12.b. Authorize the County Administrator to implement an FY2026 Personal Leave Time (PLT) Buyback for employees.

[13.a. 2025/46: An Ordinance authorizing the execution and delivery of Utility Easement #907041 for Right of Way Owned by Beaufort County known as Dolphin Watch Point Located on Lady’s Island.]

ORDINANCE 2025. SLASH 46 IS AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF UTILITY EASEMENT NUMBER 907041 FOR RIGHT OF WAY OWNED BY BEAUFORT COUNTY, KNOWN AS DAUPHIN WATCH POINT, LOCATED ON LADY'S ISLAND.

THERE WERE UNANIMOUS VOTES AT THE PUBLIC FACILITIES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 15TH.

THE FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 13TH, AND OUR SECOND READING ON OCTOBER 27TH.

CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR ORDINANCE 2025? SLASH 46.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 20 2546.

THANK YOU, MR. BARTHOLOMEW. A SECOND. I'LL SECOND.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION? WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS. IT'S THIRD READING.

ANY QUESTION OR DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. LET'S TAKE A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE, 20 2546, RAISE YOUR HAND.

THANK YOU. IT'S UNANIMOUS. ORDINANCE 2025. SLASH 47 IS AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE EXCESS FUNDS COLLECTED FROM THE 2018

[13.b. 2025/47: An ordinance to appropriate excess funds collected from the 2018 Transportation Sales Tax.]

TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS AT PUBLIC FACILITIES ON SEPTEMBER 15TH AT THE FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 13TH AND THE SECOND READING OCTOBER 27TH. CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR 20 2547? SO MOVED. MADAM CHAIR. VICE CHAIR. SORRY. THANK YOU.

AND MISS BROWN. SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? AGAIN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS SO THE PUBLIC KNOWS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS THREE TIMES.

ANY QUESTIONS? DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS 20 2547. ORDINANCE 2025 SLASH 48 IS AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $848,912

[13.c. 2025/48: An Ordinance to appropriate $848,912 to St. James Baptist Church from the established project funds for the associated furniture and fixtures related to the overall project.]

TO SAINT JAMES BAPTIST CHURCH FROM THE ESTABLISHED PROJECT FUNDS FOR THE ASSOCIATED FURNITURE AND FIXTURES RELATED TO THIS PROJECT.

THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS AT PUBLIC FACILITIES ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, AT FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 13TH, AND AT SECOND READING OCTOBER 27TH. CAN I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. THANK YOU. MR.. MCLELLAN I'LL SECOND.

THANK YOU, MR. DAWSON, FOR THE SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? AGAIN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS NUMEROUS TIMES.

THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING ORDINANCE 2025,

[14.a. 2025/42: Text Amendments To The Community Development Code (CDC): Division 5.10 (Historic Preservation), Section 7.2.120 (Certificate Of Appropriateness), Section 7.3.80 (Historic Designation), Section 7.4.50 (Public Hearing Scheduling And Notice), And Section 7.5.40 (Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB)).]

SLASH 42 AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, DIVISION 5.10, HISTORIC PRESERVATION SECTION 7.2.1 20 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. SECTION 7.3.8 HISTORIC DESIGNATION.

SECTION 7.4.50 PUBLIC HEARING, SCHEDULING AND NOTICE AND SECTION 7.5.

40. HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD AND THE VOTE AT NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 2ND WAS UNANIMOUS, AND THE VOTE AT FIRST READING OF THIS BODY, WHICH WAS A PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 22ND, WAS NINE TWO. CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS ORDINANCE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. MISS HOWARD MAKES A MOTION A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU, MR. GLOVER. SECOND. DO.

YEAH. DO WE NEED SOMEONE? DO WE NEED DISCUSSION ON THIS? I HAVE TO DISCUSS. YES. DO I WANT MISS FORBES TO PRESENT, OR WHO'S GOING TO PRESENT THIS? I THINK, MR. DILLON. OH, MR. KIDD, COME ON UP, MR. MERCHANT. YOU CAN TOSS A COIN FOR IT. IT'S OKAY.

MISS. MR. MERCHANT COMING UP AND MR. KIDD RIGHT BEHIND HIM.

ALRIGHT. YOU'RE ON. OKAY. AS YOU REMEMBER, THIS WENT TO THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING.

[01:05:07]

AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN. THERE WERE SOME EDITS THAT WERE OFFERED TO STAFF AT THAT MOMENT.

AND I THINK THAT THE AGREEMENT ON COUNCIL AND I CAN'T REMEMBER IF A MOTION WAS TAKEN OR IF IT WAS WAS TO HAVE STAFF CONSIDER THOSE CHANGES.

IT WAS NOT A MOTION. IT WAS TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

YOU HAVE TO SPEAK INTO THE. YEAH. I'M SORRY. YEAH.

I'M JUST TRYING TO REMEMBER IF AN ACTUAL VOTE WAS TAKEN, BUT I THINK IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED UPON TO DELAY VOTE AT THAT MEETING AND GIVE STAFF TIME TO REVIEW COMMENTS. WE'VE BEGUN INITIAL REVIEW OF THAT.

WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THE STATE AND WE RECOMMEND, I MEAN, IF IF COUNCIL WISHES TO MOVE FORWARD AND CONSIDER THESE CHANGES THAT WE REMAND THIS BACK TO STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COME BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS.

BECAUSE WE BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH CHANGE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO TO REVIEW IT AND MAKE COMMENT.

DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? NOTHING MORE TO ADD TO WHAT MR. MERCHANT HAS SAID. WE DO WE KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO MIKE.

SORRY. YEAH, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EDITS OFFERED.

AND WE HAVE AND WE KNOW WE'VE SPOKEN WITH THE STATE AS WELL TO LOOK INTO SOME ADDITIONAL EDITS.

AND SO FROM WHAT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO STAFF TO DATE, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IT WOULD CONSTITUTE NEARLY AN ENTIRE REWRITE.

SO WE FEEL THAT WE SHOULD REMANDED BACK TO THE BEGINNING TO CONSIDER ANY EDITS THAT COUNCIL MAY WISH TO HAVE.

I HAVE A QUESTION. SHOULD WE AMEND SHOULD AMEND MY MOTION TO MADAM CHAIR, MOVE IT BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION.

I BELIEVE STAFF'S OFFICIAL POSITION IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TEXT AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU.

BUT IF A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL DESIRES TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT COUNCILMAN BARTHOLOMEW PUT FORWARD, THEN THAT WOULD TAKE A VOTE AND A SECOND A MAJORITY VOTE.

BUT UNTIL YOU HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE, IT SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED BACK.

SO YOU NEED TO DECIDE AS A COUNCIL, DOES A MAJORITY WANT IT TO MOVE FORWARD AS WRITTEN, OR DOES THE MAJORITY WANT IT TO BE REMANDED BACK AND START AT THE VERY BEGINNING TO CONSIDER THESE OTHER AMENDMENTS? SO ALL OF COUNCIL HAS TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES, AND THEN A MAJORITY HAS TO GIVE STAFF THE GUIDANCE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SECOND READING. AS BEFORE, YOU OR IF YOU WANT TO ENTERTAIN CHANGES AS PROPOSED BY COUNCILMAN BARTHOLOMEW, THEN THAT SHOULD BE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BARTHOLOMEW.

HE WILL NEED A SECOND AND A MAJORITY VOTE TO AMEND IT OR TO REMAND IT BACK.

THANK YOU, MR. BARTHOLOMEW. I NEVER GOT ANY FEEDBACK ON THE AMENDMENTS I PUT FORWARD.

I HAVE NOT CIRCULATED IT TO ALL OF THE COUNCIL.

I WAS HOPING TO GET FEEDBACK FROM STAFF AND HAVE SOME COLLABORATIVE PROCESS IN THIS, BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED AND TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

AS WRITTEN, I HAVE SOME SERIOUS ISSUES. THE PUBLIC HAS SERIOUS ISSUES WITH US.

I'M NOT EMOTIONALLY TIED TO ANY ONE OF THESE AMENDMENTS, BUT I THINK THEY NEED TO BE DISCUSSED.

I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP MATERIAL FOR COUNCIL TO REVIEW, WHICH IS WHY I DIDN'T PUSH THE ISSUE.

AND SO AT THIS POINT, I'D BE MAKING A MOTION TO RESCIND THIS.

I'M SORRY, A MOTION TO HAVE THIS REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HAVE FURTHER REVIEW AND FURTHER ANALYSIS DONE.

YES, I'LL SECOND THAT. AND I'D LIKE TO JUST I, I SUBMITTED SOME COMMENTS TO MR. BARTHOLOMEW. WE WENT BACK AND FORTH ON THIS, SO I TOO WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO SOME DIALOG.

SO I SUPPORT THE MOTION. SO, DAVID, CAN I ASK WHEN YOU SENT THOSE IN EXISTING MOTION? THE OTHER MOTION THAT I MADE, I CAN RESEND THAT MOTION.

WELL, THIS ONE WOULD TAKE PRIORITY TO REMAND IT.

SO FIRST YOU SHOULD VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO REMAND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH COUNCILMAN BARTHOLOMEW'S PROPOSED CHANGES FOR DISCUSSION. TO FULLY VET IT, IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL WANTS.

BUT IT TAKES MAJORITY VOTE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. YES, MA'AM.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

ANY OTHER QUESTION OR COMMENT? MR. CUNNINGHAM? ONE QUESTION, ONE SUGGESTIONS? LAST COMMENT. MR. BARTHOLOMEW, WHEN DID YOU SEND IN THOSE? SO WE I BELIEVE 1013 WAS THE LAST EDITS THAT I DID TO IT.

HE DID IT AT THE FIRST READING THAT AFTERNOON, SO WE GOT IT RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING.

A COUPLE HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING, I THINK. AND IN THAT MONTH, WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY FEEDBACK FROM HIS COMMENTS.

THE STAFF DISCUSSED IT WITH THE STATE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

GOT SOME COMMENTS. THEY HAD SOME PROPOSED CHANGES, BUT THEN THE DECISION WAS TO YOU NEED A MAJORITY OF VOTE BEFORE YOU CAN AMEND IT OR ANYTHING. SO HE COULD EITHER VOTE TO AMEND IT AND DISCUSS IT HERE, OR BECAUSE STAFF THOUGHT THAT THE CHANGES WERE SO SIGNIFICANT TO DISCUSS FULLY THOSE CHANGES, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE A COMPLETE REWRITE AND VETTED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

[01:10:04]

SO COUNCIL NEEDS TO DECIDE DO THEY LIKE WHAT DOES THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL LIKE WHAT'S HERE AT THE SECOND READING? OR WOULD THEY LIKE IT TO GO BACK AND BE DISCUSSED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, STARTING THE PROCESS OVER? I GUESS MY ONLY SUGGESTION WOULD BE MR. BARTHOLOMEW, BECAUSE I'M ON BOARD WITH YOU. THAT'S A LITTLE FRUSTRATING, I GUESS ON YOUR END FOR THAT. AND MISS BROWN IS THE SECOND I WOULD IF I WERE YOU, I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO ADD TO MOVE IT AFTER IT GOES BACK TO STAFF THAT I GO BACK TO COMMITTEE SO WE CAN ACTUALLY PUT IT ON AN ITEM TO DISCUSSION, DISCUSS AND WORK THROUGH IT. I BELIEVE THAT'S MR. GLOVER'S COMMITTEE. CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE THE NATURAL PROGRESSION.

CORRECT. BUT IT WOULD GO BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION, BACK TO PLANNING. I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO COME BACK TO US ON SECOND READING WITH THOSE CHANGES. SO IT SHOULD GO FROM STAFF THEN TO INTO COMMITTEE TO GO THROUGH THAT WORKSHOP PROCESS.

I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE GOING INTO WORKSHOP, BUT US TO HAVE THAT DIALOG BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THOSE CHANGES BEFORE WE BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. THAT'S A NATURAL PROGRESSION. IT WOULD GO. PLANNING COMMISSION, THEN COMMITTEE, THEN COUNCIL BECAUSE IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ORDINANCE. YEAH.

YOU KNOW AND IF I MAY, I GUESS A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE ON THIS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO SIT HERE AND HAVE TO MAKE A LINE BY LINE MOTION TO AMEND THIS.

I'D RATHER WORK ON IT HOLISTICALLY AND TOGETHER.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I HAVEN'T GOTTEN FEEDBACK ON AMENDMENTS. I'M TRYING TO WORK AND CREATE POLICY, NOT JUST RUBBER STAMP POLICY. AND I'VE SAID THIS PRIVATELY AND THIS CONTINUES TO HAPPEN, AND IT'S FRUSTRATING.

I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE. I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION, BUT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND STAFF'S FRUSTRATION ABOUT GETTING THOSE CHANGES AT THAT STAGE.

IT'S BETTER TO GET IT EARLY ON, EITHER AT PLANNING COMMISSION OR AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE VETTED.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE FIRST READING WAS AT THE 922 MEETING.

THERE WAS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRULY DISCUSS THAT WITH 500 PEOPLE IN THE ROOM? NO, BUT THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I WAS MADE AWARE OF IT. BUT OUR PRACTICE IS TO VET THESE ORDINANCES AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL.

RIGHT. I'M NOT ON THAT COMMITTEE, THOUGH. I WORK A JOB TO UNDERSTAND.

YEAH. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. ANYBODY ELSE, MR. GLOVER? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. I THINK I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.

GOING BACK TO COMMITTEE. EVEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I THINK STAFF IS BRINGING THIS FORWARD TO US.

THEY HAVE BROUGHT THIS THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION BACK IN JUNE.

AND IT CAME BEFORE COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER, I BELIEVE.

AT THE NATURAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE. AND IF THERE WERE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES ON THIS, I MEAN, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP AT THAT TIME. I DON'T KNOW WHY.

THE THOUGHT OF YOU HAD NOT AT LEAST ALERTED THAT HE HAD SOME AMENDMENTS THAT HE WANTED TO MAKE.

DID YOU DO THAT OR NOT? YEAH. I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS COMING THROUGH.

DO YOU HAVE TIME TO READ EVERYTHING IN THE PACKET OF EVERY COMMITTEE OF THIS ENTIRE COUNTY? NO. AS SOON AS I SAW IT AND READ IT, I MADE MY AMENDMENTS AND SENT THEM IN.

I'VE CIRCULATED THEM TO TO A FEW MEMBERS ON COUNCIL, PRIVATE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.

I GOT WORKING ON IT AS QUICK AS I COULD, BUT I DON'T KEEP TRACK OF EVERYTHING THAT COMES THROUGH THIS COUNTY.

THERE'S THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF STUFF THAT COULD YOU SEND IT BACK TO STAFF? DID YOU SEND IT? YES, I SENT IT TO OUR ATTORNEY.

WENT THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS ON OUR SIDE.

