[1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, POSTED, AND DISTRIBUTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ]

. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR. THANK YOU. >> SO THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED AND DISTRIBUTED TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA FREE INFORMATION AT I THINK EVERYONE.

>> SO BY RIGHT OR GOOD. ALL RIGHT. LET'S START WITH THE APPROVAL

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ]

OF THE AGENDA. I HAVE TO STAYING TO PROPOSE FOUR POSSIBLE AMENDMENT OF THE AGENDA. I HAVE A NEED. IF SOMEONE WOULD CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE AGENDA ALLOWING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION TO INCLUDE LEGAL COUNSEL PRIOR TO ITEM NUMBER 10 REGARDING PEPPER HALL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT, I WILL BE

PREPARED TO MAKE THAT MOTION. >> THANK YOU. TO HAVE ALSO MR. DAWSON.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN DAWSON. THE SECOND IS TO AMEND THE AGENDA I WANT AND WE NEED TO VOTE. I'M SORRY.

I APOLOGIZE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO OMIT GENDER TO ALLOW FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION PRIOR TO DISCUSSION. WELL, YEAH, WE CAN.

YEAH OK. I SAY ON NIGHT WITH NO OBJECTION AT CAPS LET'S ACTUALLY PASS AMENDMENT TO THE AGENDA SAID DISCUSSIONS ITEMS NOT A DIME TO CONSIDER THAT WE CONSIDER NUMBER NINE. FIRST THAT IS THE ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING ADOPTING A PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE FOR THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

PUT THAT BEFORE ITEM 8 WHICH IS THE IMPACT FEE UPDATE AND STUDY FOR EXISTING PROPOSED IMPACT FEES TO COVER TRANSPORTATION PARKS RECREATION LIBRARIES FIRE SOLID WASTE AND HMS. IN OTHER WORDS TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF 8 AND BY YOUR MOTION TO THAT EFFECT SO MOVE MAN.

CHAIRMAN IN A SECOND I THINK THE COUNCIL ALSO AMENDED AND THEN A SECOND BY COUNCIL ON

FUEL STOCK AND MODERN GASOLINE . >> WITH NO OBJECTION THAT WILL

PASS MY SAYING THAT THE RIGHT WAY MR. PARLIAMENTARIAN. >> RIGHT?

IS THAT THE RIGHT IS CLOSE ENOUGH. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA.

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 6, 2020 and July 13, 2020 ]

THE NEXT THING ON IN THE APPROVAL MINUTE ON JULY 6. WE CAN TOGETHER UNLESS THERE IS OBJECTION. AND TO LINE 13 TO EITHER. SO MOVE MA'AM MADAM CHAIRMAN WITHOUT OBJECTION I CAN HAVE A SECOND SO I CAN. THANK YOU COUNCILMAN DAWSON.

ALL RIGHT. NO OBJECTIONS. MINUTES FOR JULY 6 AND JULY 13TH OF THE NATURAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE OF CRUDE. ALL RIGHT.

[6. APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ABANDONMENT AND RELOCATION OF AN EASEMENT ON HUSPAH COURT NORTH.]

>> GOING ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX AND THAT IS APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING BANISHMENT AND RELOCATION OF AN EASEMENT ON US. AS FOR CORE, BEAR IN MIND, MR.

MY EARPLUGS WENT OUT. >> SO YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE YOU ON STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE

THAT UP. >> THE CHAIRMAN I'LL BE MYSELF KNEEL BESIDE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CIRCLE WHEN THE EXISTING EASEMENT ON HUSHPUPPY COURT NORTH IS LOCATED THAT

BISECTS THIS SAID PROPERTY. >> IN ADDITION THE EXISTING DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE OUTSIDE OF THIS IF YOU NOTICE ON THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE AND EXHIBIT IT SHOWS THAT IT KIND OF MEANDERS IN AND OUT OF THIS PROPERTY AND EVEN ONTO THE JASON PROPERTY.

OUR GOAL WOULD BE TO REESTABLISH A NEW EXISTING DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT KIND OF

[00:05:07]

COMES AT A 90 DEGREE AND THEN COMES DOWN THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND THEN WE REESTABLISH THE DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE AND ABANDON THE EXISTING OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS . THIS WAS COUNCILMAN DAWSON NEIL SOMETIME IN THE PAST OR MIGHT HAVE BEEN SEVERAL YEARS AGO. I REMEMBER WE HAD SOME SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS OUT AND OUT OF SUBDIVISION IN THAT. IS THIS AN ONGOING SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE TO ON THE CONCERNED FOR THE PROPERTY LINES? ARE WE HAVING. WHAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE?

>> ESSENTIALLY THE EXISTING ADVANCE OR THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE STREAM OR THE DRAINAGE CANAL IS IS OUTSIDE OF THE EASEMENT. IT LOOKS LIKE THE HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR YEARS AND YEARS AGO PRIOR PRIOR TO REALLY FIELD VERIFICATION OF THE EXISTING CONVEYANCE. THE THE MAIN THING HERE IS WE'RE REALLY JUST TRYING TO REALIGN THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO BE TO BE SO THAT IT DOESN'T BISECT THIS PROPERTY.

I DON'T KNOW OF ANY FURTHER CASES OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS THAT ARE LITTLE BIT OF SKEWED.

I DO KNOW THIS ONE IS A MAJOR ONE BECAUSE IT'S AT THE END OF THE DRAINAGE LINE SO TO SAY INTO THE INDIAN DRAINAGE FEATURE. AND SO WE'VE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH BOTH THE EXISTING PROPERTY OWNER AND THE JASON PROPERTY ON.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. I MOVE OUT SECOND BUT I HAVE A QUESTION AT MARY ALICE.

I'LL PROCEED WITH MY QUESTION ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SHE UNDERSTOOD THAT I'M SECONDING THE MOTION, NEIL. I'M LOOKING AT THIS MAP THAT YOU PROVIDED AND IT LOOKS LIKE THIS MAY BE AN ATTEMPT TO RECONFIGURE YOUR PART OF THE STREAM BED.

IS THAT IS THAT A FACT OR IS IT ARE THEY PLANNING ON FILLING IN THE STREAM BED? IT'S BOTH. BASICALLY TREAT IT AS YOU CAN SEE MEANDERS ACROSS TWO PROPERTIES, MEANDERS ACROSS TWO ROWS. THE GOAL WOULDN'T BE A COUCH AND I CAN'T VERY GO AND BE YOUR ELMENDORF HOUSE IS NOT IF YOU CAN HEAR ME.

>> YEAH. LET HIM. DO YOU MIND IF WE RECESS FOR A

COUPLE MINUTES, ALICE? CAN YOU HEAR? >> ALL RIGHT.

IT IS THE VISE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE HERE I AM JERRY, WOULD YOU WOULD YOU TAKE OVER THE MEETING FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES SO THAT UNTIL ALICE GETS FIGURED OUT WE DO HAVE A

QUORUM AND THE ONLY PROBLEM IS SHE CAN'T. >> SHE CAN'T HEAR ANYBODY.

WOULD WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM? SARAH? YES, WE DO.

GERALD, WOULD YOU MIND TAKING OVER FOR A COUPLE MINUTES UNTIL ALICE GETS HER UP SITUATED IF

THERE'S NO OBJECTION BY THE CHAIR? >> SHE'S UNABLE TO HANDLE THE DUTIES SO I THINK IT FALLS TO YOU TO MAKE THAT CALL IF YOU'D LIKE TO CALL A RECESS TO GIVE HER AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WOULD BE FINE AS WELL AND WE COULD GIVE HER A FOUR OR FIVE MINUTES. IN PARLIAMENTARY PARLANCE IT'S THE STAND AT EASE.

AND SO AM I. I'D LIKE TO JUST STAND AT EASE FOR A COUPLE MINUTES.

>> NOW LET'S LET'S DO THAT. BRIAN, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO

UNTIL WE GET BACK ON. ALL RIGHT. >> SO WE'LL JUST STAND AT HIS FOR FOUR OR FIVE MINUTES TO GIVE ALICE AN OPPORTUNITY. MAYBE SARAH COULD CALL HER ON

HER CELL PHONE AND HELP HER WORK THROUGH THAT. >> SHE'S ON THE LINE RIGHT NOW WITH TIFFANY. SHE'S ON THE L THANK YOU.

OK. ALL RIGHT. OK, ALEX WE RIBAUT IF MY MEMORY SERVES CORRECTLY GERALD HAD MADE A MOTION AND I HAD SECONDED THE MOTION BUT I HAVE

[00:10:01]

A QUESTION OF NEAL AND NEAL AND I STARTED TO GO THROUGH THE QUESTION AND IT WAS WHEN WE REALIZED THAT YOU HAD PROBLEMS. AND SO NEAL, MY QUESTION WAS LOOKING AT THE MAP IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS RECONFIGURATION OF OF AN ACTUAL STREAM BED AND THAT THE EASEMENT RUNS ACROSS TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE GERMANIC MADE IT INTO MOTION.

WELL, I'M GETTING SOME FEEDBACK AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S FOR ME.

>> SO I GUESS I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE CONCURRENCE FROM THE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE INVOLVED BESIDES COUNTY ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS OWNERS AGREE WITH THIS.

AND THEN SECOND THAT THERE IS PROPER AUTHORITY TO TO FILL IN THE STREAM BAD WHERE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S NO COMPLICITY ON OUR PART WITH CHANGING ANYTHING THAT IT'S THE OWNER THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THAT.

>> HERE WE GO. YES, SIR. THE ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION.

YES. WE'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRIMARY PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OR BOTH OF THEM ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH BOTH THE CHANGE IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS WELL AS THE REALIGNMENT. AND TO ANSWER YOUR SECOND QUESTION AS FAR AS THE REALIGNMENT WE WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY GETTING ALL THE NECESSARY STATE PERMITS NEEDED TO MAKE THIS CHANGE AND WE WE'VE STARTED COMMUNICATION WITH CRM ON A VERY PRELIMINARY BASIS AND WE DON'T FEEL THAT THIS WILL BE THAT MAJOR AN

ISSUE TO WHERE IT WOULD IMPEDE PERMITTING. >> THANK YOU.

>> ARE WE READY TO CALL THE QUESTION ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM SOME MEMBERS? ALL RIGHT. LET'S CALL THE QUESTION WITH NO OBJECTION.

ALL IN FAVOR BY HIGH HI FI. >> HI. HI.

HI. IT'S WITHOUT ACTION. SO THE PRIVATE FORMAT WOULD BE TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY OBJECTIONS AND THEN IT'S JUST APPROVED NO, THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS. THERE'S APPROVAL OBJECTIONS THROUGH RIGHT ON TO THE NEXT

[7. APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REGARDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (CDC): ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.3.20 APPLICABILITY– TO APPLY ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES TO TWO-FAMILY (DUPLEX) RESIDENTIAL ]

ITEM WITH THE APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REGARDING TAX AMENDMENT TO THE CDC CODE ARTICLE 5 SECTION FIVE POINT THREE POINT TWO ZERO ABILITY TO APPLY ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES TO FAMILY I.E. DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL AND WHO ON STAFF IS THAT GOING TO BE MR. GREENSPAN MR. ERIC MADAM CHAIR, THIS WILL BE OUR ROB MERCHANT DEPUTY PLANNING AND ZONING

DIRECTOR. >> OKAY. AS YOU HAD MENTIONED, THIS IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODES THAT WOULD APPLY OUR ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS TO TWO FAMILY DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL. JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND. CURRENTLY THE COUNTY HAS ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 500 FEET OF OUR MAJOR AND MINOR MATERIALS AND MINOR COLLECTORS AND BASICALLY THE WHAT IT SAYS CURRENTLY THAT THESE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS APPLY TO NOT COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT BUT SINGLE FAMILY AND TO FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO WOULD BE ONLY TO EXEMPT SINGLE FAMILIES SO THAT NOW DUPLEXES WOULD BE SUBJECT ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS IF THEY'RE LOCATED WITHIN FIND 500 FEET OF OUR MAJOR ROADS. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IN A NUTSHELL. THESE ARE THE SAME ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS THAT WE'VE HAD FOR MORE OR LESS FOR THE LAST TWENTY FIVE YEARS THAT WE'VE APPLIED TO OUR DEVELOPMENT LOGGER. I'M SURE NO LONGER OK AT THIS TIME.

>> SAME QUESTION. OK, HAS ANYONE AT THANKS ROB. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE

[00:15:03]

PURPOSE OF THIS QUITE FRANKLY BECAUSE WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE EXEMPTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BUT JUST APPLYING STANDARDS TO DUPLEXES AND I I'M KIND OF UNSURE WHAT THE DISTINCTION IS BECAUSE FOR MOST PURPOSES AND IN MOST ITERATIONS OF A DUPLEX A DUPLEX LOOKS JUST LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. I HAVE SEVERAL OF THEM IN MY DISTRICT.

THEY'RE PRACTICALLY THERE WITHIN A EASILY WITHIN A MILE OF WHERE I'M SITTING RIGHT NOW AND I'M WONDERING WHY YOU WOULD WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THE SAME

STANDARDS AS SINGLE FAMILY. >> YEAH, WE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT YOU KNOW, I THINK SERVES HOUSE EXEMPTING THEM WOULD BE HAVING A DUPLEX IN AND AMONG A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU. BUT WHAT WE'RE MAINLY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR DEVELOPMENT WOULD CONSIST ENTIRELY OF DUPLEXES IN SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT MIGHT ARISE AS A RESULT.

YOU KNOW SUCH AS YOU HAVE HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS WHERE PARKING IS LOCATED.

IT COULD LEAD TO YOU KNOW, WITHOUT ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS IT COULD LEAD TO DEVELOPMENT THAT IT COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. SO WE JUST THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A NECESSARY STEP TO TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF THESE TYPES DEVELOPMENTS.

>> ANY OTHER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS YOU ARE TRYING TO LEAD YOU THERE?

>> I STILL I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS, ALLISON. YEAH, I'M NOT DONE PICKING HIS BRAIN YET BECAUSE I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE REALLY GOT THAT JUSTIFICATION YET IN WHAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS. ALL RIGHT. WE ALREADY DON'T APPLY THESE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT YOU'RE ONLY WORRIED ABOUT DUPLEXES AND I'M I'M YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR ISSUES ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT MANY ON COUNCIL HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT IS MORE MODEST PRICED HOMES AND IN OTHER WORDS THAT A WORKING FAMILY COULD AFFORD. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT A THAT A DUPLEX OFTENTIMES FITS THAT KIND OF CATEGORY. AND IF YOU IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT APPLYING ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS TO ONLY DUPLEXES AND LEAVING OUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS IT JUST WILL RAISE THE COST OF IT OF DENSITY. WELL, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE ADVOCATING BY ASKING FOR MORE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WORKING FAMILY TYPE HOUSING. AND SO I'M I'M I'M I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING.

WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE STANDARDS YOU WANT TO APPLY? IS IT A BIGGER SIDE YARD, BIGGER FRONT YARD, BIGGER BACKYARD, NO FENCING? WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS THAT YOU WISH TO APPLY? THESE WOULD BE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS.

SO I WOULDN'T YOU KNOW, IT WOULD NOT AFFECT SET BACK FEATURES LIKE THAT.

I THINK THAT BASICALLY WHAT WE WERE YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND DUPLEXES DO SERVE AN IMPORTANT UNDERSTAND IN MY DIVERSIFYING HOUSING CHOICES AND PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

>> BUT THERE'S THAT BALANCING ACT BETWEEN KNOW WE ALLOW DUPLEXES PRETTY MUCH IN THE MIDST OF A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THERE'S SOME CONCERN ABOUT WANTING TO OFFSET MAYBE SOME OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF SOMEBODY'S SLAPPING UP SOMETHING THAT WOULD KIND OF

BE NOT FIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. >> SO IT'S JUST THAT BALANCING ACT OF WANTING TO PROMOTE HOUSING CHOICES BUT ALSO WANTING TO MINIMIZE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AS IN ANY OTHER STAFF.

>> ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? OKAY. I SEE.

CAN RAISE SOMERVILLE GOOD. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT.

I'VE WONDERED ABOUT SOME OF THE SAME THINGS AND WHAT I WHAT I THINK I SEE HERE IS OUR RESPONSE SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING DEVELOPING IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY YOU WANT TO GET IN FRONT OF THAT IS FIRST THING THEY TRIED TO UP AND ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT AREAS. THERE'S JUST CONTINUING TO TRY TO DO THAT WITH MORE DENSITY,

[00:20:01]

MORE DENSITY. THAT'S THE WAY THAT THE SATURATION POINT IS.

THEIR NEXT STEP IS TO GO FOR FOUR DUPLEXES OR EVEN TRY PLEXI OR A DUPLEX.

I THINK THAT CONCERN IS AMONG SOME OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT AND PERHAPS OTHERS THAT AS THESE DUPLEX BECOME MORE AND MORE COMMON IN ALL SORTS OF PLACES THAT I DON'T THINK WE CAN TOTALLY ANTICIPATE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER THE STANDARDS THAT THEY USE. I MEAN I'M NOT A BUILDER OR A DEVELOPER SO I CAN'T IMAGINE SOME OF THEM SOME OF THE TWISTS AND TURNS THEY MIGHT TAKE. BUT TO ME IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE IF THIS IS THE IF THIS IS THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE POTENTIALLY THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE IS TO GO FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO DUPLEXES AND MAYBE FROM THERE TO TRY PLEX.

WE'RE NOT THERE YET. THEN I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE SOME ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR THEM BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE GONNA BE GETTING BACK A LOT OF A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS ABOUT ABOUT THIS DUPLEXES BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO INCREASE THE DENSITY WITHOUT INCREASING THE NUMBER UNITS. SO JUST USING LOGIC THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO ME FOR THAT REASON ALONE. THANK YOU, MR. WHETHER ANY

OTHER COMMENTS? >> I HAD ONE COMMENT I THINK OF THIS KIND OF LIKE THE JOSHUA WAS WHICH IS IN MY DISTRICT HE HOPES AREA AND ALTHOUGH IT WAS A NEWER NEIGHBORHOOD IT BACKS UP TO A COTTAGE FAR ACROSS ACROSS FROM COTTAGE MORE AN OLDER HOUSING IN MOSSY OAKS AREA, AN ARCHITECTURALLY YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JOSHUA WOODS AND THE REST SURROUNDING OLDER NEIGHBOR. BECAUSE THEY ARE SIMILAR ARCHITECTURALLY BUT YOU KNOW THAT'S WHAT I WAS COMPARING IT TO MAYBE FOR HAVING THIS CHANGE MADE NOW LESS THE CITY OF BEAUFORT BUT AS WE SEE OTHER PARTS OF THE SUBURBAN AREAS OF THE COUNTY DEVELOP THAT ARE NOT IN A MUNICIPALITY. I THINK THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS TO LOOK FOR CONSISTENCY. ANYONE ELSE ON ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT IT? MADAM CHAIRMAN, MAY I PUT MY QUESTION TO IF I UNDERSTAND THIS WITH ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS IT'S SO THAT WHEN YOU'RE DEVELOPING A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY WHETHER IT'S SINGLE FAMILY OR DO FLEX THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS OR SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE 17 HOUSES IN A ROAD THAT ARE ALL THE SAME SIZE, ALL THE SAME FRONTAGE THAT ARCHITECTURALLY YOU KNOW YOU HAVE ONE THAT'S BUILT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ONE THAT HAS A DORMER ONE THAT HAS THIS SO THAT THERE IS SOME SORT OF BREAK UP OTHERWISE EVERYTHING LOOKS THE SAME.

THAT'S WHAT BUILDERS DO IN MANY NEIGHBORHOODS THEY HAVE FOUR DIFFERENT FRONTAGE IS THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE FROM WHEN YOU PRODUCE A PARTICULAR MODEL SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME MODEL. IS THAT WHERE WE'RE GOING ON THIS, ROLLO?

>> I THINK THAT IF YOU DON'T ON YES. BASICALLY THE REASON WE HAVE THIS SCITUATE AND WE'RE PROPOSING THIS AMENDMENT IS BECAUSE WHENEVER YOU'RE LOOKING AT OUR ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD OF DUPLEXES DUPLEX CAN LOOK VERY, VERY NICE OR THEY LOOK VERY, VERY BASIC AND NOT SO NICE DEPENDING ON THE DESIGN. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW US AND ALLOW THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD TO COME UP WITH SOME STANDARDS THAT WOULD REGULATE THE DESIGN FOR THESE DUPLEXES SO THAT THEY DO MAKE SURE THAT THEY FIT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD SOMEONE COME ALONG AND WANT TO BUILD A DUPLEX ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT OR BUILD A SERIES OF DUPLEXES IN IN A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD? THAT IS OUR PURPOSE AND 10 OF DOING THIS SO THAT WE CAN REGULATE THOSE DESIGNS BECAUSE AGAIN I'M SURE ALL OF US HAVE SEEN DUPLEXES THAT ARE NOT ARE NOT THINGS TO BE SO PROUD OF. BUT THERE ARE SOME DUPLEXES OUT THERE THAT ARE THAT ARE VERY NICE. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE FIND THE CORRECT BALANCE TO WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE COUNTY AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING THIS AT THE END OF THIS MEETING.

WE ALSO HAVE SOME PEOPLE COMMENT ABOUT THIS SUBJECT FROM THE SEA ISLAND FLORIDA COALITION MADAM CHAIRMAN CHRIS QUICK QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION.

>> YES, SIR. YEAH. WHAT IMPACT WILL THIS HAVE ON ON RULE RULE AMERICA? MY MY COMMUNITY. ERIKO OR ROB?

[00:25:08]

THIS ONLY APPLIES TO CERTAIN AREAS OF THE COUNTY RIGHT PROPER RIBAUT.

>> YOU TAKE THAT? >> YEAH. ON ST. HELENA ISLANDS IN THE ONLY AREAS WHERE WE WERE DUPLEXES ARE PERMITTED WOULD BE WITHIN THE CORNERS COMMUNITY AND I BELIEVE SOME OF THE SOME DISTRICTS AND LANDS END AS WELL .

THE CORNERS COMMUNITY IS LOCATED ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY AND SO IT WOULD APPLY TO DUPLEXES IN THAT AREA. LAND'S END IS IS NOT YOU KNOW IT'S LOCATED OFF 10 MILES FROM A MAJOR ROAD. THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THAT THAT THE REST OF ST. HELENA

ISLAND WORDS AND TWO RURAL DUPLEXES ARE NOT PERMITTED. >> SO IT WOULDN'T APPLY TO THE TO THE AREA'S WHERE YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF EITHER DENYING THIS AMENDMENT OR RECOMMENDING IT

FOR APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDING IT FOR APPROVAL WITH AMENDMENTS. >> SO ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A

MOTION AT THIS TIME? >> MADAM CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE. MOVE THE PROPOSAL FORWARD AS WRITTEN AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

>> I'LL SECOND IT. >> MELCHIOR ALL RIGHT. LET'S DO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS ONE, PLEASE. WE'LL START UNLESS THERE'S NO OBJECTION.

NO OBJECTION. I I WOULD ASK FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE OF THIS BACK.

WANT TO BRING UP THE SCREEN FOR THE RIGHT. >> LET'S START WITH THE MAKERS

OF MOTION. >> COUNCILMAN RIBAUT YES. >> THE SECOND WAS VISE CHAIRMAN DAWSON AND THIS VISE CHAIRMAN DAWSON. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER PARSONS HIGH COUNCIL MEMBER FLEW AILING DIVA COUNCILMAN AND I'M GONNA VOTE

NO. >> EXCELLENT. COUNCILMAN ROBERT.

NO. OKAY. I'LL VOTE NO.

COUNCILMAN GLOVER. YES. COUNCILMAN KELLEN I THINK IS

NEXT, RIGHT? >> YES. >> COUNCILMAN YES.

>> DID I LEE AND MYSELF? YES. DON'T LEAVE ANYONE OUT.

WHAT WILL KILLS ME. >> COVER UP. ALL RIGHT.

YOU'RE BACK IN YOUR OFFICE. ALL RIGHT. DESMOND, GO OVER IT.

HOW DO YOU VOTE? >> WE GET YOUR VOTE. NO.

OK. SO WE HAVE THREE NO NAMES AND. YES.

[8. IMPACT FEE UPDATE AND STUDY FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPACT FEES COVERING TRANSPORTATION, PARKS AND RECREATION, LIBRARIES, FIRE, SOLID WASTE, AND EMS.]

THE THIS ONE. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON

[9. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA ("COUNCIL") ESTABLISHING AND ADOPTING A PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ("IMPACT FEE") TO BE IMPOSED ON ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE BEAUFORT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE SERVICE AREA SOUTH OF THE BROAD RIVER PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. ____: IMPACT FEE PROCEDURES, AND THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN BEAUFORT COUNTY ("COUNTY"), AND THE BEAUFORT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ENSURE THAT PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES WILL BE AVAILABLE AND ADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEED FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES EXPECTED TO BE GENERATED FROM THE SCHOOL CHILDREN IN NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE SERVICE ARE SOUTH OF THE BROAD RIVER, BASED ON THE DISTRICT'S LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, AND TO ASSIGN THE COSTS OF SUCH PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES ON A PROPORTIONATE SHARE BASIS TO NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF THE BROAD RIVER SERVICE AREA.]

THE AGENDA WHICH WE WE RANK IS. WE'RE GONNA START WITH. WHICH WAS NUMBER NINE.

THIS IS REGARDING THE IMPACT FEES FOR THE SCHOOLS. AND I'D LIKE BEFORE WE START I DID OBSERVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON AUGUST 4TH.

REGARDING IMPACT FEES, I HOPE ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS RECEIVE THE STUDY AND THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED DURING THAT MEETING. THERE WERE A LOT OF GOOD QUESTIONS AND A GOOD DISCUSSION THAT WAS SENT OUT. YOU WOULD HAVE HAD MAYBE A HOPE SOME TIME TO LOOK AT IT OVER THE WEEKEND. THERE WAS A WHOLE LONG LIST OF QUESTIONS AS SOME OF YOU MAY STILL WANT TO FURTHER CLARIFY NATION ALMOST QUESTIONS BUT ONE POINT WAS MADE OFTEN DURING THE DISCUSSION IS HOW OFTEN IMPACT FEES OR SET IS SUPPOSED TO BE EVERY FIVE YEARS. ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES IT ACTUALLY MAY TAKE LONGER THAN THAT DUE TO CONTRACT AWARDS FOR ASSISTANCE. SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE MORE OFTEN I WOULD LIKE FOR THE NRC TODAY AND OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO CONCENTRATE ON THE SCHOOL IMPACT THE AND WE HAVE OUR STAFF HERE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. CAROL CRUTCHFIELD WHO'S HERE FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

SHE'S A PLANNER REGARDING CAPACITY. THERE ARE A LOT OF.

THERE SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. IT DIDN'T SEEM TO AGREE WITH

[00:30:04]

SOME OF THE ITEMS BROUGHT UP ABOUT CAPACITY BUT I THINK SHE CAN ANSWER ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS CLEARLY REGARDING WAS ABROAD SOUTH OF THE BROAD AND OTHER ISSUES WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. REGARDING THE REFERENDUM CAN ALSO BE ADDRESSED BY TISCHLER BY SA CONTRACTOR AND OUR STAFF ALSO. SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP FIRST TO THAT PARTICULAR ONE. AND BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN ANY KIND OF MOTIONS OR ANY RECOMMENDATIONS I'D LIKE OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS SO WE HAVE CAROL AND TO AND TO SHARE MY

THOUGHTS ON BOARD. >> IS THAT CORRECT? >> MR. GREENWAY? YES, MADAM CHAIR. CAROL COSTELLO WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

WE HAVE CALLER MICHAEL WINDY WHO IS DONE THE HEAVY LIFTING FOR CARSON FOR A JEWISH RABBIS ON THE SCHOOL MAY IMPACT THE AND THE COUNTY UPDATES AND ALL HERE AT WITH THE COUNTY STUDY AS WELL. SO HE'S GOING TO BE WALKING THROUGH THE PRESENTATION.

OK AND WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE SCHOOL PRESENTATION. THAT'S CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE TO THANK YOU, MISS CHAIRWOMAN AND THE COUNCIL HERE AND I'M GOING TO TRY AND SHARE MY SCREEN SLATE TILL THE END FOR QUESTIONS.

>> WOULD IT BE EASIER FOR YOU THERE? YEAH, WE'LL JUST TOUCH BASE.

WELL, WE DO IN THE GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT IMPACT FEES HERE AND THEN GO INTO THE SCHOOL STUDY AND THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE DISCUSSION. IT'S NOT TOO LONG OF A PRESENTATION ON THE SCHOOL SIDE FOR THE COUNTY FEES. THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. I'LL TAKE LONGER. SO THIS ITEM SHOULDN'T TAKE TOO LONG FOR THE PRESENTATION. TISCHLER BUYS THEN DO AN IMPACT FEE.

