Oct 05, 2020 County Council Special Meeting

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:03:50]

SO THIS SAY WHAT TIME WE'RE GOING TO START AGAIN? YES, SO IT IS 5 0 4 P.M. I WILL RECESS MEETING UNTIL 5:00 THIRTY AT WHICH TIME WE WILL BEGIN AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU. WE ARE. OK.

VERY GOOD. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. WE HAD RECESS MEETING AT 5 O'CLOCK. WE'VE CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER.

WE DO HAVE ALL ELEVEN MEMBERS PRESENT. WE'VE DONE THE PLEDGE

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

[00:05:01]

A MILLION OR SO MOVED, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> MR. FLOWING MAKES THE MOTION

TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO REMOVE ITEM NUMBER FIVE. >> MAY I HAVE A SECOND? SECONDLY, CHAIRMAN MR. FLOOR WALLING MADE THE MOTION MR. DAWSON MADE THE SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NO DISCUSSION THIS ITEM WILL BE DONE WITHOUT OBJECTION.

ARE THERE ANY OBJECTION? SEEING NO OBJECTIONS. ITEM NUMBER FIVE HAS BEEN

REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE

REMAINING PARTS OF THE PLAN AS WELL AS DISTRIBUTED. >> VERY GOOD.

THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED BY MR. LLEWELLYN.

NOW HAVE A SECOND. SECOND, MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. DAWSON HAS MADE THE SECOND.

ARE THERE ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NO DISCUSSION. THIS ITEM WILL BE APPROVED

WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS SAYING NO OBJECTION?

[6. AMENDMENT TO THE 2020-2021 BEAUFORT COUNTY BUDGET ORDINANCE]

WE ARE HAVING A DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS ITEM. SO IN ORDER TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND THE 2021 BEAUFORT COUNTY BUDGET

ORDINANCE. >> THAT MOTION SOME OF MR. CHAIRMAN MR. DAWSON MAKES A

MOTION. >> MAY I HAVE A SECOND PLEASE? >> DRAGON MR. SOMERVILLE MAKES THE SECOND DISCUSSION. LET ME INFORM THE PUBLIC OF WHY THIS IS ON THE AGENDA.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT IS ON THE SCREEN IN SECTION 2, IT BEGINS WITH THE COUNTY AUDITOR HAS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO LEVY IN FISCAL YEAR 2020 WON A TAX OF SIXTY FIVE POINT TO TWO MILLS ON THE DOLLAR WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL MILLAGE RATES THAT ARE LISTED THERE. THEY DO NOT ADD UP TO SIXTY FIVE POINT TO TWO.

THEY ADD UP TO SIXTY FOUR POINT TWO. THE AUDITOR HAS DETERMINED UNDER HIS AUTHORITY THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE HUNDREDS OF A MILL. IT HAS TO BE TENTHS OF A MIL SO SIXTY FIVE POINT TWO WOULD BE THE NUMBER. AND THEN WE HAVE TO DETERMINE IF IN FACT THE FOUR POINT EIGHT FOR THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY IS FOUR POINT EIGHT OR FIVE POINT EIGHT AND MR. HAYES WILLIAMS WAS TAKING A LOOK AT THAT AND I DON'T KNOW IF MR. WILLIAMS HAS BEEN ABLE TO ASCERTAIN IF THAT IS THE CORRECT NUMBER.

>> THE FOURTH WAS WHAT WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN YOUR RATIFIED PART 1 8 WAS WHAT THE CAP REALLY ANY AUDITOR WAS ALLOWED TO PRESCRIBE THAT VILLAGE WANTED TO LEVY.

I HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH TIME TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE. OKAY.

I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH. OK, SO WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF COUNCIL?

>> IS IT THE PLEASURE OF COUNCIL TO AMEND THIS TO READ SIXTY FIVE POINT TWO AT THE TOP AND CHANGE FOUR POINT EIGHT TO FIVE POINT EIGHT. MR. FLOWING YOUR COMMENTS.

YES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. CERTAINLY WE SHOULD AMENDED TO REMOVE THE TWO ONE HUNDREDTH OF A MILL AT THE END OF IT AND SAYING IS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A VALID REASON THAT THE AUDITOR AT CLOSING THE THE LARGER AMOUNT FOR DEBT MILLAGE HE CONTENDS HE HAS CONTAINED IN A OFF LINE CONVERSATION WITH ME THAT THE AMOUNTS THAT WE'VE LISTED FOR CALCULATE DEBT MILLAGE DID NOT INCLUDE THE PAYMENTS THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THE RECENT RECENT REALLY RECENT BOND ISSUE OF EITHER AUGUST OR LATE JULY.

>> AND SO THE AMOUNTS THAT WE HAD CALCULATED PREVIOUSLY DID NOT INCLUDE THREE PAYMENTS AND THAT IF YOU INCLUDE THOSE NECESSARY PAYMENTS IT TOTALS THE SIXTY FIVE POINT TWO THAT WE'VE THAT WE'VE GENERALLY ISSUED EXCEPT FOR THAT THE CHANGE IN THE ONE HUNDREDTHS

[00:10:06]

CHANGED FROM FOUR POINT EIGHTY FIVE POINT EIGHT. >> OK, LET THE WELL UNFORTUNATELY I'M UNSURE WHERE THAT GOES. LET'S SEE I'M LOOKING FOR IT

HERE. >> SO IT WOULD BE THE COUNTY DEBT SERVICE TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY FROM FOUR POINT EIGHT TO FIVE POINT EIGHT. SO THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL CHANGE THAT WE NEED TO MAKE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING? NO.

WHAT DAY WAS THAT? >> IF HE'S REFERRING TO PAYMENTS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE FOR A BOND THAT WOULD BE IN COUNTY DEBT SERVICE NOT PURCHASED REAL PROPERTY PROGRAM BECAUSE IT'S RURAL AND CRITICAL. BOND ISSUE.

WELL, I MEAN THE PART OF THAT SO LEVIN MADE THAT WAS FOR A GM BOND THAT WOULD COME OUT

OF DEBT SERVICE. >> RIGHT. >> WELL, THE REST OF IT WOULD

COME OUT OF REAL PROPERTY. >> THAT ENTIRE GM BOND ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AND CRITICAL ON OK

,WELL. >> SO IT SEEMS TO ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION ALTHOUGH THE TOTAL WILL BE SIXTY FIVE POINT TWO.

THERE'S A LITTLE CONFUSION ABOUT WHICH ONE OF THE MILLAGE CALCULATIONS LISTED IN SECTION 2 WOULD BE AFFECTED AND HOW THEY WOULD BE AFFECTED. ALTHOUGH I'M REASONABLY CONFIDENT THAT THAT IT WILL TOTALED SIXTY FIVE POINT TWO. AND SO I WOULD ASK THAT THE MAKER OF THE MOTION AMEND IT SO THAT WE REMOVE THE TWO ONE HUNDRED ELEVEN M. IN SECTION 2 TO CHANGE IT TO SIXTY FIVE POINT TWO INSTEAD OF SIXTY FIVE POINT TWO TO AND I THINK AT THIS POINT THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE WE ABSOLUTELY KNOW OF AND WE'LL HAVE TO CHANGE HOW

THOSE PAYMENTS ARE APPLIED. >> VARIOUS MILLAGE RATES THROUGHOUT SECTION 2 AT SOME

LATER TIME. >> MY MR. HER VERSION THAT WE'VE GOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF CONFUSION ABOUT SOMEWHAT SECTION 2 AS I END UP LOOKING LIKE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME

POTENTIALLY COME BACK AND VOTE ON THIS AGAIN ANYWAY. >> IS IT REASONABLE TO POSTPONE THIS DATE IN WHICH NO ONE PAYS? IS THAT THE ABILITY TO DIG INTO THIS AND CONFIRM THOSE NUMBERS

WHEN YOU'RE ALL CERTAIN ON EXACTLY THE FINAL FORM OF THIS? >> YEAH I WOULD YOU IN MY HOUSE IS THE EMOTION. YEAH. YEAH.

SO NOW WE HAVE A MOTION IN SECOND ON THE FLOOR WE'LL NEED TO AMEND THE THE EMOTION THAT IS ON THE FLOOR TO RATHER THAN AMEND THIS IS TO POSTPONE THIS TO A LATER DATE UNTIL WE GET THE NUMBERS FACTUAL SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE PART OF THE CHANGE NOW AND THEN PART OF THE

CHANGE AGAIN. >> SO I THINK THAT WILL BE THE APPROPRIATE MOTION.

SO TO HER VERSION. ARE YOU GOING TO BE THE PERSON TO AMEND THAT TO POSTPONE THIS ACTION UNTIL AND WE'LL FILL IN THAT DATE IN. MR. WILLIAMS, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO GET THIS BY THE NEXT COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING WHICH IS ANOTHER.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> SO WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO IT BY OCTOBER 12TH?

I WOULD THINK SO. OK. >> SO MR. HERBERT SHOT.

WILL YOU MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE THIS MATTER POSTPONED UNTIL OCTOBER 12TH?

COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING? >> YES, SIR. YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION SPEAKING LARSON SO AND MR. CULVER, YOU WERE THE SECOND ON THAT, CORRECT?

>> OK. DO WE NEED TO WITHDRAW ALL THE FOR THE FORMER MOTION? DID THAT HAPPEN? NO. WE DIDN'T.

WE DIDN'T. WE'RE ON TOP OF THAT. WE'RE JUST GOING TO MEND THAT

MOTION AND WE JUST DO IT THAT WAY. >> OH.

IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE MOTION. THE PHONE.

[00:15:03]

OK. SO WE HAVE A QUESTION AND STICK AND TO AMEND TO POSTPONE THE ACTION ON THIS UNTIL THE OCTOBER 12TH. COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ? THIS WILL BE DONE WITHOUT OBJECTION. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE CHANGE? MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. GO AHEAD, REDMAN.