I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH OUR STAFF. I NEVER RECEIVED ANYTHING THAT I KNOW OF.

YEAH, I DIDN'T SEND IT TO YOU. I SENT IT THROUGH OUR ATTORNEY TO HAVE IT DISSEMINATED.

I WENT THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNEL TO TRY TO GET THE AMENDMENTS DONE, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT WITH STAFF DIRECTING THEM.

WHAT TO DO? ALL RIGHT, MISS HOWARD. YES. I MEAN, THERE'S NO RUSH, AND WE WANT TO DO THIS, RIGHT. SO I WILL VOTE TO SEND IT BACK TO THE AS THE MOTION SAID, BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO WE CAN HAVE MORE DISCUSSION.

AND AND GO OVER IT THE IN A CAREFUL AND THOUGHTFUL WAY.

AND ANYBODY ELSE, MR. CUNNINGHAM? YEAH. I MEAN JUST ON THE LOGISTICS OF THIS COMPLETELY.

I GUESS WE'LL HAVE A MEETING WITH STAFF BEFORE IT GOES.

IF WE'RE OBLIGATED TO SEND IT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OR OUR ATTORNEY, BECAUSE WE WE SHOULD NOT BE ENGAGING IN CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF THAT WAY, BECAUSE THAT'S A COUNCIL MEMBER TAKING SOMETHING ON THEIR OWN, WHICH IS PART OF WHAT WE CHANGED IN THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE.

THAT WAS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF IT. SO I'M GOING TO BE HONEST, BRIAN, BECAUSE YOU WERE GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH HIM AND I GUESS DEFENDING STAFF, BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY PUT THAT ON STAFF. MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IF STAFF GAVE SOMETHING TO YOU, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE CAME TO US. SO UNLESS YOU'RE SAYING STAFF DID NOT GIVE ANYTHING TO YOU, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE CAME BACK TO DAVID. I DON'T KNOW, I'M BECAUSE I WASN'T A PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. BUT I DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY SAY I'M NOT SAYING STAFF DROPPED THE BALL. I'M NOT SAYING YOU DROPPED THE BALL SOMEWHERE.

IT DID. AND THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME, BUT I'M NOT ALWAYS GOING TO SAY IT'S STAFF. I'M NOT ALWAYS GOING TO SAY IT'S YOU, BUT WE'RE NOT PRIVY TO THAT INFORMATION. THE PUBLIC THINKS WE JUST SEE AND READ EVERYTHING. THERE'S THOUSANDS OF EMAILS, THOUSANDS OF PAGES.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. SO MY QUESTION IS WHERE WAS THAT BALL DROPPED SO WE CAN FIX IT AND GET ACCOUNTABILITY?

[01:15:03]

I DON'T THINK THE BALL WAS DROPPED. I NEVER SAW ANY PROPOSED CHANGES THAT CAME BACK.

IT DIDN'T COME BACK TO MY LEVEL BECAUSE THE DECISION WAS MADE THAT IT WOULD EITHER GO FORTH WITH SECOND READING OR BE REMANDED BACK FOR A FULL REWRITE BECAUSE IT WAS TOO EXTENSIVE, AND THEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION WAS GOING TO BE TO MEET WITH COUNCILMAN BARTHOLOMEW AND OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO VET IT, DISCUSS IT, TO EXPLAIN WHAT COULD HAPPEN BEFORE THAT PLANNING COMMISSION IF IT'S REMANDED BACK, IF THERE'S A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL WANTED TO DO, THEN WHY WASN'T THAT DISCUSSED BEFORE WE CAME HERE TODAY WHEN WE WERE ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO TAKE A VOTE ON IT TODAY? I SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE WE WALKED IN THIS ROOM TODAY AT ALL.

SILENCE. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. WE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT BEFORE WE WALKED IN THE ROOM.

HEY, GUYS, WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS. IT NEEDS TO GO BACK SO YOU CAN EITHER REMOVE IT FROM THE AGENDA OR GO AHEAD.

AND JUST AS SOON AS IT'S ON THERE, DO THIS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ALL OF THIS. OKAY. MR. LAWSON? YEAH. I AM GLAD TO SEE IT GOING BACK.

I KNOW WHEN THIS FIRST CAME UP, WE ASKED WHY WE WERE EVEN DOING THIS ORDINANCE AND AMENDMENT AND WHICH WE'RE MIRRORING THE STATE LAWS.

AND WE FOUND OUT THAT SOME OF THE THINGS IN HERE. YEAH, YEAH.

SO JUST GOING BACK, I'M GLAD TO SEE THIS GOING BACK.

I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS FROM EVERYBODY, AND I'M GLAD DAVID HAS BROUGHT THIS UP AND STAYED PASSIONATE ABOUT IT.

I KNOW WHEN THIS FIRST CAME UP, WE ASKED COUNCIL ASKED WHY WE WERE EVEN DOING THIS, AND WE WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS GOING TO MIRROR THE STATE LAWS.

BUT WE'RE FINDING OUT NOW THAT IT'S ACTUALLY NOT MIRRORING THE STATE LAWS.

SO THAT'S WHY THIS NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT CLOSER.

AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WE'RE DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITIZENS. AND THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT. BUT THEN AGAIN, I'M A PROPERTY RIGHTS PERSON THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT OVERSTEPPING OUR, OUR OUR BOUNDARIES AS, AS A COUNCIL AND AS A COUNTY.

I'D LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. THE QUESTION IS CALL THE.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I'D LIKE YOU TO RESTATE IT, MR. BARTHOLOMEW. SO EVERYONE'S CLEAR WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON.

THE MOTION IS TO REMAND THIS PARTICULAR ITEM BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER REVIEW, AND THEN TO HAVE IT GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS OF COMMITTEE. BACK TO COUNCIL. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE IN FAVOR OF REMANDING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? IT'S UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. NOW WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE.

NO, IT'S REMANDED BACK. SO NOW IT'S BACK. OKAY.

WE'RE DONE. THANK GOD. OKAY. MADAM CHAIR, BEFORE YOU MOVE ANY FURTHER COULD I GET A COPY OF ALL THE THINGS THAT MR. BARTHOLOMEW HAS PUT OUT? BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN BE PREPARED AS WE MOVE FORWARD. WE CAN'T JUST HAVE A FORMULATION GIVEN TO A FOR A FEW COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR YOUR ISSUE, BUT I'LL SEND IT TO YOU DIRECTLY. I'LL SEND IT TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS TOMORROW.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ORDINANCE 2025, SLASH 49, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL

[14.b. 2025/49: An Ordinance to amend the business and professional licenses Ordinance, Chapter 18, Article III, Section 18-67(A)(B), Appendix A&B. (Public Hearing)]

LICENSES ORDINANCE, CHAPTER WHATEVER. ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 1867 AB, APPENDIX A AND B, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

DEVOTED NATURAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE. OCTOBER 6TH WAS UNANIMOUS.

THE VOTED FIRST READING OF THIS COUNCIL OCTOBER 27TH WAS SEVEN THREE.

CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS ORDINANCE? SO MOVED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT WAS MR. DAWSON A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. MISS HOWARD SECONDS, MR. ATKINSON.

OH, MR. EDMONDSON'S HERE. OKAY. AND THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO IF YOU WANT TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ON THIS FOR THE PUBLIC.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. AT COMMITTEE THIS WAS PRESENTED AS EVERY OTHER YEAR THE STATE HAS A UNIFIED BUSINESS LICENSE CODE THAT THEY UPDATE THE SCHEDULE OF FEES.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES IS ADJUST THE SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CERTAIN NAICS CODES, WHICH IS HOW THEY CLASSIFY CERTAIN TYPES OF BUSINESSES.

AT THE COMMITTEE, THERE WAS DISCUSSION OVER SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THAT POINT THAT COULD ADDRESS SEPARATELY. BUT THERE'S A TIME SENSITIVE NATURE TO ADOPTING THE SCHEDULE OF FEES AND NAICS CODES TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE BUSINESS LICENSE RULES.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO NO ONE SIGNED UP FOR IT.

IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM OR OPINE ON IT? OKAY. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK COUNTY COUNSEL IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION.

MADAM, NO, I'M NOT GOING TO BE VOTING FOR THIS. I BELIEVE IT HAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE ON ITS FACE.

I KNOW I PROBABLY VOTED FOR IT WHEN I FIRST GOT IN OFFICE, BUT AFTER READING IT MORE CAREFULLY, I CANNOT VOTE FOR THIS ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN. BUT YEAH, THAT'S IT.

JUST VOTING NO. I AGREE WITH MR. BARTHOLOMEW.

THANK YOU. NEED A ROLL CALL? VOTE? STILL ROLL CALL.

ROLL CALL. OKAY. YEAH, WE CAN DO A ROLL CALL, BUT I WANT TO JUST REITERATE, MR. EDMONDSON, THIS IS TO CHANGE THE FEES AT THE END OR WHATEVER.

[01:20:02]

THE BUSINESS LICENSE FEES. WHERE'D HE GO? OH, IT HAS TO BE DONE BY DECEMBER 31ST.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THIS THE STATE HAD A LOT OF WORK THAT WENT IN FROM THE STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION AND ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, AT THE REQUEST OF THE STATE CHAMBER TO UNIFY HOW CERTAIN BUSINESSES ARE CLASSIFIED AND HOW THEY ARE CHARGED SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE 46 DIFFERENT COUNTY APPLICATIONS AND 200 SEPARATE CITY APPLICATIONS.

AND SO THIS IS JUST THE SCHEDULE OF FEES, NOT THE ANY AMENDMENT TO THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE.

JUST ADOPTION OF THE NEW SCHEDULE OF FEES TO MAKE THE UNIFORM CHARGE.

AND I'M CORRECT, HAS TO BE DONE BY DECEMBER 31ST.

YES. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTION? ALL RIGHT.

LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE, PLEASE. WHO'S DOING ROLL CALL? YES. OKAY. GO FOR IT. IT'S YOUR BIG MOMENT. COUNCIL MEMBER DAWSON. YES. CHAIR. HOWARD. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

RICE. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MEAD. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCALLEN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. LAWSON.

MARK. LAWSON. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. GLOVER. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CUNNINGHAM. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BROWN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTHOLOMEW. NO. YOU FORGOT ME.

VICE CHAIR. TABARNAK. YES. THE MOTION PASSES JUST FOR INFORMATION.

IF IF IF THIS HADN'T PASSED, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING.

[15.a. 2025/50: An Ordinance to amend Ordinance 2022/46 authorizing the County Administrator to execute any and all documents necessary for the sale of County owned real properties identified as 1407 King Street and 600 Wilmington Street, City of Beaufort.]

HERE WE GO. 2025 SLASH 50 IS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE 2022.

SLASH 46. AND FOR THE PUBLIC, THAT MEANS THAT ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN 2022, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE SALE OF COUNTY OWNED REAL PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS 1407 KING STREET AND 600 WILMINGTON STREET IN THE CITY OF BEAUFORT. THE VOTED NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE OCTOBER 6TH WAS UNANIMOUS SEVEN ZERO ANYONE FOR A MOTION, PLEASE. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO PUT IT ON THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU, MR. CUNNINGHAM. SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.

I'LL SECOND IT. I'M ALLOWED TO DO THAT. MR. EDMONDSON AND MR. KIDD, YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS, PLEASE? THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING AGAIN. MY NAME IS DYLAN KIDD, DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY.

WE ALSO HAVE WITH ME RICHARDSON BRUCE, WHO IS OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON THIS DEAL THAT WAS VOTED UPON PREVIOUSLY WITH INVOLVING JUSTICE SQUARE PEOPLE.

CAN YOU HEAR HIM IN THE BACK? ALL RIGHT. SO, AS COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY RECALL, THIS THIS PURCHASE OF LAND BY MR. WHEELER AND HIS GROUP WAS INITIATED WITH THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT THAT WAS ENTERED INTO IN FEBRUARY OF 2024.

WE, BY AGREEMENT, AMENDED SOME OF THE DEADLINES IN TERMS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT LAST DECEMBER.

WE HAVE NOW THE JUSTICE SQUARE FOLKS HAVE NOW COME BACK AND ASKED FOR SOME ALTERATIONS TO THAT CONTRACT.

THE ONE BEFORE COUNCIL TONIGHT IS SIMPLY A REDUCTION OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED FROM 39 AS CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL PSA AND THE AMENDED PSA TO A TOTAL OF 33. SO THAT IS THE SCOPE OF WHAT IS BEFORE COUNCIL THIS EVENING FOR A VOTE.

SHOULD YOU AGREE TO MAKE THAT AMENDMENT, WE WOULD NEGOTIATE A SECOND AMENDED PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THIS PROJECT.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENTS? YES. MR. HOBART, DID WE DO A MOTION TO PUT THIS ON THE FLOOR? YES. MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY MR.. I SECOND IT.

SO, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISTER KIDD BEFORE I GO TO THE DEVELOPER AND SENATOR DAVIS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE OFF THE HOOK, SENATOR DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL I REPRESENT MR. WHEELER, WHO'S WITH US TODAY. WHO IS THE PURCHASER IN THIS TRANSACTION? AND I'D LIKE TO, IF YOU'D INDULGE ME FOR 3 OR 4 MINUTES TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON, ON THIS TRANSACTION. IT'S RELATIVELY LENGTHY.

IT BEGAN BACK IN IN 2018 AND 2019. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR WAS JOHN WEAVER,

[01:25:04]

AND THERE WAS AN INTEREST IN THE COUNTY IN SELLING WHAT I REFERRED TO AS THE KING STREET PROPERTY, WHICH IS ABOUT ONE HALF OF THE KING STREET BLOCK.

THE OTHER HALF IS THE COUNTY JAIL PROPERTY, WHICH MR. WHEELER HAS ALREADY PURCHASED. AND THE OTHER PIECE I REFERRED TO AS THE WILMINGTON STREET PARCEL, WHICH IS A, A BLOCK OF OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE COUNTY.

ON THE KING STREET PROPERTY. THE HALF OWNED BY THE COUNTY HAS THE FORMER ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WHERE THEY USED TO HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF.

I BELIEVE THEY VACATED THAT PREMISES NOW THE WILMINGTON STREET PROPERTY CONTAINED ANOTHER DECK FACILITY, WHICH IS THE HEALTH FACILITY WHICH IS STILL BEING UTILIZED.

BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE PLANS TO MOVE IT AT SOME SUBSEQUENT POINT IN TIME. SO THERE WAS SOME DIALOG BACK WITH MR. WEAVER, AND ALSO AT THAT TIME AS AN INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR MR. WHEELER INDICATED AN INTEREST IN BUYING THE COUNTY PROPERTY FOR SOME HOUSING AND SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THOSE DISCUSSIONS PROGRESSED INTO 2019 WHEN MISS ASHLEY JACOBS WAS ADMINISTRATOR.

