AGREEMENT, NEGOTIATE A NEW ONE, OR BE NEGOTIATE ONE.

AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE OPTION TWO OF TRYING TO WORK AGAIN WITH THE SIB, THERE IS SOME TIME LEFT TO DO THAT.

AND I KNOW SENATOR DAVIS IS HERE AND HE UNDERSTANDS AS AN ATTORNEY WHAT THE ISSUES ARE AND HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THOSE.

AND I HOPE YOU'LL LISTEN TO HIS SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS THAT.

DON'T GIVE UP ON THAT YET.

OPTION ONE CAN BE YOUR FALLBACK POSITION THAT'S ALWAYS AVAILABLE WITHIN THAT 30 DAY TIME PERIOD.

SO LOOK, FIRST I WOULD URGE YOU TO LOOK FIRST AT OPTION TWO.

TRY THAT.

AS BOTH MY PARENTS SAID, DON'T GIVE UP, KEEP WORKING UNTIL YOU CAN FIND THE SOLUTION THAT WORKS.

AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO DO THAT FOR ALL OF US IN THE COUNTY, ESPECIALLY FOR THE TOWN OF HILTON HAD OUR LIVES AND OUR LIVELIHOODS.

DEPEND ON THE BEST DECISION AND DON'T PUT IT OFF UNTIL TOMORROW.

WORK ON IT HARD TODAY AND GET IT DONE.

WE CAN DO IT TOGETHER.

WE ARE HERE TO WORK TOGETHER WITH YOU.

BUT DON'T LEAVE US WITH NOTHING IN THE MONEY BARREL IF YOU PICK OPTION ONE.

UM, MS. TAMRON, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK? YOU SIGNED UP, COUNCILMAN.

THAT'S FINE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, JOIN IN IN Y'ALL'S MEETING TODAY.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT TOPIC AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR SEVEN PLUS YEARS TOGETHER.

AND, UM, AS WE SIT HERE TODAY WITH THE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE OF LEAVE, OPTION ONE IS OUR BEST OPTION.

THE CONCERN I HAVE IS HOW THAT MONEY AS TAB AS COUNCILWOMAN RENNICK HAS MENTIONED, IS DWINDLING AWAY.

THERE'S MONEY THAT NEEDS TO BE SPENT ON HILTON HEAD WITH REGARD TO OUR CORRIDOR AND OUR INTERSECTIONS.

I BELIEVE IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UM, CONNECTING ALL OF THE LIGHTS FROM 95 DOWN TO SEA PINES IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY THAT WILL HELP WITH THE TRAFFIC ISSUES THAT WE HAVE.

AND IF YOU ALLOW THOSE DOLLARS TO COME BACK TO HILTON HEAD, WE CAN IMPROVE THE CORRIDOR AND THE SAFETY ISSUES AT OUR INTERSECTIONS.

AND THAT TOGETHER WILL SOLVE THE CONGESTION AND THE OTHER CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RISE THAT, UM, WERE ROSE AND THAT WE ARE ARE HERE TO ADDRESS FROM THE BEGINNING.

SO WE'VE TAKEN OUT THE FLUFF, WE'VE GOTTEN RID OF ALL THE UNNECESSARY PIECES OF THIS, AND WE GO BACK AND WE RETURN TO THE IDEA OF REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING SAFETY.

OPTION ONE DOES THAT, BUT WE NEED TO RESERVE THOSE DOLLARS TO COME BACK TO HILTON HEAD SO WE CAN FOCUS ON THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE AT THE INTERSECTIONS IN THE CORRIDOR.

SO THANK YOU AGAIN AND, UM, LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUE TO WORKING WITH YOU.

ANY OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM HILTON HEAD COUNCIL MAYOR, AND WE'VE GOT LINDA MM-HMM .

HELLO THERE.

THANK YOU AGAIN, MADAM CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR HAVING US, UM, PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING TODAY.

I THINK THAT'S A WONDERFUL PROCESS AND, AND SHOWS THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING MADE ON A POSITIVE BASIS.

UM, I'LL JUST GET TO THE POINT I'M ALIGNED WITH OPTION ONE.

UM, THE STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK MADE IT CLEAR WITH THEIR UNANIMOUS VOTE THAT THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE COUNTY AND TOWN'S REVISED PROPOSAL FOR THE 2 78 CORRIDOR PROJECT AT

[00:35:01]

WORK.

WE WOULD CALL THIS A ROCK HUNT.

AND A ROCK HUNT IS WHEN SOMEBODY TELLS YOU TO GO FIND A ROCK, YOU BRING A BACK A ROCK AND THEY SAY, EH, THAT'S ROCK.

THAT ROCK'S TOO BIG.

COME BACK WITH A SMALLER ROCK.

AND IT JUST IS THIS REPETITIVE PROCESS THAT OCCURS.

AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE ON WITH OPTION ONE.

WE'VE ALREADY REDUCED THE SCOPE TO REPLACING JUST THE EASTBOUND BRIDGES BASED ON THE MONEY WE THOUGHT WE HAD AVAILABLE.

AND SO SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE FULL 120 MILLION FROM THE SIB AND NO APPETITE TO BORROW MONEY TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE, WE HAVE TO REDUCE THE SCOPE EVEN FURTHER, WHICH MEANS REPLACING JUST THE DEFICIENT BRIDGE.

I THINK IT'S FUTILE AT THIS POINT TO TRY TO RENEGOTIATE WITH THE SIB.

SO IT FEELS LIKE THERE IS ONLY ONE OPTION.

OPTION ONE, THE SOUTH CAROLINA DOT ON THE OTHER HAND IS READY TO PROCEED WITH REPLACING THE DEFICIENT BRIDGE WITH THE CAVEAT THAT THE COUNTY PAYS FOR THE THIRD LANE IF THEY SO CHOOSE.

I BELIEVE WE SHOULD FOCUS ON WORKING WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA DOT, LAYING OUT THE SCOPE OF WORK, THE TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE, AND THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES BETWEEN THE DOT AND THE COUNTY.

AND JARED KINDA WALKED US THROUGH WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE AND I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION BEFORE YOU CAN CHOOSE WHETHER TO HAVE TWO OR THREE LANES SO THAT YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH MONEY IS BEING SPENT BECAUSE, UH, TO MS. TABERNAS POINT, THE $80 MILLION IS QUICKLY DWINDLING.

SO LAYING OUT WHAT EXPENSES HAVE BEEN PAID, WHO, WHOSE ALLOCATION OF MONEY DOES THAT COME FROM? THE PSDS MOVE I SAW ON THE SLIDE WITH THE 88 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS, IT ESTIMATED THAT THAT FOUR POINT A HALF PERCENT REIMBURSEMENT WOULD BE ABOUT $12 MILLION GIVEN THAT YOU ONLY HAVE TO MOVE HALF THE PIPE.

MAYBE THAT'S ENOUGH, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT IF IT ISN'T, WHO PICKS UP THE DIFFERENCE? AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, UH, WHAT MONEY IS LEFT FOR CORRIDOR WORK ON THE ISLAND, MOST SPECIFICALLY THROUGH MOSS CREEK, THROUGH UH, SQUIRE POPE ROAD, WE NEED TO MAXIMIZE THE FUNDING OF THAT WORK SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SAFETY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.

BUT IN CLOSING, I WANNA THANK SENATOR DAVIS FOR HIS UNRELENTING WORK TO SUPPORT THE COUNTY COUNCIL, THE TOWN OF HILTON, ME AND ITS RESIDENTS ON THIS PROJECT.

I JOINED MY COLLEAGUES IN THANKING YOU ALL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

UM, I ALSO WANNA THANK SENATOR DAVIS FOR HIS WORK ALONG THE WAY AND MY COMMENTS ARE GONNA BE AROUND OPTION ONE, BUT I WANNA SAY TO SENATOR DAVIS, WE SUPPORT YOU AS YOU CONTINUE TO WORK ON OPTION TWO.

UM, I THINK IT IS A GOOD POSITION TO BE IN IF WE ARE NEGOTIATING.

UM, MR. FRA MENTIONED, UM, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE DISCUSSION AROUND ACCESS IF WE GO WITH OPTION ONE AS WE TIE IN THE PROPOSED NEW BRIDGE TO THE CURRENT, UH, EASTBOUND.

AND I WOULD JUST SUGGEST TO YOU ALL IF WE ARE GOING IN THAT DIRECTION, THAT WE FORMALIZE THAT IF IT'S GOING TO BE AT NIGHT, IT'S GOING TO BE AT NIGHT.

NO DAYTIME AT ALL, JUST DISRUPTING TRAFFIC ONTO HILTON HEAD IS GOING TO AFFECT US ALL WITHIN THE COUNTY ECONOMICALLY IF IT'S NOT DONE AT THE RIGHT TIME.

I'D ALSO CHALLENGE US TO THINK ABOUT AN ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL HAVE TO BE AN AGREEMENT WITH CDOT, BUT I'D ALSO CHALLENGE US TO LOOK AT AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD.

YOU ALREADY HAVE MADE A $13 MILLION INVESTMENT THROUGH THE NEPA PROCESS THAT WAS NOT JUST THE BRIDGE.

SO A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON HOW WE COULD IMPROVE THE CONGESTION AND SAFETY ON HILTON HEAD AS WELL AS WE WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

SO TO THE POINT OF THE $80 MILLION STARTING TO EVAPORATE VERY QUICKLY HERE, , UM, OUR JOINT RESOLUTION SPOKE TO A $5 MILLION SETASIDE, PARTICULARLY FOR THE STONY AREA AND IMPROVEMENTS ON ON HILTON HEAD.