>> SINCE WE'RE DEALING WITH AN ORDINANCE, I'M GUESSING THAT WE HAVE TO DO THREE READINGS ON THIS. IT GIVES IT TO ITS TAX ITEMS. SECONDLY, I THINK THE THE 2 2 1 2 1 HUNDREDS OR WHATEVER IT IS PROBABLY FALLS IN AREAS SCRIBNER'S ERROR.

WE MAY OR MAY NOT GET THREE READINGS ON THAT. BUT THE OTHER IS CERTAINLY CONFUSING AND UNLESS SOMEBODY TELLS ME DIFFERENTLY IT DOES SEEM TO ME WE'RE HEADED FOR THREE READINGS ON THIS WHICH IF THAT'S THE CASE I WANT TO PASS IT TONIGHT JUST SO WE CAN TAKE CARE OF IT A SECOND OR THIRD WITHOUT CONVENING A SPECIAL MEETING.

BUT MAYBE SOME WOULD GET A ME ON WHETHER THIS REQUIRES TWO OR THREE READINGS IF I MIGHT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE IS NO LIMIT ON THIS. AND SO IF IF WE DO THIS OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS THROUGHOUT THE REMAINDER OF THE MONTH OF OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE MISSING ANY DEADLINES OR CHANGING THE OUTCOME IN ANY WAY.

AND I'D RATHER HAVE THAT FIRST READING COMPLETED THE MATH SO THAT WE CAN PREPARE QUESTIONS PRIOR TO SECOND READING IF NECESSARY. I DON'T SEE ANY HURRY ON THIS

STORY. I DON'T DISAGREE. >> BUT IT DOES THIS DOESN'T THIS AFFECT WHAT GOES ON THE TAX BILL 10 TAX BILLS WERE ALREADY ISSUED WITH THAT AMOUNTS ARE SIXTY FIVE POINT TWO OF THAT WHICH THE HIGHER AMOUNT.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S TWO ONE HUNDRED. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER FOUR

POINT EIGHT VERSUS FIVE? IS THAT THE TAX BILLS? >> WELL, NO THE THE THE TAX WERE ISSUED WITH A LEVY SIXTY POINT TWO. OK, SO SO YOU KNOW WE'VE GOT A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF ISSUES IF IF IT COMES BACK THAT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ALREADY INCLUDED FOR THE ISSUE OF THE BOND THAT THE DEBT SERVICE NECESSARY FOR THE BOND REPAYMENT.

WE'VE GOT A WHOLE SEPARATE ISSUE ABOUT HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR LOWERING NEXT YEAR'S MILLAGE RATE BY ONE MALE OR SOME EQUIVALENT AMOUNT BECAUSE WE'VE OVERTAXED CITIZENS A LITTLE.

AND THAT'S NOT THAT UNUSUAL THAT HAS HAPPENED NOT IN COUNTY IN MY MEMORY BUT IN OTHER COUNTIES WHERE THERE WAS OVER COLLECTING THE TAXES AND IT HAD TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE NEXT YEAR. IT'S YOU CAN HAPPEN. I DON'T I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT THOUGH BECAUSE I'M I'M FAIRLY SURE THAT THE DEBT SERVICE IS NECESSARY FOR EITHER PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY OR COUNTY DEBT SERVICE. ONE OF THE TWO OR A COMBINATION OF THEM. SO FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IT WILL TOTAL OUT TO SIXTY FIVE POINT TWO AND WE WILL NOT BE OVER COLLECTING TAXES EXCEPT THAT THE TAX BILL WAS ISSUED WITH SIXTY FIVE POINT TWO BUT WE AUTHORIZED SIXTY FIVE POINT TO TWO POINT TWO DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED AT SOME POINT. YES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CLARIFYING THAT USING ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

>> THE TREASURER CONTACTED ME AND SHE WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU NEED TO KNOW IF SHE SHOULD HOLD

OFF ON EMPLOYING INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS. >> I'M NOR DOES HE HAVE TILL

OCTOBER 15TH FOR. >> I THINK SHE WAS EXTENDED FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME ON

INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS. >> I THINK SO. YEAH.

OH I BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA HAVE THIS RESOLVED BY THE 12TH. >> OK.

OK. OK. ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO AMEND THIS TO REMOVE THIS ITEM OF POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL OCTOBER 12TH.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THIS WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT OBJECTION.

ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? THING? NO OBJECTIONS.

THE MOTION CARRIES TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL THE OCTOBER 12TH MEETING.

[7. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE STATE OF EMERGENCY IN BEAUFORT COUNTY]

[00:20:04]

NOT DO THE STATE OF EMERGENCY THEN HOURS WILL EXPIRE. >> SO I WOULD BE SEEKING A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE STATE OF EMERGENCY IN GUILFORD COUNTY IF EMOTION PLAYS. SO MOVING THIS SUCH AIRMAN

SECONDED MR. MCKELLEN MAKES THE MOTION. >> AND MR. GLOVER MAKES THE SECOND DISCUSSION IF I COULD. WHO WAS FIRST? MR. FLUKE, GO AHEAD.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. I'D LIKE TO ASK THE ADMINISTRATOR WHAT WHAT SPECIFIC ACTIONS HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IN THE LAST 30 DAYS IN RESPONSE TO THE STATE OF EMERGENCY. I HOPE YOUR NORMAL AUTHORITY LOOK IN OTHER WORDS, UNDER UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE WE USED THIS STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATION IN THE LAST 30 DAYS

? >> SO YOU'RE YOU'RE USING THIS TO ALLOW YOURSELVES TO MEET

VIRTUALLY. >> SO I THINK THAT'S THE PRIMARY CONCERN HERE.

>> IT ISN'T. IT DOES ALLOW ME AS WELL TO TO KEEP BUILDINGS CLOSED SO TO THE PUBLIC IN THAT ALLOWS US TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW SOME EMPLOYEES WORKING VIRTUALLY.

>> BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S NOT. I MEAN THOSE ARE THINGS I COULD STILL DO EVEN WITHOUT THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE. BUT THE MAIN THING IS YOUR

ABILITY TO MEET VIRTUALLY. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS, MR. CHAIRMAN? MR. JOHN, WHAT IS GOING ON THE TRIGGER MECHANISM WHERE WE'RE NOT GOING TO RENEW THIS LONGER ?

WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE END POINT HERE? >> I DON'T.

THAT'S A QUESTION FOR A COUNSELOR FOR MR. GIBBS, BUT I'D LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION ON THAT. WELL, AS LONG AS YOU WANT TO MEET VIRTUALLY YOU WILL NEED

THE EMERGENCY COORDINATES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, GO AHEAD, MR. CULVER.

>> ALL RIGHT, I'VE GOT A STATEMENT. BUT FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO ASK

MASK ORDINANCE RENEWAL IN THIS AT ALL. >> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IF THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IS RENEWED THE MAYOR GORDON WILL BE PART OF THAT AS WELL.

AND IF IT'S NOT THE MAX GORDON, IT GOES AWAY AS WELL. CORRECT.

THAT'S CORRECT. OK. MR. CHICKEN OR THIS WOULD THIS STARTED WITH ORDINANCE 20 20 DASH 0 1. WE PASS THIS AS A COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING THE STATE OF EMERGENCY DUE TO A NOVEL OR NOVEL RATHER SORRY VIRUS.

IT WAS SUPPORTED FOR THE LAST SEVEN MONTHS BY SUBSEQUENT ORDINANCES.

WE JUST TALKED ABOUT WHAT IT GAVE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ENOUGH THE ABILITY TO DO SO OR SEVEN MONTHS LATER. IT'S NOW OCTOBER . THERE IS NOTHING NEW ABOUT THIS VIRUS. RECENTLY IT'S CONFIRMED THAT THE SA'S CEO V2 IS WHAT CAUSES 19 THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR OVER A YEAR NOW. MR. CHAIRMAN, WE PREPARED FOR THE WORST AND MODELS WERE EXAGGERATED DEATH TOLL FOR FORECASTS.

THANK GOD WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT. WE TOOK THE STEPS NECESSARY AND PRUDENT AT THAT TIME.

THANKFULLY THE VIRUS HAS PROVEN TO BE LESS DEADLY THAN ORIGINALLY PROJECTED.

IT'S WELL-DOCUMENTED THAT OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS IN BEAUFORT COUNTY WERE NEVER OVERWHELMED, NEVER OVERWHELMED. I'VE NOTICED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS THE NUMBER OF NEW CASES IS DROPPING. NOW WE ALL JUST RECEIVED AN EMAIL WITH THE STATS FROM THE

[00:25:05]

DATA FROM DISK SHOWS OUR CASELOAD WAS AT ITS WORST ON AUGUST THE 4TH NOT NOW AUGUST THE 4TH. WE'VE BEEN IN THIS SITUATION LIKE I SAID FOR SEVEN MONTHS THE THREAT POSED BY COVE IT IS NOT NEW. IT'S NOT IMMINENT.

A CONTINUOUS ACTION OF THIS ORIGINAL ORDINANCE NOW COULD BE CONSIDERED OVERREACH AS ONE CONSTITUENT RECENTLY PUT IT TO ME QUOTE A FRAUDULENT STUNT TO CONTINUE THE EXERTING CONTROL OVER RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES WHILE FUNNELING CARE'S MONEYS TO THE COUNTY WHEN STATISTICS DO NOT JUSTIFY SUCH ACTION. END QUOTE. THAT'S FROM CONSTITUENTS CITIZENS HERE IN VIEW FOR COUNTY ALL ACROSS SOUTH CAROLINA AND ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ARE WELL VERSED. NOW IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR THEM AND THEIR FAMILY. IF THAT MEANS YOU WANT TO WEAR A MASK OR MAKE IT A RULE IN YOUR BUSINESS, THEN SO BE IT. WE ARE ALL MORE THAN WELL VERSED NOW THAT HAND SANITATION HYGIENE IS AN ABSOLUTE WEAR THE MASK. IN THE WORDS OF OUR FRIEND MAYOR WILLIAMS FROM HARDY VILLE WHERE THE. DO THE RESPONSIBLE THING.