SO THAT'S THE SECOND ADMINISTRATOR WE SPOKE TO.

AND SHE INDICATED AT THAT TIME THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN AUCTION AT SOME POINT IN TIME WHERE THE COUNTY WOULD ENTERTAIN OFFERS OR BIDS TO PURCHASE.

THAT WAS IN 2019 AND 2021. MR. WHEELER PURCHASED THE HALF OF KING STREET WHERE THE JAIL IS, SO HE PURCHASED ROUGHLY HALF. HE ACQUIRED THAT THE COUNTY DIDN'T HAVE THAT PIECE, SO THE COUNTY LAND STILL REMAINED WITH THE COUNTY. BUT HE CLOSED ON AND PURCHASED THE JAIL IN SEPTEMBER OF 2021. IN MAY OF 2022, I BELIEVE IT WAS, THE COUNTY BEGAN AN AUCTION PROCESS WHERE IT SOLICITED BIDS FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO PURCHASE THE ONE HALF OF KING STREET PROPERTY OWNED BY THE COUNTY AND THE WILMINGTON STREET PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE BLOCK ALSO OWNED BY THE COUNTY. MR. WHEELER, I BELIEVE YOU ARE THE ONLY INDIVIDUAL TO HAVE SUBMITTED A BID AT THAT AUCTION.

AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS A LETTER OF INTENT ENTERED INTO WITH THE COUNTY TO PURCHASE THAT REAL PROPERTY.

BUT A LOT OF WORK HAD TO BE DONE BEFORE THAT.

LOI THAT WAS SIGNED IN OCTOBER OF 2022 BETWEEN MR. WHEELER AND THE COUNTY AND GOING TO A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BECAUSE YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH A CITY DESIGN PROCESS, THEN YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH THE HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD PROCESS.

AND AND BY THE WAY, I SHOULD MENTION I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS SINCE 2018.

SO THIS IS MY SEVENTH YEAR WORKING ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WITH MR. WHEELER. AND THAT PARTICULAR HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS WITH THE CITY AND THE HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD WAS VERY DETAILED, TIME CONSUMING. AND WE GOT FINALLY GOT APPROVAL FROM HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF BEAUFORT IN 2023, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN NOVEMBER OF 2023, WHICH THEN ALLOWED ME TO BEGIN WORK WITH MR. RICHARDSON, LABROUSSE EXCELLENT ATTORNEY. NEGOTIATED A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHEELER AND THE COUNTY, AND THAT WAS THE FIRST PSA, WHICH WAS DATED FEBRUARY 16TH OF 2024.

WELL, THE PLAN ALL ALONG WAS FOR MR. WHEELER TO APPLY TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR SMALL RENTAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FUNDS, WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY FEDERAL PASS THROUGH DOLLARS.

FEDERAL FUNDS ARE APPROPRIATED, AND THEN THERE ARE STATE AGENCIES THAT THEN ADMINISTER THROUGH A GRANT PROCESS.

SO THE IDEA, THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE FOR MR. WHEELER IN REGARD TO THE HALF OF THE BLOCK OF KING STREET AND THE BLOCK ON WILMINGTON, WAS TO BUILD SIX OR AT THAT TIME IT MAY HAVE BEEN SEVEN HOUSES, NON WORKFORCE HOUSES ON THE KING STREET PROPERTY OWNED BY THE COUNTY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THAT, HE WAS GOING TO BUILD SIX OTHER NON AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE JAIL SITE ON THE KING STREET, SO WE'D HAVE 13 AT THE TIME IT WAS REDUCED TO 12.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE 12 MARKET BASED PROPERTIES ON THE KING STREET PROPERTY.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE 39 WORKFORCE HOUSING ON THE WILMINGTON BLOCK PROPERTY.

39 AT THAT TIME, THAT NUMBER WASN'T JUST PICKED OUT OF THE AIR.

THAT WAS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT SRDP THAT THE SMALL RENTAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM WOULD ALLOW TO BE BUILT ON THAT PROPERTY.

SO THAT'S HOW 39 CAME TO BE PUT INTO THE CONTRACT.

THE IDEA WAS FOR THE BEAUFORT JASPER HOUSING AUTHORITY TO PUT $1 MILLION TOWARD THIS ACQUISITION.

MR. WHEELER WAS GOING TO PUT DOWN ROUGHLY $1 MILLION IN EQUITY TOWARD THAT OVERALL ACQUISITION,

[01:30:06]

AND THEN THE BALANCE OF OF OF $10 MILLION TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 39 WORKFORCE, HOUSING UNITS WERE GOING TO BE A SERIES OF FORGIVABLE AND FORGIVABLE LOANS FROM THE HOUSING AUTHORITY.

USING THOSE SMALL RENTAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FUNDS.

OKAY, SO THAT'S THE OVERALL THE OVERALL DEAL.

PROBLEMS WERE ENCOUNTERED AFTER THE SIGNING OF THE PSA BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS DONE ON THE PROPERTY AND IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT PREVIOUSLY ON THE KING STREET PROPERTY, THERE HAD BEEN A GAS TANK REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY, BUT NO FINAL ACTION LETTER HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY THE COUNTY FROM DAEHAK TO CHECK THAT BOX.

SO WE COULDN'T APPLY. MR. WILL COULD NOT APPLY TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY UNTIL THAT WAS REMEDIATED.

SO HE AGAIN SPENT THE MONEY AND GOT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE REMEDIATED.

HE WAS FIRST ABLE THEN TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IN JULY OF 2020 FOR WAR.

WE HAD TO THEN REMEDIATE THAT, THAT THE GAS TANK AND THE AND THE AND THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE ASSOCIATED WITH NOT GETTING THAT NOT FINAL ACTION LETTER AND THAT NECESSITATED IN DECEMBER OF 2024 AS, AS STAFF INDICATED, A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PSA, WHICH ADJUSTED THE TIMELINES FOR GETTING CERTAIN THINGS DONE, BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN THESE DELAYS UPFRONT IN TERMS OF GETTING HRB APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN, REMEDIATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS. I MEAN, SO WE HAD TO EXTEND THE DEADLINES. AND SO THAT WAS THAT WAS DONE.

AND MR. WHEELER CONTINUED FURTHER DILIGENCE IN REGARD TO THE PROPERTY, WHICH HAS BEEN EXTENSIVE OVER THIS FIVE, SIX, SEVEN YEAR PERIOD. HE'S OUT OF POCKET, ABOUT $250,000 IN HARD DOLLARS, HARD MONEY, $250,000, NOT TO MENTION SEVEN YEARS WORTH OF ALL STAFF TIME.

OTHER TIME THAT HE'S PUT INTO IT, JUST HARD DOLLARS.

HE'S OUT OF POCKET. $250,000. WE FINALLY WENT BACK BEFORE THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS FINAL REVIEW ON THESE SMALL RENTAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DOLLARS.

AND THEN WE WERE TOLD FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AUGUST OF 2025.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO AND A HALF, THREE MONTHS AGO, THAT BECAUSE OF EARTHQUAKE STANDARDS, EARTHQUAKE DRAINAGE STANDARDS AND THAT THAT THEY HAD TO ABIDE BY TO GET THESE FUNDS, THAT THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT COULD GET ON THAT WILMINGTON STREET BLOCK WENT FROM 39 TO 33. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THE MAX THAT WE WERE TOLD THEN COULD BE BUILT 33. WE THOUGHT IT WAS 39. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD YEARS AGO.

THEN THESE EARTHQUAKE REQUIREMENTS CAME IN, WHICH REQUIRED FURTHER SPACING OF THE HOUSES AND REDUCED THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSES TO 33.

AND SO WE HAD TO GET THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AMENDED AGAIN TO REFLECT THAT THE MAX WAS NO LONGER 39, IT WAS 33, AND STAFF DECIDED THAT WHEN WE MADE THAT REQUEST AND WHEN WE WERE UP AGAINST A DEADLINE YOU KNOW, OF DAYS AWAY FROM A DEADLINE FOR THE SECOND HOUSING AUTHORITY, FOR THE AWARD OF THESE FUNDS, THE THE $10 MILLION WORTH OF FORGIVABLE AND FORGIVABLE LOANS.

AND I WAS NEGOTIATING WITH MR.. LABROUSSE WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON AMENDMENT, AND WE THOUGHT THAT WE HAD IT ALL LINED UP IN TIME TO GET IT ADJUSTED TO SUBMIT TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, TO BE IN LINE FOR THAT $10 MILLION AWARD.

MR. LABROUSSE SUBMITTED IT TO ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF, AND THEY WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THE REDUCTION OF UNITS FROM 39 TO 33 CONSTITUTED A MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE CONTRACT THAT REQUIRED COUNCIL TO APPROVE, RATHER THAN STAFF APPROVING IT VIA AN AMENDMENT, AS WE HAD DONE IN THE EARLIER AMENDMENT.

SO AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT WE MISSED THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT FOR THAT 10 MILLION.

AND SO NOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR AGAIN.

AND SO I GUESS THERE'S A COUPLE I GIVE THAT BY WAY OF BACKGROUND BECAUSE IN MY OPINION, AND I DON'T MEAN TO BELABOR THE POINT HERE, BUT THE OBJECTIVE ON THE COUNTY STANDPOINT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS COULD GO IN THAT WILMINGTON STREET BLOCK.

IT WAS THOUGHT TO BE 39 WHEN THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED, BECAUSE OF THINGS BEYOND MR. WHEELER'S CONTROL AND STANDARDS THAT WERE IMPOSED, THAT BECAME 33.

I CONSIDERED THAT AND STILL CONSIDERED THAT TO BE SOMETHING WITHIN STAFF'S AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE VIA AN AMENDMENT OUTSIDE OF THE COUNCIL APPROVAL PROCESS.

WE COULD HAVE MET THE DEADLINE. I RESPECT THE DECISION THAT THEY MADE.

I THINK YOU'VE GOT AN EXCELLENT ADMINISTRATOR AND AN EXCELLENT COUNTY ATTORNEY. SO I DON'T MEAN TO BE DEBATING THAT POINT, BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY,

[01:35:04]

IS TO AMEND THE CONTRACT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S GOING TO BE 33 UNITS INSTEAD OF 39 ON WILMINGTON STREET.

AND THAT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. NOT SURPRISINGLY, BECAUSE THAT'S THE MAXIMUM YOU CAN GET ON THAT BLOCK.

SO THERE'S NO SENSE IN, YOU KNOW, QUIBBLING ABOUT THAT.

BUT A COUPLE OF EQUITABLE FACTORS COME INTO PLAY HERE.

AT THIS POINT IN ABOUT 90 DAYS TO 120 DAYS MR. WHEELER WILL APPLY AGAIN FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY FUNDS.

IF THAT IS SUCCESSFUL, THAT MONEY IS NOT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE UNTIL 2027.

OKAY, SO HE'S ABOUT TWO YEARS AWAY FROM BEING ABLE TO GOING AHEAD AND START TO CLEAR THAT WILMINGTON STREET PROPERTY AND BUILD THOSE 39 OR 33 NOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? BECAUSE THE PSA, AS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED, CALLED FOR MR. WHEELER'S CLOSING ON THE KING STREET PROPERTY TO OCCUR CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE CLOSING ON THE WILMINGTON STREET PROPERTY, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE COUNTY.

IT WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WERE BUILT.

THEY DIDN'T WANT HIM TO JUST GO FORWARD AND CLOSE ON THE KING STREET PROPERTY.

BUILD THE MARKET HOUSES AND THEN NOT PICK UP AND CLOSE ON THE WILMINGTON STREET PROPERTY AND BUILD THE 33 AFFORDABLE UNITS.

I UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WAS IMPORTANT. TO THE COUNTY.

THEY DIDN'T KNOW MR. WHEELER. HE WAS SOMEBODY DOING BUSINESS WITH THE COUNTY FOR THE FIRST TIME.

BUT I WOULD ASK, I WOULD SUBMIT THIS TO YOU AND THE SEVEN YEARS THAT HE'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS, DILIGENTLY WORKING WITH HISTORIC BEAUFORT FOUNDATION, THE CITY OF BEAUFORT, THE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, PUTTING $250,000 OF HIS MONEY INTO GETTING THIS QUALIFIED.

HE'S NO LONGER AN UNKNOWN ENTITY TO Y'ALL. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HE'S A GOOD FAITH ACTOR HERE.

AND IF THE CONTRACT STANDS AS WRITTEN WITH THE TWO CLOSINGS LINKED WITH WITH THE TWO HAVE TO HAPPEN IN CONTEMPORANEOUSLY.

HE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ON KING STREET IN REGARD TO THAT PROPERTY FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS.

OKAY. NOW YOU MIGHT SAY, WELL, WHY DOESN'T HE JUST GO AHEAD AND BEGIN RENOVATING THE JAIL AND BUILDING ON THE PORTION OF KING STREET THAT HE ALREADY OWNS? WELL, IT'S BECAUSE ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAS TO GO IN THERE WITH DOMINION, WITH POWER LINES, WATER AND SEWER, ALL THOSE THINGS ARE MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY DONE AS AN ENTIRE BLOCK, RATHER THAN HAVING THEM DO HALF OF IT, AND THEN WAITING TWO YEARS AND THEN DOING THE OTHER HALF.

AND SO ONE OF HIS REQUESTS IS GOING TO BE NOT NOT TONIGHT, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND TONIGHT'S FIRST READING.

BUT BUT I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY AND MR. WHEELER WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE CASE BEFORE YOU ALL AS TO WHY THERE SHOULD NOT BE A LINKAGE OR A SHACKLING OF THE TWO CLOSINGS TOGETHER.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS AT THIS POINT IN TIME THAT COUNCIL CAN SATISFY ITSELF, THAT MR. WHEELER IS GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH CLOSING ON WILMINGTON STREET AND BUILDING THOSE 33 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.

BEYOND THE FACT THAT HE'S ALREADY PUT 250,000 INTO THIS AND DONE ALL THIS WORK, THERE ARE THINGS YOU CAN DO IN TERMS OF REPS AND WARRANTIES AND PENALTIES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT HE HAS TO MOVE FORWARD. HE CAN'T WAIT TWO MORE YEARS BEFORE HE BEGINS BUILDING ON THE KING STREET PROPERTY.

SO, SO, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS AMENDMENT DO.

REALLY THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT DO, OR ONE OF TWO THINGS, IS SEPARATE THOSE TWO CLOSINGS AND DON'T REQUIRE THEM TO HAPPEN CONTEMPORANEOUSLY. THE SECOND THING IS THE TOTAL SALES PRICE IS RIGHT NOW $1,055,000.

AND UNDER THE CURRENT PSA THAT'S ALLOCATED WITH $855,000 IS ALLOCATED TO THE WILMINGTON STREET BLOCK AND $200,000 IS ALLOCATED TO THE KING STREET PROPERTY.