UH, SO I'D SUGGEST WE KEEP THAT IN MIND.

AND IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT, I'D ALSO GO A STEP FURTHER AND SUGGEST THAT WHATEVER WORK HAPPENS ON HILTON HEAD, ALLOW THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF MASTER PLANNING THAT AND MAKING IT HAPPEN THAT LIMITS THE IDEAS TO JUST A SEVEN AND NOT IT BEING 18 WITH YOU ALL BEING INVOLVED.

[00:40:01]

OKAY, .

UH, SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS AND AGAIN, WE THANK YOU ALL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS IMPORTANT ENDEAVOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ONE LAST OR OR MORE? MAYOR? MAYOR.

JUST, JUST THE MAYOR.

YOU GOT ANOTHER ELECTED OFFICIAL? HE DIDN'T WANNA SPEAK? YEAH, NO.

EVERYBODY SAID IT FOR YOU, BUT WE'LL SEE.

AND THANK YOU SENATOR DAVIS AND JARED AND MICHAEL AND EVERYBODY BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A, AN EXERCISE, UH, WE FIND OURSELVES REALLY KIND OF BEING DIRECTED AS TO WHAT WE NEED TO DO, WHAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT.

UM, WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO MAKE, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO AFTER ADDITIONAL FUNDING.

AND WE MADE THAT STATEMENT A WHILE AGO.

SO OPTION ONE I, I FEEL IS PROBABLY THE MOST, UM, SECURE OPPORTUNITY FOR US.

BUT I WANT TO TOUCH ON THE CORRIDOR ON HILTON HEAD.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING LANES, REDOING THAT, BUT WE WOULDN'T SEE ANY EFFECT FROM THAT OUTSIDE OF THE BRIDGE BEING REPLACED FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 25 TO 30 YEARS.

AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THAT JUST REPLACING THE EXISTING BRIDGE DOESN'T ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC ISSUES AND THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE THROUGH THE CORRIDOR.

WE'VE GOT TO ADDRESS THAT CORRIDOR NOW.

AND WHILE WE HAD SET ASIDE $5 MILLION IN THAT JOINT RESOLUTION, WE STILL DON'T FEEL THAT WAS ENOUGH.

SO WE DO BELIEVE THAT OUR FAIR SHARE OF THAT 80 REMAINING BALANCE OF $80 MILLION DOES NEED TO MAKE ITS WAY BACK TO THE ISLAND.

WE'VE GOT TO ADDRESS OUR TRAFFIC FLOW, OUR SAFETY, AND OUR BEAUTIFICATION.

AND IF WE CAN DO THAT, THEN WE CAN MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE ON THE QUALITY OF LIVES OF NOT ONLY RESIDENTS, BUT YOUR RESIDENTS, OUR EMPLOYEES, AND OUR GUESTS.

SO WE ARE BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL.

I ALSO SUGGEST THAT IF IT IS A THREE LANE BRIDGE THAT IS DECIDED TO BE BUILT BY Y'ALL, THAT YOU REALLY PUSH S-C-D-O-T TO FUND IT IN ITS ENTIRETY.

THERE IS A PLAN THAT THEY KNOW THAT WE'VE ALL HEARD THAT THEY WANT TO DO BRIDGES DIFFERENTLY GOING FORWARD.

IT'S GOTTA BE IN THEIR REALM TO UNDERSTAND THE FINANCING FOR THAT.

SO I DON'T WANNA SEE THE 80 MILLION BE EATEN UP BY THE STATE WHEN THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF IT.

AND IF THE SIB IS ABLE TO COME BACK WITH ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING, GREAT, BUT WE CAN'T RELY ON THAT.

SO PLEASE, AS YOU THINK, THINK ABOUT MOVING THE PROJECT FORWARD.

ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES IN THE LOW COUNTRY NEED THIS TO BE DONE AND DONE NOW.

BUT ALSO THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE VALUE AND BENEFIT TO HILTON HEAD THROUGH THE CORRIDOR BY HAVING ANCILLARY FUNDS, SUBSTANTIAL ANCILLARY FUNDS LEFT OVER SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS OUR QUALITY OF LIFE ON THE ISLAND.

POTENTIALLY $170 MILLION.

SENATOR DAVIS.

THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.

UM, I'M NOT GONNA ADVOCATE FOR EITHER OPTION ONE OR OPTION TWO.

UM, AS, AS I'VE SAID THROUGHOUT, UM, THAT'S A POLICY DECISION FOR COUNCIL TO MAKE HERE AND TOWN COUNCIL TO MAKE ON HILTON HEAD.

BUT I DO WANNA GIVE YOU SOME, SOME FACTS AND SOME INFORMATION TO HELP YOU MAKE THAT POLICY DECISION.

UM, START WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TURNING AWAY.

IT'S NOT JUST $120 MILLION FROM THE SIV GRANT.

IT'S ALSO GONNA BE WHATEVER PORTION OF THAT $80 MILLION IS USED BY THE DOT.

IF YOU WANNA GO TO THREE LANES ON THE MACKEY CREEK, OKAY? DO T'S NOT GONNA COME UP WITH THAT OPTION ONE, THEY WILL COME UP WITH IT UNDER THE OTHER ONE.

THEY WILL PAY FOR IT, NOT ONLY THREE LANES ON MACKEY, BUT THREE LANES ALL THE WAY ACROSS, UM, TO WHERE IT TIES IN ON THE ISLAND.

SO LET'S, LET'S, LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT'S AT STAKE.

OKAY? THE SECOND THING IS, AND THIS ISN'T ANY FAULT OF MS. HUNTERS 'CAUSE SHE WASN'T ON THE PHONE CALL BECAUSE JOHN WHITE IS EXTREMELY MOTIVATED TO MAKE THIS DEAL WORK.

HE SHARED THAT IN THE PHONE CONVERSATION WE HAD THURSDAY THAT YOU WERE AT CHAIR.

AND, AND, UH, MR. MOORE, HE FOLLOWED IT UP WITH ME IN A PHONE CALL SAYING, WE WANT TO MAKE THIS WORK.

DO NOT THINK WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE THIS WORK.

NOW GOING THROUGH THE THINGS TO MAKE IT WORK, THE, THE COUNTY OVERRUNS THAT'S BEING PRESENTED, OR IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS BEING PRESENTED AS A NEW THING THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL 2021 IGA, THERE WAS A BEAUFORT COUNTY OBLIGATION TO COVER COST OVERRUNS.

THAT'S NOT COST OVERRUN.

SO THAT'S NOT NEW, THAT'S NOT CHANGED, THAT'S NOT A NEW SIB CONDITION THAT'S EXISTING CONTRACTUAL STATUS.

NOW, I DISAGREE WITH CHAIRMAN WHITE WHEN HE SAYS HE WANTS TO HAVE SOME SORT OF SPECIFIC ASSURANCE FROM THE COUNTY, WHETHER IT BE A BOND OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.

NO OTHER APPLICANT HAS TO PROVIDE THAT SPECIFIC ASSURANCE.

IT IS ENOUGH TO SIMPLY SAY AS YOU HAVE IN THE 2021 IGA, THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERRUNS.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO INTO HOW YOU'RE GONNA HANDLE IT FIVE, SIX YEARS FROM NOW.

I DON'T THINK ANYTHING YOU SUBMIT BACK TO THE SIB SHOULD

[00:45:01]

CONTAIN ANYTHING IN REGARD TO BONDING CAPACITY.

I, I AGREE YOU SHOULDN'T RESTRICT YOURSELF IN THAT REGARD IN REGARD TO THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.

IN TALKING THROUGH WITH CHAIRMAN WHITE AND GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL S CIV APPLICATION, WHICH IN TURN DEFINES THE PROJECT BY REFERENCE TO THE APPLICATION.

THE, THE, I'M SORRY, THE, THE APPROVAL, THE IGA REFERS BACK TO THE S CIV APPLICATION.

IT DOESN'T SAY A SIX LANE BRIDGE.

IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING.

IT SIMPLY SAYS, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CITE IT.

2 78 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN BEAUFORT COUNTY INCLUDES THE CONSIDERATION OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR US 2 8 78 CORRIDOR FROM MOSS CREEK DRIVE TO SPANISH WELLS ROAD.

AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT REPLACING THE CARL BOWERS BRIDGE.

THE MACKEY STREET BRIDGE.

BUT THEN IT SAYS, ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE MODIFICATIONS TO REMAINING THREEBRIDGE STRUCTURES, IMPROVED ACCESS TO PICKNEY, IMPROVED ACCESS TO CH HAG JUNIOR BOAT RAMP.

SO MY POINT IS, YOU DON'T EVEN NEED TO TALK TO THE SIB AND CONVINCE THEM THAT THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL CHANGE IN SCOPE.

YOU ARE ACCOMPLISHING THE SAME OBJECTIVES THAT YOU IDENTIFIED IN THAT ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND SOMETHING HE ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME.

NOW, IN TERMS OF THE OTHER THINGS, UM, THE PRIORITY OF THE MONEY IS ALSO SPELLED OUT IN THE IGA.

UM, IT, IT TALKS ABOUT THE COUNTY MONEY GOING HARD FIRST THAN DOT MONEY, THAN THE SIB MONEY.

DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS SUBMITTED DIFFERENTLY, BUT IT WAS, AND RIGHTLY, THE SIB SAID, WAIT A MINUTE, WE'RE NOT GONNA AGREE TO THAT.

BUT THAT'S EASILY FIXED.

YOU CAN GO BACK.

IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE COUNTY WHETHER YOUR MONEY GOES IN FIRST, IF YOU'RE GONNA BE RESPONSIBLE ON THE BACKEND FOR ANY OVERRUNS, IT'S IMMATERIAL.

THE THE SECOND THING I'LL SAY IS IN REGARD TO THE OTHER QUOTE OBJECTION, THE S HAD, THEY WANTED THE TIMELINE AMENDED INSTEAD OF BEING 2024 TO 2028, WE GOTTA MODIFY THE TIMELINE.

WELL, THAT'S IMPLICIT IN WHAT THE COUNTY SUBMITTED, BUT HE WANTED IT EXPLICIT THAT YOU WERE REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A HEAVY LIFT AT ALL.

HE WANTED TO BE VERY CLEAR IN REGARD TO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHERE MONEY WOULD GO IF THERE'S SAVINGS.

OKAY, THE SUBMISSION THAT WAS GIVEN RECENTLY AND CONSIDERED BY THE SIB, THE SUBMISSION BY THE COUNTY, THE RESOLUTION CALLED FOR ANY SAVINGS THAT WEREN'T USED TO BE USED AND SAVED AND USED IN BEAUFORT COUNTY.

THE IGA SAYS THAT ANY SAVINGS GO BACK TO THE SIB.

SO, SO AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT CHANGING IT.

YOU'RE, I MEAN, YOU WERE ACTUALLY ASKING THE SIB TO MAKE CHANGES TO THEIR IGA THAT WEREN'T MATERIAL TO WHAT WE WERE ASKING.

THEY, THERE WERE TWO EXTRA THINGS AND IT JUST MADE IT EASIER FOR THE SIB TO QUOTE, REJECT.

NOW, YES, IT WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO REJECT, BUT THEY DID THAT TO YORK.

AND WHAT'S GOING ON WITH YORK AND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE IS WHAT DO WE NOW SUBMIT TO ANSWER THESE SPECIFIC CONCERNS? IT'S NOT AN 11, IT'S NOT A UNANIMOUS REJECTION.

THE SIBS MAKE CLEAR, DOESN'T WANNA SEND THIS MONEY, WE GOTTA DO FORWARD WITH OPTION ONE.

THAT IS THE FACT HE WANTS TO MAKE THIS WORK.

MOREOVER, AS, AS, AS WAS SAID EARLIER, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH, WHICH COUNCIL MEMBER THINK MS. RYSON SAID, YOU'VE ALWAYS GOT THE FALLBACK FOR OPTION ONE.

IF IT TURNS OUT YOU CAN'T NEGOTIATE WITH THE SIB, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THESE THINGS YOU SUBMIT BACK ISN'T SOMETHING THEY'LL ACCEPT, AND I THINK THAT THEY WILL, BUT IF THEY DON'T, YOU'RE NO WORSE OFF RIGHT NOW THAN, THAN YOU ARE RIGHT NOW.

I MEAN, WHY, WHY GO AHEAD AND FORCE STALL IF YOU THINK THAT'S THE BETTER OPTION.

NOW YOU MAY NOT THINK IT'S A BETTER OPTION.

YOU MAY THINK IT'S BETTER JUST TO GO WITH OPTION ONE AND, AND BE DONE WITH THE IGA AND IF THAT'S YOUR POLICY DECISION, THAT'S YOUR POLICY DECISION AND YOU WON'T HEAR ME CRITICIZE IT.

BUT DON'T MAKE THAT POLICY DECISION BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU CAN'T GET THE $120 MILLION FROM THE SIB 'CAUSE I THINK YOU CAN GET IT.

OKAY, SO, SO I I WOULD JUST SPELL OUT ALSO THIS IN TERMS OF THE TIMELINE, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE FRUSTRATIONS AND I HAD THIS TALK WITH SECRETARY, UH, OR, OR SECRETARY PAL, BUT ALSO CHAIRMAN, UM, WHITE.

THIS WAS APPROVED.

THIS, THIS GRANT WAS APPROVED IN 2020, $120 MILLION LARGEST GRANT THAT WE HAVE EVER GOTTEN.

SECOND LARGEST GRANT IN SOUTH CAROLINA HISTORY, A LOT OF POLITICAL CAPITAL.

A LOT OF TIME WAS SPENT BY A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM TO GET THAT $120 MILLION.

I WENT TO EVERY SINGLE CIP MEETING, EVERY SINGLE PRESENTATION I WORKED THE C BOARD MEMBERS.

MAYBE THAT'S WHY I FEEL A LITTLE BIT PROPRIETARY ABOUT THAT $120 MILLION.

'CAUSE IT'S HARD TO GET AND IT'S A LOT OF MONEY.

AND YOU ADD ON TO THAT, THE POTENTIAL OF MAYBE $50 MILLION COMING OUT OF THE 80 TO PAY FOR THE THREE LANES.

IF YOU WANNA DO THE MACKEY CREEK SPAN, THAT'S $170 MILLION YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SENDING AWAY BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE DOT WOULD PAY FOR THAT 3, 3, 3 LANE SPAN ALL THE WAY FROM MOSS CREEK TO HILTON HEAD ISLAND.

NOW, WHEN THE, WHEN THE PLANS FINALLY CAME OUT AFTER THAT GRANT WAS MADE IN, IN 2020, THEY CAME OUT WITH THIS PLAN, THIS MASSIVE STRUCTURE, THIS THIS THREE LANES IN, IN EACH DIRECTION, BREAKDOWN LANES, MEDIANS, ALL IN ONE SINGLE STRUCTURE.

AND PEOPLE IN HILTON HAD FREAKED OUT QUITE RIGHTLY.

THEY HAD NO IDEA THEY WERE FACING SOMETHING THIS MASSIVE.

AND, AND SO THERE WAS A LOT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND, AND A

[00:50:01]

LOT OF MEETINGS WITH CONSTITUENTS, A LOT OF WORK DONE WITH THE GULLAH COMMUNITY, A LOT OF WORK DONE WITH THE RESIDENTS, A LOT, TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK.

OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD, I GOT MONEY PUT INTO THE BUDGET TO GIVE TO THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD TO HIRE THEIR OWN CONSULTANTS, THEIR OWN ENGINEERS SO THEY COULD COME UP WITH WORK PRODUCT THAT WAS REFLECTIVE OF WHAT THEIR PEOPLE WANTED AND NOT WHAT SEOD IMPOSED ON THEM.

THAT JUST TOOK A WHILE.

I MEAN, IT JUST TAKES, AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO TAKE A WHILE WITH SOMETHING THIS SUBSTANTIAL OVER, AND THIS IS WHAT I SAID TO JOHN WHITE.

OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD, WE WENT AHEAD AND ENGAGED IN A VERY ROBUST COMMUNITY CONVERSATION HEARING FROM EVERY SINGLE CONSTITUENCY AND ALSO AT BEAUFORT COUNTY.

AND, AND, AND, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE CAME UP WITH A PLAN.

BUT THEN ANOTHER SHOE DROPPED IN FEBRUARY OF 2024.

THE DOT SAID, WELL NOW IT'S GOING TO COST US FOUR $88 MILLION.

AND, AND SO AGAIN, WE SAID, OKAY, THEY AND SIV ASKED US AND DOT ASKED US, HOW YOU GONNA PAY FOR THAT? THAT'S ANOTHER $188 MILLION YOU WEREN'T COUNTING ON.

SO I WENT UP TO COLUMBIA AGAIN ALONG WITH THE COUNTY, ALONG WITH THE TOWN, AND WE PUT FORTH A PRESENTATION AND AT THAT TIME IT WAS GONNA BE SPLIT.

WE PROPOSED 90 MILLION FROM THE COUNTY.

WE PUT 90 MILLION MORE IN AND THE SIB PUTTING IN 90 MILLION TO MATCH IT TO COVER THE OVERRUN OF 180.

THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHERE WE'RE GONNA GET OUR 90 MILLION.

WE SAID WE WERE GONNA DO IT IN THE NOVEMBER 20, 24 PENNY SALES TAX REFERENDUM.

OKAY? SO THAT WAS THE PLAN THAT FAILED.

OKAY? THE WEEK AFTER THAT FAILED, JOHN WHITE CALLS ME UP AND SAYS, WHAT'S PLAN B? WHAT ARE YOU GUYS GONNA DO NOW? I MEAN THIS $90 MILLION THAT YOU WERE GONNA PUT UP TO GET ANOTHER 90 MILLION FROM THE S THAT'S NO LONGER ON THE TABLE.

AND I SAID, WELL, I GOTTA GO, I'LL, I'LL TALK TO COUNTY COUNCIL.

AND I CAME BEFORE COUNTY COUNCIL SOMETIME IN DECEMBER, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN.

AND SAID TO MY MIND, THERE'S ONLY TWO WAYS YOU CAN GET IT.

YOU CAN EITHER GET IT BY RAISING MILLAGE OKAY AND GENERATING NEW INCOME STREAMS, OR YOU CAN DIVERT EXISTING REVENUE STREAMS FROM COMMITTED PROJECTS TOWARD THE BRIDGE.