WE AS CITIZENS DO NOT NEED TO BE TOLD BY THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IS BEST FOR US AND HOW TO DO IT. AS MANY YOUNGER FOLKS SAY TODAY WE GOT THIS.

IT IS TIME TO IN THIS STATE OF EMERGENCY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> ONE WORD HER FASHION. YEAH.

YEAH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDING OR STATE OR FEDERAL RESOURCES THAT ARE CONTINGENT UPON RENEWING THIS?

>> I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE THAT I KNOW THAT THERE IS NO INTERSTATE EMERGENCY.

THERE IS MONEY'S AVAILABLE FOR FIRST RESPONDERS AND HOSPITALS FOR PPE AND OTHER THINGS OF THAT NATURE. I KNOW THAT THEATERS THE CARES ACT FOR BUSINESSES SO I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE IF THOSE GO AWAY. DON'T KNOW I DO KNOW THAT IT YOU KNOW THIS IS THE DICHOTOMY WHEREIN YOU EITHER ARE FOR WEARING MASKS OR YOU'RE AGAINST IT IS OUR JOB AS PUBLIC SERVANTS TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE AS PUBLIC HEALTH.

IT MATTERS NOT WHAT YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL BELIEVE IT MATTERS HOW WE APPROACH THE PUBLIC HEALTH OF BEAUFORT COUNTY. YOU CAN ARGUE THE POINT THAT WELL WE ARE CASES ARE DOWN.

I CAN ARGUE THE POINT. THE REASON THEY'RE DOWN IS BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD A MASK POLICY IN EFFECT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. I HAVE TALKED LIKE MANY OF YOU I'M SURE HAVE TALKED TO RESTAURANT TOURS BECAUSE THAT'S PRIMARILY THAT'S THEIR LIVELIHOOD. THEY ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT IF WE DID NOT HAVE SOME SORT OF POLICY IN EFFECT WE COULD HAVE PEOPLE COMING INTO THE RESTAURANT ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'RE NOW GOING TO ALLOW RESTAURANTS TO OPEN TO ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CAPACITY THAT THE CORONA VIRUS WHICH WE KNOW IS TRANSMITTED AIRBORNE WHICH WE KNOW BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT CONGREGATE IN LARGE GROUPS HAVE SUPER SPREADER POSSIBILITY D THAT THEIR LIVELIHOOD COULD IN FACT BE CHALLENGED IF THEIR WORKERS GET SICK THEY CANNOT OPEN THEIR BUSINESS. SO THE THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH IS NOT WHETHER A MASK ORDINANCE IS PROBLEMATIC. IT'S WHAT IS DOING FOR OUR

PUBLIC HEALTH. >> MR. COVER . THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SAY THAT BUT I BELIEVE YOUR CATEGORICALLY INCORRECT WITH THAT.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT GOVERNMENTS, YOU KNOW, TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO.

RESTAURANTS ARE OPEN UP ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. IF YOUR RESTAURANT IS YOU GOT TO COME IN HERE WITH A MASK OR YOU DON'T COME IN. I BELIEVE IN FROM THE PEOPLE

[00:30:04]

IF YOU WANT THAT FOR YOUR BUSINESS OR YOU DON'T. THAT'S YOUR OPINION AS A

BUSINESS OWNER. >> MS. HOWARD.

OH YEAH. >> MISS MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING WHAT FUND WOULD WE LOSE? WOULD WE BE ELIGIBLE FOR OUR MS PEOPLE TO HAVE THE PROTECTION, THE PPE THAT THEY NEED OR WE'RE GOING TO LOSE FUNDING FOR A PUBLIC HOSPITAL? THESE ARE THESE ARE REALLY HARD QUESTIONS.

AND WHAT DOES THIS EMERGENCY ORDER DO FOR US? I'D JUST LIKE SOME MORE DETAILS. I KNOW IT'S IT'S IT'S WHAT ABOUT THE SCHOOLS TOO? WOULD THE SCHOOLS HAVE TO CLOSE BACK DOWN IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS? COULD WE HAVE VIRTUAL SCHOOL OR WOULD WE HAVE TO OPEN IT UP IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS EMERGENCY ORDER? SO I WOULD DIRECT THAT QUESTION TO OUR LEGAL COUNSEL WHATEVER THEY CAN TELL US THAT THE DETAILS OF WHAT WHAT THIS EMERGENCY ORDER DOES FORCE.

LET ME SEE. I THINK I HEARD ABOUT FIVE QUESTIONS.

>> A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I DEFER TO THE FINANCE STAFF ON WHAT FUNDS WE MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET. I'M NOT I'M NOT UP TO SPEED ON THAT.

THIS WOULD NOT AFFECT THE SCHOOLS. THEY MAKE SEPARATE DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER TO OPEN OR NOT OPEN. THEIR BOARD OF TRUSTEES HAS THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY, THEIR AS FAR AS ELIGIBILITY FOR ALREADY APPROVED FUNDING IN THE CARES ACT FOR THE PPE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A LOCALLY DECLARED A STATE OF EMERGENCY TO BE ELIGIBLE. PROBABLY A STATEWIDE IS ENOUGH BUT AS MS. JACOBS POINTED OUT WHAT THIS DOES IS TO CONTINUES YOUR AUTHORITY TO HAVE VIRTUAL MEETINGS. IT GIVES HER THE BLANKET AUTHORITY TO KEEP THE OFFICE BUILDINGS CLOSED UNDER THE STATE OF EMERGENCY AND TO DO OTHER THINGS THAT FIT WITHIN THE REASONS FOR THE DECLARED A STATE OF EMERGENCY.

I THINK THAT'S THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS DOES FOR US. >> I THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT. MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT MAY HAVE SPARKED SOME MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW.

I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK MR. GLOVER HAD A QUESTION NEXT.

>> I DON'T HAVE A DETAILED QUESTION. I JUST WANNA MAKE A COMMENT AT I I WE WEAR SEAT BELTS RIGHT NOW NOT BECAUSE I WANT TO WEAR SEAT BELTS BUT IF I DON'T WEAR

SEAT BELT I'M FINE. >> 25 YOU ALMOST HAVE TO HAVE ORDINANCE IN PLACE TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DO THE RIGHT THING. AND I DO SUPPORT WEARING THE MASK.

I LOOK AT THE NUMBERS ALL THE TIME AND I'M NOT TOO SURE WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE SOMETIME BECAUSE IN THE MIDSTREAM NUMBERS STARTED CHANGING, DATA STARTED CHANGING AND RIGHT NOW I LOOK AT THE DEATH RATE AND UNTIL THERE IS NO DEATH IN BEFORE COUNTY I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ORDINANCE. THANKS.

>> OBVIOUSLY MR. SOMERVILLE. YOUR NEXT SEGMENT, REVEREND COUPLE OF CAR I THINK IT'S WORTH WHILE IT IS TO REVISIT IT IS EXACTLY THAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES LOOK LIKE I'M TALKING

ABOUT THE MASK ORDINANCE. >> I'VE GOTTEN LOTS AND LOTS OF E-MAILS FROM PEOPLE AND I'M SURE EVERYBODY ELSE IN OUR COUNCIL HAS GOTTEN PROBABLY THE SAME ONE AS I'VE GOTTEN AND A LOT OF I THINK ARE ARE CONFUSING OUR AUDIENCE WITH SOMEBODY ELSE'S ORDINANCE.

AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE ORDINANCES OUT THERE STATE ,COUNTY, MUNICIPAL I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ALL THESE ORDINANCES BUT THERE ARE ORDINANCES OUT THERE THAT ARE PRETTY DRACONIAN. THEY HAVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND YOU HAVE TO WEAR A MASK EVERYWHERE YOU GO. ALL THIS SORT OF THING ARE OUR AUDIENCE DOESN'T DO ANY OF THAT. OUR ORDINANCE ALL IT DOES IS SIMPLY SAY IF YOU'RE GOING INTO A BUILDING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IS WEAR A MASK, NO CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

I KNOW WHEN WE STARTED THIS DISCUSSION BACK IN APRIL OR WHENEVER IT WAS I COMMUNICATED OR HAD A LOT OF SMALL RESTAURANT WARS, ET CETERA COMMUNICATE WITH ME AND THEY THEY WERE VERY CLEAR THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE MAN THEY WERE WEARING A MASK IN THEIR IN

[00:35:07]

IF YOU DON'T, THE SHERIFF'S NOT GOING TO COME IN AND DRAG YOU OUT IN HANDCUFFS.

SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT JUST EXACTLY WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES.

I THINK IF WE IF WE DIDN'T SUPPORT OUR LOCAL BUSINESS OWNERS BY SAYING THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO OR AN OBLIGATION TO TO REQUIRE THEIR PATRONS TO WEAR A MASK, I THINK WE'D HAVE SOME MAJOR PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW, PARTICULARLY STAFF REFUSING TO COME TO WORK.

IMAGINE IF YOU WORKED IN A RESTAURANT OR A BAR ALL DAY LONG AND PEOPLE WERE COMING IN THERE AND GETTING IN YOUR FACE WITH NO MASK. IMAGINE HOW YOU MIGHT FEEL WHETHER YOU LIKE MASKS OR NOT YOU WOULD BE A PROBLEM. SAME THING WITH PEOPLE AND

CASHIERS IN GROCERY STORES LOOK FOR ANY SOUND. >> BUT THERE'S NO PENALTY TO IT. THERE'S NO CRIMINAL SANCTION. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND DO THE LOGICAL THING AND WEAR A MASK. BUT WE'RE NOT SAYING ANYWHERE YOU GO OUTSIDE YOU HAVE TO WEAR A MASK. YOU DON'T.