MR. WHEELER WOULD REQUEST A REALLOCATION OF THAT TOTAL, NOT A REDUCTION IN THE PURCHASE PRICE, BUT A REALLOCATION OF $1 MILLION OF IT GOING TO WILMINGTON AND THE REMAINING 55,000 TO THE PORTION OF THE KING STREET BLOCK.

FOR THIS REASON, THAT ENTIRE MILLION DOLLARS THAT WOULD BE ALLOCATED THEN TO THE WILMINGTON PROPERTY IS REIMBURSABLE AND CAN BE PAID FOR BY WITH SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSING FUNDS. OKAY, SO, SO SO THERE ARE DOLLARS THAT ARE APPROVED AND DOLLARS THAT CAN BE TAKEN UP AND PAID FOR IN THAT WAY.

WHEREAS IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT REALLOCATION, ONLY 855,000 OF IT WOULD BE SO.

AND IT'S ECONOMICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS TO MR. WHEELER.

AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AFTER SEVEN YEARS, HIS RETURN ON HIS MONEY IS, IS IS GOING DOWN, DOWN, DOWN, DOWN, DOWN. SO THOSE WOULD BE THE TWO THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE INCLUDED IN THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED. NOT ONLY THE RECOGNITION THAT THE MAX THAT YOU CAN PUT INTO THE WILMINGTON STREET IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS 33 INSTEAD OF 39, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU NOW, AND WHICH WE AGREE WITH, BUT ALSO A REALLOCATION OF THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE REASON I'VE INDICATED,

[01:40:04]

AND A DECOUPLING OF THE TWO CLOSINGS AND OTHER ASSURANCES PROVIDED TO COUNTY IN REGARD TO MR. WHEELER CLOSING ON THAT WILMINGTON PIECE, BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT ECONOMICALLY POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO HAVE THE TWO CLOSINGS SEPARATED LIKE THAT AND TO WAIT ANOTHER TWO YEARS TO BEGIN BUILDING ON KING STREET. SO AND I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THIS AS WELL THE KING STREET PROPERTY INVOLVES AN OBLIGATION ON MR. WHEELER'S PART TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING ADMIN BUILDING THAT'S NOW BEEN VACATED TO ENVIRONMENTALLY MITIGATE IT, BECAUSE IT'S GOT ENVIRONMENTAL. IT'S GOT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED. HE'S GOT TO ABSORB ALL THOSE COSTS. THAT'S ABOUT $400,000 HE'S GOT TO PAY FOR OUT OF HIS POCKET IN ADDITION TO THE 250 HE'S ALREADY PUT IN. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY TO PROCEED IS, WHETHER OR NOT TO GIVE IT FIRST READING, AND THEN TO LET ME WORK WITH STAFF IN REGARD TO PUTTING SOMETHING BEFORE YOU AT YOUR DECEMBER 8TH MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION FOR A FURTHER AMENDMENT, OR IF IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE IT REMANDED BACK TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, SO THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT EQUITABLE CASE AT THAT LEVEL.

I WASN'T ABLE TO BE AT THAT NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING.

I WAS OUT OF TOWN WHEN THEY MET. SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS LAID OUT OR WHAT WAS EXPLORED.

BUT I DO THINK, GIVEN THE FACTS, AS I PRESENTED THEM MEMBERS, THAT THOSE EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENTS ARE WARRANTED.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BETTER TO DO IT AFTER FIRST READING AND THEN NEGOTIATE IT BETWEEN FIRST READING AND SECOND READING, OR TO HAVE IT REMANDED BACK TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE.

WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. I MEAN, THE APPLICATION FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF FUNDING WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY ISN'T FOR ANOTHER 90 DAYS.

SO YOU COULD REMAND IT TO THE TO THE NATURAL NATIONAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, GIVE IT FIRST READING ON DECEMBER 8TH, AND THEN GIVE IT A SECOND AND THIRD READING IN TIME AND MEET THOSE DEADLINES.

OR, CONVERSELY, WE COULD DO FIRST READING TODAY AND THEN TRY TO WORK ON AMENDMENT OVER THE NEXT MONTH.

EITHER EITHER IS ACCEPTABLE TO MR. WHEELER, BUT HE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO MAKE THAT CASE TO EACH OF YOU AND TO EXPLAIN WHY ECONOMICALLY WE THINK THAT'S A FAIR WAY TO PROCEED. THANK YOU. SENATOR.

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL, PLEASE. MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. ONE I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND PAST 8:00, IF I MAY.

OH, OKAY. I'LL SECOND THAT. SECONDED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED.

ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY. YOU DON'T GET TO GO TILL 2 A.M., THOUGH.

I GOT NOTHING BUT TIME FOR Y'ALL. A LITTLE UNORTHODOX.

BUT I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IF THE CHAIR WOULD ALLOW A MOTION TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO THIS MEETING AND PUT THIS ITEM ON IT FOR US TO FURTHER DISCUSS. I'LL SECOND THAT.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, I THINK WE'LL NEED A SUPERMAJORITY TO DO THAT BECAUSE THE AGENDA HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. YES.

MR.. I JUST THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME INFORMATION, SOME THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS FURTHER BEFORE WE TAKE ANY ACTION.

JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE WITH ALL INFORMATION.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. I HAVE A QUESTION.

YEAH. YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE EXTEND THE MEETING AND RECONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION OR FOLLOW THE SUGGESTION OF SENATOR DAVIS AND REMAND THIS TO THE COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION AFTER STAFF HAS TIME TO CONSIDER ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE SITUATION, AS IT WAS JUST EXPLAINED TO US IN THAT POINT, I WOULD SAY THAT I DON'T CARE IF WE HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION AFTER THE ITEM NOW OR AT THE END OF THE MEETING, BUT I WOULD STILL LIKE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WHILE IT'S FRESH ON COUNCIL FOR ALL INFORMATION, AND THEN MAYBE THAT IS THE RESULT THAT IT GETS SENT BACK TO COMMITTEE OR BACK TO STAFF.

SO SO THE MOTION IS TO SESSION TONIGHT IS TO RECONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECONSIDER EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CREATE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE THAT WAS THE CAUCUS. GOT IT. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO RECESS TO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION I WOULD LIKE TO DO AT THIS MOMENT WHY THIS CONVERSATION GOES ON, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE, FOR PURPOSE OF RECEIVING LEGAL ADVICE RELATED TO THE JUSTICE SQUARE PURCHASE SALE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT.

CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU DO A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? SO WE'RE GOING TO DO IT NOW. PARDON ME. THE DOOR MAY BE LOCKED SO THAT.

WE HAVE TO GO SIT IN THE COURTYARD OR WHAT? ARE WE GOING TO FINISH THE MEETING? WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS NOW. HE WANTS TO DO IT NOW. THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO GO, IS WHAT YOU'RE TELLING? NO, BUT I'M THINKING THAT IT MAY BE BETTER FOR.

EXCUSE ME A SECOND. IT MAY BE BETTER FOR US TO RECONVENE AT THE END OF THE MEETING.

[01:45:04]

SO EVERYONE WHO'S HERE ON OTHER BUSINESS CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT BUSINESS AND LEAVE, RATHER THAN US EXTENDING THEIR STAY WHILE WE CONSIDER THIS AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE, SO IT DOESN'T MATTER TO US.

THE MOTION TO PUSH IT TO THE END OF THE MEETING, AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO ADD ITEMS FROM ORDINANCE 20 2550 TO GO TO, TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE AT THE AT THE END OF THIS MEETING, AND TO POSTPONE ANY VOTE ON THIS ORDINANCE TO PUSH THIS ENTIRE AGENDA ITEM TO THE END OF THE MEETING. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. SECOND. I'LL SECOND THAT.

ALL RIGHT. DO A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO.

EVERYONE'S OPEN. GO! OCTAVIA COUNCIL MEMBER CUNNINGHAM.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTHOLOMEW. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

RIETZ. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MCALLEN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. LAWSON. MARK. LAWSON.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER. GLOVER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

DAWSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BROWN. YES. VICE CHAIR.

TABACHNICK. YES. CHAIR. HOWARD. NO. MOTION. MOTION PASSES.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO PROGRESS TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING? WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED, THEN. OKAY. AND HE GETS IT.

OKAY. ORDINANCE 20 2551 IS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BEAUFORT COUNTY ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 102, WATERWAYS ARTICLE FOR ABANDONED AND DERELICT

[15.b. Ordinance 2025/51: An ordinance to amend Beaufort County’s Ordinance Chapter 102 Waterways article IV, abandoned and derelict boats, section 102-171 through 102-183.]

BOATS. SECTION 102 DASH 171 THROUGH 102. DASH 183.

THE VOTE AT PUBLIC FACILITIES ON OCTOBER 20TH WAS UNANIMOUS NINE ZERO.

CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS ORDINANCE? SO MOVED.

THANK YOU, MR. CUNNINGHAM, A SECOND. I'LL SECOND IT.

MR. LAWSON. THANK YOU FOR THIS SECOND. AND, MR. KIDD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS AGAIN? I'D BE HAPPY TO.

SO JUST AS A FOR EVERYONE'S INFORMATION, THIS IS ONLY ARTICLE FOUR OF THE WATERWAYS ORDINANCE, AND IT WAS BIFURCATED FROM ARTICLES ONE THROUGH THREE.

AT THE, AT THE COMMITTEE MEETING. AND I WANTED TO MENTION THAT THAT WILL GO AS A DISCUSSION ITEM ON NEXT MONDAY'S COMMITTEE AGENDA AND IT HAS BEEN PUT OUT FOR SOME PUBLIC COMMENT VIA THE WEB FORM THAT WE UTILIZED THE LAST TIME.

SO IT WILL ONLY BE A DISCUSSION ITEM THIS COMING MONDAY ON ARTICLES ONE THROUGH THREE OF THE WATERWAYS ORDINANCE, WHICH DEALS WITH SOME ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IMPOSED UPON OUR COUNTY DOCKS, LANDINGS, ETC.. THIS IS ARTICLE FOUR, WHICH DEALS ONLY WITH THE PROCESS FOR REMOVAL OF ABANDONED OR DERELICT BOATS.

AND IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE WORKED ON IN CONJUNCTION WITH DNR AND WITH THE STATE.

THE THERE ARE SEVERAL ARTICLES OF THIS OR SOMETHING WE'VE WORKED ON, AND I KNOW THAT THE MUNICIPALITIES TOWN OF HILTON HEAD IN PARTICULAR HAS MOVED FORWARD WITH SOME OF THESE WE THE THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS REMOVAL PROCEDURE IS STATE LAW.

TO THE EXTENT WE ARE ABLE TO CODIFY ANYTHING BY ORDINANCE FOR THE REMOVAL OF ABANDONED OR DERELICT BOATS, WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW STATE LAW TO THE T.

SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS IS STATE LAW SET.

AND WE FOLLOWED IT. EXACTLY. WE DID EXPAND SOME OF THE DEFINITION SECTION, JUST AS I'VE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, TO EXPAND THE CAPACITY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. SO WE'VE DEFINED A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AS ALSO CONSTITUTING A DNR OFFICER COULD BE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

UNDER THIS SECTION, A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER COULD BE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER UNDER THIS SECTION.

AND THE SAME GOES FOR A BEAVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE EMPLOYEE.

SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MAY HAVE REGARDING ANY QUESTION OR COMMENT.

HE'S BROUGHT BACK WHAT WE ASKED MR. LAWSON. JUST JUST A COMMENT THAT OBVIOUSLY IN THE PAST THERE HAS BEEN PROBLEMS WITH BOATS OUT IN THE WATER THAT HAVE BEEN LEFT, THAT HAVE BEEN ABANDONED. AND THERE WAS NO LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWED US TO GO, GO GET THEM.

AND AGAIN, THE STATE PASSED THEIR LEGISLATION.

WE'RE LOOKING AT TRYING TO MIRROR WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE WITH WITH THE THE CITIES AND THE TOWN AND THE COUNTY.

BECAUSE AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE A COUNTY LINE, COUNTY LINE AND THE TOWN LINE, THEY CAN JUST MOVE THE BOAT TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OF THE RIVER AND BE THEN IN THE TOWN.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO PULL US ALL TOGETHER. SO AGAIN, WE DO HAVE SOME TEETH TO REMOVE ABANDONED BOATS.

AND THEN ALSO PART OF THIS IS, IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE LEFT BOATS AT LANDINGS FOR EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, AND WE COULDN'T GO AND FORCE ANYTHING BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE BOOKS. SO THIS PART OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO HANDLE THOSE TWO THINGS.

AND OF COURSE, WHEN WE STARTED WRITING THIS, ARTICLES ONE THROUGH THREE CAME UP.

AND I KNOW THERE'S SOME SOME THINGS IN THERE WE HAVE TO WORK ON THAT WHICH, AGAIN, HAS BEEN PULLED AND IS SEPARATE FROM WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT.

[01:50:07]

YES, SIR. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE COMMENT.

JUST THE FACT THAT THIS WAS SEPARATED OR SEPARATED IN THE COMMITTEE MEETING.

AND WE'RE WORKING TO THROUGH SOME OF THOSE OTHER THINGS STILL, THIS IS JUST THE ABANDONED BOATS, NOT THE DOCKS OR THE RAMPS.

CORRECT. BECAUSE WE LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC. YES WE DO.

THANK YOU FOR THEM IN THE BACK. ANYBODY ELSE? YES. ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED.

RAISE YOUR HAND. OKAY, I THINK I THINK UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU. OKAY. LAST ORDINANCE 20 2552, AN ORDINANCE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE 2% STATE ACCOMMODATIONS TAX

[15.c. 2025/52: An Ordinance recommending approval of the 2% State Accomodations Tax Awards as presented by the State Atax Committee.]

AWARDS AS PRESENTED BY THE STATE TAX COMMITTEE.

THE VOTE AT FINANCE COMMITTEE, OCTOBER 20TH. WAS UNANIMOUS.

AND CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. LAWSON. A SECOND. I'LL SECOND.

THANK YOU, MISS HOWARD. MISS HARRIET. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON IT, BUT IT'S JUST FOR THE PUBLIC.

IT'S IN THE PACKET. THERE'S A LIST AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.

GO AHEAD. NO, WE PROVIDED A NARRATIVE, AS YOU REQUESTED, FOR EVERY APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED.

AND THEN YOU WILL SEE IN THE SPREADSHEET THE REQUESTED AMOUNT AND THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE RIGHT, PLUS NOTES FROM THE MEETING FROM THE STATE TAX COMMITTEE MEETING.

DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. AND THIS IS FIRST READING.

SO IT HAS TO GO TO TWO MORE. AND THE PEOPLE ARE ANXIOUSLY AWAITING THEIR AWARDS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL RIGHT.

LOOKS LIKE IT'S UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU, MISS HARRIET. AND THAT ENDS THE ORDINANCES, MISS HOWARD.