NEITHER OF THOSE TWO PARTICULAR OPTIONS WERE SOMETHING THAT BEAUFORT COUNTY COUNCIL WANTED TO DO.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND SO THEN WHAT DO YOU DO? WELL THEN THE, THE STATE WAS READY TO JUST PULL THE PLUG ENTIRELY.

I WENT UP THERE AGAIN AT A HEARING AND GOT ANOTHER EXTENSION TO MARCH 31ST, 2020 4, 20 25 TO COME UP WITH A REVISED PROPOSAL.

WELL, IF THERE'S NOT GONNA BE MORE MONEY, THEN THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS LOOK AT SCOPE.

THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS LOOK AT DOING THE BEST YOU CAN WITH THE MONEY YOU HAVE.

AND THAT'S WHEN DIALOGUE OCCURRED WITH COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS.

AND REMARKABLY, THERE WAS AN, THIS TWO MONTHS AGO, THERE WAS AN 11 OH DECISION BY COUNTY COUNCIL TO EMBRACE THAT.

AND A SIX ONE DECISION BY THE TOWN OF HILTON HAD COUNCIL TO EMBRACE THAT.

I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT IT IS TO GET INDIVIDUALS WHO REPRESENT DIVERSE CONSTITUENCIES IN BEAUFORT COUNTY AND IN HILTON HEAD SPECIFICALLY TO COME UP WITH AN 11 OH TO SIX TO ONE VOTE TWO MONTHS AGO.

AND SO THAT WAS THE PLAN THAT I WAS THEN WORKING ON TRYING TO PUT FORWARD.

MR. MOORE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB IN MAKING SUBMISSIONS, UM, TO, TO THE, UH, TO THE CIV ANSWERING QUESTIONS.

SO DID THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD.

THE HEARING WAS HELD LAST MONDAY.

I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.

I DIDN'T GO, HAD I BEEN THERE, I FEEL I COULD HAVE ADDRESSED SOME OF THESE THINGS, WHICH I CAN CONSIDER TO BE FAIRLY NON-MATERIAL AT MY REAL ESTATE PARLANCE.

OKAY? I REALLY DO.

I DON'T THINK ADJUSTING HOW, WHEN MONEY GOES HARD IS DIFFICULT.

I DON'T THINK ADJUSTING A CONSTRUCTION ON TIMELINE IS DIFFICULT.

I DON'T THINK, GOING BACK TO THE IGA AGREEMENT IN REGARD TO ANY SAVINGS GOES TO THE SIB FIRST IS DIFFICULT.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION IN THE ORIGINAL IGA THAT BEAUFORT COUNTY IS IN CHARGE OF ANY OVERAGE.

THAT'S, THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE.

I DO DISAGREE, AS I SAID EARLIER, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH SPECIFIC REPAYMENT TERMS. YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GONNA BE FIVE YEARS FROM NOW OR SIX YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN THAT COME, WHEN THAT AMOUNT COMES DUE.

IF IT COMES DUE AT ALL.

AND LET ME SPEAK TO THAT, THE NUMBERS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, WERE UNDER IT IN BUDGET AND THAT'S WITH WHAT A 20% CONTINGENCY THAT'S IN THERE FOR, FOR OVERRUNS.

SO I, I CAN'T PROMISE ANYTHING, BUT NOTHING'S OF CERTAINTY IN THIS WORLD.

BUT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE ALL THIS INFORMATION AND ALL THESE FACTS AT YOUR DISPOSAL WHEN, WHEN YOU ADDRESS ON WHAT COURSE YOU WANNA PROCEED.

AND SO I ALSO AGREE WITH MAYOR PERRY THAT THE MASTER PLAN ON HILTON HAD HAS TO BE DONE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE LETTERS THAT I SUBMITTED WHEN I PUT FORWARD THIS MODIFIED PROPOSAL, I SAID, IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD FOCUS ON WHAT THAT MASTER PLAN LOOKS LIKE.

SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH, AND MAYBE CONCURRENTLY WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING DONE TO THE BRIDGE, THE, THE EASTBOUND SPAN, THREE LANE SPAN.

AND THE IDEA THAT THE ONLY WAY WE CAN PAY FOR THAT MASTER PLAN IS BY SENDING BACK $120 MILLION TO THE SIB

[00:55:01]

MAYBE LOSING 50 MILLION OR THE $80 MILLION TO PAY FOR THE THREE LANE MACKEY SPAN.

AND THAT THAT MONEY IS THE ONLY MONEY THEY CAN HAVE TO WORK ON A MASTER PLAN.

THAT'S NOT, THAT'S A FLAWED PREMISE.

THERE ARE SOURCES OF FUNDS.

ONCE YOU IDENTIFY THAT, AND I'VE SAID THIS ONCE, THAT MASTER PLAN IS AGREED UPON, AND MY GOD, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE AGREED UPON IT.

THERE'S DIFFERING IDEAS THERE.

THERE'S PEOPLE WHO WANT OVERPASSES.

THERE'S PEOPLE THAT WANT STOPLIGHTS.

THERE'S PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT STOPLIGHTS.

IT'S, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THE TOWN HAS TO DO TO GET A COMMUNITY CONSENSUS IN REGARD TO WHAT THAT ON ISLAND MASTER PLAN LOOKS LIKE.

BUT ONCE WE HAVE THAT IN HAND AND ONCE WE KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, WE CAN SET OUR MINDS TO PUTTING THE PIECES OF HOW TO FINANCE THAT AND PUT IT TOGETHER.

AND I STILL THINK IT CAN BE DONE CONCURRENTLY WITH WHAT'S BEING DONE HERE WITH, WITH THIS, UM, EASTBOUND BAND.

SO, SO I DON'T MEAN TO, I CAN'T ARGUE ABOUT WHAT MAYOR PERRY SAYS.

HE'S RIGHT.

WE HAVE TO DO, THEY'RE IN CONJUNCTION WITH EACH OTHER.

THEY, THEY INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER.

IT DOESN'T DO ANY GOOD JUST TO EXPAND CAPACITY COMING ONTO THE ISLAND IF YOU DON'T HANDLE WHAT THE, ON ISLAND IMPROVEMENTS.

BUT, BUT I THINK IT'S, THIS IS NOT A, A, A MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE KIND OF THING.

YOU CAN DO BOTH.

I THINK IF YOU CHOOSE OPTION ONE, YOU SEND BACK $120 MILLION TO THE SIB, THEY'LL SPEND IT SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE.

IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THREE LANES, WHICH I HOPE THAT YOU DO WITH THE MACKEY CREEK SPAN, IF YOU WENT THAT WAY, THAT 50 MILLION OR 30 TO 50, WHATEVER JARED SAID IT WAS, THAT'S COMING OUT OF YOUR $80 MILLION, THAT AIN'T GONNA COME OUTTA D-O-T-D-O-T WILL PAY FOR IF IT'S PART OF THE LARGER PROJECT, THREE LANES ALL THE WAY FROM MOSS CREEK TO THE ISLAND.

SO, SO, SO THOSE ARE THE FACTS AS AS I SEE THEM, UM, I STAND READY TO DO WHATEVER YOU AS POLICY MAKERS AND THE TOWN DECIDES YOU WANT TO DO.

IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANT OPTION ONE, I WILL DO MY BEST TO GO TO DOT AND TO GET THEM TO COVER THE COST OF THAT THREE LANES IF YOU WANT TO GO THAT WAY.

SO IT DOESN'T EAT INTO THAT $80 MILLION.

I WILL DO WHATEVER I CAN TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF THAT TIE IN OF, OF JUST THAT SEPARATE MACKEY CREEK EASTBOUND SPAN INTO 2 78.

AND I'M NOT AS SANGUINE, UH, ABOUT THE IMPACTS TO THE TOWN OF HILTON HAD IN THAT TIE IN.

MAYBE A FEW WEEKS OR A COUPLE WEEKS.

YOU KNOW WHAT, I DON'T WANNA BE IN THE RECEIVING END WHEN THE TWO LANES EASTBOUND TO HILTON HEAD GETS SHUT DOWN FOR WEEKS ON END AND YOU'VE GOT INGRESS AND EGRESS GOING ON THE EXISTING WESTBOUND SPAN.

THAT WOULD BE A NIGHTMARE.

IT'D BE A NIGHTMARE POLITICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY AND, AND JUST, YOU KNOW, INTUITIVELY, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT IF YOU WANNA TIE IN A NEW SPAN INTO AN EXISTING SPAN, WHILE THE EXISTING SPAN IS OPERATIONAL, THERE ARE GONNA BE DELAYS.

AND SECRETARY POWELL CONFIRMED THAT TO ME AS WELL.

AND HE SAID, WE'LL DO THE BEST WE CAN AND WORK AT NIGHT, BUT THERE MAY BE A COUPLE WEEKS OR SO.

WE GOTTA DO IT DURING THE DAY.

WELL, WHEN I HEAR THE OR SO THAT REALLY MAKES ME WORRIED.

SO AGAIN, IF YOU WANNA GO THE ROUTE OF OPTION ONE, I UNDERSTAND YOU TAKE CARE OF THAT FIRST BAND, EVEN LEAVE IT TWO LANES, EVEN LEAVE IT TWO LANES.

UM, USE THE MONEY AND, AND IF YOU DO GO THAT ROUTE, AND I'LL SAY THIS FOR THE MAYOR AND FOR THE TOWN AS WELL, I DO THINK IF YOU GO OPTION ONE ROUTE, THAT THAT $80 MILLION SHOULD GO TO HILTON HEAD ON ISLAND.