ALL WE'RE SAYING IS JUST IN THOSE BUILDINGS THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION BECAUSE I'VE RESPONDED TO SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT HAVE WRITTEN CLARIFYING WHAT OUR ORDINANCE IS TO SEE IF THAT DIDN'T SOFTEN A LITTLE BIT AND THAT I'VE NEVER GOTTEN A RESPONSE FROM ANYBODY. THEY'VE WRITTEN ME LONG EMAILS OPPOSING THE MASK AND THIS WHEN I GO BACK AND SAY HEY WAIT A SECOND, OUR MASK AUDIENCE IS

OBAMA PEOPLE LIKE MORE OR MORE EVERYWHERE. >> WE'RE NOT GOING TO WEAR A MASK EVERYWHERE. THAT NEVER THAT WAS NEVER PART OF OUR DISCUSSION, NEVER PART OF OUR AUDIENCE LET ALONE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS. SO I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE AS WANT US TO STOP AND REMIND PEOPLE OF JUST EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RENEWING AND WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT RENEWING.

THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER COMMENT? MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL JUST STAY IN CASE UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE WANTS THIS PIPE UP. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE ALL YOUR TIME BUT I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT THE MUNICIPALITIES HISTORICALLY LOW FOLLOW THE COUNTY COUNCIL'S LEAD IN PRETTY MUCH NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. THAT'S JUST THAT'S TYPICAL IN THE LEAST IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS. SO I THINK THAT WHILE MR. SOMERVILLE IS RIGHT, YOU KNOW, I'LL USE BLUFFTON FOR AN EXAMPLE THERE.

THERE ARE NO ORDINANCE OR WHATEVER IS IS MORE DRACONIAN THAN OTHERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE FUNDS ATTACHED BUT THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW WHAT THE COUNTY DOES AS AS THEY HAVE BEEN DOING . DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN TAKE THE LOOK OF APPRECIATE.

MR. GLOVER COMMENTS TO THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO WAIT TILL THERE'S NO DEATHS THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE DEATHS JUST LIKE THERE IS WITH THE FLU OR PNEUMONIA OR OR CHOLERA. I MEAN IT'S NOT GOING TO GO AWAY PERMANENTLY.

THAT'S THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. AND YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT THIS, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU YOURSELF SAID THIS IS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE.

ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU COME OUT AS A. WELL, YOU KNOW, EITHER SMOKING AND THIS CAME FROM A CONSTITUENT I WAS GETTING A MESSAGE FROM IF WE BELIEVE THAT WE BELIEVE THAT SMOKING IS DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR HEALTH AND COULD CAUSE CANCER THEREFORE YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SMOKE IN B4 COUNTY. THAT'S THE THAT'S THAT'S CRAZY TALK. BUT THAT'S THE SAME THING WE'RE SAYING.

THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING IS TO THINK ABOUT THAT. KING MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. COLE WHAT I IF I DIDN'T SEE THIS DEATH RATE PERCENTAGE OF DEATH RATE COMING DOWN THAT'S ALL 10 FOR SIR. CHAIRMAN CHAIRMAN. GO AHEAD.

I JUST HAVE A BRIEF COMMENT. I THINK HE HAD CATS STATED RECENTLY THAT THE JURISDICTIONS WITH MASK REQUIREMENTS HAVE EXPERIENCED THE GREATER PERCENT DECREASE IN CASES ONE MONTH AFTER THEIR ORDINANCE INITIATION WHICH MAKES A LOT SENSE.

LAST WEEK 66 PERCENT DECREASE. SECOND WEEK 39 PERCENT. THEN IT DROPS PRECIPITOUSLY TO 6 AND 3. AND BY THE FIFTH WEEK THERE WAS NO GREATER DECREASE.

BUT I THINK THAT WHAT WE'VE DONE IS ELIMINATE A LOT OF THE TRANSMISSION THAT OCCURS JUST BY REQUIRING PEOPLE TO WEAR MASKS WHEN THEY'RE IN PUBLIC PLACES.

NO ONE'S ASKING THEM TO WEAR MASKS WHILE THEY'RE DRIVING, WHILE THEY'RE AT HOME OR WHILE THEY'RE WALKING IN A PARK. WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO IS TO SHOW SOME CONSIDERATION TO

[00:40:06]

I THINK THERE ARE PROBABLY ABOUT 42 PERCENT OF THE RESIDENTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA OVER 2 MILLION PEOPLE RESIDE IN PLACES THAT HAVE LOCAL MASK REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE.

AND IT SHOWS THAT IT'S WORKING . THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> YES, THIS IS MARK.

MR. CHAIRMAN AND LASTLY. YES, THANK YOU. >> I'M LOOKING AT THAT RIGHT NOW. WE'RE JUST VOTING ON THE EXTENSION OF THE EMERGENCY IN THE COUNTY BECAUSE I WAS THINKING THAT THE MASK ORDINANCE DOESN'T LOOK TO OCTOBER TWENTY THIRD. SO UNLESS WE'VE SOMEHOW ROLLED THIS IN THERE AND ASSESS SOMETHING DIFFERENT RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST VOTING ON THE EXTENSION OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY AND THE MASS AUDIENCE FOR RAMPING THIS CONVERSATION AGAIN THAT THE OBSERVER TWENTY THIRD TO EXTEND IT. BUT MY MY FEELING ON THE MASK ORDINANCES. AND MIKE, YOU KNOW, I'M I'M IN THE I'M A LIBERTARIAN IN MY VIEWS. HOWEVER, I'VE HAD TO THINK ABOUT THIS A LOT AND HAD TO LISTEN TO OTHER PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE IN MY LIFE HERE AND I ALMOST LOOK NOW AT THE MASK ORDINANCE AS THE LEGAL LIMIT FOR ALCOHOL AND PEOPLE DRIVE AND THEY DRINK AND DRIVE.

IF WE TOOK THAT AWAY COMPLETELY WE TRUSTED PEOPLE TO TO DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE IT WOULD WORK.

WE'VE SEEN PEOPLE BEING KILLED THAT WAY. SO WHAT WITH THE MASK ORDINANCE IN PLACE WE'RE NOT DOING IT TO TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE WEARING A MASK.

WE'RE DOING IT TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ARE ELSEWHERE AND ALSO WITH THOSE FOLKS AND AND WE'RE PROTECTING THEM. SO JUST LIKE HOW WE LIMIT PEOPLE FROM DRINKING ALCOHOL AND AND WE'RE PROTECTING THE REST THE PUBLIC THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING WHEN ASKING PEOPLE TO WEAR MASKS, WE'RE ASKING WEAR MASKS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS AND SO WE WANT TO WE WANT TO FALL ON THE SIDE OF AIR AND AND GO AHEAD AND PROTECT EVERYONE WITH THE MASKS. SO AGAIN RIGHT NOW GOOD. HAVE A DISCUSSION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AGAIN HERE BY OCTOBER 20 THIRD. BUT TONIGHT WITH THE STATE OF EMERGENCY I'M UP FOR VOTING FOR THE STATE OF EMERGENCY OPINIONS.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE CALL THE QUESTION AND VOTE? WHAT IS A TIME LIMIT ON THIS? MR. CHAIRMAN, THE TIME LIMIT ON THIS WILL EXTEND THIS TO SOME RATE IN DECEMBER THE 8TH. I HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT I GUESS YOU CALL IT.

BUT IF IF THIS IS GONNA PASS WHICH YOU KNOW AGAIN WHY DON'T WE JUST GO AHEAD AND TELL EVERYBODY IT'S ILLEGAL TO STOP SMOKING OR JUST SMOKE? BUT ANYWAY, EMOTION TO A MAN IS TO CHANGE IT TO 30 DAYS AND REASSESS AT ANY TIME IN THE 30 DAY PERIOD.

OK. IS THERE A SECOND TO MR. COVERAGE MOTION THAT THE OCTOBER 9TH WOULD BE CHANGED TO 30 DAYS FROM OCTOBER 9TH? THAT WOULD BE NOVEMBER US TO.

LET ME JUST MAKE SURE I GET THE RIGHT DATE. >> THAT WOULD BE NOT THE 19TH.

>> MR. CARVER MR. WAXMAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO YOU, BUT THE CARES ACT APPLIES TO ANY EXPENDITURES THAT ARE MADE THROUGH DECEMBER 30TH.

>> NO, I THINK IT'S THINK ABOUT IT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST A QUESTION WITH REGARD TO MR. COBURN'S AMENDMENT SUGGESTING THAT IT BE EXTENDED FROM

OCTOBER 9TH 4TH WAS IT 30 DAYS A MY EARLY 30S, 30 DAYS? >> BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY SEEM TO MATTER TO ME IF THAT'S THE CASE BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR HAS BEEN EXTENDING HIS STATE OF EMERGENCY EVERY 15 DAYS. SO IF THE LANGUAGE IS GOING TO REMAIN CONSTANT AND IT'S 30 DAYS OR IF THE GOVERNOR RESCINDS HIS STATE OF EMERGENCY, I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS IF WE REVISIT AND COINCIDED WITH THE GOVERNOR'S 15 DAY SCHEDULE OR IF IT GOES 30 DAYS OR 60 DAYS OR 90 DAYS 30 DAYS SEEMS REASONABLE. SO LONG AS WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT OUR ORDINANCE WOULD EXPIRE AS WELL IF THE GOVERNOR RESCINDS HIS STATE

OF EMERGENCY. >> IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WITNESS DOES NOT SAY THAT IT DOES NOT EXPIRE AUTOMATICALLY WITH THE ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNOR.

>> AND JUST IN A GENERAL REASON THAT'S BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE A LOCALIZED EMERGENCY THAT'S NOT A STATEWIDE EMERGENCY. SO IF YOU WANT IT TO END WHEN THE GOVERNOR AND THE STATEWIDE

EMERGENCY, WE WOULD NEED TO ADD THAT LANGUAGE. >> I DON'T I DON'T UNDERSTAND

[00:45:05]

LIKE A HURRICANE OR SOMETHING? >> YES, LOCALIZED JUST IN A GENERAL SENSE A MUNICIPALITY OR A COUNTY CAN DECLARE LOCALIZED. OK, IT MAY NOT BE A STATEWIDE EMERGENCY.