OKAY, CONTINUING ON WITH RESOLUTIONS 16, A 2025 SLASH 63, A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE BEAUFORT COUNTY PERSONAL HANDBOOK,

[16.a. 2025/63: A Resolution regarding the Beaufort County Personnel Handbook section 3.3 Remote Work/Telecommuting policy]

SECTION 3.3, REMOTE WORK SLASH TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY.

THE VOTED FINANCE ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ON OCTOBER 20TH WAS 770, AND MISS MEADE IS HERE. IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

AND IN YOUR MATERIALS THERE IS THERE'S BACKUP SLIDES TO ANY IF I HAVE A MOTION.

MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION REGARDING THE RESOLUTION A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN DAWSON, ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? FOR MISS MEAD. GO AHEAD. MR.. MR.. DO YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? YOU CAN EITHER WAY, COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM. OH, SORRY.

CAN WE BRIEFLY GO OVER THE POLICY FOR OUT OF STATE EMPLOYEES? I KNOW WE ALREADY DISCUSSED VIRTUAL AND NOT GETTING INTO ELECTED OFFICIALS AND SO ON AND SO ON IN THE COMMITTEE LEVEL.

BUT JUST TO GO OVER THAT SECTION. SO THE POLICY WE'RE PROPOSING WITH THIS CHANGE IS TO PROHIBIT ALL OUT OF STATE VIRTUAL WORK.

AND THE DEFINITION OF VIRTUAL WORK IS FULL TIME REMOTE.

WHAT IS THE EMPLOYEES THAT CURRENTLY ARE DOING THAT? WHAT WOULD BE THE STATUS OF THEM IF THIS PASSES THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN CURRENTLY.

SO WE ONLY HAVE THREE EMPLOYEES THAT THIS WOULD FALL UNDER.

AND IT IS WITH AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. WE WERE PLANNING TO GIVE THIS A 60 TO 90 DAY NOTICE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S OTHER OPPORTUNITIES OF THESE EMPLOYEES TO COME HOME.

I'M NOT SURE I WOULD NEED TO SPEAK WITH THE TREASURER REGARDING THAT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCILMAN? REEDS? SURE. YOU SAID IT DEALS WITH THE TREASURER. THOSE THREE EMPLOYEES.

HAVE YOU TALKED TO MISS WALZ ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT HER AND WHAT? NO. I HAVE ASKED MISS WALZ FOR A FULL ROSTER OF HER STATUS OF HER EMPLOYEES THROUGH THEIR JOB DESCRIPTIONS, AND I HAVE NOT GOTTEN THOSE YET, SO THAT'S WHY I CAN'T CONFIRM IT COULD BE MORE THAN THREE.

ALL I CAN DO IS GO OFF THE ROSTERS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR SYSTEMS AND HAVE THREE EMPLOYEES.

BUT NO, WE HAVE NOT HAD DISCUSSIONS OF WHAT HER PLANS WOULD BE WITH THOSE THREE EMPLOYEES.

WHAT WOULD I LIKE TO ADD? SO THIS COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS IT, AND EVERYBODY LISTENING IS THAT I MEET WITH AN AWFUL LOT OF PEOPLE, AND I HEAR VERY GOOD THINGS ABOUT THE WORK THAT SHE DOES.

SURE. AND SO MY THING IS, WHY COULD WE DO SOME MAYBE LET'S DO WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO, BUT LET'S DO SOMETHING TO PROTECT MISS WALZ AND THE WORK SHE'S DOING FOR THE PEOPLE. WELL, AND THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

IT'S. I FEEL LIKE I'M SCREAMING. YES, THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

IT'S NOT THAT IT CAN'T BE DONE, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE RESOURCES TO SECURE OUT OF STATE LABOR LAW ATTORNEYS.

[01:55:04]

WE'D HAVE TO PAY FOR THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TAX IN THOSE STATES.

WE'D HAVE TO REGISTER EMPLOYMENT WITH THOSE STATES. WE'D HAVE TO PURCHASE WORKERS COMP POLICIES THROUGHOUT THOSE STATES. SO I'M NOT SAYING IT CAN'T BE DONE.

WE WOULD JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS RESOURCES AVAILABLE OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND TO MAKE SURE WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE BIGGEST THING, IS WE HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE AND THAT'S GREAT.

HOW LONG HAVE THESE EMPLOYEES BEEN WORKING WITH US? THESE THREE IN QUESTION? I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK, BUT.

WHEN IT'S NEW, I DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.

OKAY. COUNCILMAN. BARTHOLOMEW. YEAH. WOULD IT JUST BE AWARE TO GRANDFATHER THOSE THOSE HANDFUL OF EMPLOYEES INTO THIS POLICY AS WE MOVE FORWARD? WE IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL DESIRES TO DO, AS LONG AS WE UNDERSTAND THERE HAVE TO BE FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR THE RESOURCES THAT I JUST LISTED OFF, AND WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT THOSE RESOURCES, HOW MUCH IT WOULD BE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

NO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LABOR LAW ATTORNEYS WILL BE IN THOSE STATES, BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO GET STATES OR LABOR LAW ATTORNEYS REGISTERED IN THE STATES IN WHICH THEY RESIDE. AND I DON'T I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT WOULD MEAN WE'D HAVE TO DO LIKE, AN RFP.

I'M NOT THAT THAT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF COLLABORATION WITH THE FINANCE TEAM.

OKAY. COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM YEAH, I STILL HAD A COUPLE MORE, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

WHAT'S OUR PROCESS FOR HIRING? FOR IDENTIFICATION? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IDENTIFY THEIR. FOR THEIR PURPOSES? YEAH. WE ASK FOR A DRIVER'S LICENSE AND RESIDENCY, WHATEVER IS REQUIRED ON THE I-9.

SO THERE'S MY NEXT QUESTION IS, WHAT IS OUR FOLLOW UP POLICY FOR EMPLOYEES AFTER THEY'RE HIRED? MEANING, HOW DO WE KNOW OTHER PEOPLE HAVE NOT MOVED OUT OF STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA? THAT STILL WORK FOR US? WHAT IS OUR FOLLOW UP POLICY WHEN THEY MOVE? DO WE HAVE A FOLLOW UP POLICY? FOR EXAMPLE, WE ONLY KNOW THESE PEOPLE LIVE OUT OF STATE BECAUSE WE WERE INFORMED OF IT BY THEIR DIRECTOR OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.

MY QUESTION IS, WHAT POLICY DO WE HAVE IN PLACE THAT CHECKS THE OTHER X AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES THAT WE HAVE IN THE COUNTY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ACTUALLY LIVE IN HERE? WE DO NOT HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE. WE DO HAVE RECORDS LIKE WHERE THEIR TAX TAXES, I BELIEVE THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE.

THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR UPDATING THEIR ADDRESS.

BUT I WILL I WILL PIGGYBACK ON MR. CUNNINGHAM.

IF WE PUT THIS NEW POLICY IN EFFECT, WE ARE FOLLOWING STATE GUIDANCE ON REMOTE WORK.

SO THEY WOULD WORK REMOTE MAXIMUM TWO DAYS A WEEK, WHICH MEANS PEOPLE OUT OF STATE WON'T QUALIFY FOR THAT.

THEY WOULD NEED FIVE. THAT'S THE OTHER PART OF THIS POLICY, CORRECT? THAT WOULD BE FOR UNELECTED OFFICES THAT CAN GO FULL VIRTUAL, RIGHT? THAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE. YES. NO. IT'S FOR ALL EMPLOYEES IN THE CLASS.

ECOMMENTS. NO. THE POLICY THAT WE ARE PRESENTING IS THAT COUNTY EMPLOYEES THAT REPORT TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATION ARE LIMITED TO TWO DAYS VIRTUAL.

HOWEVER, EMPLOYEES THAT REPORT TO ELECTED OFFICIAL CAN WORK FULL TIME VIRTUAL.

THE ONLY CAVEAT EXCEPTION THAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS A LIMITATION OF OUT OF STATE DUE TO THE COMPLIANCE ISSUES.

SO I GUESS THE POINT I'M GETTING TO I LET ME LET SOMEONE ELSE HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS.

ANYONE ELSE? YES. SINCE WE'RE GOING TO DEBATE THIS FOR A WHILE, COULD WE DO SOMETHING TONIGHT THAT PROTECTS THESE THREE EMPLOYEES FROM MISS WALLACE SO WE DON'T GET THEM IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF OUR. I DON'T THINK WE KNOW.

I'LL MAKE A COMMENT BACK TO THAT. WE DON'T KNOW THE COSTS.

I'M SORRY. WE DON'T KNOW THE COST OF PROTECTING THOSE EMPLOYEES.

SPEAK IN YOUR MIC. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO HEAR. WE DO.

COUNCILMAN REESE, IF FROM WHAT MISS MEAD SAID, WE DO NOT KNOW THE TOTAL COSTS OF, QUOTE, GRANDFATHERING THESE THREE EMPLOYEES THAT YOU'RE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT. I DON'T WHY DON'T WE KNOW THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING, WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT OUR ACTIONS.

YOU'RE PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT PROPOSED.

YOU'RE PROPOSING TO GRANDFATHER THEM. SO WE THIS IS A NEW ELEMENT ADDED.

NO, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING, WE SHOULD KNOW THE RAMIFICATION. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO THIS, BUT WHY CAN'T WE KNOW WE HAVE WHAT THE EFFECTS ARE GOING TO BE? I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

ALL RIGHT. WOW. MR. GLOVER? SURE. MR. MEADE, I THANK YOU FOR THE REVISION THAT IS BEING SUGGESTED. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR, BECAUSE WE HAVE MANY OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING.

THE ONLY THING THAT I QUESTION IS, IS, IS ARE THE STATES.

AND IF YOU OUT OF STATE AND HAVING A STATE SO CLOSE TO US, LIKE GEORGIA, WE MAY HAVE EMPLOYEES, WE PROBABLY DO HAVE EMPLOYEES. AND I THINK YOU NEED TO, YOU KNOW, EITHER WORK ON THE IMPACT THAT WILL HAVE ON OUR EXPENSE.

[02:00:10]

YOU KNOW, BUT GEORGIA GOTTA BE INCLUDED AT SOME FORM, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE EMPLOYEES OR WE MAY HAVE EMPLOYEES JUST JUST WORKING JUST ACROSS THE RIVER. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I COMMENT ON.

I WOULD THINK THAT WE HAVE EMPLOYEES IN HAMPTON AND ALLENDALE AS WELL.

THAT'S FURTHER AWAY FROM US, BUT THEY'RE NOT IN ANOTHER STATE.

AND I THINK THE DISTANCE AND WITH THE ROADS THAT WE HAVE, IT'S EASY AND VERY CONVENIENT TO DRIVE FROM GEORGIA, FROM POOLER OR WHATEVER TO WORK. BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST CONSIDER THOSE EMPLOYEES AND WHAT IMPACT THAT'S HAVING.

BUT WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT OTHER STATES I THINK THE ELECTED OFFICIAL WHO DESIRED TO DO THAT NEEDS TO COME TO YOU AND WORK OUT AND SEE WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE AND THEN BRING FORWARD BACK TO US.

YEAH, THEY AND IT'S NOT JUST HR. IT WOULD BE A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN RISK MANAGEMENT, HR, FINANCE AND LEGAL. TO YOUR POINT YES. THE POLICY WE'RE PROPOSING WILL ALLOW EMPLOYEES TO COMMUTE TO POOLER, SAVANNAH, RINCON AS LONG AS THEY'RE WITHIN A REASONABLE COMMUTING DISTANCE.

AND I THINK AFTER THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, I WAS INTERESTED WITH YOUR COMMENT AND WENT AND MAPQUESTED AND BECAUSE YOUR CONCERN WAS, IS 60 MINUTES ENOUGH TO GET TO SAVANNAH AND MAPQUEST HAD IT AT 57 MINUTES.

I MEAN, WE WE CERTAINLY WOULD STILL INCLUDE OUR EMPLOYEES TO BE ELIGIBLE REMOTELY COMMUTING FROM THE SAVANNAH AREA.

THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM, YOU HAD ANOTHER QUESTION.

YES, MA'AM. IF I MAY DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST TO BRING ALL THESE EMPLOYEES INTO THE BUILDING? SO WE HAVE SURVEYED ALL OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY EMPLOYEES THAT ARE FULL TIME VIRTUAL.

WE HAVE 43 THAT ARE ALREADY DOING A HYBRID APPROACH.

SO THERE'S ALREADY OFFICE SPACES FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT REPORT TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATION.

WHAT ABOUT THE ONES THAT REPORT TO OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS? AS I STATED, I DON'T KNOW THAT COUNT OTHER THAN THE THREE WITH ONE ELECTED OFFICIAL.

OKAY. YEAH. MY BIGGEST FEAR, HONESTLY, IS. WE'RE PUNISHING EMPLOYEES THAT WERE ADMITTED THAT ARE DOING A GOOD JOB BY A STATUS QUO THAT, AGAIN, THAT WE'VE HAD PEOPLE SAY THAT WE'RE CHANGING THINGS ON THE FLY.

SO AT THE BARE MINIMUM, I THINK WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING GRANDFATHERING THE STAFF WE HAVE IN.

BUT I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO PROTECT OURSELVES. LIKE YOU SAID, THERE HAS TO BE SOME WAY TO DO THAT.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE FOR LEGAL OR FOR YOU GUYS.

AND I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER. I MEAN, I DID SOME RESEARCH AND I'VE SEEN OTHER PEOPLE DO IT, BUT CAN THERE BE AN AGREEMENT WHEN EMPLOYEES MOVE OUT THAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW, THAT THEY SIGN AND AGREE TO THE RIGHTS OF WORKFORCE IN SOUTH CAROLINA? I CAN'T YOU CAN'T. I WOULD NEED TO TALK WITH OUR LABOR LAW ATTORNEYS ON THAT.

OKAY. SO THIS IS FIRST READING. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET IT THAT INFORMATION BY SECOND.

I KNOW THAT AGAIN, THAT'S A SHORT TERM. BUT WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE TODAY, JUST IN THE MEANTIME, WHILE WE'RE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, TO SEE IF THAT CAN BE DONE. SO WE'RE NOT FIRING EMPLOYEES THAT WE KNOW THAT ARE DOING A GOOD JOB, BECAUSE REALISTICALLY, THAT'S WHAT IT IS. LET'S CALL IT WHAT IT IS. I THINK THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RESOLUTION AND THEN I'LL COME BACK TO YOU, DAVID. SO RESOLUTION, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND WE NEED TO COME BACK, WE CAN COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING.

WELL THEN FOR THE DISCUSSION TODAY, THEN I WOULD MAKE THE AMENDMENT THAT WE GRANDFATHER AND EMPLOYEES CURRENTLY THAT WORK FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY AS OF NOVEMBER 10TH, 2025. I'LL SECOND THAT. OH WE STILL HAVE. OKAY.