I, I REALIZE THAT THERE'S SOME DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE REFERENDUM REQUIRES IT TO GO TO HILTON HEAD.

UM, YOU KNOW, I, BUT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT, THAT THAT MORALLY AND RESPONSIBLY, THAT THAT MONEY DOES BELONG THERE.

SO IF YOU DO GO TO OPTION ONE, UM, I'LL LET YOU KNOW THAT I WILL BE ADVOCATING ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD TO TRY TO HAVE THAT $80 MILLION ALLOCATED TO THEIR OWN ISLAND IMPROVEMENTS.

'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE EQUITABLE THING TO DO GIVEN THAT PARTICULAR SCENARIO.

SO WITH THAT MADAM CHAIR, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE MY SEAT OR I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

UM, I'VE TRIED TO STICK TO THE FACTS AS I UNDERSTAND THEM, UM, RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S YOUR DECISION THAT IS GONNA GOVERN THE DAY.

WE GIVE UP $170 MILLION ROUGHLY MM-HMM .

I THINK, UM, TOM HAD HAD HIS HAND UP FIRST.

JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

SURE.

SENATOR? MM-HMM .

UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I THINK YOU ANSWERED ONE OF 'EM.

UM, I WAS GONNA ASK YOU WHY ARE YOU SO EMPHATIC THAT, UH, THEY WOULDN'T GIVE YOU MORE MONEY, UH, FOR THE THIRD LANE? YOU SAID YOU'D GO BACK AND, UM, UH, WRESTLE WITH 'EM TO GET THAT NOW.

I MEAN, THE WAY YOU'VE WORKED SO FAR OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS TO GET THE MONEY YOU HAVE, I DON'T SEE THAT BEING A PROBLEM AT ALL.

UM, WELL, I'LL TRY AND, AND AS I SAID, WITH WITH WITH THE SIB AND WITH ANYTHING IN GOVERNMENT WHEN IT INVOLVES AN ALLOCATION OF MONEY, THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES.

THERE ARE NO SURE THINGS I CAN GIVE YOU MY, MY MY BEST GUESS BASED ON WHAT I THINK IS REASONABLE.

UM, AND, AND I THINK I CAN MAKE A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AS TO WHY THAT'S FAIR.

BUT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE STANDING UP HERE AND REPRESENTING TO YOU THAT I CAN GET THAT EXTRA MONEY FOR THE THIRD LANE OVER MACKEY.

IF YOU GO TO OPTION ONE FROM THE DOT, I THINK IT'S JUST LIKE GOING TO OPTION WHATEVER TO GET TO 120.

YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT EITHER, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

HERE'S WHAT I WANT YOU TO GO THROUGH FOR ME JUST TO CLARIFY MY THOUGHTS ON, YOU SAID OPTION ONE,

[01:00:01]

RIGHT? WELL, I, IF I, WELL, THE ASSUMPTION I'M MAKING THERE, UH, COUNCILMAN REEDS IS THAT OF COURSE IT'S THE $120 MILLION FROM THE SIB.

I'M, I'M TAKING JARRET'S NUMBERS OF 30 TO 50 MILLION OF WHAT IT MIGHT COST TO BUILD A THIRD LANE.

IF YOU JUST DO MACKEY ONLY, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT I'M GONNA BE UNABLE TO GET THAT FROM THE DOT.

OKAY? IF THOSE LATTER TWO ASSUMPTIONS ARE INCORRECT, IF IT'S REALLY 30 MILLION INSTEAD OF 50 MILLION, OKAY, THEN, THEN YOU'RE ONLY GIVING BACK 150 MILLION.

OR IN FACT, IF I CAN GET THE DOT OR, OR DELEGATION OR ALL OF US COLLECTIVELY PERSUADING THE DOT TO PAY FOR IT, THEN MAYBE IT'S ONLY 120 MILLION YOU'RE SENDING BACK.

BUT I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO SPELL OUT THE WORST CASE SCENARIOS FOR YOU BECAUSE THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE HERE TONIGHT COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN $170 MILLION THAT YOU'RE SENDING BACK TO THE STATE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN HAND.

YOU KNOW, I, I APPRECIATE THAT.

THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE REMAINING IN THAT IS, LET'S SAY WE GO WITH OPTION ONE AND IT'S JUST A TWO LANE.

FORGET THE 50 MILLION, WE'RE TALKING A HUNDRED MILLION THAT THEY'D PAY FOR MM-HMM .

SO YOU WOULD TAKE 170 MINUS THAT 100, YOU'D BE GIVEN 70 BACK.

AND I THINK THAT WOULD GIVE US AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME GIVING 70 BACK WHERE? I'M SORRY.

SORRY, I DIDN'T FOLLOW UP.

WELL, I'M, YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING 170 MILLION, WE JUST FOREGO IF WE WENT WITH OPTION ONE.

WELL, IF YOU GO OPTION ONE, THE 120 MILLION IS GONE.

RIGHT? YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? YEP.

BUT THEY'RE GONNA PUT IN A HUNDRED MILLION TOWARD THAT BRIDGE.

NO, NOT THE SIB.

THAT'S THE DOT.

THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT S WELL, I'M SAYING WE'RE GONNA GET THAT PAID FOR.

IT'S NOT GONNA COME OUT WELL, THE A HUNDRED MILLION, THE A HUNDRED MILLION IS INDEPENDENT OF THE $120 MILLION OF SIB IS PAYING.

RIGHT? YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IS DOT'S GOT MONEY, SIB'S GOT MONEY COMBINED.

IT'S ABOUT $120 MILLION.

I, I APPRECIATE THAT.

LEAST, UH, WE KNOW WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE, WITH OPTION ONE, THAT TWO LANE PAID FOR AND THE OPTION FOR THREE.

AND I DON'T SEE HOW WOULD, UH, I THINK YOU'D DO VERY WELL GETTING THAT 50 MILLION FOR THE LANE THREE.

I'M GONNA TRY NOW, I'M GONNA HOLD ONTO THE $120 MILLION AS LONG AS I CAN, BUT TO GIVE THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD THE TIME IT NEEDS TO COME UP WITH A PLAN OR A DESIGN THAT IT FEELS IS REFLECTIVE OF WHAT THEIR PEOPLE WANT.

ANYWAY, IT JUST, YOU KNOW, BASED ON MY YEAR AND A HALF IN THIS, THERE'S PEOPLE HERE EIGHT YEARS LIKE YOU DOING THIS.

AND I, I GOTTA TELL YOU, UM, I GIVE YOU A LOT OF CREDIT AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORT, BUT, UM, LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION.

SURE.

UM, 'CAUSE REALLY IT BOILS DOWN TO A POLICY DECISION.

DO YOU WANNA DO OPTION ONE OR OPTION TWO? UM, YOU CHOOSE OPTION ONE, OPTION TWO IS FOREGONE, IT'S GONE.

YOU CHOOSE OPTION TWO AND TRY 30 DAYS TO NEGOTIATE THE THING YOU STILL HAVE AND IT FAILS.

YOU STILL HAVE OPTION ONE.

WHY WOULD YOU, I MEAN, I'M JUST POSED THAT QUESTION TO YOU.

DO YOU WANT TO THROW OUT ONE OF THE OPTIONS NOW? MAYBE YOU DO.

IF YOU THINK OPTION ONE'S THE WAY TO GO, I, AND IF IT IS, IF OPTION ONE'S THE WAY YOU WANT TO GO, YOU OUGHT TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

BUT IF YOU THINK OPTION TWO IS, IS THE BETTER OPTION, AND YOU'RE WONDERING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE SIB WILL AGREE OR YOU'RE WONDERING ABOUT THIS, THAT, OR THE OTHER, I GUESS MY RESPONSE WOULD BE YOU'RE GONNA FIND OUT AT A RELATIVELY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME.

'CAUSE SECRETARY OF POWELL'S GIVEN US 30 DAYS TO MAKE THAT WORK.

SENATOR, I APPRECIATE THAT.

THE, AND LET ME MAKE THIS AS CLEAR AS I CAN.

THE PEOPLE TELL US WHAT WE DO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT WHAT I WANT TO DO.

IT'S WHAT I HEAR FROM THESE GOOD PEOPLE HERE.

AND I GO BACK TO A DIETRICH DISCUSSION, WHAT HE MENTIONED, LARRY, AND WE'VE HEARD FELICE MANY TIMES.

UH, YOU KNOW, I I JUST WANTED ON RECORD THAT I BELIEVE THIS LAST SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS IS A CASE STUDY OF HOW NOT TO DO A PROJECT.

I MEAN, THIS HAS BEEN, UM, WE'RE WE'RE GOING AT THE 11TH HOUR HERE, NOT UNDERSTANDING CERTAIN THINGS, TRYING TO FIND OUT, I REMEMBER WE WERE ABOUT TO SIGN A JOINT RESOLUTION AND THE ISLAND PACKET CAME OUT WITH AN ARTICLE THAT SAID SOMETHING OR OTHER ABOUT NOT HAVING AN OPTION FOR PICKNEY ISLAND.

YOU WROTE US A NICE LETTER, AND I THINK YOU JUMPED RIGHT ON IT ON BEHALF OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN AND SAID, GEEZ, I BELIEVE THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

WE'VE GOT TO HAVE AN OPTION FOR PICKNEY ISLAND.