YES, SIR. SO WE COULD IF THE GOVERNOR RESCINDS HIS COVID 19 EMERGENCY WE COULD KEEP US IN PLACE EVEN THOUGH HE RESENTS IS CALLED IT 19 EMERGENCY.

IF YOU WERE TO FIND THAT THERE IS A LOCALIZED STATE OF EMERGENCY THAT CALLS FOR IT.

YES, SIR. THIS IS CRAZY, OK? NOW IT'S GETTING LIKE THIS IS IT'S NOW IT'S OK. OK. MR. CRAWFORD HAS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO AMEND THE MOTION FOR 30 DAYS WHICH WOULD MAKE THE THE.

THIS STATE OF EMERGENCY EXTENSION AND ON NOVEMBER 8TH I WILL SECOND THAT WITH THIS

WORK. >> MR. LAWSON MAKES THE SECOND. >> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE. MR. CHAIRMAN. VERY GOOD.

MR. NOT JUST THIS LANGUAGE ALL IS CHANGING TO A 30 DAY RATHER THAN BARACK TODAY.

CORRECT. OK, MR. VERSION. QUESTION QUESTION FOR MR.

JACOBS. >> ARE THE CARES ACT FUNDS TIED TO THE STATE OF EMERGENCY? WELL, THEY'RE THERE. NO, THEY'RE NOT TIED TO OUR STATE OF EMERGENCY.

WE ARE UNDER THIS DEADLINE. WE ARE UNDER THE STATE'S STATE OF EMERGENCY.

>> THANK YOU, MR. ROD. MAKE IT TO THE LOCAL STATE EMERGENCY.

>> MR REDMAN. YEAH. >> A COUPLE THINGS.

IT SEEMS TO ME WE'RE WE'RE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS BE IN SYNC WITH THE GOVERNOR.

SO IT SEEMED THE LOGICAL THING TO DO IS TO EXTEND IT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE GOVERNOR RESCINDS THE STATE OF EMERGENCY AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP REVISITING OR ANYBODY ELSE.

THANKS. BUT SEEMS TO ME THAT'S THE SIMPLE THING TO DO.

THE SECOND THING IS IT SOUNDS LIKE OUR PRIMARY PURPOSE FOR DOING THIS THING IS SO WE CAN

MEET THE WAY WE'RE MEETING. >> AND I FRANKLY THINK IT'S TIME FOR US TO FIND A LARGE ENOUGH MAYBE WE EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC FOR THE TIME BEING BUT WE OUGHT TO GO BACK TO MEETING IN PERSON EVEN IF WE HAVE TO SIT 15 OR 20 FEET APART. IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S THE

PRIMARY REASON THAT WE'RE DOING THIS. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT I WOULD SAY IS I THINK PAUL WAS VERY CORRECT THAT OUR MASS AUDIENCE AND I REALIZED REALLY COME BACK TO I'LL BE PRETTY. BUT IT'S TOO REQUIRE THE MASK IF YOU'RE GOING INTO A PUBLIC BUILDING INTO THE PUBLIC, DOESN'T IT? ONCE YOU'RE OUTSIDE A BUILDING IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY. OR IF IT'S A PRIVATE BUILDING, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE . SO WE'RE DO WHAT WE HAVE. WE'VE MADE IT AN OBLIGATION OR THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING OR THE ESTABLISHMENT TO DO THAT. THE QUESTION IN MY MIND IS WHETHER WE MAKE IT AN OPTION. BUT IF THE BUSINESS OWNER WANTED TO REQUIRE MASS BECAUSE

THEN HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. >> IT SHOULD BE ENFORCEABLE BUT

WE CAN GO BACK AND VISIT. I AGREE. >> ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN.

YES, SIR. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO READ PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE THIS HIGHLY TOXIC ITEM BEFORE WE VOTE? JUST SO THE PUBLIC GETS THEIR VOICE HEARD BEFORE WE SAY YES OR NO. WE WE KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE PUBLIC STANDS. WE CAN'T DRE OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ABSOLUTELY ARE OPPOSED TO THIS.

OK. YOU GET EVERY SINGLE DAY I GIVE THEM EVERY SINGLE DAY.

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO SWAY ANY ONE PERSON IN THIS ROOM.

I THINK OUR DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. YOU JUST HAVE TO VOTE MR. HER

FASHION AUTHORITY RESPECT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD SAY IT'S JUST MORE THAN A CLOCK RIGHT ON FACEBOOK RIGHT NOW COMMENTS ARE COMING IN RATHER RAPIDLY AND IT'S A COUPLE

OF FOLKS. THEY'RE ALL AGAINST US. >> TWO HUNDRED AND ONE COMMENTS

RIGHT UNTIL MR. RODMAN. >> YES. I THINK WE'RE AGAIN CONFUSING THE MASK. SOMEBODY POINTED OUT SMART COME BACK ON THE ONE.

I THINK WE CAN SET THE MASK ASIDE. I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE NEED TO EXTEND IT FOR OUR MEETINGS TO BE QUESTION. CAN WE GO BACK TO MEETING IN

[00:50:02]

BUT YES, YOU CAN'T WE CAN'T. OK, SO WE CAN'T. THAT.

THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT THE CHAIRMAN AND ADMINISTRATOR CAN DECIDE AND THEN THAT BEING THE CASE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE EXTEND A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

>> WELL, CAN THERE BE AN INTERESTING MOTION? >> WELL, YOU CAN YOU CAN AMEND THE MOTION. OK. BUT IT DEPENDS UPON WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO AMEND IT TO. BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC DATE.

THAT IS THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT TO A DIFFERENT DATE.

THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. I WAS CHAIRMAN.

>> IT IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT AND I WOULD DO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IS THAT WE EXTEND IT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE GOVERNOR REDUCES OR ELIMINATES THE EXISTING STATE OF EMERGENCY AT THE STATE LEVEL. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S MR. PARLIAMENTARIAN.

>> IS THAT ENOUGH? THAT TRO PREVENT WHAT MARTIN? MY FEELING SIR, IS ULTIMATELY IT'S YOUR DECISION TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S GERMANE TO THE AMENDMENT EXISTING ON THE TABLE

. >> BUT IN MY PERSONAL OPINION IT IS.

AND IF YOU DETERMINED THAT IT IS AN APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT OUR SECOND THAT OFFER OF A

SECONDARY AMENDMENT OK. ALL RIGHT. >> SO IF I UNDERSTAND TO YOUR SAYING YOU WANT TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT WHICH IS TO JUST DO IT FOR 30 DAYS TO WHENEVER THE

GOVERNOR DETERMINES THE EMERGENCY IS OVER. >> IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? WE JUST THINK EXTEND IT UNTIL THE GOVERNOR EXTINGUISHES THE CURRENT STATE OF EMERGENCY, OK?

>> AND MR. FLOWING MADE THE SECOND. NOW WHAT DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AMENDED AMENDED MOTION MR DAWSON? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.

STU'S AMENDMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT, BUT TO ME IT MAKES SENSE. IF IF WE IF WE VOTE THIS MOTION TO PLACE THEN WE WON'T HAVE THE COMING BACK REVISITING THIS THIS ISSUE AND 30 DAYS, 60 DAYS OR WHATEVER WHENEVER THE GOVERNOR ENDS THE THE PROCESS THEN WE COME BACK AND WE END OUR ORDINANCE.

>> AND SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE DON'T DO IT THAT WAY RATHER WE WHETHER WE VOTE TONIGHT TO DO IT FOR 30 DAYS OR RATHER WE VOTE TO DO IT 60 DAYS AS LONG AS THE VIRUS EXISTS.

WE'RE GOING TO BE COMING BACK. SO IF WE ALLOWED A GOVERNOR TO GO AHEAD AND END WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? I'M LOSS OF WORDS RIGHT NOW IF EVER IF WE ALLOWED A GOVERNOR TO GO AHEAD AND END THE TO JUST THE STATE OF EMERGENCY THEN THEN WHEN HE ENDS IT THEN WE COME BACK AND WE WE AND OUR AUDIENCE THAT WAY WE WON'T WE WON'T BE COMING BACK TO VISIT VISITING THIS THIS ORDINANCE ON A 30 DAY OR 60 DAY PROCESS LIKE WE'VE BEEN DOING RIGHT.

>> I'M ACTUALLY TIRED OF COMING BACK 60 DAYS REHASHING THIS ISSUE, HEARING ALL THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE VIRUS IS REAL.

IT'S KILLING PEOPLE. AND UNTIL ALL THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE IN A STATE DENIAL GET THE VIRUS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE POINT. WE WE JUST SAW WHAT HAPPENED AND IN THE AND IN THE END WASHINGTON, D.C. AND THE WHITE HOUSE, THIS VIRUS IS SERIOUS AND PEOPLE TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. OK.

OK. SO THERE IS A MOTION AND SECOND WE WOULD HAVE TO SEE THE PROPER WORDING AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. TAYLOR, BUT COULD WE NOT THEN SAY IN THE FINAL PARAGRAPH IT IS ORDERED THAT THE TERMS OF THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 20 20 DASH OR ONE ARE HEREBY CONTINUED TO BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNLESS EARLIER REPEALED OR FURTHER EXTENDED? WELL, IF YOU WANT TO TIE IT TO THE GOVERNOR'S ACTION. I WOULD SIMPLY SAY OR CONTINUE IN FULL FORCE IN EFFECT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE GOVERNOR RESCINDS THE STATEWIDE

EMERGENCY. OK. >> THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SAY.