I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY SOMETHING, COUNCILOR BARTHOLOMEW.

I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THIS, AND I APOLOGIZE.

SO THE REMOTE WORK RULES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REMOTE WORK AGREEMENT AS AND JUST THE DEFINITIONS IN THIS PROPOSAL HERE. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECT, IT'S STILL ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND APPLICABLE TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS.

RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO IF IT'S ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND WE CAN HAVE A REMOTE WORK AGREEMENT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS IN HERE, COULDN'T THAT ELECTED OFFICIAL JUST GET AN AGREEMENT PUT IN PLACE WITH THOSE THREE PEOPLE.

IF THEY ARE ALREADY THE ONES THAT AUTHORIZE IT AND IT NOT AFFECT THE REST OF THE EMPLOYEES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PASS THROUGH HERE, LIKE LITERALLY WITH THE LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN WITHOUT ANY CHANGES, WOULDN'T IT BE APPLICABLE HERE? IT WOULD. BUT I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE CONCERN OF THE COMPLIANCE, WHICH IS ALL OF STAFF'S CONCERNS WITH OUT OF STATE REMOTE WORKERS, WHICH IS WHY THE PROPOSED POLICY, WHILE IT STILL WOULD HAVE AN AGREEMENT REQUIRED FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.

WE'VE ALSO MADE THE CHANGE WHERE ELECTED OFFICIAL CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATION FOR THEIR STAFF, WHEREAS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION STAFF IS LIMITED TO TWO DAYS A WEEK.

SO ALL THAT'S THERE AND THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT AGREEMENT.

[02:05:03]

AND THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR ALL EMPLOYEES THAT ARE GOING TO WORK REMOTELY, WHETHER IT'S AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OR COUNTY ADMINISTRATION STAFF, AND I GET A FOLLOW UP TO THAT. I AM NOT A LABOR ATTORNEY. AND SO THIS IS A GENUINE QUESTION.

SURE. IS THERE A CHOICE OF LAW OR CHOICE OF VENUE THAT WE COULD PUT INTO THAT REMOTE WORK AGREEMENT? AND I THINK THAT'S OH, I'M SORRY, WHAT MR. CUNNINGHAM WAS ASKING, WHICH I STATED I WOULD NEED TO CONFIRM WITH THE LABOR LAW ATTORNEY.

THE ADVICE THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN US UP TO THIS POINT IS THAT WE CERTAINLY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE GOVERNING STATE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE RESIDES.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S CONCERNING FOR US AND WE AT THIS.

MY QUESTION IS, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE DON'T KNOW THE COST OF THAT.

IF WE GRANDFATHERED THREE EMPLOYEES. AND I'M LOOKING TO ADMINISTRATION TO.

WE DON'T KNOW THE COST OF THAT. BUT IT'S MORE IMPACTFUL THAN THAT BECAUSE THE STATE WHERE THEY LIVE WOULD ASSERT JURISDICTION FOR ANY CAUSE OF ACTION.

IF THERE'S WRONGFUL TERMINATION, THEY WOULD SUE US IN THAT STATE. IF THEY SLIP AND HAVE AN ACCIDENT, THEY WOULD SUE US IN THAT STATE. THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO WORKER'S COMP LAWS IN THAT STATE.

WE IF THEY HAVE A LABOR LAW REQUIREMENT, WE WOULD HAVE TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN THAT STATE.

IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT WHERE THE STATES ARE AND WHAT THOSE LAWS ARE.

FOR THOSE THAT WENT BACK AND WATCHED THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING AND THERE'S JUST DIFFERENT LAWS IN EVERY STATE. FOR EXAMPLE, OVERTIME WE WOULD HAVE TO START PAYING OVERTIME AFTER EIGHT HOURS A DAY VERSUS 40 IN THE WEEK.

AND IT'S JUST HARD TO KNOW WHAT ALL THAT IS UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND WHAT ALL THOSE LABOR LAWS ARE. WHAT I GAVE YOU IS JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW, BUT IT'S HARD TO GIVE YOU A PRICE STANDING HERE TODAY UNTIL WE ACTUALLY TALK WITH A LABOR LAW ATTORNEY FOR THOSE STATES TO UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY WHAT IS THE COST OF RETAINING THE LABOR LAW, BUT ALL THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO TO GET IN COMPLIANCE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.

OKAY, WE HAD A MOTION. ONE OTHER FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

OKAY. SURE. SO IF COMPLIANCE IS A MAJOR CONCERN AND NOT WANTING TO PUT THAT ON ON COUNTY STAFF AND ADMINISTRATION, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THAT ELECTED OFFICIAL TO TAKE OVER THE RESPONSIBILITY AND HAVE IT WHOLLY INSIDE OF HER OR THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS OFFICE, AND THAT WAY THE LIABILITY IS WITH THAT DEPARTMENT? I WILL DEFER TO OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY AS FAR AS WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEFENDING LITIGATION IF WE LET HER, IF WE ALLOW IT AND LET THEM ESTABLISH THEIR OWN HR OR SUB HR, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

SURE. YOU COULD CERTAINLY PUT THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THEM TO MAKE SURE THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH EACH OF THOSE STATES, BUT IT'S STILL THEIR COUNTY EMPLOYEES, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN THAT STATE, IS STILL GOING TO FALL TO THE COUNTY, AND YOU HAVE TO APPROVE THE BUDGETS TO PROVIDE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR ALL THOSE SERVICES THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE.

SO IT'S GOING TO RISE TO THIS LEVEL ULTIMATELY ANYWAY.

IT'S ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IN APPROVING THE BUDGET AND THEN ENSURING THAT THEY'RE FOLLOWING THROUGH IN MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

BECAUSE IF THEY FAIL TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, WHO GET SUED THE COUNTY.

WE ALWAYS GET SUED. JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE, TOO.

THAT'S TRUE. BUT IT'LL BE IN A DIFFERENT STATE.

YES, SIR. COUNCILMAN. LISTEN, THIS IS ANOTHER PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HAVING AN ARGUMENT IN PUBLIC WITH SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND DECIDED AND THEN EXPLAINED. ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS HAVE TO BE ANSWERED IN A MEETING.

I THINK WE SHOULD REMAND THIS BACK FOR FURTHER STUDY.

THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED ALREADY TO BE ASKED AND ANSWERED.

WE'LL BE HERE ALL NIGHT DOING THIS IF WE DO. SO WE HAVE WE HAVE PARLIAMENTARIAN.

WE'VE HAD TWO. WE HAD THE FIRST MOTION SECOND.

AND THEN WE HAD ANOTHER MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN REEDS.

WHAT WAS THE SECOND MOTION? THE SECOND MOTION WAS TO GRANDFATHER THE TO THREE EMPLOYEES.

AND THAT WAS SECOND BY COUNCILMAN REESE. I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE MORE POINT TO CAN I JUST FINISH THAT? I DON'T MEAN TO SAY YOU SHOULD HAVE A SECRET MEETING TO DISCUSS THAT.

NO, NO, I DON'T WANT TO BE ACCUSED OF THAT. I AM SIMPLY SAYING THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND THEN PRESENTED HERE WITH CONCLUSIONS, NOT QUESTIONS. WELL, OKAY, I WAS GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT.

THIS WENT TO FINANCE ADMINISTRATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, OCTOBER 20TH.

IT WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH, EVERY QUESTION. ALL OF THIS WAS BROUGHT UP.

IT WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH. THESE ARE NOT NEW QUESTIONS.

WELL, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE ARE ANSWERS TO THE OLD QUESTIONS.

THEN WHY DON'T WE HAVE THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS? WELL, THAT'S MY.

NO, REALLY. SERIOUSLY, I SUGGEST AGAIN, WE REMAND THIS BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION TO ADMINISTRATION UNTIL WE CAN GET THIS RESOLVED AND MAKE A LOGICAL PRESENTATION.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE THAT MOTION. WHO WOULD LIKE TO. SECOND. SECOND.

SECOND. SECONDED. OH, COUNCILMAN DAWSON BEAT YOU TO THE RIGHT.

SO THIS IS THE THIRD MOTION. AND WITH THIS ONE, WE WILL VOTE ON.

[02:10:04]

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR OF COUNCILMAN MCKELLEN'S MOTION.

BY SIGN OF HANDS, YOU CAN REMAIN A BACHELOR. ALL RIGHT.

EVERYBODY'S NOT THERE. IT'S A MOOT POINT. SO LET'S ROLL AGAIN.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I WOULD ASK ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS TO REVIEW THAT MEETING THAT YOU CITED OCTOBER 20TH.

AND I'M JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. AS PEOPLE KNOW, THAT WOULD BE MONDAY IS THE NEXT MEETING.

THANK YOU. YES, SIR. COUNCILOR GLOVER? YES. WE DON'T HAVE A DATE ON THAT.

I'M JUST SAYING RIGHT NOW THAT AGENDA REVIEW IS WEDNESDAY FOR COUNCILMAN GLOVER.

LET'S GO ON. COUNCILMAN GLOVER, YOU WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT? JUST JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT I DO. I SUPPORTED HIS MOTION TO SEND IT BACK.

BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THE STAFF, THE ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT THEY NEED TO LOOK AT.

WELL, WHAT I HEARD WAS COST. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU PIN THOSE COSTS DOWN FOR 3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 10 PEOPLE.

I MEAN, IT COULD GROW. IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON THE STATE.

YOU'VE GOT 49 OTHER STATES, SO THERE'S 49 QUESTIONS.

PLUS, IS IT LIMITED TO IN-STATE UNITED STATES ONLY? ARE WE TALKING BEYOND THE UNITED STATES? SO THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE AS ADMINISTRATION.

SOMEONE WORKING IN GUAM, RIGHT. CORRECT. OR ITALY OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT MOTION WAS PASSED. IT WILL BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

THAT'S MONDAY SO IT WON'T BE MONDAY. IT WON'T BE.

MONDAY'S MEETING WILL BE JANUARY NEXT YEAR. IS THERE ANYTHING IN IN THIS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GRANDFATHERING THREE.

WHAT'S THE PROHIBITION FROM HIRING TEN MORE? WELL, YOU DIDN'T VOTE ON THAT MOTION.

YOU DIDN'T VOTE ON THAT. OKAY. BUT THIS THIS THAT DISCUSSION SHOULD BE HAD.

SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE POINTS I WAS TRYING TO GET TO IS IF WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH A PROCESS, WE SHOULD COME UP WITH A PROCESS. PEOPLE THAT RUN THEIR DEPARTMENTS. I DON'T TELL YOU HOW TO RUN YOUR DEPARTMENT. IF YOU FEEL YOU HAVE A GOOD EMPLOYEE THAT'S SUCCESSFUL TO THE COUNTY, MAYBE IT'S NOT JUST THESE THREE. MAYBE THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THE OTHER.

MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE MOVES IN TWO YEARS. I DON'T WANT TO JUST SAY THESE THREE, BUT THAT'S THE ACTION WE HAD TO TAKE TODAY.

THAT WAS THE MOTION I WAS GOING WITH. BUT THE POINT IS, I WANT TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN GET EMPLOYEES AT THE SITE TO MOVE OUT OF THE STATE THAT HAVE ALREADY WORKED FOR THE COUNTY. WE DIDN'T HIRE THEM OUT OF STATE. THEY WORKED FOR US IN THE STATE PREVIOUSLY. WE KNOW THEY'RE GOOD EMPLOYEES. CAN THEY SIGN AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY WOULD AGREE TO SOUTH CAROLINA'S LAWS? I DON'T THINK THAT THE AGREEMENT WOULD HOLD UP BECAUSE YOU DETERMINE YOUR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT BASED UPON WHERE YOU WORK EVERY DAY.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS. NOT TONIGHT, BUT THAT'S THAT'S MY BIGGEST QUESTION. OKAY.

I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER. LET'S WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON.

AND THANK YOU, MISS. THANK YOU. PERHAPS EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER CAN SEND MISS MEAD THEIR QUESTION.

GREAT SUGGESTION. YES, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

YES. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. AND PLEASE COPY THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN IF YOU WOULD LIKE OR OR NOT.

BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO COPY US TOO. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON TO 16 B 25 2020 2564 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSED BEAUFORT COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

[16.b. 2025/64: A Resolution approving a proposed Beaufort County Economic Development Corp. expenditure of Site & Jobs funds as a 50% match on a State Dept. of Commerce Site Enhancement Grant for the extension of natural gas infrastructure in the Beaufort Commerce Park, pending approval of the State grant award.]

CORPORATION EXPENDITURE OF SITE AND JOBS FUNDS AT A 50% MATCH ON A STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SITE ENHANCEMENT GRANT FOR THE EXTENSION OF NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE BEAUFORT COMMERCE PARK, PENDING APPROVAL OF THE STATE GRANT AWARD.

THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED 3 TO 4 AT THE FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING ON OCTOBER 20TH 25.

AND WE HAVE MR. AMUNDSEN HERE. AND WE NEED A MOTION TO GO FORWARD FOR DISCUSSION.

AND SO MOVE. MADAM CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN GLOVER, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BROWN.

OKAY. MR. ANDERSON. YES. THIS IS A AS I SAID, AT COMMITTEE.

A STATE SITE ENHANCEMENT FUND PROGRAM THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

JOHN O'TOOLE WILL PRESENT ON THE TO. THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE BOTH RELATED TO THE BEAUFORT COMMERCE PARK, AND THEY ARE TO APPLY FOR A STATE SITE ENHANCEMENT GRANT WITH WHICH THE COUNTY SITE AND JOB FUNDS WOULD BE THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR THE 50% MATCH ON BOTH OF THOSE PROJECTS. AND HERE'S JOHN WITH MORE DETAILS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

COUNCIL, IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU TONIGHT.

WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS FUNDAMENTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

WHEN I READ THROUGH THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PAGES 41 THROUGH 47 THIS COUNCIL DECIDED THAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SHOULD INCLUDE INFRASTRUCTURE BUILD OUT FOR THE TYPES OF JOBS AND THE TYPES OF INVESTMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO SEE.

IT SPEAKS TO IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCENTIVES AND TRYING TO ENCOURAGE SPEC BUILDING.

[02:15:06]

ALSO, IT TALKS ABOUT LOCATIONS AND SITES AND THEN WAGE GROWTH.

SO I, I HAVE JUST A FEW SLIDES I BELIEVE I CAN WALK YOU THROUGH PRETTY QUICKLY.

YEAH.

WE COULD GO BACK ONE SLIDE. OKAY. SO THE LEGISLATURE AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA ECONOMIC IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE SLIDE, WE WERE JUST ON CONTROLLING ANYTHING HERE. WHAT'S THAT? OKAY, THIS IS THE RIGHT SLIDE. SO THE SOUTH CAROLINA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION APPEALED TO THE LEGISLATURE.