THIS ONE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ACROSS THE COUNTRY FOR OVER 40 YEARS NOW WE'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK RECENTLY IN SOUTH CAROLINA. MOST RECENTLY WE'VE BEEN DOING SOME IMPACT THE WORK LEXINGTON COUNTY, LANCASTER YOUR COUNTY FORT MIDDLE SCHOOL DISTRICT WE STUDY THEIR WE JUST FINISHED UP FEAST STUDY IN HORRY COUNTY AND IN THE MIDST OF FINISHING THEM ONE UP IN THE CITY OF EASILY GENERAL IMPACT FREE INFORMATION HERE YOU THE COUNTY ALREADY HAS IMPACT FEES I'M SURE A LOT OF YOU KNOW, SORT OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH HERE BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. IMPACT FEES ARE A ONE TIME PAYMENT FIRM FROM NEW GROWTH TO THE COUNTY TO BE USED FOR NEW CAPITAL FACILITIES.

THIS IS ONLY PAID BY NEW DEVELOPMENT NOT EXISTING RESIDENTS OR BUSINESSES AND GENERALLY PAID WHEN A BUILDING KERMIT IS ISSUED. THIS IMPACT FEES AREN'T A TAX THAT MORE AKIN TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE COUNTY IN THAT THE DEVELOPER PAYS THE FEE IN THE COUNTY'S IN RETURN CONSTRUCT CAPITAL FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW GROWTH AND IMPACT FEE STUDY REQUIRES A RATIONAL NEXUS. I MEAN THAT'S MET BY MEETING THREE PILLARS ONE BEING NEED WITHIN THE STUDY YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT THERE'S BEEN RECENT GROWTH IN FUTURE GROWTH THAT IS EXCEEDING THE EXISTING CAPACITY AVAILABLE IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND NECESSITATES NEW CAPITAL FACILITIES. A BENEFIT HAS TO BE SHOWN THAT'S THROUGH THAT OF THE TIME THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS BUILT BUT ALSO THE LOCATION.

SO YOU'LL SEE IN THE STUDY THAT WE'VE INCLUDED TWO SERVICE AREAS NORTH OF THE BROAD AND SOUTH BROAD AND THERE HAS TO BE A PROPORTIONALITY. SO THE FEE HAS TO BE BASED ON GROSS FAIR SHARE AND THAT'S THROUGH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CALCULATIONS.

THERE'S THREE GENERAL METHODOLOGIES USED IN THE IMPACT FEE STUDY.

THE FIRST IS A COST RECOVERY. WE HAVEN'T USED THAT METHODOLOGY IN THIS CASE BUT THIS IS GENERALLY USED WHEN YOU HAVE LARGE OVERSIZED FACILITIES MAINLY UTILITY LIKE WASTEWATER OR WATER TREATMENT CENTERS INCREMENTAL EXPANSION AND WE'VE USED THAT IN A COUPLE INFRASTRUCTURE CATEGORIES IN THE STUDY HERE. WE'RE SORT OF WE SET THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE TO TODAY AND ASSUMING THAT GROWTH IS PAYING ITS FAIR SHARE IN THE

[00:35:05]

COUNTY'S GOING TO BE PROVIDING THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE. THE FEE IS BASED ON THAT CALCULATION IN THE PLAN BASED WHICH WE USED IN THE INTEREST THE TRANSPORTATION FEE STUDY WE GET A LIST OF PROJECTS TO BE BUILT INTO THE FUTURE AND SET THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TO THAT FUTURE FUTURE LEVEL IMPACT FEES IN SOUTH CAROLINA. NOW YOU ALREADY HAVE FEES TODAY SO MOST OF THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING. YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR IMPACT FEES AND INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNTS FEES HAVE TO BE SPENT WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE SCHEDULED DATE OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE CHP. SO THIS GOES BACK TO ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE IMPACT FEE STUDY THAT WE HAVE TO SHOW BENEFIT.

THERE'S ALWAYS AN ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT PUBLISHED FEES ARE UPDATED AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS. AND RECENTLY THERE'S BEEN AN ADDED TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA ENABLING LEGISLATION WHERE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS HAS TO OCCUR.

AND I WILL ADDRESS THAT NOT IN THIS PRESENTATION BUT THE NEXT ONE CURRENTLY BEFORE COUNTY HAS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS FOR TRANSPORTATION WITH ALL YOUR MUNICIPALITIES FOR

LIBRARIES. >> THERE'S EXISTING IGAD FOR BLUFFTON AND HILTON HEAD AN AWFUL. ALSO THE CITY OF DETROIT PORT ROYAL ARE CONSIDERING THE PROGRAM FOR PARKS AND RECREATION ONLY BLUFFTON IS HAS ENTERED INTO AN IPA WITH THE COUNTY AND THERE'S NO IGAD YET FOR PUBLIC SAFETY OR SOLID WASTE.

HERE WE WANT TO SHOW YOU JUST THE GENERAL GROWTH ACROSS THE WHOLE COUNTY OF WHAT'S PROJECTED THE NEXT 10 YEARS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT IS THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE PROJECTING OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS. THE PEAK POPULATION.

FIFTY THOUSAND NEW RESIDENTS AND THAT PEAK POPULATION INCLUDES PERMANENT RESIDENCE BUT ALSO SEASONAL AND PEAK VISITORS, PEAK TIME VISITORS, HOUSING UNITS WITH THAT FIFTY THOUSAND POPULATION PROJECTION BRINGS ABOUT NINETEEN THOUSAND NEW HOUSING UNITS TO BE FOR COUNTY. I'M ON THE NONRESIDENTIAL SIDE. THERE'S ABOUT SIXTEEN THOUSAND NEW JOBS PROJECTED OVER TEN YEARS WHICH IS ABOUT SEVEN MILLION SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA SCHOOLS. THE THE ANALYSIS HAS INCLUDED THREE COMPONENTS SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION, SCHOOL LAND AND BUSES.

EACH ONE OF THESE COMPONENTS WE'VE USED THE INCREMENTAL EXPANSION METHODOLOGY SO WE'RE SETTING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TO TODAY AND APPLYING THAT TO FUTURE GROWTH.

YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT THE SERVICE AREA AND THE ANALYSIS IS ONLY SOUTH OF THE BROAD AND WE'LL GET I'LL SHOW YOU THE SORT OF THE THE REASON BEHIND THAT.

BUT REALLY WE WANT TO SHOW THAT THERE'S BENEFIT IN THAT THERE'S CAPACITY NEEDS IN THE SOUTH WHERE IN THE NORTH CURRENTLY IN PROJECTED THERE'S NO THERE'S NO NEW NEW SEATS NEEDED.

SO HERE'S HERE'S AN ESTIMATE BASED ON THE FOUR COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS CAPITAL PLAN THE RED LINE IS THE EXISTING CAPACITY IN THE NORTH AND THEN THE TWO LINES THE GRAY AND THE BLUE ARE PROJECTIONS, ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS AND YOU CAN SEE FROM TODAY MOVING FORWARD THAT THERE'S A PROJECTED DECREASE IN ENROLLMENT IN THE NORTH AND SOUTH.

I MEAN THIS IS ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL. AGAIN, THE RED IS CAPACITY IN THE TWO LINES THERE THE GRAY AND BLUE. OUR CAPACITY NEEDS AN ENROLLMENT. I MEAN BY 2023 WE'VE SURPASSED THE AVAILABLE CAPACITY OF AVAILABLE SEATS IN THE SCHOOLS TO SORT OF DRILL DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ON THE SOUTH OF THE BROAD AREA, THE ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS ARE HERE WITH THE CAPACITY.

SO THE CURRENT UTILIZATION IS ABOUT EIGHTY TWO PERCENT AND THAT'S GOING TO REACH NINETY NINE PERCENT IN 10 YEARS. THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN IS THE CHOICE PROGRAM WHICH REQUIRES 85 PERCENT UTILIZATION FOR THAT PROGRAM TO BE AVAILABLE. YOU CAN SEE UP UNTIL 2021 BUILT THAT PROGRAM IS AVAILABLE BUT THEN WITH PROJECTED GROWTH THAT PROGRAM'S NOT GOING TO BE

[00:40:03]

AVAILABLE IN THE SOUTH FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS AND THE CURRENT CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS NINETY FOUR PERCENT IN BY 2023 WE ARE EXCEEDING CAPACITY FOR HIGH SCHOOL WE'RE AT NINETY SIX PRESENT RIGHT NOW BUT IN A COUPLE OF YEARS IN 2021 IT'S PROJECTED THAT THE TOTAL CAPACITY IS NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE ENROLLMENT THAT THESE NEEDS THAT THIS SORT OF THE RESULTS OF THE THE IMPACT STUDY WE DIDN'T WANT TO BREAK DOWN TOO MANY OF THE NUMBERS HERE.

>> IT CAN REALLY SORT OF BOG DOWN AND GET PRETTY COMPLICATED .

BUT THE FIRST TOP SECTION OF THIS FIGURE HERE IS A LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR ELEMENTARY MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND THAT'S A NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT.

THERE'S A CAPITAL COST OF THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT BY THE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST PER STUDENT THEREBY MULTIPLYING THAT TO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SCHOOL LAND PER STUDENT THERE IN THE MIDDLE THE AVERAGE COST FOR AN ACRE OF LAND IN THE SOUTH IS ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. YOU CAN SEE THE LAND COST PER STUDENT THERE THEN THE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR BUSES MULTIPLIED BY THE CAPITAL COSTS FOR SCHOOL BUSES ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO GET TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY DOLLARS PER STUDENT. SO THAT FIRST GREEN LINE IS THE GROSS CAPITAL COST PER STUDENT. WE ALSO HAVE INCLUDED TWO CREDITS HERE SO REDUCING THE TOTAL CAPITAL COST THE FIRST CREDIT IS FOR EXISTING DEBT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ISSUED TO CONSTRUCT EXISTING FACILITIES. THE SECOND CREDIT IS FOR THE RECENT BOND REFERENDUM AND WE'VE ONLY INCLUDED HERE THE CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT ARE CAPACITY INCREASING SO INCLUDING INCREASING SEATS IN SCHOOLS SO THAT BOTTOM LINE THERE IN THE GREEN IS THE NET LOCAL CAPITAL COST PER STUDENT THAT RANGES FROM ABOUT THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND FOR AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENT TO FORTY NINE FIVE HUNDRED FOR A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT.

NOW THAT'S THAT THAT'S THE CAPITAL COST PER STUDENT. AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT HERE IS THE STUDENT GENERATION RATES SO A CUSTOM STUDENT GENERATION RATE FOR THE SOUTH OF THE BROAD TOP HERE WHERE YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT GENERATING POINT 1 0 6 ELEMENTARY STUDENTS POINT 0 5 6 MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS AND POINT 0 7 4 HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 7 TOTAL IS SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON AVERAGE GENERATES POINT TO THREE STUDENTS FOR A MULTIFAMILY UNIT YOU CAN SEE THAT'S ABOUT HALF. SO WITH THOSE TWO GENERATION RATES WE APPLY THAT TO THE CAPITAL COST PER STUDENT TO GET THE MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE IMPACT FEE HERE.

SO FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ABOUT THIRTY SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. TWENTY TWO HUNDRED FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL AND THIRTY SIX HUNDRED FOR HIGH SCHOOL WHICH GETS US TO NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS AS MAXIMUM ORAL FEE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND EIGHT FOR A MULTI-FAMILY HOME OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS BASED ON THE MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE FEE AMOUNTS.

THIS IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO GENERATE PROJECTED EIGHTY NINE MILLION DOLLARS FOR AC PROJECTS SOUTH AND THAT'S THE END TO THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE PRESENTATION .

OKAY. LET'S ASK THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS AT THIS TIME AND THEN WE'LL GO ON TO THE OTHER. OKAY.

WITH THE PRESENT SET. YEAH. AND WE ALSO HAVE CAROL CRUTCHFIELD ON TO THE FIRST QUESTION FOR IN OUR STATE. MR. GREENWAY, JUST OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS SO I'LL START OFF WITH A QUESTION. YEAH, CIRCLE COLIN.

>> THE LAST SLIDE YOU SHOWED SHOWED ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH SCHOOL TOTALING THE NINE THOUSAND. SO IF I WAS A DEVELOPER AND I'M PUTTING IN A NEW DEVELOPMENT NEXT TO AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WOULD I BE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN IMPACT FEE FOR MY HOUSES JUST FOR THAT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OR WHAT IT APPLY FOR MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL AS WELL YOU WILL BE

[00:45:02]

PAYING THAT DEVELOPER PAYS THE NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FOR THEIR SCHOOL IMPACT FEE FOR ELEMENTARY MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE FULL SERVICE AREA.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> QUESTION MANAGER AL.

YEAH. THANK YOU MR. MACK. WE.

I THINK I READ THE OUTLINE AND IT MADE REFERENCE TO. LET'S APPLY THIS IMPACT FEE.

COULD YOU PUT THAT UP? IS IT ANY NEW HOUSE THAT'S BUILT BY EVEN 181 SUBDIVISION OR IS IT ONLY IN NEW SUBDIVISIONS WHEN THEY SAW LEASES FOR ANY NEW HOUSING UNIT EVEN IF IT'S IN AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WHENEVER THAT BUILDING PERMIT IS PULLED?

>> THAT'S WHEN FEES PAID. THANK YOU, SIR. >> OTHER QUESTIONS I HAD I HAD A QUESTION REGARDING CAPACITY NORTH OF THE BROAD SOUTH THE BROAD ACT WATCHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION THERE WERE SOME OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS SUIT.

QUESTION BROTHEL LADIES ON BABY MISS COUNTRY. JUST CLARIFY THAT.

WE KNOW WHAT HIS ISLAND IS GROWING BUT THAT CAPACITY IS STILL THERE FOR THE ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL GROWTH NORTH OF THE BROAD DOES IT SET TERM RIGHT NOW? WILL NOT BACK UP ON MORE MORE BROAD OVERALL CAPACITY BUT LEAVING ONLY HAVE AVAILABLE RIGHT ELEMENT. AND ON O LEVELS AND HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL? WELL BASICALLY FOR HIGH SCHOOL OR LOOK AT ALL THE ROOF NOW FOR THOSE CERTAINLY OPPORTUNITIES

IF WE THE PATH WITH A DIFFERENT SCHOOL WE WERE REGIONAL. >> SO IT'S BE FOR HIGH REACHES CAPACITY FROM FROZEN LADY'S ISLAND AND ST. HELENA. IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HENRY CREEK HIGH SCHOOLS UNDER CAPACITY WELL BRANCH OR SO TRUST THAT BOTH BARRY CREEK AND BRANT AND ON THE PATH BUT I WORK TO MAKE IT CERTAIN TRIGGER NOT YOU ARE KIDDING THEN WE WILL TAKE THAT TO THE BOARD AND STAFF AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW WE WERE PASSING GOOD.

>> THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF ROBERT SMALLS MIDDLE. WILL IT BE BASICALLY THE SAME NUMBER OF STUDENTS AVAILABLE THAT FACILITY WITH A NEW CONSTRUCTION OR.

>> RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN RURAL PLAINS. WE'RE LOOKING A SLIGHTLY SMALLER NUMBER THAT'S LIKE THE MALL. I THINK IT WILL WORK FOR

THOUSAND OR TWO WHEN I UNROLL THOUSAND SOMEWHERE THAT RUNS. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FROM SOME MEMBERS

REGARDING. >> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. GO AHEAD.

CHAIRMAN COMPROMISE BECAME A DEVELOPER CAME IN AND ASKED FOR THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE TO BE

WAIVED OR REDUCED AT ANY TIME. >> AND IF SO, HOW IS THAT PROCESS DONE?

IS THAT ONE FOR MR. GREEN? >> YEAH, IT'S CURRENTLY UNDERNEATH YOUR CAR OR NOT.

AND I WOULD IMAGINE THIS WOULD CONTINUE. THERE'S TWO OPTIONS FOR CREDITS OR REDUCTIONS TO OCCUR. ONE IS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I COUNSEL I IN MY MIND WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO APPLY THAT AFFORDABILITY WAIVER TO SCHOOLS AND I WOULD NOT SEE WHAT YOU WOULD NOT WANT DO THAT SINCE YOU WOULD APPLY TO OTHER TYPES OF IMPACT FEES. IN ADDITION, THERE IS ALSO OUR CREDIT THAT A DEVELOPER CAN APPLY FOR AN CALLISTO CREW AND DEDICATE DOING THINGS TO PROVIDE SCHOOLS SUCH AS LAND OR OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THEY MAY CHOOSE TO MAKE JUST AS THEY HAVE AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT THE DEVELOPER ADVANCES. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

[00:50:01]

THEN THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR CREDIT AGAINST TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE IF THEY PAY FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OUT OF THEIR POCKET. YOU MEAN YOU AS COUNSEL HAVE I THINK APPROVE TWO CREDITS FOR TRANSPORTATION THESE IN THE LAST YEAR? UNDERNEATH THAT SCENARIO CONTINUE IN THAT QUESTION IF YOU HAD CONVERSION THIS CAME UP DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONVERSION OF SAY AN EXISTING GOLF COURSE PROPOSE FOR YOU FOR HOUSING OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT IF THAT I MEAN IN THAT SCENARIO LAND COULD BE CREDITED US TOWARD ITS TOWARD IMPACT FEES IF IT WAS USED FOR EDUCATION MAYBE.

WELL IF THEY DONATED SOME LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLACING A SCHOOL ON THE LAND THEN THEY WOULD CERTAINLY CERTAINLY BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CREDIT IN THAT SITUATION WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH CONVERSIONS FROM ONE USE TO ANOTHER THE DEVELOPER WOULD ONLY HAVE TO PAY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE IMPACTS OF THE NEW USE VS. WHAT THEY PAID FOR THE EXISTING YEAR.

SO IF OFFICE CONVERT IF AN OFFICE BUILDING CONVERTS TO RETAIL THEN THEY WOULD ONLY PAY THE DIFFERENCE FOR THOSE FEES THAT THEY WOULD PAY IN THAT AREA FOR THE IMPACT THAT THE RETAIL WOULD HAVE OVER THE OFFICE IMPACT OKATIE HAD. LIKE WE HAD THE MOTEL THAT CONVERTED TO HOUSING SIMILAR OR X.. THAT'S CORRECT.

SO I'M SURE THAT IN THE CASE OF THE IN THE CASE OF THE CONVERSION IN THAT SITUATION WHENEVER WE HAD THE LONG TERM EFFICIENCIES GO TO LONG TERM RENTALS AND HAVE TIGER CASE, THEY WOULD HAVE THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY WITH THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE.

THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY THE ENTIRE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE FOR ALL OF THOSE UNITS AT 4000 DOLLARS FOR FORTY FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER UNIT FOR THAT CONVERSION.

SO THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TO PAY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES IF ANY WERE DUE.

BASED ON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT FOR THAT THEY PAID FOR TRANSPORTATION ONE OF THE

NEARLY WAS BUILT VERSUS THE CONVERTED NEW VIEWS. >> IT'S HARD THAT'S HARD TO EXPLAIN SO I DIDN'T GET THAT CORRECT. I'LL BE GLAD TO GO THROUGH IT

AGAIN. >> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS?

>> OH YES, OF COURSE. YES. SMITHKLINE, TO YOU TO ERIC OR TO COLIN AS I UNDERSTAND IT, BACK FOR A SINGLE FAMILY OR AND OR MULTI FAMILY ON IMPACT.

>> WHAT OTHER IMPACT WOULD IMPACT A SINGLE FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY BILL? AND WHAT IS PROJECTED TOTAL OF THE HIGHER AMOUNT OF IMPACT TO INCLUDE THE SCHOOL IMPACT AND ALL THESE CATEGORY WHERE EACH OF THESE TYPES OF I DIDN'T CATCH ALL OF THAT QUESTION BUT I THINK YOU'RE ASKING WHAT OTHER IMPACT THESE WOULD APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS AND I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY. COUNCILMAN THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. SO IN THE IN CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW UNDERNEATH WHAT WE ARE WORKING WEST IN ADDITION TO THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER WOULD HAVE TO PAY A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE A LIBRARY IMPACT TO A PARKS AND RECREATION FEE FOR UNINCORPORATED BEAUFORT COUNTY. AND IN SOME MUNICIPALITIES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR GOVERNMENT AGREEMENTS WITH AND THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO PAY RIGHT. YOU ALSO WOULD HAVE TO WHAT

THEY WOULD ALSO BE A FIRE IMPACT FEE. >> YOU HAVE A WORKING TOTAL OR

PROJECTED AMOUNT THAT WILL BE COVERED. >> WOULD BE THAT THE TOTAL INCREASES OVER OF EXISTING FEES VERSUS NEW PROPOSED FEES WILL BE COVERED IN THE SECOND HALF

OF THIS PRESENTATION WHEN WE DO THE FULL PRESENTATION UPDATE. >> WHEN WILL I BE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING? I MEAN IT'S THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WE WANTED.

WE WANT TO JUST GET IT OUT OF. YEAH. SO THEN IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION THE TOTAL COST OF THE IMPACT, THE BUILD SOMETHING WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE.

YEAH THAT'LL BE YOU WILL SEE THE ENTIRE INCREASE OF THE CURRENT FEES VERSUS THE NEW

PROPOSED FEES FOR EVERYTHING. >> THANK YOU. THERE IS A SLIDE FOR THE MANDATORY. YES SIR. IS THIS OVER.

YEAH. THANK YOU MR. CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT ABOUT IMPACT THE IN

WAIVING THEM. >> THEY CAN'T BE WAIVED TO NEW. THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW I

[00:55:03]

BELIEVE. RIGHT. BUT IT CAN'T BE PAID BY SOMEONE

TEACHER. >> THAT IS CORRECT. I'M SORRY I MISSPOKE WHEN THAT IT WOULD BE THE SAME SITUATION THAT YOU CURRENTLY DO WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

YOU CAN WAIVE THE FEE BUT THE COUNTY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO COVER THE COST OF THAT WAIVER THROUGH SOME OTHER REVENUE SOURCE. THE FEES HAVE TO BE PAID EXCEPT

IN THE CASE OF A CREDIT. >> SO WHAT'S THE PLEASURE THE COUNTS THE COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL AT THIS TIME WE WE AS PUT THIS UP FOR A REASON SO THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY TAKE TWO SEPARATE ACTIONS ONE REGARDING THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE AND ONE REGARDING ALL THE OTHER FEES IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR THE OTHER PRESENTATION. OR WE CAN COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ONE TO GO FORWARD TO FULL COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.

I THINK THIS IS A ONE THAT WE HAVE MORE OF AN URGENCY REGARDING TIME BECAUSE OF OTHER FACTORS GOING ON OUTSIDE OUR CONTROL. BUT WE DO HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME ON THE OTHER IMPACT IS I HEAR ANY RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE SCHOOL IMPACT

ANALYSIS. >> MADAM CHAIRMAN SOMERVILLE HERE.

>> YES, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I DIDN'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING IT FOR OVER WELL OVER A DECADE AS I SAY HALLELUJAH TO THIS BECAUSE FROM THE MOMENT I CAME ON COUNCIL I WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONSTANT COST UPGRADING PHYSICAL FACILITIES FOR SCHOOLS AND HAVING TO GO TO THE BOND MARKET.

TIME AFTER TIME WHEN THEY RAN OUT OF A PERCENT THAT OF COURSE WAS A REFERENDUM AFTER A REFERENDUM AND SOME PASSED, SOME DIDN'T. AND WHEN THEY DIDN'T THEN THE KIDS WERE CRAMMED INTO TRAILERS. I MEAN IT'S BEEN AN ONGOING PROBLEM SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL AND I'VE BEEN A STRONG ADVOCATE FOR SCHOOL IMPACT FEES . I THINK SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW THAT IF A COUNTY HAD SOME IMPACT FEES PRIOR TO 1999 BUT THEY WERE OUTLAWED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

RIGHT AROUND THAT TIME. SO WE'VE BEEN WITHOUT SINCE SAY 2007 THE LAST 19 YEARS.

SCHOOL DISTRICTS BEEN STUMBLING ALONG WITH REFERENDUMS, BOND REFERENDUMS. PASTOR DIDN'T PASS. I TO MEMBERS OF SCHOOL BOARD WORKED VERY HARD BACK AROUND 2000 EIGHT OR SO TO GET A CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FEE SET PUT IN FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. IT WAS REALLY JUST A WORK AROUND BECAUSE WE COULDN'T DO IMPACT FEES. BUT THEN AS THE RECESSION HIT AND THEN WE WERE UNABLE TO

ACTUALLY GET GENERATE ANY MONEY OUT OF IT. >> SO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IT DID CONTAIN AND WERE EITHER WERE EITHER TERMINATED AS IN THE CASE OF GREEN HE FOUND LADY'S ISLAND OR OR WERE RENEGOTIATED TO EITHER LESSEN OR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FEE. BOTTOM LINE IS WE HAVEN'T COLLECTED ANY MONEY AT ALL FOR IT AND IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN A REAL DRAIN FOR THE SCHOOL SCHOOL SYSTEM AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO GET SOME CAPITAL MONEY TO OFFSET THE IMMEDIATE COST OF THE NEW RESIDENTS COMPANY. SO I'M AN I AM GOING TO BE AN AVID SUPPORTER OF IT.

I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO BUY FOR KATE AND I WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. REMEMBER THE SCHOOL BOARD LOOKED AT TWO ALTERNATIVES I THINK A AND B OR B AND C HOWEVER WHAT ARE THEY CALLED IT? AND THEY THEY TOLD US THE ONE THEY NEEDED AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PROCEED SAID COUNCIL RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO COUNCIL FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THANK YOU.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A SECOND. >> I'LL SECOND THAT CHAIRMAN.

>> HI. THAT WAS COUNCILMAN LARRY MY OWN ANYMORE DISCUSSION.

THIS IS STU. YES, SIR. GO AHEAD.

>> GIVE GOT A COUPLE OF THINGS OUT IN TERMS WAVING, I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN'T BE WAIVED TO AIR THAT BUT SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD HAVE TO PAY. THERE'S NOBODY ELSE TO PAY OTHER THAN AS I UNDERSTAND IT. I CONTINUE TO BE OPPOSED TO THIS FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

ONE IS WE JUST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT JUST PASSED A REFERENDUM THAT THEORETICALLY WAS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR NEEDS FOR SOME TIME INTO THE FUTURE AND OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN CARE OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PROJECTED GROWTH NEXT.

>> UNLIKE A LOT OF OTHER PLACES, OTHER TYPES OF IMPACT FEES, THEY DO HAVE THE ALTERNATIVE OF A REFERENDUM AND ACTUALLY GOING TO THE PUBLIC AND LETTING THEM VOTE ON WHAT

[01:00:02]

YOU WANT TO SPEND INCLUDING LOCATIONS AND WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO ME IS A BETTER PURGATIVE. I ALSO TEND TO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A BIT OF A DOUBLE TAXATION BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY IS JUST BUYING A NEW HOUSE AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO PAY IMPACT THE THEY'RE GOING TO PAY THAT PLUS THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF THE PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION ON THE BONDS THAT ARE STILL IN PLACE. AND LASTLY AND MAYBE MOST IMPORTANTLY IF I REMEMBER THE NUMBER I THINK WE'RE DEALING WITH EIGHT, NINE, TEN THOUSAND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THIS IS A REAL REAL CHILLING ON THE ABILITY TO DO ATTAINABLE HOUSING. YOU LAYER THIS ON TOP OF THAT AND YOU MAKE IT JUST THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. AND WE'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT THAT'S A HIGH PRIORITY OF SO

I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS ON PRINCIPLE. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS, MADAM CHAIR? THIS IS CONGRESSMAN DAWSON. YES, SIR.

I JUST WANT TO WEIGH IN. AS WE LOOK AT THE GROWTH OF THE COUNTY, BEAUFORT COUNTY AND LOOK TO THE FUTURE. MOST OF THE GROWTH IS GOING TO BE SOUTH AND ABROAD.

NOTHING CURRENTLY IS A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN HALFWAY BUILT OUT.

AND SO AS THE GROWTH CONTINUE AND IN THE YEARS TO COME WHAT THAT GROWTH IS GOING TO COME THE NEED FOR FACILITIES TO HOUSE AND EDUCATE THE CHILDREN OF BEAUFORT COUNTY.

AND SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION AS IT AS IT AS A STANCE.

>> OK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANY OTHERS BEFORE WE CALL FOR THE VOTE? IT'S GONNA BE A ROLL CALL VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

SO LET'S PULL UP THE ROLL CALL AND MAKE THE MOTION WAS COUNCILMAN SOMERVILLE ANY VOTE? YES. THE SECOND WAS MR. MCCLELLAN. YEAH.