ALL RIGHT. RESTING IN THAT THAT THAT WOULD BE THE WORDING THAT THE LAST PARAGRAPH WOULD STAY SAY. YES. AND I THINK THAT WORDING WOULD ALLOW US IF SAY FOR SOME REASON WE BECAME A HOT SPOT WE COULD COME BACK WITH ANOTHER

[00:55:07]

ORDINANCE OR TO CHANGE IT. >> BUT THAT WAY RIGHT. I DIDN'T WANT THE GOVERNOR AND AS COUNCILMAN DAWSON SAID, THAT KEEPS US IN COUNCILMAN RODMAN WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP COMING BACK TO KEN ANY OF THEM IS WITH JUST MR. COTE. MR. YEAH. I'M WANT TO VOTE AGAINST THIS. I AM NOT TOO SURE.

SOMETIMES I QUESTION WHAT GOVERNOR IS ACTUALLY DOING HIMSELF SO I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS. I WANT TO STAY WITH THIS 60 DAYS AND WE MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WELL, THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT

WAS 30 DAYS, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. THE ORIGINAL MENU WAS 30 DAYS.

THIS WILL EXTEND IT UNTIL THE GOVERNOR. RIGHT? DECLARES THE EMERGENCY OVER. SO THERE IS NO END DATE BECAUSE HE DOES 15 DAYS AT A TIME.

SO YOU KNOW, HE COULD DO IT TWO, THREE, FOUR TIMES BEFORE THE 60 DAYS THAT WE ORIGINALLY HAD IN WOULD BE UP. RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION.

WE HAVE A SECOND. WE HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORDING.

I BELIEVE WE'VE WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS ENOUGH. IT'S TIME TO CALL THE QUESTION . OK, SO MR ROGERS, YOU MADE THIS INITIAL MOTION SO YOU WILL VOTE

FIRST FOLLOWED BY MR. FLOW WILLING TO VOTE YES. >> MR. FLO ALAN NO.

>> MR. COVID . NO. MR. DAWSON.

YES. MR. GLOVER. >> NO.

MR. HERVEY. SHAWN NOW MISS HOWARD. >> YES.

MR. LAWSON. >> YES. MADISON.

JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENT WE'RE VOTING TIES IN WITH THE GOVERNOR STATE

OF EMERGENCY BEING RESCINDED, IS THAT CORRECT? >> IS THAT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? CORRECT. OK, AS LONG AS HE DECLARES AN EMERGENCY. YES. MR. SOMERVILLE? YES. 3 5 6. THE CHAIR? YES. SO WE HAVE SEVEN. YES.

AND FOUR. NO. THE MOTION PASSES AS AMENDED.

SO NOW WHAT? IT HAS BEEN AMENDED AND NOW WE GO BACK TO YOUR.

I DON'T KNOW IF I IF I MIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE MOTION WAS TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU NEED TO VOTE TO AMEND THE MAIN OBJECTION TO A LANGUAGE THAT WE JUST VOTED

ON. >> ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL MOTION WHICH WAS MOTION BY MR. MACALLAN AND SECONDED BY MR. GLOVER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT

AS AMENDED. >> NO, SIR. THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE VOTING. THE MISS MCGOWAN MADE A MOTION AND THEN AND A MINISTER CULVER MADE A MOTION TO AMEND IT AND THEN MR. RODMAN OFFERED A MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT AND SO WE JUST VOTED ON THE AMEND THE AMENDMENT. SO NOW WE GO BACK TO VOTING ON THE MOTION TO AMEND. AND THAT SHOULD BE THE QUESTION THAT YOU CALL OK, WE NEED TO RESTATE THAT THOUGH BECAUSE I THINK THE 30 SECOND AMENDMENT JUST MADE THE FIRST AMENDMENT

MOOT. THIS. >> WELL, I DON'T I BELIEVE WE

ARE VOTING. >> LET'S GET INTO A MAN THE THAT I KNOW.

SO WHAT'S THE SO WHAT? IT'S CALLED WHAT'S MR. CONVERTS AMENDMENT MR. COVID TO MINUTES.

>> THIRTY TWO THIRTY DAYS. NOW SEEMS TO SIXTY DAYS. AND SO YOU'VE JUST APPROVED THE WORDING THAT THE MOTION SHOULD BE AMENDED UNTIL THE GOVERNOR CHANGES.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO VOTE ON NOW IT'S VOTING ON THAT WE VOTED ON WHETHER OR NOT TO CHANGE THE AMENDMENT FROM 30 DAYS TO UNTIL THE GOVERNOR REMOVES HIS STATE OF EMERGENCY RIGHTS AND HOW WE SHOULD MAKE THAT WE SHOULD APPROVE THAT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE AT THIS POINT I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE JUST VOTED ON.

>> WHAT IS THE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE? 30 DAYS NO JOKE.

IT'S MIKE'S AMENDMENT WAS FOR 30 DAYS 30 DAYS AND WE'VE CHANGED THAT WITH THE AMENDMENT

[01:00:01]

TO THE AMENDMENT. >> CORRECT. OK.

WHY THAT LANGUAGE? IF I MIGHT. RIGHT.

BRIAN IS CORRECT. I REALLY HAD THE SAME VOTE. WE JUST HAVE TO DO IT BECAUSE WE'RE AMENDING AN AMENDMENT. WE JUST WE JUST VOTE ON THE SAME LANGUAGE.

PRINCE. EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE HAVE TO VOTE ON.

THE LANGUAGE HAS NOW BEEN CHANGED FOR THE AMENDMENT OFFERED.

>> RIGHT. RIGHT. 30 DAYS TO REOFFENDING WHEN THE GOVERNOR EXTENDS THE RIGHT. GOT IT. OK.

AND SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH MR. RODMAN. YOU MADE THE THAT AMENDMENT SO

YOU COULD VOTE FIRST. >> YES. MR. FLOWING NO.

MR. COVERT. NO. MR. TORSTEN? YES. MR. GLOVER? NO.

>> WAS JOHN NOW MISS HOWARD? YES. >> MR. LAWSON?

>> YES. AND YOU CAN HEAR MR. MCKELLEN. YES.

MR. SOMERVILLE. >> IN THE CHAIR VOTES YES. >> SO WE HAVE ONE TWO, THREE, FOUR SEVEN. YES. FOUR NO.

SO NOW THE ORIGINAL MOTION HAS BEEN PROPERLY AMENDED. NOW WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE CHRISTIAN MOTION AS AMENDED. OK, IN THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. MCKELLEN.

AND SECONDED BY MR. GLOVER. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE ON THAT? LIKE JUST TO READ BACK OF THE WHERE WE STAND NOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION IS NOW ON THE TABLE AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE THAT IT WILL BE EXTENDED UNTIL THE

GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA DECLARES THE EMERGENCY. >> NOLAN VOID.

THANK YOU. MR. RUDMAN. >> YEAH.

NO VOTE IF I UNDERSTAND EXTINGUISH THE ORDINANCE AND SAY GIVEN THERE IS A LITTLE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHETHER THERE ANY MONEY TIED LAUGHING WE MIGHT BE A LITTLE SHORT SIGHTED TO EXTINGUISH THAT ORDINANCE TONIGHT. OK.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS SAYING NONE? MR..

MR. HARVEY SEAN, JUST A REAL QUICK ONE BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC PURSE TO BE HEARD

BUT WHERE IT'S REALLY QUITE REMARKABLE WHAT'S HAPPENING. >> BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE UP TO FOUR AND 14 PARLIAMENTS AS MR. COVID MENTIONS A COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO WE WERE AT I THINK 188 LAST SPOKE BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PUBLIC IS

BEING HEARD THEY ARE BEING SEEN IN THIS PARTICULAR MATTER. >> ALL RIGHT.

RODMAN MR REDMAN. >> YES, MR. GLOVER, YOU BUTCH UP OCEAN.

>> NO. MR. CULVERT . NO.

MR. BOSTON. YES. MR. FLOWING.

NO MR. HER VERSION. >> MISS HOWARD. YES.

MR. LAWSON. >> MARK LAWSON. YES.

MR. MCKELLEN. YES. MR. SOMERVILLE.

>> YES. >> CHAIR VOTE YES. THE MOTION PASSES 7 YES.

4 NO. >> THE. AND EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS WILL BE UNTIL THE GOVERNOR RECENT THE FALL STATE OF EMERGENCY WHICH HE MAY DO ON FRIDAY. MR. CHAIRMAN. MAYOR.

YES. QUESTION. YES.

YES. AND I THINK WE NEED TO I GUESS MOVE FORWARD WITH PREPARATION TO MEET AS A BODY. BECAUSE ONCE THAT HAPPENS WE HAVE TO MEET IN PUBLIC.

>> IF YOU ARE OH WELL YES. AFTER WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC WITH SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE DO HAVE TO SET A COUPLE MEETINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IN FACE TO FACE.

OKAY. WE WILL KNOW THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL COMMENTS BEFORE WE GET

[8. CITIZEN COMMENTS ( 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 )]

[01:05:04]

>> WE ARE FULL TIME RESIDENTS OF HARBOR ISLAND. WE DO NOT RENT OUR HOUSE OUT TO CLOSE THE CENTER WOULD PLACE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP ON US. WE TRY TO KEEP THE WASTE WE GENERATE TO ONE 30 GALLON CAN GARBAGE IN THREE TO FOUR WEEKS AND ABOUT THE SAME AND RECYCLABLES ONE OR TWO TIMES A YEAR. WE BRING A SMALL LOAD OF BRUSH THERE. ONE REFUGE COMPANY ON HARBOR ISLAND TO USE THEM FOR COLLECTION. WE HAVE A YEARLY CONTRACT THAT INCLUDES TWO PICKUPS PER WEEK NO SEPARATE RECYCLE ITEMS AND NO BRUSH PICKUP. WHY ARE WE BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR THE SERVICE THAT WE DON'T PEOPLE WOULD USE? THE ISLAND LOCATED ON ST.