MM-HMM .

HERE WE ARE ABOUT READY TO SIGN A JOINT RESOLUTION AND WE'RE STILL NOT SURE IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE AN OPTION FOR PICKNEY ISLAND OR HAVE TO GO AROUND AND DO A U-TURN AT WINDMILL HARBOR.

UM, I, I DON'T KNOW.

I'M JUST, WELL, AND I, AND I AGREE WITH YOU ON ONE THING.

THE PEOPLE ARE OUR BOSS.

THE PEOPLE ARE WHO WE ANSWER TO.

ABSOLUTELY.

THE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN.

BUT IN A REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THE WAY THE PEOPLE EXPRESS THEIR VOICES IN A COHERENT AND RATIONAL WAY IS TO ELECT EACH OF YOU TO COME UP THERE AND MAKE DECISIONS ON THEIR BEHALF.

I CAN'T GO OUT ONTO ON THE WILLIAM HILL PARKWAY AND JUST START CANVASSING PEOPLE AS THEY DRIVE BY IN CARS.

I MEAN, THAT'S NOT GONNA BE A WAY OF DOING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

THE ONLY WAY YOU DO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS IF DULY ELECTED PEOPLE SUCH AS YOURSELVES, INFORM YOURSELVES OF THE ISSUES, TALK TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS, DO THE BEST YOU CAN TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES, AND THEN CAST A DECISION.

THAT'S THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

AND, AND THAT'S WHERE I'VE BEEN ALL ALONG WITH THE TOWN OF HILTON HAD, BECAUSE I, I'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT I THOUGHT THE HILTON HEAD WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE SIB, BUT REALLY TO ME, THEY'RE THE MAIN PARTY IN INTEREST BECAUSE IT IS THEIR ENTRANCE TO THEIR ISLAND.

IT'S IMPACTING THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.

AND SO I HAVE ALWAYS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT

[01:05:01]

AND I THINK I'VE DONE THAT.

WE DELAYED IT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.

WE HAD INDEPENDENT STUDIES, AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD COUNCIL VOTED SIX TO ONE IN REGARD TO A COURSE FORWARD JUST TWO MONTHS AGO.

AND WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT RIGHT NOW.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S HAPPENED TO MAKE YOU THINK THAT A SIX ONE VOTE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS ON TOWN OF HILTON HEAD DON'T REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF HILTON HEAD.

I BELIEVE THEY DO.

THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT MIGHT BE FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF MY CONSTITUENTS ON HILTON HEAD, IS TO TALK TO THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM TO DO THEIR BUSINESS.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, MS. BROWN.

SENATOR DAVIS.

UM, I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHY DIDN'T WE LET THE STATE COME IN AND FIX THE BRIDGE IN 2018? JUST COME IN AND FIX IT.

I THINK THE PROPOSAL WAS, WHY ARE YEARS, SEVEN YEARS LATER, I THINK THE COUNTY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME WHEN DOT PUT THAT PARTICULAR SPAN, THE MACKEY CREEK SPAN ON THE WATCH LIST, AND THEY CAME FORWARD AND SAID, WE'RE GONNA COME IN AND REPAIR THIS.

THE COUNTY COUNCIL LEADERS AT THAT TIME, AND I HONESTLY DON'T REMEMBER WHO WAS CHAIR BACK THEN IN 2018, BUT THEY DECIDED TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO SAY, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO THAT FIRST SPAN, WHY NOT LOOK AT THESE EXISTING SPANS? BECAUSE WE HAVE ACCESS PROBLEMS, WE HAVE SAFETY PROBLEMS, WE HAVE, WE HAVE ISSUES WE WANNA ADDRESS.

THEY PUT TOGETHER THEIR APPLICATION, THEY SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION, AND THE SIB MADE THE $120 MILLION GRAND AWARD AS TO THE MOTIVATIONS AS TO WHY COUNTY COUNCIL DECIDED TO MAKE THAT APPLICATION.

I DON'T KNOW.

BUT ONCE THEY DECIDED TO MAKE THAT APPLICATION, I DID THE BEST I COULD TO MAKE SURE IT SUCCEEDED.

AND, AND I WANNA RECUR TO, I, I WANNA REVERT TO THAT.

AGAIN, WHATEVER DECISION YOU MAKE HERE TONIGHT, I'M AT PEACE WITH BECAUSE YOU REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF BUFORT COUNTY, EITHER OPTION ONE OR OPTION TWO.

I AM HERE TO HELP YOU TO ACHIEVE WHATEVER OPTION IT IS THAT YOU SELECT.

AND, AND THROUGHOUT THIS, THAT'S BEEN MY, THAT'S BEEN MY GOAL.

AND IT'S, IT REMAINS MY GOAL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ANSWER.

YES, MA'AM.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? YES, .

NOW IF WE GO BACK AND, AND LOOK AT HISTORY IN 2018, THE COUNTY, BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED FOR THE $80 MILLION, THE 1 CENT SALES TAX, 120 MILLION.

SO AGAIN, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS, THAT WAS, UM, VOTED ON AND APPROVED AND EVERYONE WAS EXCITED ABOUT MOVING FORWARD.

UM, WE THEN EXPERIENCED DELAYS, COVID, UM, ALL KIND OF THINGS.

UM, I REMEMBER EVEN SAYING TO JARED, WE JUST NEED TO GET THIS THING GOING.

IT'S LIKE, WHEN MY KIDS WENT OFF TO COLLEGE, I SAID, LISTEN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET A PLUSES, JUST PASS AND, AND GRADUATE.

UM, BUT YET WE WERE SHOOTING FOR THIS A PLUS PROJECT.

AND JARED, I SAID, WELL, I DON'T JUST, LET'S DO A B PROJECT AND GET THIS THING DONE NOW.

HE SAID, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'RE STILL GONNA DO AN A PROJECT.

BUT I, I SAY THAT IN THE FACT THAT THE, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, UM, AND THEY HAVE SAID, YES, WE, WE WANT THIS DONE.

UM, IN 2018, UH, KNOWING NOW THAT, THAT WE WERE OVER BUDGET, UM, AND I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT, THAT OUR NEWEST REFERENDUM DID NOT PASS.

BUT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED BY, BY HILTON HEAD.

UM, THEY WERE JUST UNDER 50%, I THINK, ACROSS THE BOARD.

BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, HERE WE ARE AND I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY.

I MEAN, WHERE, WHAT, WHAT HARM DO WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND US PUSHING FORWARD IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS TO TRY TO GET AS MUCH AS WE CAN, WHATEVER THAT IS, UM, AND THEN FALL BACK TO JUST A TWO-LANE BRIDGE IF WE NEED TO.

UM, AND THAT MAY BE WHERE IT ENDS UP.

THAT MAY BE WHERE IT ENDS UP.

AND, AND THAT MIGHT BE EXACTLY.

SO, UM, I, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR ADVICE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS.

AND AGAIN, NOTHING'S FOR CERTAIN, BUT, UH, I'M WILLING TO TAKE THAT RISK FOR US TO, TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO, TO TRY TO GET THE MOST OUT OF THIS PROJECT.

UM, AND, AND NOT GO BACK TO THE, TO THE BARE BONES.

UM, MINIMUM SOUR GRAPES, A SOFTS TABLE, THAT STABLE FABLE THAT, THAT YOU CAN SAY, WELL, GEE, THE GRAPES HAVE BEEN SOUR ANYHOW.

UM, BUT, BUT NO, I AM, I AM IN SUPPORT OF YOU.

AND I THINK THAT, UM, I THINK THAT MOST PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY WOULD, WOULD SAY THE SAME THING.

AND I'LL SAY THIS TOO, ABOUT THE COST OVERRUNS AND, AND, AND THE PROCESS TOOK TWO YEARS.

UM, BUT THE PROCESS WAS A GOOD ONE.

THE CITIZENS WERE ENGAGED AND A LOT OF THAT SPIKE IN PRICE WASN'T JUST INFLATION, IT WAS THE DEMAND SIDE OF THE, OF THE EQUATION GOT FLOODED WITH DOLLARS WHEN THE BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE BILL WAS PASSED.

AND, AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS CAME INTO THE DEMAND SIDE AND THE SUPPLY SIDE WAS CON WAS CONSTRAINED OR, OR, OR, OR WAS, WAS SCARCE SO THEY COULD BID UP THE PRICES BECAUSE YOU HAD SO MUCH MONEY CHASING AFTER A FEW CONTRACTORS.

SO THIS ISN'T JUST HAPPENING TO US HERE, IT'S HAPPENING IN YORK COUNTY.

IT KILLED CHARLESTON.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE, AND GO MR. REACH'S POINT, UM, TAKE, HE MAKES SOME

[01:10:01]

GOOD POINTS.

BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THIS PROCESS IS WORKING PROBABLY THE BEST WAY IT CAN WORK.

YOU, YOU, YOU TAKE A PROPOSAL, WHICH THE INITIAL ONE WAS HORRIBLE.

IT HAD THIS HUGE MONOLITHIC STRUCTURE.

BY THE WAY, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET THAT ANYMORE WITH, WITH OPTION WITH, WITH PLAN TWO.

'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A SEPARATE TWO LANE SPAN OR, OR A THREE LANE SPAN, WHATEVER IT IS, BUT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE WESTBOUND SPAN.

SO, SO THE MASS ISN'T THERE ANYMORE.