NEXT CALL THE COUNCILMAN PASSING IT. YES.

RIGHT. COUNCILMAN COVER RIGHT. COUNCILMAN PHIL? WELL, IN GO COUNCILMAN HARDMAN NOW. COUNCILMAN GLOVER NO IT'S BEEN LAWSON. YES. DON'T LEAVE ANYONE ELSE OUT

BESIDES MYSELF. COUNCILMAN DAWSON YEARS. >> YEAH.

COUNCILMAN DAWSON. YES, SIR. AND I WILL VOTE YES.

RIGHT. SO WE HAD 7 7 IN FAVOR AND 3 AGAINST.

SO IT PASSES TO MOVE IT ON TO FULL COUNTY COUNCIL AND I THINK IT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO ON TO THE NEXT PRESENTATION. BUT RICE ON OVERALL IMPACT PLEASE.

AND THIS YES. THANK YOU. I'M JUST GONNA SHARE THE

PRESENTATION AGAIN HERE. >> AND BEAR WITH ME AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDRESSING PARKS AND RECREATION LIBRARIES AMASS FIRE, SOLID WASTE AND TRANSPORTATION.

THERE'S A LOT OF MATH THAT'S BEHIND THIS LAW METHODS METHODS PRESENTING.

SO JUST BEAR WITH ME AND IF ANY QUESTIONS COME, HOW DO WE BETTER TO HOLD THEM UNTIL THE END? WE'LL ALSO BE ADDRESSING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS SELF APART THROUGH RECREATION WE HAVE THE REGIONAL PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS, COMMUNITY PARK IMPROVEMENTS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND RECREATION CENTERS HERE.

ALL THESE COMPONENTS HAVE USED THE INCREMENTAL EXPANSION METHODOLOGY WHERE WE'VE SET THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TO WHAT THE COUNTIES BEING WHAT THEY'RE PROVIDING TODAY COMPARED TO THE CURRENT POPULATION FOR REGIONAL PARKS IN THE SERVICE AREA IS COUNTY WIDE WHILE FOR ALL THESE OTHER COMPONENTS HERE WE'VE SPLIT IT UP INTO A NORTH AND SOUTH.

THE BROAD SERVICE AREAS. YOU CAN SEE HERE FOR REGIONAL PARKS THEIR CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE IS TWO POINT TO NINE REGIONAL PARKS PER THOUSAND RESIDENTS.

THERE'S A COST EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER PER ACRE THAT INCLUDES IMPROVEMENTS AND IN THE COST OF LAND. SO APPLYING THAT TO THE 10 YEAR GROWTH PROJECTIONS WE GET ONE HUNDRED AND TWO ACRES NEEDED OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS WHICH EQUATES TO EIGHT POINT EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS AND GROWTH RELATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR REGIONAL PARKS NORTH OF THE

[01:05:04]

BROAD SERVICE AREA. >> YOU CAN SEE THE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE TOP WITH ABOUT ONE ACRE PER THOUSAND PERSONS FOR COMMUNITY PARKS POINT FOUR FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS FOUR THOUSAND POINT EUROS FOR RECREATION ACRES PER THOUSAND AND TWO HUNDRED NINETY SQUARE FEET OF RECREATION CENTERS FOUR THOUSAND UNIT COSTS ARE THERE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS WE'RE PROJECTING TWO POINT NINE MILLION DOLLARS IN CAPITAL NEEDS IN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH THE LEVEL OF SERVICE IS JUST LOOKING AT THE FACILITIES IN THE SOUTH AND THE POPULATION IN THE SOUTH OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS AND WE GET ESTIMATED GROWTH NEEDS OF ONE POINT EIGHT DOLLARS HERE'S THE MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE FEE SCHEDULE AND YOU CAN SEE THE LAND COST PER PERSON AND IMPROVEMENT COST PER PERSON FOR BOTH SERVICE AREAS AND THE FEE SCHEDULE IS NOW SHIFTING FROM JUST SINGLE FAMILY MULTIFAMILY TO BASE TO THE SIZE OF THE HOUSING UNIT AND SO INCREMENTALLY IT GOES UP FROM LESS THAN A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET TO OVER FORTY FOUR THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. THE DEMAND FACTOR FOR HOUSING UNITS IS PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD.

YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE SECOND COLUMN. SO THE CALCULATION IS FOUND THE MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE FEES FOUND BY MULTIPLYING THE PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY THE NET CAPITAL COST YOU CAN SEE IN BOTH THE SURFACE AREAS WE'VE INCLUDED A CREDIT FOR EXISTING DEBT TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO DOUBLE PAYMENT ISSUES. SO IN THE NORTH THE CAPITAL COSTS. NET TOTAL IS THREE HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN DOLLARS PER PERSON.

SO JUST FOR THE SMALLEST HOUSING UNIT OF LESS THAN A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

THIS ONE POINT FOUR PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD. MULTIPLYING THAT BY THE THREE HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN DOLLARS YOU GET A MAXIMUM SPIRAL FEE OF FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX.

THE CURRENT AVERAGE FEE IN THE NORTH IS THREE HUNDRED TWENTY ONE DOLLARS.

SO THIS IS AN INCREASE FOR THAT HOUSING UNIT SIZE OF ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE DOLLARS.

NOW IN THE SOUTH THE NET TOTAL PER PERSON IS TO THIRTY FIVE YOU CAN SEE THAT PERSONS PER HOUSING UNITS ARE CUSTOM FOR EACH SERVICE AREA. SO FOR THE SMALLEST HOUSING UNITS ONE POINT TWO PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD. SO YOU GET MAXIMUM SUPPORT WILL FEE OF TWO POINT TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO DOLLARS AND YOU SEE A DECREASE HERE IN MOST HOUSING UNITS BESIDES THE MUCH LARGER ONES NORTH OF THE BROAD LOOKING AT THE CURRENT NEEDS OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS IN THE MAXIMUM PORTABLE FEE THERE'S A PROJECTED REVENUE OF FOUR POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS. THERE IS THE PROJECTED NEED OF SIX POINT SIX MILLION DOLLARS.

SO OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS THERE'S A FUNDING GAP OF TWO POINT FOUR MILLION DOLLARS.

NOW THIS IS MOSTLY THE RESULT OF THERE BEING NO IGAD AND THE NORTH PARKS AND RECREATION.

SO THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE HAS BEEN SET TO THE WHOLE COUNTY'S POPULATION IN THE NORTH INCLUDING THOSE IN THE MUNICIPALITIES. YET THE FEES ARE ONLY CURRENTLY BEING COLLECTED IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS IN THE SOUTH.

THERE'S A PROJECTED REVENUE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS THREE POINT SIX MILLION DOLLARS TOTAL NEED OF SIX POINT EIGHT MILLION. SO FUNDING GAP THE THREE POINT TWO. NOW THERE IS AN IJA WITH THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON BUT WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IN THE SOUTH. THIS RESULTS IN A FUNDING GAP THERE.

TWO POINT TWO DOLLARS LIBRARIES HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT LIBRARY BRANCHES AND BOOKMOBILE MOBILE'S WE'RE APPLYING THAT INCREMENTAL EXPANSION METHODOLOGY HERE.

LIBRARIES ARE CALCULATE HOW OLD GUY HOPE. HOLD ON COUNT.

CAN WE CATCH UP? THE SCREEN SHOT SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME THING.

OH YEAH. >> SO WE'RE AT LIBRARIES NOW LIBRARY FEE ANALYSIS INCLUDES THE LIBRARY BRANCHES AND BOOKMOBILE AS THE LIBRARY BRANCHES THE LEVEL OF SERVICE IS CALCULATED BASED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH BROAD SERVICE AREA WHILE BOOKMOBILE IS COUNTYWIDE ANALYSIS IN THE NORTH. THE LEVEL OF SERVICE IS POINT

[01:10:05]

SIX SEVEN SQUARE FEET PER PERSON. THE AVERAGE COST TO CONSTRUCT A LIBRARY. TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FIVE DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT.

THERE'S POINT ONE ONE ACRES PER THOUSAND IN THE NORTH AND THE COST OF AN AVERAGE ACRE IN THE NORTH IS 14 THOUSAND DOLLARS BY THOSE LEVELS OF SERVICE IN UNIT COSTS THE NEXT TEN YEARS IS A PROJECTED NEED OF TWO POINT SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS IN THE SOUTH.

THE LEVELS OF SERVICE POINT THIRTY NINE SQUARE FEET PER PERSON POINT ZERO NINE ACRES PER THOUSAND PLYING THAT AND THE UNIT COSTS THE NEXT TEN YEARS IN THE SOUTH YOU GET A NEED OF TWO POINT THREE MILLION DOLLARS. BOOKMOBILE IS COUNTYWIDE OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS THERE'S A NEED POINT FOR UNITS WHERE SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS IS THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE LIBRARY IMPACT FEE IN THE NORTH. WE'VE INCLUDED A CREDIT FOR EXISTING DEBT TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO DOUBLE PAYMENT SO YOU GET A FALLEN WAY BEHIND HERE. WE EXIT OUT. THANK YOU.

KEEP IT IF YOU COULD. COLIN PLEASE KEEP IT UP. THANKS.

>> ARE WE AT THE FEE SCHEDULE? YOU'RE LOOKING AT BOOK DEALS NOW AND YOU ARE ABOUT TO GO INTO THE ANALYSIS VILLAGES WHERE YOU TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES BUT THE FEE SCHEDULE HERE FOR LIBRARIES AGAIN SEPARATED BY THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH OF THE BROAD SERVICE AREA, YOU KNOW THE FEE SCHEDULE BASED ON HOUSING UNIT SIZE THE NET COST IN THE NORTH IS ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE DOLLARS PER PERSON IN THE SOUTH IS ONE HUNDRED TWENTY SIX DOLLARS PER PERSON IN MOST CASES IN THE NORTH WE SEE A DECREASE IN THE FEE AND THEN IN THE SOUTH THERE IS A DECREASE FOR ALL HOUSING UNITS PRICES USING THE MAXIMUM PORTABLE B AMOUNT WE ARE PROJECTING REVENUE IN THE NORTH THREE POINT SIX MILLION DOLLARS.

>> THERE IS A NEED OF ABOUT THREE POINT SIX MILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS SO WE'RE SEEING A SLIGHT FUNDING GAP HERE ABOUT ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER TEN YEARS. THIS IS EXPECTED BECAUSE WE'VE INCLUDED A CREDIT IN THE FEE SCHEDULE. NOW IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED THAT FOR LIBRARY THERE'S MOST MUNICIPALITIES ARE ARE EITHER ARE PARTICIPATING THE IMPACT FEE PROGRAM OR ARE DEBATING JOINING THE PROGRAM AND THE SOUTH AFFORDABLE FEE AMOUNTS THERE'S A PROJECTED REVENUE OF

THREE POINT THREE MILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS. >> THERE'S A TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF THREE POINT THREE MILLION DOLLARS. SO YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT THE FEE AMOUNTS MAXIMUMS FOR A FEE ENSURES THAT ALL THE CAPITAL COSTS NECESSARY OVER 10 YEARS ARE COVERED. NEXT COMPONENT IS FOR M.S. FOR EHR MATH THERE'S TWO FACILITY TYPES THAT BEING THE M.S. STATIONS AND THE M.S. VEHICLE. THOSE IS THE INCREMENTAL EXPANSION HERE APPLIED TO BOTH OF THEM AND WE'RE ALSO USING A COUNTY WIDE SERVICE AREA FOR THIS COUNTY WIDE THERE'S A CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE OF POINT 1 7 SQUARE FEET PER

[01:15:07]

PERSON IN POINT 0 6 SQUARE FEET PER VEHICLE TRIP IS AN AVERAGE COST OF FOUR HUNDRED YEAH.

BEFORE WE GO TOO MUCH FURTHER, ISN'T THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ON ITS OWN IMPACT FEE RELATING MSR AS IT IS IT YOU YOU MAKE A CLASS? YEAH.

I MISSPOKE HERE. WE'VE EXCLUDED HILTON HEAD FROM THE ANALYSIS.

YEAH I THINK. THANKS FOR BRINGING THAT UP BUT I TAKE EXCLUDING EXCLUDING HILTON HEAD. THANK YOU. SO YOU'LL SEE THE PROJECTION SHEET. APPRECIATE IT. YEAH, YOU'LL SEE THE PROJECTIONS ACTUALLY BEING A SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN WHAT WE PRESENTED EARLIER BECAUSE WE'RE EXCLUDING HILTON HEAD IN THIS ANALYSIS. SO OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS WITH A UNIT COST FOUR HUNDRED THIRTEEN DOLLARS PER SQUARE FEET PER FOOT THERE'S A NEED OF

FOUR MILLION DOLLARS FOR EMI STATIONS. >> NOW THE SAME ANALYSIS IS DONE FOR AMBULANCES AS VEHICLES THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE IS POINT ZERO EIGHT VEHICLES FOUR THOUSAND PERSONS IN POINT ZERO THREE VEHICLES FOUR THOUSAND NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET THREE FOUR THOUSAND NINE RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS THE CURRENT COST FOR AN AMBULANCE IS THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS APPLYING THE LEVELS OF SERVICE IN THE AVERAGE COST TO THE PROJECTED DEMAND OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS THERE'S A NEED FOR FIVE NEW AMBULANCES.

>> WHICH BRINGS US TO ONE POINT FIVE MILLION DOLLARS GROWTH RELATED EXPENDITURES THIS COUNTYWIDE FEE SCHEDULE HERE ON THE LEFT IS THE CAPITAL COST PER PERSON AND PER NONRESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIP. THERE'S ALSO A CREDIT INCLUDED FOR EXISTING DEBT.

SURE THERE'S NO DOUBLE PAYMENT ISSUES. SO WE HAVE A COST PER PERSON OF SEVENTY THREE DOLLARS A COST PER NONRESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIP OF TWENTY SIX DOLLARS FEE SCHEDULE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS STILL BASED ON THE HOUSING UNIT SIZE HERE.

I MEAN THIS IS A COUNTY WIDE PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD FACTOR. I MEAN THIS IS ALSO A NEW FEE FOR THE COUNTY FOR NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THERE'S RETAIL OFFICE AND SERVICE INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT TYPES.

AND THEN VEHICLE TRIPS THERE WITH A MAXIMUM FEE FOR RETAIL OF THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE DOLLARS PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET DOWN TO FIFTY ONE DOLLARS PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR INDUSTRIAL THE PROJECTED REVENUES HERE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS FOR EMI S IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS WE'RE LOOKING AT FOUR POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUE.