HELENA SINCE THIS OPENED I HAVE NOTICED THAT THERE IS LESS LITTER ON THE ROADWAYS AND I HOPE THAT THE ROADS STAY THAT WAY. STEPHEN HARDEN SAYS AS A ROLLS BEAUFORT COUNTY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE STATE OF EMERGENCY LIFTED FOR LIFE TO RETURN TO SOME SEMBLANCE OF NORMAL. I UNDERSTAND THAT CULVERT HAS MADE THINGS LESS THAN NORMAL.

BUT WE MUST MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO GET BACK TO BUSINESS. WE ARE ADULTS AND CAN DECIDE FOR OURSELVES IF WE SHOULD GO PUBLIC OR NOT. IF CERTAIN PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED DYLAN THEY SHOULD MASK UP. I UNDERSTAND THAT SEE BILL HALSTEAD SAID I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SITE WHICH PUTS OUT THE LIQUOR SECTION OF HIGHWAY 170 AND BLUFFTON PARKWAY AND IS CALLED PORTRAIT VILLE IS TO BE CLOSED ON JANUARY 1ST. I IMPLORE YOU TO RECONSIDER.

IT IS PATRONIZED BY MANY PROBABLY THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS .

IT'S ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL SERVICE OPERATIONS THAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED.

IT APPEARS THAT AN ACCOUNTING FIRM STUDIED THE MATTER AND RECOMMENDED CLOSING TO SAVE MONEY. THIS IS A SERVICE PAID BY OUR TAXES.

IT'S A SERVICE NOT TO BE EXPECTED TO MAKE MONEY OR SAVE MONEY.

BETTER EDUCATION FOR USE OF THE FACILITY MAY BE MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN THE COST OF POLICING RESTRICTIVE MEASURES MEASURES FOR USE BY SPECIAL CARDS ETC.. SURELY SOME BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS COULD BE MADE TO PERMIT CONTINUATION OF THIS IMPORTANT SERVICE.

YOUR ACTION AFFECTS THOUSANDS OF SUN CITY RESIDENTS JUST TO NAME ONE OF THE GROUP.

THE SIMMONS PHIL SITE HAS SEVERAL MILES AWAY FROM SUN CITY AND IS CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES ON THE WEST OF HIGHWAY 170 FORCED TO TRAVEL ON BLUFFTON PARKWAY WOULD ONLY INCREASE THE USE OF ALREADY CONGESTED HIGHWAY. THANK YOU.

THOSE WERE THE COMMENT ABOUT THE CONVENIENCE CENTER. WE STILL HAVE COMMENTS COMING ABOUT THE IMPACT THESE HAS SOLANA ALLEN SAYS I BELIEVE THESE FEES.

THIS FEE IS UNFAIR BEING CHARGED SOLELY TO HILTON PROPERTY OWNERS AND NOT TO ALL BEAUFORT COUNTY PROPERTY OWNERS. THIS FEE SHOULD UNIFORMLY BE CHARGED TO ALL BEAUFORT COUNTY PROPERTY OWNERS. IT'S UNFAIR TO CHARGE MORE TO HILTON HEAD OWNERS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE AND WE END UP CONTRIBUTING THE BULK OF THE YEARLY BUDGET. IF THE BUDGET COUNTY BEAUFORT COUNTY SHERIFF NEEDS MORE MONEY THEN WE SHOULD ALL HAVE TO PAY THE FEES NOT JUST TILL. JAMES MORRISON SAID I'M WRITING TO EXPRESS MY DISMAY OVER PASSING OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE CHARGE.

IT'S VERY UNFAIR TO HILTON HEAD. IT'S THE ONLY MUNICIPALITY IN BEAUFORT COUNTY HAVING THIS BE ADDED TO THEIR PROPERTY TAXES. HILTON HEAD ALREADY PAYS LAW ENFORCEMENT. THIS NEW ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE REPEALED.

NOW IT'S A RAW DEAL FOR HILTON HEAD PROPERTY OWNERS TYSON MILLER SAID.

THE RECENTLY PASSED ORDINANCE TO LEVY A LAW ENFORCEMENT FEE ON HILTON HEAD ISLAND RESIDENTS IS UNFAIR AND SHOULD BE REPEALED. HILTON HEAD RESIDENTS ALREADY PAY 45 PERCENT OF THE BUDGET ALONE AND NO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES BEING CHARGED THIS FEE. WHY ARE THE HILTON HEAD RESIDENTS BEING UNFAIRLY SINGLED OUT WHEN WE SHOULD PAY SO MUCH TO BEAUFORT COUNTY? IT SEEMS UNFAIR AND I REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER A CHANGE. AND DENISE SAID AS OWNERS OF PROPERTY ELEVEN BROUN SEDGE COURT IN HILTON HEAD. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THE INEQUITABLE TAX ON HILDA'S RESIDENTS AS IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE COUNTY. HILTON HEAD RESIDENTS ALREADY PAY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES IN OUR 52 MILLION DOLLARS IN TAXES TO BEAUFORT COUNTY. TAXING THE RESIDENTS OF HILTON HEAD WITH EXTRA FEES IS INEQUITABLE. THIS IS DUPLICATION TAXATION IN HILTON HEAD TO BENEFIT NON

[01:10:05]

WE'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES THAT WILL RELIEVE SOME OF THE BURDEN FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPUTY SAVING THE COUNTY MONEY. WE WISH TO GO ON RECORD OPPOSING THIS UNFAIR TAX AND WE ARE WILLING TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER AT ANY TIME.

THANK YOU. AND THEN I RECEIVED THREE COMMENTS ABOUT THE HARM HIRING WHILE MAY BE PARAMOUNT TO OFFER THE BEAUFORT COUNTY COUNCIL'S INTENT AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FROM WITHIN. PLEASE CONSIDER WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THE COUNCIL'S DECISION TO HIRE THIS INDIVIDUAL FOR THIS POSITION AT LEAST PROMISE TO LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE TWEETS THAT ARE REPORTED TO BE FROM HER SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT.

I SUBMIT THE INNUENDO AND DIRECT STATEMENTS FROM HER WHILE HER RIGHT TO EXPRESS ARE NOT THE SENTIMENT WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE FOR OUR COUNTY OR SOCIETY.

AND PLEASE CONTACT ME FOR A DEEPER DISCUSSION THAT'S SIGNED BY DAVID ADAMS. CATHY FULTON SAYS I AM HORRIFIED THAT YOU WOULD EVEN CONSIDER APPROVING OF THIS INDIVIDUAL FOR THE COMMUNICATE POSITION IN INFLAMMATORY SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE IS ACCURATE.

SHE IS GUILTY OF HATE SPEECH AND EXEMPLIFIES THE TYPE OF ATTITUDES THAT DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME OR SHOULD SPEAK FOR THE ELECTED TO REPRESENT ME AND MY COMMUNITY.

PLEASE STOP THINK. DO NOT MOVE FORWARD IF YOUR REASONING IS THAT SHE IS PROFICIENT WITH SOCIAL MEDIA. THERE ARE MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE SKILLS.

FIND SOMEONE ELSE. AND FINALLY WENDY ZEHRA. I UNDERSTAND THE COUNCIL IS VOTING ON AN APPLICANT TO BECOME THE COMMUNICATIONS PERSON.

BY ALL ACCOUNTS THE PROSPECTIVE HIRE HAS A RECORD OF SENDING OUT TWITTER MESSAGES THAT ARE LONG LOADED WITH HATEFUL RHETORIC. THIS FACT SHOULD DISQUALIFY HER FROM CONSIDERATION. I DO NOT WANT MY TAX DOLLARS TO PAY THE SALARY OF SOMEONE WHO USES HATEFUL AND DIVISIVE LANGUAGE. WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER AS COUNTY AND IT'S A COUNTRY. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR USES OF SUCH LANGUAGE AND THOSE ARE ALL OF THE ONES THAT I RECEIVED OTHER THAN THE STATE OF EMERGENCY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

OK. SO MR. HER VISION YOU SAID THAT THERE WERE MANY, MANY MANY COMMENTS ON FACEBOOK. WHILE WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO READ EVERY SINGLE COMMENT, CAN YOU GIVE US SOME IDEA THE SENTIMENT THAT IS BEING EXPRESSED BY EVERYONE?

YES, SIR, I'D BE HAPPY TO. >> AS OF THIS MOMENT THERE ARE FIVE LETTER TO FIVE COMMENTS.

THEY ARE LARGE PLATINUM AND SIX. THEY ARE OVERWHELMINGLY NEGATIVE FROM A VERY BROAD SWATH PEOPLE AND FRANKLY THEY WANT TO THROW US OUT.

SO WHAT THEY WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEY ARE BEING HEARD AND WE'RE IN

UNPRECEDENTED TIMES HERE. >> MR. HERBERT SEAN WE HAVE FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVEN COME.

I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT SINCE I'VE BEEN HOME SINCE WE'VE HAD A 510.

I AGREE. ROBIN, I'VE BEEN WATCHING THE FACEBOOK GUYS SINCE WE STARTED

ALL VIRTUAL MEETINGS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE OR NOT, BUT YOU KNOW WE'RE ON A ROLL. I MEAN I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE OUTLAW PEANUT BUTTER AND MAPLE SIRUP BECAUSE IT MAKES ME FAT.

>> YES, I KNOW. NOW THAT'S AN OFF AGENDA ITEM, SIR.

>> NO, THAT'S RIGHT, DAD . GOT IT. SOMEBODY IS GONNA MAKE YOU SMILE. THERE'S NO EMERGENCY HERE ON EITHER AUTHORIZED THAT.

JUST DON'T EAT IT. MIKE, DON'T EAT. I NEED YOU TO TELL ME THAT I NEED SOMEONE TO TELL ME THAT SIMPLE. DON'T EAT IT.

>> THAT'S THE CHAIR WHEN YOU NEED TO RULE THAT OUT OR WATER. YOU ASKED.