THERE, THERE'S BEEN MOVEMENT IN THAT DIRECTION, BUT, BUT THE PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN WORKING IN THAT, PEOPLE TURNED OUT AND TALKED TO THEIR TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS AND, AND THEY AGONIZED OVER THERE IN HILTON HEAD.

THEY, THEY WEREN'T JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, TAKING THEIR TIME FOR THE, FOR THE HELL OF IT.

I MEAN, IT WAS HARD TO DO THIS RUBRICS, I MEAN THIS, THIS VENN DIAGRAM AND TRYING LINE UP, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GULLAH COMMUNITY AND THE, AND THE RESIDENTS AND THOSE WHO WANT TOURISM AND THOSE WHO WORRY ABOUT SAFETY AND, AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT SOMETHING THAT WORKED.

AND THE FACT THAT YOU GOT TO AN 11 OH COUNTY COUNCIL VOTE AND A SIX ONE TOWN COUNCIL VOTE JUST TWO MONTHS AGO, IT, THAT'S PRETTY EXTRAORDINARY.

AND TO GIVE ON UP ON IT NOW BEFORE YOU RUN ITS COURSE, THAT'S A TOUGH DECISION FOR Y'ALL TO MAKE.

UM, COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? CAN YOU HEAR ME IN THERE? YES, WE CAN.

PERFECT.

UM, MR. LEWIS, I REALLY JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION WANTING IT.

SORRY, WE CAN'T BE THERE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN UNDER THE WEATHER.

UM, LET'S SAY WE DO CONTINUE TO PUSH FORWARD AND NEGOTIATE.

MY BIGGEST FEAR, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN US DRAGGING THIS OUT AND GETTING MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT.

AND WE INCLUDE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE IN THE CONVERSATION.

AND EVERY TIME WE INCLUDE MORE PEOPLE IN THE CONVERSATION, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE STATEMENT.

YOU SAID THAT IT'S A MIRACLE THAT IT CAME TOGETHER, THAT WE GOT 11 0 6 1.

SO MY QUESTION IS, WE DO THIS AGAIN.

WHEN WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD, HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE ARE WE GONNA INCLUDE TO JUST DRAG US OUT LONGER AND LONGER AND LONGER? AT WHAT POINT DO WE JUST SAY THE COUNTY AND SC A DOT HAVE TO MAKE AN AGREEMENT TOGETHER AND MOVE FORWARD AND JUST REALIZE NOT EVERYBODY'S GONNA BE HAPPY BECAUSE WE KNOW WHY WE NOTHING'S GONNA HAPPEN.

I THINK SECRETARY POWELL HAS ANSWERED THAT QUESTION FOR US BY SAYING, UM, THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE SIB WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS, OR HE IS EXERCISING THE DOT'S RIGHT TO OPT OUT AND JUST DO THAT FIRST SPAN.

AND, AND I THINK THAT IS, THAT IS A HARD DEADLINE.

THAT'S IT.

AS FAR AS NEXT STEPS GO, THE BALL IS IN THE COUNTY'S COURT TO RESPOND TO THE CONCERNS AS EXPRESSED BY CHAIRMAN WHITE AT THAT MEETING TO RESUBMIT.

UM, WHAT I WILL THEN ASSIST IN DOING ALONG WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, IS ALSO VERY COMMITTED TO MAKING THIS PROJECT HAPPEN, BY THE WAY, TO HAVE THE SIB CONSIDER THAT PARTICULAR REVIVED APPLICATION BY BEAUFORT COUNTY WITHIN THAT 30 DAY WINDOW.

UM, AGAIN, NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE, BUT I WILL DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER AS I KNOW WESTON NEWTON AND BILL HERB KURTZMAN AND THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND EVERYBODY ELSE WILL TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER IS SUBMITTED BY BEAUFORT COUNTY IN TERMS OF REVISED SUBMISSION IS TAKEN UP BY THE SIB AND A DECISION IS RENDERED WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME THAT SECRETARY POWELL'S PROPOSED.

THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE.

SO THEN IT BE A FAIR ASSUMPTION, SAY COUNTY COUNCIL VOTED TODAY TO SAY WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD FOR THESE 30 DAYS AND IT'S US 11 FIGURING THIS OUT WITH YOU AND THE STATE'S BLACK OR WHITE, WHERE YOU'RE GOING IN THIS TOGETHER.

SOME PEOPLE ARE GONNA GET UPSET ABOUT IT OR WE'RE DOING OBJECT.

AND IN 30 DAYS, IF THERE IS NOT AN AGREEMENT BY THE SIB, THEN I THINK THE DOT HAS ALREADY SAID IT'S OPTED OUT.

IT'S NOT GONNA, IT'S GONNA TERMINATE.

IT'S GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE PLANS TO DO THAT.

MACKEY SPAN, I THINK, I THINK WE'RE DOWN TO, IT ISN'T GONNA GO BEYOND THAT DEADLINE SECRETARY PALACE, BUT FOR, THAT'S THE FIRST TIME HE'S DONE THAT AND SAID THAT I TERMINATE THIS.

I'M SURPRISED THAT EITHER MADE IT THIS.

HONEST, MAD.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE THAT HARD DECISION.

AS A COUNCIL.

WE TRIED OUR BEST TO WORK WITH DIFFERENT GROUPS, THE TOWN OF HILL HEAD AND GET ALL THESE THINGS DONE AND LINE ALL THIS UP.

BUT WE HAVE NEED A DECISION THAT'S 11 BECAUSE OUR NAME'S ON THAT CONTRACT AND THAT, OR WE DON'T, BUT IT, IT, IT'S GOTTA BE IN, I MEAN, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE ULTIMATE DECISION THESE NEXT 30 DAYS AND THERE'S NOT GONNA BE THAT TIME TO GO BACK AND FORTH WITH ED AND BACK AND FORTH WITH THIS GROUP AND THAT GROUP IF WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA GET THIS DONE.

SO IF WE'RE GONNA MAKE ONE LAST EFFORT AT THIS, THEN WE GOTTA GO TO THE GRIND.

ONE OF US FIGURE THIS OUT AND GET THIS DONE AND GET IT SENT BACK, GET HIS TEAM DO IT.

BUT I, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY.

BUT WHEN WE GET PULLED LEFT AND RIGHT, THAT'S WHY THIS GOT DRUG OUT EXTRA TWO, THREE YEARS.

ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ANY I'M CHAIR.

YES.

I JUST HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION.

UM, KIND OF PIGGYBACKING OFF WHAT LOGAN WAS TALKING ABOUT THERE, THERE'S NOT REALLY A LOT OF NEGOTIATING TO DO.

THE, THE POINTS YOU BROUGHT UP REALLY WEREN'T MATERIAL.

IT'S JUST AMEND, YOU KNOW, SIMPLE AMENDMENTS TO IT FOR THE MOST, THE, THE ONE I DIDN'T, THE ONE I DIDN'T MENTION 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T FALL IN YOUR LAP, IS THE SIB WANTS ME TO GO TO SECRETARY POWELL AND TO COME UP WITH SOME MORE MONEY AND ALLOW HIM TO REDUCE THAT ONE 20 DOESN'T AFFECT

[01:15:01]

YOUR BOTTOM LINE.

IF I CAN DO THAT, AND I TOLD HIM I WOULD DO THAT AND I WOULD MEET WITH SECRETARY POWELL, I HAVE NO IDEA.

'CAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY INCREASED THE AMOUNT THEY PUT TOWARD THIS PROJECT.

BUT, BUT I DO WANNA SAY THAT THAT IS A PIECE THAT, THAT AND, AND WHETHER THAT'S MATERIAL TO THE SIB IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOTTA BE SOMETHING SOUTH OF ONE 20 OR THEY SAY NO, I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW.

UM, I THINK THAT HIS REPEATED ASSURANCES TO ME THAT I WANNA SEE THIS DEAL GET DONE.

I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS.

I'M JUST FRUSTRATED THAT THE PROCESS HAS TAKEN SO LONG, THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE WANTS IT TO HAPPEN.

THAT SUGGESTS TO ME WE'VE GOT A DARN GOOD SHOT AT MAKING THIS HAPPEN.

I, I, I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT KIND OF ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE GOING AROUND CIRCULATING, UH, CHARETTES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

WE NOT CHANGE.

WELL, I THINK IT'S TONIGHT.

I THINK YOU GUYS DECIDE TONIGHT AND DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANNA MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS AND SUBMIT THEM IN ORDER TO GIVE SIB TIME TO LOOK AT IT, TO SEND IT TO THEIR MEMBERS, TO, TO SET A HEARING, UM, YOU KNOW, TO ALLOW THE VARIOUS, UM, YOU KNOW, CONSTITUENCY GROUPS TO WEIGH IN.

I, I THINK, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, TO YOUR POINT.

I MEAN, IT'S PROBABLY TONIGHT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WAS GONNA, I HAD A FEW COMMENTS.

I WAS, I WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SENATOR DAVIS, I WAS ON THE OTHER END OF THAT PHONE CALL TOO.

MM-HMM .

I DID NOT HEAR ANY, ANY, ANY HOPE FROM CHAIRMAN WHITE THAT HE WANTED TO WORK WITH US.

I I HEARD IT AND THEN I HEARD IT AND THEN HE CALLED ME AFTERWARDS AND REPEATED TO ME BLANK.