WHILE THERE IS EXPECTED TOTAL GROWTH COST FIVE POINT SIX MILLION DOLLARS THEY'RE REMAINING HERE AS ONE POINT FOUR MILLION DOLLAR DOLLARS AND THAT'S EXPECTED BECAUSE OF THE CREDIT THAT WE'VE INCLUDED OUR EXISTING DEBT NEXT INFRASTRUCTURE CATEGORY IS VIA 30 COMPONENTS TO THIS ANALYSIS WE HAVE THE FIRE STATIONS ADMIN AND TRAINING FACILITIES AND FIRE APPARATUSES STILL USING THE INCREMENTAL EXPANSION METHODOLOGY HERE.

>> SERVICE AREAS IN THE ANALYSIS ARE NORTH OF THE BROAD IN THE BLUFFTON FIRE DISTRICT NORTH OF THE BROAD SERVICE AREA WE'VE COMBINED THE SHELLED AND THE BURDEN AND THE LADY'S ISLAND FIRE DISTRICTS TO CALCULATE ONE SORT OF FULL SERVICE AREA LEVEL OF SERVICE THE FUTURE NEEDS IN THE NORTH. THE OTHER LEVELS OF SERVICE HERE WITH THE AVERAGE COST FACTORS OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS WE'RE PROJECTING THE NEED OF ELEVEN POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS IN THE NORTH FOR THE BURTON FIRE DISTRICT LEVELS OF SERVICE AND UNIT COSTS AT THE

[01:20:11]

TOP AND AT THE BOTTOM IN THE NET OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS IS A GROWTH RELATED NEEDS ELEVEN POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS AXIOMS HORRIBLE FEE SCHEDULE HERE FOR THE NORTH THE FIRE STATION ADMIN AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES FIRE APPARATUSES COST PER EDI YOU AND TO USE THE EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT THAT SET TO THAT MAN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THE DEMANDS FOR FOR MULTIFAMILY DEMANDS FOR NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TYPES ARE ALL RELATIVE TO ONE YOU OR ONE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT YOU CAN SEE IN THE TOP HERE WE'VE INCLUDED THAT CREDIT AS WELL TO ENSURE THERE'S NO DOUBLE PAYMENT ISSUES SO THERE'S A NET TOTAL ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT DOLLARS PER EDA YOU SCHEDULE IN THE NORTH BASED HOUSING UNIT SIZE BASED ON THE PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD WE GET A EDU EQUIVALENCY FOR EACH HOUSING UNIT SIZE THAT'S MULTIPLIED BY THE NET TOTAL YOU CAN SEE FOR THE SMALLER UNITS THERE'S A DECREASE WHILE UNITS ABOVE TWO THOUSAND SQUARE FEET THERE'S AN INCREASE THE BLUFFTON FIRE DISTRICT SAME APPROACH HERE. THERE'S ALSO A CREDIT INCLUDED FOR EXISTING DEBT SO WE HAVE A NET TOTAL OF NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE DOLLARS PER YOU SCHEDULE SET UP SIMILARLY WHERE WE'RE SEEING AN INCREASE OF ALL BUT THE SMALLEST HOUSEHOLD SIZE THIS YEAR THE NONRESIDENTIAL FEE SCHEDULE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT SCHEDULE. SO INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT RETAIL OFFICE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TYPES THE FIRE DISTRICTS DETERMINE THE FIRE HAZARD LEVEL FOR EACH DEVELOPMENT AS A LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH HAZARD OCCUPANCY HERE YOU CAN SEE THE SECOND COLUMN IS A BASE MINIMUM AND THEN THERE'S INCREMENTAL INCREASE PER THOUSAND AS THE UNIT AS THE DEVELOPMENT GETS BIGGER YOU FACTOR DECREASES BUT THAT'S AN INCREMENTAL ADDITION IN THE NORTH OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS WE'RE PROJECTING WITH THE MAXIMUM SCORE WE'LL AMOUNT SIX POINT THREE MILLION DOLLARS THERE IS A ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF SEVEN POINT TO THIS FUNDING GAP OF ABOUT NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND AS A RESULT OF THE CREDITS WE'VE INCLUDED.

>> COULD WE COULD WE ADVANCE THE FRAME? THANK YOU.

IN THE BLUFFTON FIRE IS NOT THE RIGHT ONE COLIN. >> YEAH, I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY WRITING TECHNICAL ISSUES I'M PROCEEDING WHAT I KNOW WHAT I'M SEEING HERE I'M TRYING TO GIVE ENOUGH TIME FOR EVERYONE TO CATCH UP THE BLUFFTON FIRE DISTRICT SHOWING NOW OK.

>> SO FOR THE BLUFFTON FIRE DISTRICT YOU CAN SEE THERE'S TEN POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUE PROJECTED OVER 10 YEARS ELEVEN POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS IN COSTS EXPECTED.

>> SO WE HAVE ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS IN FUNDING GAP AND THIS IS BASED ON THE CREDITS THAT WE'VE INCLUDED FROM THE FIRE DISTRICTS, THE FIRE CHIEFS THEY WANTED TO INCLUDE A COUPLE OTHER IMPACT FEE CONSIDERATIONS FIRST ONE BEING THAT RESIDENTIAL FEE IS EXEMPT WITH APPROVED SPRINKLER SYSTEMS AND ALSO HOUSING UNITS OVER 5000 SQUARE FEET.

THEY HAVE A FEE OF TWO TO USE AND THAT'S BECAUSE THERE ARE THOSE HOUSING UNITS REQUIRE

[01:25:04]

ADVANCED EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES . THE NEXT CATEGORY IS SOLID

WASTE. >> TWO COMPONENTS HERE IN THE SOLID WASTE ANALYSIS AND CONVENIENT CENTERS SOLID WASTE VEHICLES SERVICE AREA FOR CONVENIENCE CENTERS IS NORTH AND SOUTH. THE BROAD AND SOLID WASTE VEHICLES AS COUNTY WIDE VERY CONVENIENT CENTERS IN THE NORTH. THERE'S A CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE OF POINT FOUR ACRES FOUR THOUSAND PERSONS WITH LAND COSTS AND COST TO IMPROVE THAT ACRE IT'S TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER ACRE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

THAT BRINGS US TO DEMAND OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR CONVENIENCE CENTERS IN THE NORTH FOR CONVENIENCE CENTERS IN THE SOUTH THE LEVEL OF SERVICE ONE POINT THREE FOUR ACRES FOUR THOUSAND AVERAGE COST OF A HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER ACRE

THAT HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. >> THESE POPULATION FIGURES EXCLUDE INCORPORATED AREAS NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE BROAD LEVEL SERVICE HERE GETS TO ONLY TWO ACRES IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS MORE CAPITAL COST OF THREE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS IF I MIGHT.

I DIDN'T HEAR THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION. I DIDN'T HEAR THE ANSWER TO

ALICE'S QUESTION. >> YES. YEAH.

THIS INCLUDES JUST THE UNINCORPORATED POPULATIONS WE'VE EXCLUDED MUNICIPAL POPULATIONS FROM THIS LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR SOLID WASTE VEHICLES.

THERE'S A NEED FOR ONE NEW VEHICLE OR ONE NEW VEHICLE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

OR COST OF ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. >> THIS IS A NEW FEE FOR COUNTY CAPITAL ACROSS THE NORTH. SEVENTEEN DOLLARS PER PERSON IN SIXTY SIX DOLLARS PER PERSON IN THE SOUTH YOU CAN SEE IN THE NORTH. THE MAXIMUM WEALTHY AMOUNT ANYWHERE FROM TWENTY FOUR DOLLARS TO SIXTY FIVE DOLLARS AND IN THE SOUTH THERE'S ABOUT SEVENTY NINE DOLLARS UP TO TWO HUNDRED EIGHTEEN DOLLARS BECAUSE THERE IS NO CREDITS AND WE'RE ALSO ONLY COLLECTING AND SETTING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS AND YOU CAN SEE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS THERE IS NO FUNDING GAP SO OUR PROJECTED REVENUES AND PROJECTED COSTS EQUAL EACH OTHER IN THE SOUTH AT THE SAME OUR REVENUES ARE ABLE TO COVER ALL OF OUR COSTS THAT'S FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN REVENUE AND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY SO FORTH OVER THE LAST CATEGORY. HERE IS TRANSPORTATION AND THE TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS WE'RE USING A PLAN BASED APPROACH.

>> WE'VE WORKED WITH COUNTY STAFF TO PUT TOGETHER A PROJECT LIST OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY. MEAN WE'VE SEPARATED THAT INTO

[01:30:01]

THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH SERVICE AREA THE TABLE HERE LISTS THE PROJECTS FOR THE NORTH BROAD.

>> YOU CAN SEE IN THE MIDDLE COLUMN THE TOTAL COST BRINGS US TO ABOUT FIFTY TWO RIGHT.

WE CAN'T SEE THAT COLUMN BECAUSE THE AIM IS NOT ADVANCED .

WE CAN'T SEE THAT YET. WE'RE STILL ON THE TITLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT BE ANALYSIS. THANK YOU. SO THEN YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'VE INCLUDED A CREDIT HERE AN OFFSET FOR THE PENNY REFERENDUM THAT CALL ON REPRESENTS WHAT

THE COUNTY IS ANTICIPATING THE PENNY TO TO FUND. >> SO MAJORITY OF THESE PROJECTS WILL BE FUNDED THROUGH THE PENNY REFERENDUM. ADDITIONALLY 15 PERCENT OF THE REMAINING FUNDING IS ANTICIPATED TO COME FROM OTHER SOURCES.

SO IF THAT STATE OR FEDERAL REVENUE SOURCES THE COUNTY ANTICIPATES TO CONTRIBUTE EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT OF THE REMAINING COSTS AFTER THE PENDING REFERENDUM IN THE NORTH THAT 14 MILLION DOLLARS LIKE I MENTIONED IN THE PLAN BASED APPROACH WE SET THE LEVEL OF

SERVICE INTO THE FUTURE. >> SO ALL THESE PROJECTS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY 2030. WE SET THE LEVEL OF SERVICE BASED ON THE 20 30 VEHICLE TRACK VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AT THE VERY BOTTOM THERE YOU CAN SEE IT'S ABOUT 1 MILLION VMT IN THE NORTH. SO THAT GETS US TO ABOUT 13 DOLLARS OF THE CAPITAL COST PER VMT IN THE SOUTH YOU CAN SEE HERE LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS NECESSARY OVER THE

NEXT 10 YEARS TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH. >> MIDDLE COLUMN IS THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLAR TOTAL COST PENNY REFERENDUM IS ANTICIPATED TO OFFSET 80 MILLION DOLLARS OF THAT THE REMAINING COST 85 PERCENT OF IT.

>> IT IS ANTICIPATED BEING FUNDED THROUGH THE COUNTY GETS US TO TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS TWO HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS LEVEL OF SERVICE IS SET TO 2030 AND 2030. THERE IS A PROJECTED VMT IN THE SOUTH OF ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND THE CAPITAL COST IN THE SOUTH IS ONE HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT

DOLLARS. >> THE NEXT SLIDE HERE IS THE NORTH OF THE BROAD FEE SCHEDULE

. >> YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CAPITAL COST HERE THIRTEEN DOLLARS IS NO OTHER CREDITS INCLUDED FOR THE NORTH THEN THIS FEE SCHEDULE BREAKS DOWN THE VEHICLE TRIPS FOR DEVELOPMENT TIME THAT WE CAN'T SEE THAT YET.

OK MAYBE ONLY ONE WHO'S HAVING THIS PROBLEM OF THE THE CONNECTION I'VE BEEN ALL WELL BACK SO MOST OF THE DAY TO DAY AND THE CONNECTION SPEED HAS BEEN SLOW.

>> MOST DAY MOST OF US ON STAFF ARE SEEING THE SLIDES AT THE SAME TIME.

COLIN IS SPEAKING ABOUT THOSE SO IT COULD BE INDIVIDUAL CONNECTION SLOWDOWNS AT THE LOCATION OR THROUGH SOME OTHER PROCESS OR I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE SEEING BUT WE'RE AT MY

[01:35:01]

PRESENTATION A COUPLE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS PRESENTATION OR STAYING IN LINE WITH COLUMNS,

TALKING POINTS THIS HAS BEEN ALMOST POINTLESS. >> BUT ANYWAY I'M NOW LOOKING AT ONE THAT SAYS BRANT TRANSPORTATION IN FACT THE ANALYSIS LUMINARY MAXIMUM SUBORDINATED SUPPORTABLE THE NORTH OF THE BROAD WE'RE ALMOST THERE.

>> WE'RE ALMOST TO THE END AND I'LL TRY AND JUST TAKE SOME TIME EACH SLIDE HERE WAIT FOR YOU TO CATCH UP. NOW YOU CAN SEE A HANDFUL OF COLUMNS IN THIS TABLE HERE IS JUST ILLUSTRATING HOW WE CALCULATE THE VMT BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE MULTIPLY THAT VMT FACTOR BY THE NET COST PER PER VMT YOU CAN SEE IN THE NORTH THAT'S THE DECREASE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT TYPES RESIDENTIAL NONRESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL FEE RANGES FROM ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THREE DOLLARS TO THREE HUNDRED FORTY DOLLARS AND SEVENTY FOUR DOLLARS FIRTH FOUR THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL TWO THREE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE DOLLARS FOUR

THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL . >> NOW THE SOUTH OF THE BROAD SLIDE IS SHOWING ON SLIDE SIXTY THREE RIGHT NOW I'M STILL NORTH OF THE I'M SO SORRY.

>> COLIN IS THAT I WISH I WAS THERE IN PERSON BECAUSE ALL OF THIS NEVER HAPPENS IN PERTH IN THE FACE IT IS THE ONE THAT'S SO LATE IT'S NOW AT SLIDE SIXTY THREE NOW I GOT SIXTY THREE SO YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE THAT HUNDRED AND FORTY EIGHT DOLLARS PER BMT ALONG WITH THE PENNY REFERENDUM OFFSET WE'VE INCLUDED ANOTHER CREDIT INSURED NO DOUBLE PAYMENT EXISTING DEBT THE DEVELOPMENT TYPES ON THE LEFT ACTORS TO CALCULATE THE VMT AND THE MAXIMUM PORTABLE HERE RANGING FROM HUNDRED AND TWENTY HUNDRED ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY THREE DOLLARS UP TO THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT DOLLARS FOR RESIDENTIAL UNIT NONRESIDENTIAL ABOUT EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS PER THOUSAND FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN NEARING FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL AND ON THE THE REVENUE SIDE WITH THE MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE AMOUNT FOR THE NORTH OF THE BROAD AND WE'RE PROJECTING THREE MILLION DOLLARS IS ABOUT THREE MILLION DOLLARS IN GROWTH COSTS OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

>> SO WE WE DO NOT SEE ANY FUNDING GAP HERE IN THE NORTH. >> I SHOULD MENTION THIS IS A CASE WHERE ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES HAVE ENTERED INTO AN IPA WITH BEAUFORT COUNTY SOUTH OF THE BROAD THERE'S A PROJECTED REVENUE OF THIRTY SIX POINT EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS THIRTY SEVEN POINT SIX MILLION IN TOTAL COSTS GROWTH GROWTH COSTS.