ABSOLUTELY. OK, YES, I DID. HEY, LISTEN, THIS IS A TOUGH, TOUGH DECISION. WE HAVE A DUTY TO EVERY ONE IN THE COUNTY NOW.

SURE. THERE ARE FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVEN PEOPLE OR MORE THAT ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE DECISION WE MADE. OK, BUT WE HAVE A QUARTER OF A MILLION PEOPLE IN BEAUFORT COUNTY ON A DAILY BASIS NOW. THEY DON'T ALL SPEAK YOU KNOW, IN IN GENERAL. EVERYBODY HAS BEEN COMPLIANT. THEY USED THE MASK.

THEY DON'T LIKE IT BUT THEY USE IT BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT WORKS. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEALTH MATTER.

WE DON'T KNOW WHEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VACCINE. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THE SUPER SPREADER POPULATION IS GOING TO BE REDUCED. WE DO KNOW THAT THERE IS INCREASING NUMBERS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAPPEN

[01:15:05]

MR. RODMAN? YEAH, I SUSPECT THAT THERE'S A LOT CONFUSION OUT THERE BECAUSE WE WERE CONFUSED WHEN WE STARTED AND I THINK MOST OF THE COMMENTS PROBABLY RELATES TO THE MATH AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT UP ON WHATEVER IT WAS OCTOBER 2013.

>> AND REALLY WHAT WE PASSED TODAY WAS A LITTLE BIT LIKE INSIDE BASEBALL.

IT'S MOSTLY ABOUT WHAT WE DO AND WHETHER WE CAN CLOSE PUBLIC OUR BUILDINGS.

SO I DO THINK THERE IS SOME CONFUSION OVER WHAT WE DID COMING IN NOW BEFORE WE END THIS MEETING. WE DO HAVE TO HAVE A TIME TO HAVE AN IN-PERSON MEETING.

WE HAD DISCUSSED SEVERAL TIMES THAT WE WANTED TO CONCLUDE B EVALUATE NATION OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WHO HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS BE AN IN-PERSON MEETING.

WE NOW HAVE TO ESTABLISH SUCH A MEETING TIME AND PLACE THAT ALL ELEVEN OF US CAN BE THERE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS ON A MONDAY AND EVERY SINGLE MONDAY IS JAMMED UP OR DO WE MAKE IT SOME OTHER DAY? WE NEED TO DO THAT SOON. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CO-CHAIR OF THE FAVORITE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION HAS SUCCESSFULLY USED THAT FACILITY OUT AT BUCHWALD TOO BECAUSE OF THE SIZE AND I THINK THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE US.

WE'VE USED THAT FOR. IT'S PRETTY BIG. AND THERE ARE TWO ROOMS ACTUALLY AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN BE COMBINED OF ALL THE FACILITIES THAT WE'VE USED IN THE PAST. I THINK THAT ONE MAKES THE MOST SENSE FOR PHYSICAL DISTANCING

WHERE WE CAN SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER AT AN ADEQUATE DISTANCE. >> YES, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IS SEEMS TO BE A PLACE THAT WOULD WORK. NOW THE QUESTION IS WHEN? WHEN CAN WE DO THAT? WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE RESERVED OUR MONEY DAYS FOR MEETINGS SO THAT WE ARE ALL ABLE TO ATTEND ON A MONDAY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE 19TH BECAUSE WE HAVE FINANCE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES. I DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THE AGENDAS WOULD BE THAT WE COULD IN FACT HOLD THOSE VIRTUAL AND THEN MOVE OVER TO AN ACTUAL MEETING SITE. THAT SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT PROBLEMATIC FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES AND THEN GO OVER THEIR WE MAY BE ABLE TO DO THAT OUR FIRST PUBLIC MEETING VIRTUALLY. YOU KNOW, WE WOULD STILL BE VIRTUAL TO EVERYBODY ELSE AND HOLD THE FINANCE THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND THEN GO INTO COUNTY MEETING.

WE'D HAVE TO WORK OUT THE LOGISTICS ON THAT. BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE THE FIRST TIME THAT WE COULD FINALIZE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AS FAR AS THE EVALUATION.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THAT? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU STAY AWAY FROM THURSDAY'S AND FRIDAY'S IS JUST OUT COMPLETELY ,IT IS A WORK FINE FOR ME.

>> I THINK WE JUST NEED TO DEDICATE THAT JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE WHICH IS TO EVALUATE THE ADMINISTRATION MINISTRY. YEAH. AND I YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM THE WEEKEND. WE ALL HAVE LIVES AFTER COUNTY COUNCIL. I DON'T THINK TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY CERTAINLY WE DO.

I'M SORRY. BRAND STATE BUT ANY ANY TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY LOOKS GOOD FOR ME

AS WELL. >> OK, SO WE COULD SET UP A YOU KNOW THAT THE 12TH WE HAVE A

[01:20:10]

AND MS. JACOBS TO FINALIZE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH HER EVALUATION THAT WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE THING. HOW DOES EVERYBODY FEEL ABOUT THAT? GOOD. IT WORKS FOR ME.

OK. MY I'M PRIMARILY CONCERNED SPORT.

AND MARK BECAUSE OF YOUR WORK SCHEDULE THAT YOU KNOW YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO GET OVER TO BLUFFTON BY LET'S SAY IF WE SET UP FOR SOME TIME LATE AFTERNOON FOUR, FIVE, SIX WHATEVER WOULD

WORK BEST FOR YOU. >> I MAKE MY OWN SCHEDULE AND BE FLEXIBLE AS ARE MY CAREER WHATEVER WE GOT DO. I CAN PROMISE. OK.

>> MARK HOW ABOUT YOU, MARK? HE WAS THERE. WHAT'S THE DATE AGAIN? CHO WE WOULD TRY AND DO IT. OCTOBER 13TH MARK WOULD YOU BE AVAILABLE ON OCTOBER 13TH IN

THE AFTERNOON WE SEE YOU MARK. >> WE JUST DON'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE

HAVING SOME DIFFICULTIES WHILE HE'S SOCIETY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE TO

CHECK WITH ASHLEY AS WELL. ABSOLUTELY. >> THANK YOU.

I'M AVAILABLE. YOU KNOW, I HAVE THE PEN COUNCIL DOWN FIRST.

>> MR. LAWSON, ARE YOU STILL AT THE MEETING OR. >> OKAY.

>> I CAN SEE YOU. YOU'RE ON MUTE. ASK HIM TO GIVE YOU A THUMBS UP . DID 13 IN THE AFTERNOON. ARE YOU GOOD? LET'S SAY. LET'S GO. OK.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL SET UP THE MEETING FOR OCTOBER 13TH IN THE AFTERNOON.

I WILL COORDINATE WITH ASHLEY AS TO THE APPROPRIATE TIME. I'D LIKE TO DO IT.

YOU KNOW, EITHER THREE FOUR O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON. THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO

EVERYBODY AND GO FROM THERE. LET ME OK. >> NEXT ON THE 12TH WHERE WE WOULD SHOW A COURT IN A COUNTY MEETING. BUT I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING SO THAT WE CAN TAKE SOME ISSUES THERE.

OK. NO FURTHER ACTION, MR. RODMAN. JUST STOP.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WERE LOOKING AT THREE OR FOUR ON A TUESDAY THE 13TH.

YEAH, WE GOT ONE MORE TIME. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EITHER OF THOSE TIMES BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE WANNA LET THIS OPPORTUNITY PASS THIS .

>> IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THREE O'CLOCK? JUST GIVE ME A THUMBS UP.

OKAY. LOOKS LIKE THREE O'CLOCK IS A GO.

ALL RIGHT. EXCELLENT. ALL RIGHT.

SO OCTOBER THE 13TH I WILL PROVIDE THE INFORMATION SINCE IT'S STALE NOW OF WHAT WE WE ACCOMPLISHED AND HOW WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. OK.

ALL RIGHT. AND WE'RE GOING TO DO IT IN TWO PIECES OF FIRST PIECE.

YOU HAVE TO BE BY OURSELVES TO GO OVER THE EVALUATE. AND THEN WE WILL BRING OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IN TO DISCUSS THE GOALS THAT WE WILL ULTIMATELY SET.

OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OK. IT IS OUR.

YES, MR. SHUN. >> YOU SAID I WAS GOING TO BE IN BLUFFTON.

YES, IT WILL BE AT THE BLUFFTON RECREATION CENTER. >> RIGHT? RIGHT. BECAUSE IF THAT ONE ALLOWS TO SPREAD OUT ADEQUATELY, OK.

>> THAT'S A THREE O'CLOCK. YES. WE'LL DO IT AT THREE O'CLOCK BECAUSE IT'S A SPECIAL MEETING. WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION WITH THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE TO DISCUSS THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.

I BELIEVE THAT'S THE WORDING WE HAVE TO DO CORRECTLY. MR. TAYLOR YES, SIR.

[01:25:02]

THAT'S CORRECT. >> OK. SO THEN IT HAS TO BE BROADCAST AND THEN WE TAKE IT DOWN AND SAY BYE TO EVERYBODY. IT'S JUST US.

OK. ALL RIGHT. IF THAT'S EVERYTHING.

ONCE AGAIN, YOU KNOW. THANK YOU. I KNOW THIS WAS NOT AN EASY TIME TO DO THIS. I KNOW THAT YOU'LL PROBABLY BE GETTING MAIL.

I'M SURE THAT I'M GOING TO GET MAIL AND QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE PAID THE LITTLE BUCKS WE'RE PAID IS TO MAKE DECISIONS LIKE THIS THAT

AFFECT A GREAT MEAL DEAL OF ITSELF. >> OK.

HAVE A GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. AND I WILL NOW ADJOURN THE MEETING.

IT IS 650 TO P.M.. >> GOOD NIGHT, EVERYBODY. NIGHT.

GOOD NIGHT. GOOD NIGHT. GOOD

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.