AND IN THIS PAST SPRING, THEY APPROVED A FUND OF $80 MILLION.

BECAUSE WHAT? AND IF YOU'VE BEEN TO OUR CONVERGED SUMMITS, HARRY LIGHTSEY SPOKE TO THIS EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT WITHOUT PRODUCT, IT'S HARD TO GET THE KIND OF JOBS THAT YOU WANT WHEN OUR STAFF.

I HAVE OUR SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER, KELLY BRUNSON, WITH US TONIGHT.

SO MANY PROJECTS ARE LOOKING FOR THINGS THAT ARE READY TO GO.

SO THE LEGISLATURE UNDERSTOOD THAT. NOW, THINKING BACK TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YOU WANT TO HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE WHERE YOU WANT TO SEE THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT YOU WANT TO HAVE. SO THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE'LL LOOK AT IS THE EXTENSION OF A GAS LINE IN THE BEAUFORT COMMERCE PARK.

AND I DON'T THINK IT TAKES A MINUTE FOR IT. OKAY.

SO SHE'S TELLING ME TO CALM DOWN, AND I WILL.

OKAY, I'M GOING TO PRESS THIS ONCE AND PUT IT DOWN.

THERE YOU GO. OKAY. SO IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. SO IN THE SLIDE YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THIS IS THE EXTENSION OF GAS LINES.

AND WHAT WE ARE EXPECTING TO DO, AS YOU CAN SEE BY THAT DOTTED LINE, THAT WE'RE GOING TO RUN GAS LINE FURTHER INTO THE PARK, WHICH WILL HELP US ATTRACT PROSPECTS THE COST OUT OF THE SITE FUND AND THE REASON THE COUNTY ESTABLISHED THE SITE FUND.

AND EVEN IN THE LAST FISCAL YEAR YOU STEPPED IT UP TO 1.3 MILLS IS SO THAT WE COULD ACQUIRE SITES AND BUILD OUT INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO ON THIS, WE'LL MAKE THE PARK A BETTER TARGET FOR INVESTORS.

AND THE STATE WILL PICK UP $65,000 OF THAT $130,000 BUDGET IN THE NEXT SLIDE YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR A PAD SITE IN THE PARK.

AND WHEN IS THERE A IS IS THERE A SLIDE MISSING HERE? THERE'S ONLY THREE. THINGS. WHAT'S THAT? OH, OKAY.

GOT IT. OKAY. SO IT'S IT'S IN THE NECK. OKAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY. AND THEN I DID SEND OUT A PIECE JUST DESCRIBING.

SO ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A A PIECE ON SITE READINESS.

BUT COUNCIL MEMBER DID GET BACK TO ME AND SAID THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE JOB GROWTH.

SO WHAT WE DID IS WE GRAPHED THE WAGE. WAGE? THE THE ISSUE WAS THE WAGES THAT THE JOBS WERE ATTRACTING ARE PAYING. SO IF YOU LOOK AT IT OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, IT'S BEEN TRENDING UP.

SO IF YOU TOOK THAT AMOUNT THAT THE AVERAGE JOB THAT WE WERE ATTRACTING WAS JUST UNDER $46,000.

AND TODAY WE ARE CLOSER TO CLOSER TO $69,000 PER JOB.

THAT'S A 52% GROWTH IN THE WAGES THAT WE'RE ATTRACTING IN THE JOB.

SO I, I HOPE THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE TWO ITEMS, YOU REALIZE THAT STAFF IS FOCUSED NOT ON LARGE, CAVERNOUS BUILDINGS THAT DON'T PAY PEOPLE AND MOVE THEM OUT OF THE CYCLE OF POVERTY, BUT THAT WE'RE REALLY IMPROVING LIVES.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSEHOLD AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME IN BEAUFORT COUNTY AND YOU'RE AT 81, WE GET TWO PEOPLE IN A HOUSE MAKING THE WAGES THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. SO IF YOU LOOK AT 2024, WAGES HAVE INCREASED 43%.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT 2025, THE WAGE INCREASE OVER THAT FIVE YEAR PERIOD WAS 52%.

SO WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THE GAS LINE EXTENSION.

IT'S JUST A BASIC REQUIREMENT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THAT.

ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? YES, SIR. COUNCILWOMAN.

MR. O'TOOLE, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. AND, MISS BRUNSON, THANK YOU AS WELL.

I FOLLOWED THIS GROUP CLOSELY OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS, AND I APPLAUD YOUR EFFORTS.

YOU TALKED ABOUT GETTING MONEY FROM THE STATE GRANTS OR WHATEVER THAT'S ALL COMMITTED FOR THIS GAS LINE.

[02:20:08]

NO, WE WON'T WE WON'T DO THE PROJECT UNLESS WE GET THE GRANT.

BUT YOU NEED TO MATCH IT WITH LOCAL FUNDS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING IF WE CAN USE THE SITE FUND BUDGET THAT'S ALLOCATED TO US.

THANK YOU. RIGHT. THE NEW POLICY THAT WE PUT INTO PLACE IS FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO FULLY ALLOCATE AND PROMISE THE USE OF OUR COUNTY SITE AND JOB FUNDS.

IT NEEDS THE COUNCIL APPROVAL. SO THAT'S WHY HE'S HERE. SO HE CAN FINALIZE THE APPLICATION TO MAKE THIS MOVE FORWARD. IF THEY DON'T GET THE GRANT, THEY DON'T SPEND THE FUNDS. IF WE DON'T GET THE GRANT. SAY THAT AGAIN, HANK. OUR FUNDS ARE ONLY NEEDED TO MATCH THE GRANT.

AND AS IT SAYS IN THE PACKET IN THE RESOLUTION, THAT THEY WILL ONLY BE EXPENDED IF THE GRANT IS ACTUALLY RECEIVED.

THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS? ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY. COUNCILMAN. YES, SIR. YES IT HAS. WHEN WILL WE KNOW? WE BELIEVE IN DECEMBER, A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. MADAM CHAIR. YES. MR. O'TOOLE, HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THE SALARIES ARE GOING TO BE IF WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A COMPANY THAT'S COMING HERE? I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU. OH. I'M SORRY.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THE SALARIES ARE GOING TO BE IF WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A COMPANY THAT'S COMING HERE YET? THIS IS JUST SPECULATIVE. SPECULATIVE? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.

WE KNOW WE WILL. YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD GONE TO THE SCA GOLF TOURNAMENT.

YEAH. WE ARE FOLLOWING THE SAME PLAYBOOK AS OUR REGIONAL PARTNERS ARE, AS EVERY OTHER COUNTY IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

SO THE LEGISLATURE EARMARKED 80, $80 MILLION TO HELP COMMUNITIES DO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

BY GOING FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT, YOU'RE ACTUALLY BRINGING TAXPAYER DOLLARS BACK INTO YOUR YOUR COUNTY, OUR OUR COUNTY. WE DON'T KNOW. WE CAN ONLY HANDLE THE PROJECTS THAT WE RECRUIT.

AND WE'VE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB. IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIVE YEAR TREND IN WAGES, AND WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE THAT THOSE WAGES CLIMB AND THE QUALITY OF JOBS WE ATTRACT BE GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS? I VOTED NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS AT COMMITTEE LEVEL, BUT I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE NATURAL GAS LINES ARE ESSENTIAL TO ANY INDUSTRY.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE CITY'S INDUSTRIAL PARK, BUT JOBS ARE JOBS, AND I WILL BE VOTING FOR IT.

ALL RIGHT, WE'RE READY TO TAKE A VOTE. LET ME, LET ME.

I HAVE COUNCILMAN GLOVER. YES. QUESTION. JOHN THE GAS LINE IS PARTIALLY IN THE PARK.

IN THE PARK NOW, RIGHT? CORRECT. AND SO WE HAVE WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THAT IN THE PAST.

SO NOW WE'RE TRYING TO EXTEND THE GAS LINE FURTHER INTO THE PARK TO DEVELOP A SITE THAT COMPANY WOULD LOOK AT THAT SITE AND HOPEFULLY SELECT THAT. THIS IS WHERE I WANT TO ESTABLISH MY, MY BUSINESS.

CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, SO YOU HAVE DONE THAT IN THE PAST, AND IT'S PROVEN FRUITFUL TO GET US WHERE WE ARE AS FAR AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE COUNTY NOW, BECAUSE A LOT OF YOU WERE NOT ON COUNCIL IN THE EARLY DAYS WHEN JOHN WHEN WHEN WE THE THIS COUNCIL, NOT THIS COUNCIL, BUT THE COUNTY COUNCIL SET UP THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

AND THEN WE HIRED JOHN AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION.

ALL RIGHT. AND SO THEY STARTED FROM SCRATCH. THERE WAS VERY LITTLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN BEAUFORT COUNTY.

AND THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME SAW THE IMPORTANCE AND THE NEED OF ESTABLISHING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN BEAUFORT COUNTY TO HELP BE A PART TO SET ASIDE OR REFRAME THE TAX ON OUR CONSTITUENTS OR THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY TO WHERE WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO RELY SOLELY ON PROPERTY TAXES AND TOURISM.

SO THIS HAS PROVEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OVER THE YEARS HAS PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE IN ADDING A THIRD LEG TO ACTUALLY SUPPORTING THE COUNTY ECONOMICALLY. AND NOW JOHN HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXTEND TO GET THE STATE TO PAY 50% ON EXTENDING THIS GAS LINE FURTHER INTO THE COMMERCE PARK, THAT WE MIGHT CONTINUE WITH OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

AND SO I, I THINK IS, I THINK IS SOMETHING THAT WE ALL NEED TO GET ON BOARD AND SUPPORT.

[02:25:04]

I SUPPORT IT, BUT WE ARE DOING COMPARED TO WHERE WE USED TO BE.

WE ARE DOING NOT EXCELLENT, BUT WE'RE WE'RE DOING A GREAT JOB.

JOHN. AND AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THEY'RE DOING A GREAT JOB AS FAR AS BRINGING JOBS TO THE COUNTY.

IT'S IT'S NOT IT'S NOT OFF THE CHART. BUT WE'VE COME A LONG WAYS FROM WHERE WE STARTED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN DOBSON. COUNCILMAN BROWN, YOU HAD A COMMENT.

I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH SOME SOME THINGS.

A FEW THINGS THAT MR. DAWSON SAID. THIS FAILED IN FINANCE, AS OUR MADAM CHAIR HAD MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS NOT BUILDING SOMETHING AND HOPE THEY WILL COME.

THEY ARE ALREADY HERE. THEY ARE ALREADY COMING HERE.

THIS IS PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. I'M ASKING MY COLLEAGUES TO PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS TONIGHT AND GIVE BEAUFORT COUNTY EDC TIME TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND SHOW US A SOLID AGREEMENT THEY HAVE FROM A COMPANY THAT WANTS TO MOVE INTO THE SPACE.

IT'S I FEEL THAT'S FAIR. AND BEING A GOOD STEWARD OF THE TAXPAYER MONEY.

ALL I'M ASKING IS THAT OKAY, FINE, WE NEED GAS LINES IN THERE.

BUT WHAT COMPANIES ARE GOING TO COME IN AND WHAT ARE THE SALARIES GOING TO BE? WE ALREADY SHOULD HAVE A COMPANY COMING IN. AND WE DON'T.

RIGHT? AM I RIGHT, JOHN? IT'S JUST THIS IS SPECULATIVE.

IF I COULD KNOW, AM I WRONG? WE HAD A 2:00 CALL FRIDAY AFTERNOON WITH A COMPANY OUT OF ALBANY, NEW YORK LOOKING AT PARCEL D, WHICH IS AT THE END OF THAT GAS LINE.

THEY THEY HAVE KILNS. THEY MAKE CERAMIC PARTS FOR INDUSTRY.

SO, NO, WE WE WE EXPECT A PURCHASE AGREEMENT ON LOT D, WHICH IS AT THE END OF THE GAS LINE.

I DON'T HAVE THAT PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN HAND.

BUT I'M CONFIDENT IN THE NEXT 60 DAYS I SHALL.

SO BUT THIS IDEA OF THE CART AND THE HORSE, YOU ACTUALLY DO NEED.

YOU DO NEED TO HAVE A HORSE READY TO GO. AND GAS, ELECTRICITY, WATER AND SEWER ARE JUST PREREQUISITES. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THEM IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE A VIABLE SITE FOR BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, AND I TRUST THAT YOU WILL BELIEVE ME IN THAT.

AND I TRUST WITH ALL OF THE CONTACTS YOU HAVE AND THE EVENTS YOU GO TO WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY ASSOCIATIONS, I KNOW THAT THE SPEAKERS THAT APPEAR BEFORE YOU TELL YOU YOUR SITES HAVE TO BE READY IF YOU'RE GOING TO LAND THE INDUSTRY.

OKAY. IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS, WE'LL WE'LL HAVE A VOTE ON THIS.

ALL IN FAVOR? WE'RE VOTING ON TWO ITEMS. ONE, WE'RE JUST VOTING ON THE FIRST ONE, THE GAS LINE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE GAS LINE? NO, YOU'VE GOT IT, COUNT.

DO YOU HAVE THE COUNT? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. ALL OPPOSED? GREAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL US THE COUNT, PLEASE? IT'S NINE TWO. I THOUGHT IT'S NINE THREE. 93.

JOE VOTED AGAINST IT. YES. OH, YOU VOTED YES.

I'M SORRY JOHN. I'M SORRY JOE. I'M OKAY. 92. YES.

THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. IS THIS IS THE SECOND PART.

[16.c. 2025/65: A Resolution approving a proposed Beaufort County Economic Development Corp. expenditure of Site & Jobs funds as a 50% match on a State Dept. of Commerce Site Enhancement Grant in order to construct & permit a pad site in the Beaufort Commerce Park, pending approval of the State grant award.]

YEAH. 20 2564 RESOLUTION. RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSED BEAUFORT COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION EXPENDITURE OF SITE AND JOBS FUNDS AS A 50% MATCH. ON ON A STATE OF COMMERCE SITE ENHANCEMENT GRANT TO CONSTRUCT AND PERMIT A PAD SITE IN THE BEAUFORT COMMERCE PARK, PENDING APPROVAL OF THE STATE GRANT AWARD.

MOTION FAILED THREE FOUR AT THE FINANCE ADMINISTRATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ON OCTOBER 20TH.

MADAM CHAIRMAN, DO YOU WANT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR? YES, PLEASE.

I SO MOVE. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN GLOVER. DO WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MCALLEN? OKAY, I DON'T NEED TO INTRODUCE HIM, BUT I'LL DO IT AGAIN.