SO THERE'S A FUNDING GAP HERE. EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND.

AND THAT'S A RESULT CREDIT YOU CAN SEE THIS IMPACT ONLY RECOVERS GROWTH FAIR SHARE OVERALL IN THE SOUTH. THERE'S THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COST OF TOOTH 2 MILLION THREE

TWO HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS. >> LASTLY, WE WILL DISCUSS THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS . THIS IS SOMETHING PRETTY UNIQUE

TO SOUTH CAROLINA. >> WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS LOOK EACH SERVICE AREA.

[01:40:08]

SO IN THIS CASE THIS IS THE NORTH OF THE BROAD. WE LOOK AT THE MONTHLY INCOME AND BASED ON HUD AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHOULD BE IT BE FOR FOUR HOUSEHOLDS OF 80 PERCENT OF THE MEDIAN INCOME HOUSING COSTS WOULD BE 30 PERCENT OR LESS.

SO WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT A COST BURDEN OF 30 PERCENT FOR THEIR THRESHOLD THERE.

SO CURRENTLY IN THE BASE CONDITION NORTH OF THE BROAD THERE IS A COST BURDEN FOR HOMEOWNERS OF TWENTY SEVEN POINT ONE PERCENT AND FOR RENTERS IT'S 40 PERCENT.

IF WE LOOK AT THE INCREASE IN IMPACT FEE THE MAXIM SORT OF AMOUNT HERE AND THIS ALSO INCLUDES TO INCLUDE THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE BUT THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE NORTH WHERE WE'RE SEEING TWO POINT ONE PERCENT INCREASE IN HOUSING COST BURDEN FOR HOMEOWNERS.

AND THERE IS A VERY MARGINAL INCREASE FOR RENTERS IN THE NORTH STILL BELOW THE 30 PERCENT THRESHOLD FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. IF WE TAKE A LOOK IN THE SOUTH IMPACT FEES RIGHT NOW AND THE OTHER MONTHLY COSTS IS A COST BURDEN OF 34 PERCENT FOR HOMEOWNERS NEARING 40 PERCENT THE BASE CONDITION FOR RENTERS BUT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT INCLUDING THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE WE SEE AN INCREASE OF EIGHT PERCENT WHERE HOMEOWNERS, HOMEOWNERS AND ABOUT 4 PERCENT INCREASE. SO I POINT FOUR PERCENT INCREASE FOR RENTERS. HERE IS THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE NORTH ABROAD. WE HAVE THE PARKS AND REC LIBRARY AMASS SOLID WASTE TRANSPORTATION, FIRE AND SCHOOL FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SCHEDULE ABOUT FIFTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS

UP TO FORTY TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS OVERALL. >> MOST RESIDENTIAL TYPES INCREASE ON THE NONRESIDENTIAL SIDE IS A MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE FEE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY SIX DOLLARS OR THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL AND THAT GOES UP TO TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL. SO IN THE NORTH THE MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE FEE WILL DECREASE THE IMPACT TOTAL FOR EACH NONRESIDENTIAL TYPE IN THE SOUTH INCLUDING THE SCHOOLS HERE AND YOU WILL REMEMBER THAT THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE WAS JUST MULTIFAMILY SINGLE FAMILY. IT WASN'T BASED ON HOUSING SIZE BUT WE SAW THAT AN AVERAGE MULTIFAMILY UNIT IS LESS THAN FIFTEEN HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. SO THE MULTI-FAMILY IMPACT FEE FROM SCHOOLS IS FORTY FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND IT'S APPLIED TO ALL THE HOUSING UNITS BELOW FIFTEEN HUNDRED SQUARE FEET IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING UNIT.

THOSE ARE THE HOUSING UNITS ABOVE FIFTEEN HUNDRED OR APPLIED SINGLE FAMILY SCHOOL IMPACT THE SO ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE YOU SEE THE TOTAL FEE OF SIXTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS UP TO ABOUT SIXTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THE NONRESIDENTIAL SIDE AND DUST ARIEL IMPACT FEE MAXIMUM SWIRL FEE IS TWELVE HUNDRED DOLLARS. FOUR THOUSAND SQUARE FEET UP TO FIFTY FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOUR THOUSAND FOR RETAIL. THIS IS MOST COMMON ACROSS THE BOARD AND INCREASE EXCEPT FOR INSTITUT AND WITH THAT I WILL OPEN UP TO QUESTIONS.

>> OK BACK THAT INFORMATION YOU BACK UP ONE SLIDE PLEASE LEAVE THAT UP WHILE YOU CONTINUE YOU

[01:45:11]

HAVE A QUESTION SOME MIGHT GO AT IT ON PARTICULARLY ONE OR OH NO.

I THINK THAT THE QUESTION I GET BEFORE IS ANSWERED IN THE GREEN COLUMN I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT PARKS AND REC NS ABROAD THERE'S NO IGAD BUT WE NEED I KNOW YOU HAVE ANSWERED THIS BEFORE BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE ANSWER ABOUT NORTH OF THE BROAD THE PARKS AND REC EXCLUDES THE MUNICIPALITIES IN YOUR FIGURES RIGHT NOW OR DID YOU ASSUME WE MAKE A ASSUMPTION WE MIGHT GET IDEAS WITH THEM IN THE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE WE'VE INCLUDED THE POPULATION BUT WE HAVE AND INCLUDED IN THE REVENUE ESTIMATES SO. SO IF WE GO BACK A NUMBER OF SLIDES YOU'LL SEE A FUNDING GAP IN BECAUSE PREMIUM DOLLARS OR SO IN THAT AND THAT IS YOU KNOW, IT REALLY GETS DOWN TO SORT OF THE METHODOLOGIES OF THE IMPACT FEE THAT WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO FIND ALTHOUGH THOSE THEY'RE INCORPORATED RESIDENTS THEY'RE STILL USING COUNTY FACILITIES. WE. RIGHT.

SHORTCHANGED ME GROWTH. I DIDN'T GET A MESSAGE FOR EVERYONE'S INFORMATION.

THE LIBRARY BOARD THAT I SUPPORT OF THEY HAD THEIR BOARD OF TRUSTEES HAS LOOKED AT THE FIGURES FOR THE LIBRARY. YOU SUPPORT THE FIGURES AS THEY ARE PUT FORTH IN YOUR STUDY.

SEEM REASONABLE TO THEM. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A LOT GOING TO BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. YES, SIR. THIS WAS FIRST COUNCILMAN FLAILING OR. OK, GO AHEAD. KELSEY, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? COHEN WHAT ARE THERE? THANK YOU. BESIDES SOLID WASTE AND PARK AND REC, WHAT OTHER SUBJECT MATTERS ARE WITHOUT AGREEMENTS? BUT YOU INCLUDED THE COST AND THE THE IMPACT FOR COUNTY AREA NOT THE IMPACT FEE BUT THE THE THE COST AND THE USAGE. THE COUNTY WIDE IT'S SOLID WASTE IN PARKS AND REC. WHO ELSE? WHAT WAS SO WE'LL HAVE TO THINK. LIKE NOT LIBRARY AND NOT TRANSPORTATION BECAUSE WE HAVE

AGREEMENTS WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE DON'T FOR THE LIBRARY NS ABROAD YET.

WE ANTICIPATE WILL SO THAT'S WHAT WE DO. I THOUGHT IT HASN'T BEEN THOUGHT THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THEY AGREED VERBALLY FOR DISTRICT MAYBE ERIC GREENWAY CAN ANSWER ME ON THIS. THEY JUST AGREED VERBALLY THAT THEY WOULD.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY AGREED THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT IF WE DID SOMETHING AND I WENT OUT TO CHECK WITH THE LIBRARY DIRECTOR, MR. MCBRIDE TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT CONDITION WAS.

I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT. I THINK THAT CONDITION WAS THAT WE WILL NOT CHARGE THEM FOR YEARS PASS. WE DIDN'T HAVE WHAT WE ALREADY

DID THAT I THOUGHT THAT WAS ALL ARRANGED. >> IT'S ARRANGED BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN WRITING MY NANA RIGHT NOW I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY YET DO WE? WE DON'T HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES.

>> WE WERE DONE AT I TELL YOU WHAT. LET ME LET ME JUST SAY THIS BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THEN THE NATURE OF THIS MATTER AND BECAUSE OF THE POOR CONNECTIONS THAT WE HAVE TODAY BECAUSE THE INTERNET SLOWDOWN THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY I CAN'T SEE VOTING FOR THIS TODAY. I AM. IT WOULD BE HARD ENOUGH TO ABSORB ALL THIS INFORMATION AND ASK THE IN-DEPTH QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED TO ASK AND GET ANSWERED IN PERSON. LET. BUT IN THIS FORMAT ONLINE WITH OUR CONSTRAINTS TODAY I CAN'T SEE MOVING FORWARD ON THIS. THERE'S JUST NO WAY FOR INSTANCE SOLID WASTE IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR US TO VOTE AND IMPACT FEE JUST ON OWN UNINCORPORATED AREA OF BEAUFORT COUNTY. IT MAKES NO SENSE AND CLEARLY THE IMPACT THAT THE COST IS FOR A COUNTY WIDE BENEFIT. SO WHY WOULD WE TAX THE BEST?

[01:50:04]

IT WOULD BE LIKE IT WOULD BE LIKE US IN THE UNEQUIPPED OPERATED AREA IN AND IN THE REST OF THE COUNTY PAYING FOR JUST THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT OR HILTON HEAD.

WE DON'T. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AND SO WE NEED TO.

I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER MATTER, MA'AM, AND AND DEFER THIS FOR SOME OTHER THING. I THINK YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN THAT WE ALMOST HAVE TO TAKE EACH ONE OF THEM UP SEPARATELY BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL UNIQUE AND LIKE WE JUST SAID.

YEAH. LIKE YOU JUST KIND OF EXPLAIN. BUT ANY OTHER COMMENTS NOW? WE CAN. THIS IS FOR INFORMATION TODAY. TAKE ACTION.

THAT CANDIDATE FOR IF I MIGHT. YES SIR. THIS COMMENT COLUMN TOUCHED ON IT A LITTLE BIT BUT I THINK IT BEARS REPEATING. DEPENDING ON WHO WAS WATCHING OR LISTENING TODAY AND THAT IS THAT ALL OF THESE ARE FURTHER TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE NOT TO INCREASE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AT ALL. AND IN SOME CASES I THINK YOU CAN MAKE A PRETTY GOOD ARGUMENT THAT OUR LEVEL OF SERVICE IS LESS THAN THAN A DESIRABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE. SO SOME PEOPLE MAY THINK THAT WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INCREASING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AND PUTTING IT ON THE BACKS OF THE NEWER PEOPLE, THAT'S NOT THE CASE AT ALL. THIS IS JUST MAINTAINING THE EXISTENCE EXISTING LEVEL AND FOR EXAMPLE, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE I HEAR SOME NUMBERS OUT OF THE AMERICAN PHRASE NATION ON THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET RECOMMENDED PER RESIDENT. AND WE'RE WAY, WAY BELOW THAT.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO COMMENT ON IS I THINK THIS IS FAIRLY ACCURATE IS THE NET EFFECT OF ALL OF THIS MINUS THE SCHOOL WHICH WE'VE ALREADY VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD IS A DECREASE IN IMPACT FEES FOR FOUR HOUSES THAT ARE TWELVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OR LESS. AND SO AND YES THERE ARE INCREASES BUT AS IN THE LARGER THE LARGER HOUSES. SO I'M GUESSING THAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CATEGORY WOULD NORMALLY BE IN THE TWELVE HUNDRED FIFTY FEET OR LESS CATEGORY AND AS SOON AS WE PASS THIS THOSE THOSE HOUSES ARE GONNA GET A DECREASE FROM EXISTING LEVELS OF IMPACT FEES.

SO JUST AN OBSERVATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILOR SOMERVILLE I DO GET A MESSAGE THAT THE REASON THE TOWN PUT OIL CITY OF B FOR R HAVE NOT VOTED ON THE IJA IS I DON'T WANT TO VOTE TWICE AND WANT TO SEE WHAT THE AMOUNTS ARE TO WHATEVER WE APPROVE AND THEN NO VOTE. SO THEY'LL FALL BUT THERE'S THERE IS A AGREEMENT THAT THEY WANT TO PARTICIPATE SO THAT THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMAN. WELL, ABOUT OIL CITY. SO IT'S NOT A DONE DEAL BUT IT IS CLOSE TO A DONE DEAL AS SOON AS WE AGREE AS ACCOUNT COUNTY COUNCIL ON WHAT THE LIBRARY IS BE DO I HAVE ANY. WE CAN WE CAN DO THAT. JUST HOLD ON TO THIS.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT BEFORE OR NOT? CHANGE ANYTHING IN IT.

WE HAVE ABOUT THREE OR FOUR OPTIONS. WE CAN DO WE WANT TO MAKE A

MOTION. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. GREENWAY.

>> IF IF WE WAIT TILL SEPTEMBER MEETING TO TAKE ANY ACTION, IS THERE ANY HARM IN THAT?

>> NO, THERE IS NO THERE IS NO TIME FRAME ON DOING THIS AND THERE IS NO HARM.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THIS RIGHT MOVING FORWARD AND ADVANCING IT CORRECTLY.

AND HOW HAVE YOUR CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED? I WOULD IMAGINE IF YOU YOU ALL MIGHT GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION JUST AS A THOUGHT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO TAKE UP THIS COMPLEX ITEM IN A REGULAR COMMITTEE MEETING LEVEL OR DO SOME SORT OF WORKSHOP OR DO SOME OTHER WAY TO DEAL WITH THE UPDATED PHASE IN THE NEW PHASE.

THAT'S JUST A SUGGESTION FOR THE COUNTY COUNCIL WORKSHOP LIKE WE HAD EARLIER WHEN WHEN WE FIRST STARTED ON THIS IT WOULD BE A SUGGESTION THAT WE COULD MOVE FORWARD.

I'LL DEFER TO THE CHAIR. I AGREE WE NEED WE NEED A WORKSHOP.

YEAH, CHAIRMAN AND DECIMATE. YES. COUNTY COUNCIL WORKSHOP FOR THE

[01:55:01]

YES. >> WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO OR MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT WE POSTPONE ACTION BY HAVING SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS MATTER UNTIL WELL AND WE'LL FILL IN THE BLANK THAT WE HOLD A COUNTY COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON SUCH AND SUCH A DATE. OKAY. AND WE'LL WORK WITH SARAH TO SEE WHAT DATE WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR US TO TAKE THIS AS A SPECIFIC TOPIC.

YES, IT'S VERY COMPLEX AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. I GUESS SONY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE . WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THAT AS A MOTION OR WOULD COUNCIL FOILING OR SOME PROGRAM SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE THOSE THAT WE CAN GO ONTO THE NEXT ITEM?

>> YES, I'LL TAKE THAT THE MOTION THAT WE DEFER IT UNTIL WE CAN MEET IN PERSON, OK? OH OK. ALL RIGHT. LET ME ALONE.

YEAH. THAT'S GOING TO BE A WHILE IF IT GETS THE SECOND.

>> I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. IF YOU GET TO YOUR SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

IT FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND HERE. ANY OTHER MOTIONS REGARDING A WORKSHOP, ANY MADAM CHAIRMAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF TIME THIS IS SOME WHAT KIND OF TIME

FRAME WE COULD LOOK AT. >> I AM VERY SYMPATHETIC TO MR. HE'S CONCERNED ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH IT TODAY. I THINK HE WAS THE ONLY ONE BUT ONE PERSON HAS ONE TOO MANY.

SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF A WORKSHOP. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION

THAT WE CONDUCT A WORKSHOP WITHIN 30 DAYS. >> SEE HOW THAT GOES 30 DAYS AND THEN MOVE IT ON THEN MOVE IT ON TO COUNCIL FROM. FROM THAT POINT.

>> OK. SO THIS WOULD BE AT A COUNTY COUNCIL WORKSHOP.

CORRECT. SET YOUR MOTION. YES, THAT IS MY MOTION.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? YES.

OK. THAT WAS COUNTS ON THE COVER AND I THINK ANY DISCUSSION.

>> ALL RIGHT. IS THERE BUT NO OBJECTION. ARE THERE DO WE NEED TO HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE? I HAVE NO OBJECTION. I DON'T HEAR ANY OBJECTIONS.

>> I DO NOT HAVE A QUESTION. THE DATE FOR THIS WORKSHOP. HE SAID I THINK COUNCILMAN SOMERVILLE SAID WITHIN 30 DAYS. CORRECT. WELL, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION THAT WE ESTABLISH SAID DATE SO THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LISTENING IN ON CAN MAKE PLANS TO CALL IN TO. I MEAN THERE ARE NUMEROUS COMMENTS ON HERE.

THE SITE MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE HOLD THIS MEETING. WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS LET'S SAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH OF AUGUST WHICH IS A THURSDAY AND THAT WE HOLD IT LATER IN THE AFTERNOON BECAUSE I SAW SOME COMMENTS WHERE PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY CAN'T COME IN AND MAKE A COMMENT BECAUSE THEY WORK. SO WE CAN HAVE THIS AS A WORKSHOP THAT BEGINS 3 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON ON THE TWENTY SEVENTH OF AUGUST FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF TAPING TAKING UP THIS PARTICULAR ITEM .

YOU MAKE THAT AS AN AMENDMENT TO EXIST TO THE PREVIOUS. YEAH I WOULD DO THAT BUT SECOND MR. CHAIRMAN IF IF I'M A CHAIR AND BEFORE WE GET A SECOND IF WE'RE TRULY CONCERNED ABOUT WORKING PEOPLE HAVING A CHANCE TO WIN THEN I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE IT A LITTLE FURTHER BACK

FROM 3. >> I'M OKAY WITH THAT. WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST COUNCILMAN BELSON? I'VE GOT ALL RIGHT. YOU CHANGE YOUR AMENDMENT TO THAT. ALL RIGHT. YEAH, I'LL BE VERY HAPPY TO

MAKE IT. >> STARTING AT 5:00. WE HAVE A SECOND TO THE AMENDMENT. ALL RIGHT, COUNCILMAN DAWSON SECOND AMENDMENT.

OH, AND BY DOING THIS CORRECTLY ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT. NOW YOU WANT TO SAY THAT THE

MOTION WE COULD DO NATALIE JACKSON DRAMATIC JARROD OK. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR AND WITH NO OBJECTION TO THE INITIAL MY. AND BY SAYING THAT RIGHT.

THE INITIAL THEN THE AMENDMENT IN THE INITIAL MOTION. I KNOW I MIGHT.

[02:00:03]

MIGHT I OFFER A BETTER HELP? YES I MIGHT OFFER BETTER HELP TO YOU, MA'AM.

I WOULD SAY AT THIS TIME IF THIS TIME WILL GO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT, THE MAIN MOTION WITHOUT OBJECTION. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS AND THEN YOU WOULD DO THE SAME THING WITH THE MAKE SOME MENTIONED START WITH THE AMENDMENT AND THEN MOVE ON THE MAIN MOTION WITHOUT OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDMENT. AND THAT IS ADOPTED.

NOW WE'LL GO TO THE MAIN MOTION WITH NO NO NO OBJECTION AND THAT IS ADOPTED HERE.

I HAVE HEARD NO OBJECTION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE WILL HAVE A WORKSHOP. THANK YOU. COUNSEL.

THANK YOU. MAY I JUST INTERJECT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SAW ON FACEBOOK CAME FROM THE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION THAT SAID THAT THEY SENT SOMETHING TO THE MEMBERS OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE AND THAT EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER GOT THAT.

WELL, WE'RE GOING TO READ THAT DURING PUBLIC COMMENT. >> OKAY.

AND I WILL SEND IT OUR OR OUR OR OUR COUNTY CLERK WILL SEND A DOLL FOR COUNCIL BECAUSE A WORD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO THAT THAT I WILL READ INTO THE RECORD DURING PUBLIC.

AND WE ALSO HAVE SOME OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS. YES.

[Executive Session]

MY ADVICE TO THEM. OK. VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA. WE NEED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. RIGHT? WE'RE READY.

ALL RIGHT. THIS BROAD CAN YOU OF DO THAT FOR US? DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION FIRST NAME? YES, SIR.

COUNCILMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I'D LIKE THE MOTION.

WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ALL.

YES. I HAVE A SECOND. SECOND RIGHT.

WITH WITHOUT OBJECTION WE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? >> AND GO WELL HAVE YOU HAVE YOUR NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE STILL NOT DONE? WAS THAT ALICE? OH NO. RIGHT. WHEN YOU'RE READY.

YEAH. BOARD. CAN WE CLEAR ON THE AIR? YEAH. LET ME LOOK AT THE CLOCK I THINK TIMEFRAME.

BUT THERE ARE STILL SOME THINGS WE HAVE TO FINISH ON NATURAL RESOURCES.

WE NEED TO GET TO THAT. LET'S TRY. ALL RIGHT.

CAN WE START? ALL RIGHT. WHAT DO YOU HAVE MATTERS

[ 10. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PEPPER HALL AND OKATIE RIVER PARK JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT]

ARISING OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> WOULD YOU.

>> DO I HEAR A MOTION MADAM CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 10 THAT WE MOVE TO COUNTY COUNCIL FOR AN ORDINANCE UNDER FIRST READING OR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PEPPER HALL IN OKATIE HALL RIVER PARK JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT AS PART OF THAT MOTION THAT THE COUNTY COUNCIL ENGAGED THE SERVICES OF MR. BEN JOHNSON TO ASSIST IN DEVELOPING THAT AGREEMENT. I KIND LOVELY, LOVELY. OK, NOW HERE A SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL SECOND THAT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DOCK AND IT'S ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA IS NOT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. WE'RE VOTING BY TITLE ONLY IN AND ASKING MR. JOHNSON TO TAKE TO BE WEIGHING IN AND HELP US. IS THAT RIGHT, JOE?

>> IS THAT WHAT YOU SUGGEST? YEP. >> ALL RIGHT.

EXCELLENT. AND WE'LL THAT NO MET THE AGENDA MEETING ME THAT THERE

COMES I MEET NEXT WITHOUT OBJECTION TO BALANCE. >> YES.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. ALL RIGHT. THAT PASSES FOR YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT. NUMBER ELEVEN WILL BE DEFERRED .

[12. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPOINTMENT ]

WE CANNOT DO THAT TILL WE HAVE MORE DETAILS. ALL RIGHT.

GOING ON TO NUMBER 12 ON THE AGENDA. WE HAVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPOINTMENT. DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATION FOR THAT?

>> WELL, WE DO, MADAM CHAIRMAN. >> ALL RIGHT. >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO PREVAIL.

>> YOU HAVE THE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU. BECAUSE I'M NOT I DON'T HAVE IT

WITH THE YES, I DO. >> IS THIS LYNN LOOSE? I'M SAYING THAT RIGHT.

IT WAS SENT OUT TODAY SHE LIVES SHE LIVES IN THE DISTRICT. AND WE SENT THAT OUT TO ALL

[02:05:08]

COUNCIL MEMBERS EARLIER TODAY. SHE IS A RETIRED REAL ESTATE BROKER APPRAISER AND LIVES IN

BOXING CITY. >> I HAVE A SECOND THINK SARA CAN PUT THAT UP ON THE TABLE? THERE IT IS HER EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAVE A SECOND WILL BE OK. I THOUGHT IT WAS.

I'VE GOT PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYMENT OF TOM GASPARINO. WELL, WE HAVE THIS NOMINATION

WE HAD TWO TWO NAMES IN THE HOPPER. >> WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS

NOMINEE. >> YEAH. >> ALL RIGHT.

SUPPOSED TO BE WHICH DISTRICT IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE COVERING? WHAT WHAT SEAT IS THE NTC? IT'S JUST AS SOUTH AS THE BARON. OH, SORRY, GET A SENSE OF THE

BROAD. >> IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO THE. >> OK.

>> I THINK COUNCILMAN, WHOEVER THAT CANDIDATE WAS MAYOR ANY DISCUSSION?

DO WE NEED TO VERY. >> ARE YOU'RE GOING TO OPEN UP NOMINATIONS FROM OTHER MEMBERS? SURE. ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS DESIGNING?

WELL, FEELS. >> I HAVE. I WISH WE HAD HAD ENOUGH AND TALK ABOUT THIS AS HOWARD TALKED ABOUT. ALL RIGHT.

YOU MEAN TO TALK ABOUT IT? WE CAN DEFER IT TO THE NEXT MEETING IF YOU'D LIKE.

I'M OPEN TO THAT, SIR. AND YOU COULD. YEAH.

LIKE I CAN'T TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT. >> ALL RIGHT.

LET'S DEFER NO DIALOG. DO YOU MIND IF WE DEFER THIS TO NEXT COUNCIL MEETING? I WILL ASK THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION TO GO WITH THAT. I'M FINE WITH IT.

OK. >> ALL RIGHT. WE WILL DEFER NUMBER 12 TILL

[13. CITIZEN COMMENT (Every member of the public who is recognized to speak shall limit comments to three minutes ‐ Citizens may email sbrock@bcgov.net, or comment on our Facebook Live stream to participate in Citizen Comment) ]

THE SUB CHAMBER MEETING. ALL RIGHT. NOW I HAVE A COUPLE THINGS TO READ RECORD. THANK YOU FOR CITIZEN COMMENT. I HAVE ONE LETTER AND I KNOW WE HAVE SOME FACEBOOK. SO LET ME READ THE TWO THAT I GOT THE EMAIL.

ONE IS FROM THE SEA ISLAND FLORIDA COALITION WHICH IS IN REGARD TO THE CDC CODE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES AS A CODE NOW STANDS.

PERSONS APPLYING FOR DEVELOPMENT TO FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TAKE TWO AND I THINK YOU MEANT T FOR ZONES ARE EXEMPT FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY'S GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. WHY SUCH PLANS MAY BE PRESENTED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND LATER DID THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD NEITHER BODY TO REPORT OR ANY CHANGES TO WHATEVER BASIC DESIGN IS BROUGHT BEFORE THEM? LAND AND CONSTRUCTION PRESSURES ON DEVELOPERS ARE LEADING MANY TO A DOUBLING OF DENSITY IN WHAT ARE TYPICALLY ONLY NEIGHBORHOODS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF DUPLEX RESIDENTS?

>> WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO DUPLEX RESIDENTS AS SUCH DEVELOPMENT MAY PROVIDE SOME RELIEF FOR HOUSING CHALLENGES. BUT IS IT IMPORTANT TO REGULATE SUCH DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE SO OBVIOUSLY REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD EVOLUTION? THERE IS A NEEDS OF BY SOME STANDARDS TO THESE DEVELOPMENTS.

IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN TO HARMONIZE THEIR ORGANIZATION SETTING STYLE AND ACCESS SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO A DEVELOPMENT CITED IN THE MIDST OF A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD OR AT THE MARGINS OF INDUSTRIAL SLASH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THIS EXCEPTION MAY HAVE MADE SENSE AT THE TIME IT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE CDC BUT SUCH EXCEPTIONS ARE INCREASINGLY THREATENING THE COUNTY'S ABILITY TO MANAGE DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL AND REGULATE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS.

IN PARTICULAR, THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE WILL ADDRESS THIS AND PROVIDE A POSITIVE BENEFIT TO THE COUNTY AND ITS NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE URGE YOU TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND TO ENCOURAGE YOUR COLLEAGUES ON THE COUNTY COUNCIL TO CONCUR. IS THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSIDERED BROADER FOR COUNCILS OR THE CEO AND FOR THE COALITION OF CHARLES G. G.

I HAVE ANOTHER LETTER IT WAS VIA EMAIL FROM THE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION COUNCIL

MEMBERS LEADERSHIP AND STAFF SOME VERY BIG DECISIONS. >> WAIT WAIT YOU IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED COUNTY IMPACT FEES AND I SPEAK FOR THE ENTIRE HB I WHEN I SAY THAT WE GRATEFUL TO HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE WITH YOU ALL HOPEFULLY FROM PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVE TO YOUR

[02:10:01]