IT WAS JUST A HARD NO NO, IT WAS NOT A HARD NO, AS MY FATHER WOULD SAY, IT WAS TIME TO CUT BAIT.

YEP.

AND HE WAS A FISHERMAN.

AND THAT'S THE MESSAGE I RECEIVED DURING THAT PHONE CALL.

I KNOW WASN'T, NOT ONLY WAS IT AT THE MESSAGE THAT I HEARD IN THE CONFERENCE CALL THAT WE HAD, HE CALLED ME AFTERWARDS TO REASSURE ME THAT HE WANTED TO MAKE THIS WORK.

HE WANTED TO MAKE THIS WORK.

I REPRESENT THAT TO YOU.

'CAUSE HE TOLD THAT TO ME.

HE KNOWS HOW MUCH TIME EVERYBODY DOWN HERE HAS PUT INTO THIS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S A HARD NO, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'LL FIND OUT IN A FEW DAYS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN GO BACK WITH.

I'M LOOKING TO OUR ADMINISTRATOR THAT WILL, I, I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID, BUT I, I ALSO AM LOOKING TO OUR ADMINISTRATOR WHO WAS ALSO ON THAT CALL.

WELL, WE WENT BACK WITH THE JOINT RESOLUTION.

SO ANYTHING THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT TO THE POINT HERE, WE HAVE 28 DAYS NOW IN COUNTING.

I THINK IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE UNILATERAL DECISION BY THIS BODY.

I THINK YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE TOWN AND I, I STILL DON'T THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF TIME TO GO BACK AND AMEND THIS IN TERMS OF STRUCTURING THE JOINT RESOLUTION.

I, BUT I WOULD TAKE THE POSITION.

YOU DON'T NEED TO AMEND THE JOINT RESOLUTION.

I, I MEAN, I MEAN, IF I MAY, SENATOR, THE RESOLUTION SPECIFIES THE ORDER OF SPENDING.

IT SPECIFIED THE PROJECTS WHICH WE WORK WITH THE TOWN ON.

SO THIS BODY WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THAT IN THE RESOLUTION.

WE WOULD HAVE TO GO WITH SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE JOINT RESOLUTION.

JUST WANNA POINT THAT OUT.

CAN I JUST MAKE A POINT? YES, SIR.

EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT 30 DAYS, BUT THREE DAYS HAVE GONE, SO YOU'RE AT FOUR WEEKS AND YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM TIME TO HEAR IT.

SO UNLESS SENATOR DAVIS, WHEN HE GOES TO SECRETARY POWELL TO GET MORE MONEY CAN CONVINCE US TO GIVE US MORE TIME.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS TO THE SIB WITHIN A WEEK TO 10 DAYS SO THEY HAVE TIME TO HAVE THEIR MEETING AND RULE ON IT.

SO YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT 10 DAYS.

UNLESS THE SENATOR CAN CONVINCE SECRETARY POWELL TO GIVE US MORE TIME BECAUSE WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS.

AND SECRETARY POWELL DID NOT OFFER UP ANY MORE TIME.

I, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT CHAIR.

IS THAT, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU THINK YOU COULD GET FROM SECRETARY POWELL? NO.

I, I THINK THAT'S HARD, BUT, BUT I, BUT I AM FIRM IN TERMS OF WHAT CHAIRMAN WHITE RELATED IN TERMS OF WANTING TO MAKE THIS DEAL WORK HAVE TWO OPTIONS IN FRONT OF US THIS EVENING.

THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.

ANY, ANY MORE DISCUSSION? GOT HIS HAND UP.

YES.

COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM? I'LL BE HONEST, BEFORE COMING TO THIS MEETING, IT WAS ALL SET IN OPTION ONE DISTRICT.

I'M OVER TAKING THIS CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

BUT IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE AGREE ON, IT'S 11 OF US.

AND NOT BRINGING ANYBODY ELSE INTO THIS CONVERSATION WITHOUT CHANGING THE FUNDING, JUST PUTTING OUR MONEY TO THE FRONT INSTEAD OF THE BACK END, WHICH REALLY MAKES NO DIFFERENCE BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA RUN OVER ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, AT LEAST SEE WHAT OPPORTUNITIES THAT GIVES US.

I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THAT AS LONG AS THE BODY HERE AGREES US THAT WHEN THAT TIME COMES IN 20 SOME DAYS, NOT THIS MEETING BETWEEN THIS PERSON, THIS GROUP, AND THAT GROUP, AND WE DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN.

NOW IT'S GONNA GO AND THEY'RE GONNA COME BACK TO US IN 20 SOME DAYS OR 30 DAYS, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, AND SAY, OKAY, NOW EVERYONE GET BACK TOGETHER.

OR WE GREEN LIGHT RED LIGHT NOW, OR WE MOVE ON OPTION ONE.

SO IF THE REST OF THE COUNCIL'S ON BOARD WITH THAT AND READY TO SAY, OKAY, THIS IS THE CONTRACT BETWEEN US AND S-C-D-O-T, THEN LET'S GO.

IF IT IS NOT, WE'RE GONNA BRING ALL THESE PARTIES IN, THEN I'M OUT.

NO DISRESPECT TO THE OTHER GROUPS, BUT

[01:20:01]

WE TRIED IT FOR YEARS.

WE'VE WORKED ON IT AND I KNOW HOW MUCH HARD WORK EVERYBODY'S PUT INTO IT IN ALL THESE GROUPS.

AND I WAS, I WAS ON COUNCIL, BUT LIKE MR. DAVIS SAID, WE'RE ON THE 11TH HOUR CASE.

IT, IT'S PUT UP OR SHUT UP RIGHT NOW.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ENTERTAIN A MOTION OF ANY KIND? YES.

I'M, I WILL MAKE THE MOTION.

I THINK COUNCILMAN GLOVER WAS GONNA SAY SOMETHING.

WERE YOU GONNA SAY SOMETHING? OH NO, I, I YIELD TO, UM, MR. PASSMAN MOTION.

I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT OPTION NUMBER TWO.

WE DIRECT OUR ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE IIGA WITH THE SIB TO MOVE THIS PROJECT TO ITS CULMINATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

I SECOND THAT MOTION.

WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN UM, CUNNINGHAM DISCUSSION.

ANY COMMENTS? I WOULD JUST HOPE WITH JOE'S MOTION THAT HE'S ON THE SAME PAGE AS ME FROM WHAT I STATED.

IF THIS COMES BACK TO US, JUST KEEP IN MIND THIS WILL BE LESS THAN 10 DAYS TO GET THIS BACK TO THE SID.

I THINK HE'D BE LOOKING FOR ACTION.

ACTION FROM US.

JUST MORE TIME I BEEN WITH YOU GUYS.

I THINK HE'D BE LOOKING FOR ACTION FROM US TO BRING TO COUNCIL TUESDAY NIGHT'S MEETING THE TUESDAY AFTER MEMORIAL DAY TO BRING COUNCIL MEETING ON TUESDAY AFTER MEMORIAL DAY WITH THE NEW RESOLUTION OR NEW AGREEMENT RESOLUTION AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE IGA.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO AMEND YOUR AG, UM, MOTION TO SAY THAT COUNCILMAN PASSMAN? I'VE BEEN THERE AS FAR AS HE'S GIVEN DIRECTION TO STAFF.

ALL RIGHT.

I THINK THE RESOLUTION ALSO NEEDS TO BE AMENDED.

CHAIRWOMAN, I, HE WOULD COME IN WITH A SINGLE RESOLUTION IS WHAT WE WOULD DO.

UM, THE JOINT BACKUP AS FAR AS WHAT OCCURRED BEFORE, WE'D HAVE A NEW SINGLE RESOLUTION FROM THE COUNTY, UM, AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE IGA.

DO WE NEED THAT AS PART OF THE MOTION OR JUST, I THINK IT'S ENCOMPASSED WITH IT'S COVERED IN THERE.

ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION.

UM, YES.

SENATOR DAVIS, WOULD THAT GIVE US ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU AND THE SIB? UM, GONNA BE, UM, NO.

NEXT, NEXT TUESDAY, THEY'RE GONNA BRING ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION NECESSARY TO GO TO THE SIB, I THINK HAVE LOGO TONIGHT.

21 DAYS.

YEAH, I CAN, I CAN ALERT THE SIT AND TELL HIM THAT THIS ACTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER CUNNINGHAM? YES.

OH, WAIT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE'RE GONNA DO A ROLL CALL.

VOTE YOU.

SHOW OF HANDS.

I DON'T HAVE A MIC.

OH, WE'LL DO BY SHOW OF HANDS.

NO, I THINK YOU SHOULD DO A ROLL CALL.

WHAT'S THAT? LET'S DO A ROLL CALL.

LET'S, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA DO A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

ALRIGHT.

EVERYONE HEARD THE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PASSMAN? IT WAS SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM.

AND, UM, MS. BROCK WILL DO A ROLL CALL.

SO YOU'RE, IF YOU VOTE YES, YOU'RE VOTING IN FAVOR OF OPTION TWO.

COUNCILMAN PASSIT? YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER REEDS? NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCALLEN? YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER GLOVER? YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER BARTHOLOMEW? YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER LAWSON MARK LAWSON? YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER DAWSON? YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN.

NO.

VICE CHAIR TABER? YES.

IS THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER BUSINESS WE NEED TO DISCUSS TONIGHT REGARDING THIS? THE MOTION PASSES.

WE ARE ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.