AND I WILL JUST SAY JUST TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STATEWIDE AND NATIONWIDE IS A RAW PIECE OF LAND WITH NO SEWER, NO WATER AND NO GAS OR A LOT OF TIMES NO PAD OR EVEN SOME MOST A LOT OF CASES, NO BUILDING IS NOT A SIGHT TO A BUSINESS, BECAUSE THE BUSINESS THAT DOES WANT TO CHOOSE HERE NEEDS TO BE READY TO GO. THEY NEED TO HAVE A TIMELINE AND TAKE OFF SOME RISK. SO THAT'S WHAT THESE SITE ENHANCEMENT FUNDS THIS IS DETERMINED BY A STATE THING NOT BY A JOHN PROGRAM.

SO THAT'S THIS NEXT ONE IS FOR A PAD SITE SO THAT SOMEBODY CAN COME IN AND BUILD MORE QUICKLY SO THAT THEY CAN BE UP AND RUNNING MORE QUICKLY.

[02:30:04]

OKAY. MADAM CHAIRMAN, CAN I SPEAK TO THE MOTION? OH, WE WE HAVE A MOTION. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. O'TOOLE? NO, I'LL I'LL. I'LL SPEAK. I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF.

KEEP IN MIND, I SHOWED YOU THE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN IT.

YOU MENTIONED INCENTIVES AND SPEC BUILDING. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS.

AND THIS IS A LESS EXPENSIVE WAY TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE MARKET THAT YOU HAVE A SITE THAT'S READY IN THE LOW COUNTRY.

AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO COME OUT OF THE GROUND.

AND SO COMMERCE AND ITS WISDOM CREATES A SITE READINESS PROGRAM WHERE WE CAN DO A PAD.

KEEP IN MIND, AS YOU DROVE UP 95 FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS, THERE'S A BUILDING IN COLLETON COUNTY.

IT LOOKED LIKE AN AZTEC DESIGN, YOU RECALL. AND THAT BUILDING SAT THERE FOR SIX YEARS EMPTY.

THAT IS THE SOUTH CAROLINA MODEL, I BELIEVE IN BEAUFORT COUNTY.

PEOPLE HAVE LESS OF A TOLERANCE FOR HAVING CAPITAL TIED UP FOR SIX YEARS AND HAVING AN EMPTY BUILDING.

BUT THE PAD, THE PAD SITE THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING, AND YOU CAN SEE THE BUDGET BEFORE YOU, IT'S A $400,000 EXPENDITURE, 4001 488. WE HAVE A BIG RED ARROW THERE SHOWING YOU A SITE THAT WE DID BACK IN 2019 WHERE WE PUT THE PAD IN PLACE.

AND TODAY THAT'S A THAT'S A PICTURE OF THE BUILDING THAT WAS TAKEN THAT WAS TAKEN LAST WEEK, BUT THAT SHOWS YOU A $35 MILLION INVESTMENT THAT WENT ON THAT PAD.

JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CREDIT. CHARLIE STONE WAS OUR OUR INTERN AT THE TIME, AND WE GAVE HIM A REAL PROJECT TO WORK ON.

HE SECURED THE FUNDING FOR THAT PAD. SO WE GOT $200,000 FOR FROM COMMERCE.

WE PUT 133 OF COUNTY DOLLARS INTO THAT PAD DEVELOPMENT.

AND TODAY YOU HAVE A $35 MILLION. INVESTMENT THAT'S GOING THERE THAT WILL CREATE OVER 100 JOBS IN THE PARK.

SO THAT'S THE MODEL. IF YOU LIKE IT, I ASK FOR YOU TO APPROVE IT.

I THINK IT'S A PENNY WISE APPROACH TO COMING UP WITH THE SITE THAT'S READY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. O'TOOLE? YES, SIR. QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION.

I KNOW THIS IS A 5050 SPLIT, JUST LIKE THE OTHER ONE FOR THE 200,000 AND CHANGE AT THE BOTTOM, THOUGH, IT SAYS YOU GUYS APPLIED FOR ANOTHER ONE. THE AGREEMENT ON THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS YOU ONLY GOING TO MOVE FORWARD IF YOU DO GET THE MONEY FROM THE STATE.

I'M ASSUMING THIS IS THE SAME AS WELL. IS THAT ALSO TIED INTO THE SECOND GRANT? NO IT'S NOT. WE'RE ASKING FOR 200,000 NOT TO PUT ANYONE ON THE SPOT, BUT WE'VE APPLIED FOR UTILITY TAX CREDITS TO OFFSET THAT HUNDRED THOUSAND. THAT'S IN PROCESS. WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL BE APPROVED OR NOT.

IF IF WE GOT THE 200,000, WE WOULD ONLY DRAW DOWN ONE LINE, RIGHT? SO IF THAT ADDITIONAL GRANT IS RECEIVED, HE'S ASKING THE COUNTY FOR 200,000.

IF HE GETS THE HUNDRED, OUR EXPENDITURE WOULD ONLY BE 100 BECAUSE IT WOULD OFFSET OUR SHARE.

SO CONSIDERING THAT'S A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE BUILDING A PAT ON AND YOU'RE GOING TO SELL THE PROPERTY, I'M ASSUMING FOR A PROFIT. WHERE DOES THAT PROFIT GO? AND IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A PORTION OF THAT IF YOU DON'T GET THAT GRANT TO COME BACK TO THE COUNTY, WE MIGHT GET INTO TROUBLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BECAUSE USUALLY WHEN WE GET THE RIGHT INDUSTRY THERE, COMMERCE BUILDS THAT INTO A GRANT FOR THE COMPANY.

THE LAND THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO THE PAT ON IS OWNED BY THE CITY OF BEAUFORT.

SO THEY WOULD GET 40,000 AN ACRE WHEN WE SELL THE LAND UNDERNEATH THE PROJECT.

OKAY, SO WE'RE PAYING FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE TOWN OF BEAUFORT IS GETTING THE REVENUE SOURCE FROM IT.

YEAH. YEAH. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT.

WHETHER WE DO A PROJECT IN HILTON HEAD OR BLUFFTON OR PORT ROYAL OR BEAUFORT OR YEMASSEE OR THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS, IT'S REALLY BEEN THE LION'S SHARE OF TAX REVENUE WILL COME TO THE COUNTY.

HOW MANY ACRES IS THAT PLOT OF LAND? THAT ONE.

FIVE. THANK YOU. KELLY. SO THEY'RE GOING TO GET $220,000, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE'RE PUTTING INTO THE PROJECT.

AT 44,000 AN ACRE. OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? YES. JOE HAS A COMMENT. QUESTION? YEAH.

[02:35:03]

JOHN, YOU SAID YOU'RE IN FROM ALBANY. IF YOU ARE, IS THIS ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO THEIR NEEDS? THE SIZE OF IT WOULD WOULD FIT THEIR NEEDS.

AND WE'LL HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE IF THAT SALES AGREEMENT COMES FORWARD.

AND THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE ROLLED INTO THE COMPANY'S INCENTIVE.

OKAY. COULD IT ALSO BE THAT THE GAS LINE MAY BE NECESSARY TO MEET THEIR NEEDS IF THEIR COMPANY IS, YOU KNOW, USING NATURAL GAS? WHAT WE WHAT WE DO COUNCILMAN, IS WE'VE GOTTEN THEIR EXPECTED LOADS.

WE'VE GOTTEN THEIR NEW YORK GAS CONSUMPTION. AND DOMINION WILL GIVE THE GAS LINE A CREDIT FOR THE EXPECTED USE. YOU HAVE TO PAY WHAT THEY CALL A CONTRIBUTION AND ADA CONSTRUCTION THAT'S NOT COVERED BY THAT ONE CUSTOMER TO EXTEND THE GAS LINE.

SO WE'RE PAYING THE DELTA ON THE GAS LINE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COUNCILMAN BARTHOLOMEW. I KNOW I DON'T MIND EXTENDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE OUT THERE BECAUSE I THINK THAT IMPROVES THE PROPERTY VALUE.

BUT PERSONALLY, I'VE BEEN CONTEMPLATING THIS THIS PROPERTY AS A WHOLE A LOT LATELY, AND I THINK WE JUST NEED TO COORDINATE WITH THE CITY OF BUFORD AND PUT IT ON THE MARKET TO SELL THE ENTIRE THING. LET THE PRIVATE SECTOR TAKE OVER.

AND I DON'T THINK THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO KEEP BACKING UP THIS, THIS COMMERCE PARK.

I THINK THERE'S BEEN AN EFFORT. I'VE TRIED TO SUPPORT IT.

JUST LOOKING AT IT NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT IN THIS CAPACITY.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT COMMENT ON IT. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE'LL HAVE A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY RAISING THEIR HAND.

YEAH. YOU GOT IT. ALL OPPOSED? DID YOU GET, MISS ASHLEY? DID YOU GET FOR KNOWS WHO'S THE OTHER ONE? DAVID. MADAM CHAIRMAN, WHAT WAS THE VOTE? ALL RIGHT.

MISS, DID YOU GET THE COUNT? SEEMS LIKE WE MISSING MORE.

CAN WE DO IT OVER? CAN YOU? DID YOU GET JILL ON THE CAMERA? DID YOU DO THE ROLL CALL? OKAY. YOU WANT TO DO A ROLL? ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

MR.. CHAIR. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION, YOU'RE GOING TO CALL OUR NAMES OUT, PLEASE.

OKAY. MAKER. THE MOTION WAS YES. COUNCILMEMBER GLOVER.

HE SAID YES. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MCCLELLAN. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER READS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. LAWSON. MARK. LAWSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

DAWSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CUNNINGHAM. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BROWN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTHOLOMEW. NO. VICE CHAIR.

TABACHNIK. NO. CHAIR. HOWARD. YES 65. THE VOTE IS SEVEN FOR MOTION PASSES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS RESOLUTION 2025, SLASH 66, A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT SOUTH CAROLINA

[16.d. 2025/66: A Resolution to accept South Carolina Aeronautics Commission (SCAC) Commercial Airport Entitlement Grant Funding for the Design and Bidding of Parking Lot Improvements at Hilton Head Island Airport – Contingent Upon Final Grant Offer.]

AERONAUTICS COMMISSION COMMERCIAL AIRPORT ENTITLEMENT GRANT FUNDING FOR THE DESIGN AND BIDDING OF PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS AT HILTON HEAD AIRPORT CONTINGENT UPON FINAL GRANT OFFER. THE VOTE AT PUBLIC FACILITIES COMMITTEE ON OCTOBER 20TH 25 WAS EIGHT ZERO.

SO MOVED. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN GLOVER.

ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND. AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

OKAY. RESOLUTION 20 2567, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO A NON COMPETITIVE MASTER

[16.e. 2025/67: A Resolution authorizing the County Administrator to enter into a Non-competitive Master Services Agreement (MSA) for Airport Surveillance Services (uAvionix Corporation).]

SERVICE AGREEMENT. MSA FOR AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE SERVICES, US UNIVOX CORPORATION.

THE VOTE VOTE AT PUBLIC FACILITIES COMMITTEE ON OCTOBER 20TH, 2025 WAS EIGHT ZERO.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION A MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN TABACHNICK.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BROWN.

ALL IN FAVOR? BY SHOW OF HANDS. AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

RESOLUTION 20 2568. THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE SCHEDULE A FLIGHT LINE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT.

[16.f. 2025/68: A Resolution authorizing the County Administrator to execute Schedule A — Flightline Subscription Agreement — Surveillance Data License Agreement with uAvionix Corporation.]

SURVEILLANCE DATA LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M SAYING THAT.

[02:40:05]

RIGHT. CORPORATION. THE VOTE WAS AT PUBLIC FACILITIES ON OCTOBER 20TH, 25, 8 TO 0.

ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION. MOTION. WE NEED A MOTION.

WHO MAKES A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CUNNINGHAM.

DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MCALLEN.

ALL IN FAVOR? BY SHOW OF HANDS. AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

G 20 2569 A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT SOUTH CAROLINA AERONAUTICS COMMISSION COMMERCIAL AIRPORT ENTITLEMENT GRANT FUNDING FOR THE

[16.g. 2025/69: A Resolution to accept South Carolina Aeronautics Commission (SCAC) Commercial Airport Entitlement Grant Funding for the Flightline® Airborne Position Reference Tool (APRT) at Hilton Head Island Airport's Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) - Contingent Upon Final Grant Approval.]

FLIGHT LINE. AIRBORNE POSITION REFERENCE TOOL AT HILTON HEAD ISLAND AIRPORT'S AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER.

THIS IS CONTINGENT UPON FINAL GRANT APPROVAL.

SO MOVED. I HAVE A MOTION. SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN WRITES.

ALL IN FAVOR? BY SHOW OF HANDS. JOHN, YOU GOT IT.

EASY. UNANIMOUS. ONE MORE. 2025 SLASH 70. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TRAFFIC

[16.h. 2025/70: A Resolution Establishing a Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) to Develop Recommendations for a Potential 2026 Transportation Sales Tax Referendum.]

ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POTENTIAL 2026 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX REFERENDUM.

WE HAVE A MOTION. SO MOVED. I'LL SECOND IT. WHO MADE THE FIRST MOTION? COUNCIL MR.. MICHAELA MCALLEN. IN A SECOND BY VICE CHAIRMAN TABACHNICK.

AND WE'LL HAVE OUR ADMINISTRATOR COME FORWARD FOR THAT.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN. YEAH. BEFORE YOU, A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD ESTABLISH THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE POTENTIAL 2026 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX REFERENDUM.

WE'VE HAD THESE DISCUSSIONS PREVIOUSLY, AND WE HAD PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED A MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION FOR A CAPITAL SALES TAX.

THAT'S COME BACK TO STAFF WITH A RECOMMENDATION OR DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL TO CONSIDER A TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX.

SO THIS WOULD START THE PROCESS FOR THAT. IT WOULD BE A 15 MEMBER COMMITTEE.

EACH COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD HAVE A NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT ONTO THE COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS EACH OF THE FOUR MUNICIPALITIES, FOR A TOTAL OF 15 STAFF. MR. WOULD BE THE LIAISON TO THE COMMITTEE TO PRESENT PROJECTS.

THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE COMMITTEE'S ROLE WOULD BE TO LOOK AT THOSE PROPOSALS, MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, LOOK AT THE PRIORITIZATION, AND CONSIDER WHAT PROJECTS SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, FROM TOP TO BOTTOM, CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE THE REFERENDUM. WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS I HAVE WITH EACH OF THE, THE MANAGERS AND WE ALSO HAD MEETINGS WITH THE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND MYSELF WITH THE MAYORS AND THE MANAGERS.

THOSE CONVERSATIONS WERE POSITIVE FOR THE MOST PART.

I WOULD SAY THE CITY OF BEAUFORT SEEMED TO BE MORE IN FAVOR OF A CAPITAL SALES TAX.

THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES WERE LARGELY IN FAVOR OF A TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX.