County Council - Regular Meeting

Second.

Seconded. Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Consent agenda.

Prove items A3A through M through O.

Do you have a second?

No. I want to add a question. Yes, sir. Before we do it, does any of these grants require, you know, for us to fund them after the program is over, matching funds? Yes. Does any of these match with our matching plans from us?

That's a 25% requirement. Pardon me? I think one of them had a 25% requirement. Which one is that, sir?

I'm not sure. Does anybody from staff know?

I'm looking. Okay.

All right.

Does yours require one?

I think it's 3A.

So I would amend that to move to approve 3B through N, and then come back to 3A and 3O individually.

I'll second that.

She's looking to make sure.

So it's 3B through 3N?

November.

Can we separate 3E as well?

Yeah, the border security. He wants to change that.

I know the question you're going to ask.

We're going to do 3B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L. M and N. Sorry, M and N. Mr. James, Captain, I think.

Yes, sir.

Good evening. The 25% match on the one that's for Marine Patrol for the port security grant, it is a 25% match, and that is for $30,069. It will be taken from our federal metro fund.

All right, that's what I was just fixing.

As long as you're paying for it, you got my support. Absolutely. And the other ones did not require a match. There's no cost.

That's good. You can use it. Other funds that y'all have. All right.

Thank you, sir. Always good to see you.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Yes.

Okay, we're going to still leave three separate.

No, he is fine. No, no, Mr. Worman.

I can ask questions now if you want to do it that way. Go ahead. Since we're taking them all together. Thank you, sir. So, I mean, I'm looking at this unmanned drone Marine Patrol dive team. This is for the border security. Is this for, like, the border with the Atlantic Ocean that we have? Or is this for Marine stuff?

Speaking of the one with the 25% cost match?

No.

3E, which is the State Border Security Reinforcement Fund grant.

No.

That's not true, no.

Okay, this is the, got it. This right here, that's going to be for the drone and the, is that the one with the airboat?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Yes, sir. That's going to be for some of the equipment, of course, that's going to be utilized. One of them monitors air underwater and the GPS in depth. That's going to be the 14 dive computers. They're for when the divers go underwater. That's what those are for. The mobile command vehicle is over 25 years old, so that's in need of replacement. And, of course, an airboat and then the drone. The problem with the airboat, we need to replace it. We can't find anyone that can work on it or any parts. The original also was bought on a grant.

Okay. I just want to ask, as well, and this is a question I've been asking on a few of these, obviously this does not say DHS on it. We've had... a number of concerns before about whether acceptance of grants binds the county to any sort of cooperation with DHS or ICE. know if this would be a problem here because is the grant recipient the sheriff's office or is it the county but i just want to make sure yeah so i don't know if that's really a concern here i guess i'll just ask the question does it bind the county to any of that stuff that we've been concerned about before this is for the sheriff officer so it does not i think that's a little bit different than those prior ones thank you sir i apologize for holding up on that i just wanted to make it clear for the record

Does that mean that three is back in inclusion? Yeah. Okay. All right. So three is back. All right.

Mr. Chairman, are we back to A through M now?

Yes. So A through? Alpha through?

N. N. N. November.

We're going to do three A through three N. Yes.

All right.

I'll second Mr. Moody's motion. All right. Properly moved.

Seconded. Any further discussion? OK, I'm going to recuse myself from 3M because I was the traveler on that item. So when I say aye, it'll be for everything but that. All right, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. All right, so now we're going to do 3-0. Motion?

Motion to adopt it, to approve it.

Second.

OK, so we've got properly moved and seconded. Any discussion?

Yeah, so are they going to come back to us for reimbursement when they buy this? I mean, I'm all in favor if they want to buy it, but if they're going to come back later on and expect green belts to bail them out, then I'm going to be a no on this one. But if the state wants to come in and buy it, and do whatever they want to do. I have no problem with doing that, but if it's going to require us to pay for this through Greenbelt, then I'm going to be a no because, I mean, Greenbelt, we only have a limited amount of money left, and we don't know what's going to happen in November, so we want to try to stretch this thing as far as we can for good projects. I'm not saying this is not, but I don't want the state to come back. I don't mind paying, what, a $1,000 fee or whatever that is. I don't mind paying that, but... Not reimbursement. So if they're asking for reimbursement, I'd like to know ahead of time right now.

All right, Mr. Pryor, I'm going to recognize Dr. Eskridge. Okay. To speak on that.

Thank You chairman Anna Eskridge I'm the new senior director for community investment working for mr. Thigpen and I'm working with mr. Eric Davis and his department as well as Lola Lola Smalls in her department so from our perspective this you know this isn't currently a County project this is coming to us just for acknowledgement from the state since it's a State offices of resilience funding project. So this isn't something that we would comment on currently I do have Nate Barry here with the open space Institute who's involved with specific questions and I can speak to Generally, you know the type of greenbelt funding we would have potentially in the future, but I wouldn't speak necessarily to this project Why not? Because I don't know that this is still in negotiation right now.

If I may, Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. So you're asking us to vote on something that you don't have all the specifics?

We're not involved with this project right now.

Mr. Digpan, go ahead. I saw Mr. Digpan there. All they're asking you for is a letter of support at this time and acknowledging that we would give up $1,000 of tax dollars that the property generates every year. but this is not tied to Greenbelt funding at this time. That's not what I need to know. There would have to be a separate vote of council to allocate Greenbelt funds.

Mr. Kabrowski.

I just want to say this is in my district, but I do think This would be a historic acquisition, not just for the county, the state, the nation, the world. It's some of the most pristine water in the whole East Coast, the United States. And this would be moving a step, doing what we can now, knowing there's still more to be done on it. But our level of support for this would be exactly what we're supposed to be doing, is preserving what's unique and historic about our county for future generations. be in favor in the strongest possible language to take this step to move it along. And thank you. That's it.

All right. Mr. Dickman, would I be correct in saying that we approve this tonight does not obligate us to any future payments whatsoever, that if they choose to come and try to utilize our Greenbelt program, that would be a separate vote on a separate matter?

I would assume we'd have to come back through the same Greenbelt application process as any other project would.

OK. Thank you.

Mr. Moody had his hand up. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pryor, I agree with you. I'm fine with giving up the $1,000. Mr. Kabrowski, I don't think anybody argues this is a great project to acquire. Where I agree with Mr. Pryor is that Charleston County has done more for Greenbelts than the entire state of South Carolina.

And that's indisputable fact.

Our yellow sheet said this was a priority of the governor. He's making money available. I think Fish and Wildlife has applied for $19 million.

Let them buy it.

It's still preserved. And we can take our $17 million or whatever they may come back to us for next year and go do something else because it's already purchased. I will not be in favor of a cash out from whoever the buyer ends up being if this comes back to us next year. And I suspect it will come back to us. If Fish and Wildlife and the state want to buy it, been the water's warm. Thank you, sir.

Any further discussion?

I think this is a great piece of property for the state to protect. I'm all for it. And I think that for another reason besides that, I'm not in favor of a 200-unit septic tank subdivision right along the edge of the coast in one of our most fragile areas. I think Mr. Grabowski said it well. So, I mean, I'm certainly for this, and we're not obligating ourselves to any future greenbelt in this. Thank you, sir.

Anything further? All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. All right. Moving on to item four, public services and engineering directorate items. Do I have a motion? 4A through D. I have a second. Second that. All right. Properly moved and seconded. Any discussion on those items? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Moving on to item five, ARPA initiatives 5A, relocate ARPA funds.

Request approved.

I move to approve with an explanation. I'll second.

Okay. It's properly moved and seconded, at least for discussion? Yeah.

Can someone tell us where we're located?

All right.

Good evening. It's me again. Hello, me. Yeah. So what we've been having happen recently, especially with some of our non-governmental profit capital projects is that we've got these little bits of money, like $720 here, $14 that now are left over from a project that these groups can't use. And we don't want to have to bring that back to council every time because we're running out of time now to spend the ARPA funding here at the end of the year. I know that the request is $100,000, which is a lot, and it's y'all's prerogative if you want to narrow that down. But most of the projects that we've seen Now, like, there's another project that needs $13,500 that we could move some of those little bits over to. These are already projects that you've approved, so we're not asking to put money into projects that you haven't approved yet. If for some reason there was a project where we were a new project over $100,000 or any new project, we would come back to you with that for approval. So these are just moving money around. to existing projects. Luella, is there anything else?

Okay. Mr. Pryor?

What's the amount that we're moving around?

Up to $100,000.

So how much do we have left to move?

It is changing depending on the project. Like a lot of projects right now we're trying to finish here at the very end.

so can you have a list high tuesday or your projects that are hanging out there that low-hanging fruits that's going to be moving the amount okay thank you you just have it for me i either email it okay thank you mr wehrman i guess i did want to clarify do you mean that um

Y'all would, the aggregate amount of everything that gets moved between now and December 31st would be less than $100,000? Or are you saying each move could be?

Each move. Okay.

Anything further? Mr. Moody. Just a clarification. The administrator can sign up to what bill?

Half of me.

Half a million.

But I think what we're doing is we're empowering staff and the administrator as 20,000 freeze up here, they move it over here, 13 freeze up over there, they move it over here without having to bring it back to council because this money's got to be not spoken for but spent by the end of the year. So I'm in favor of this. I think it probably falls within or close to the administrator's authority in any event.

Mr. Moody, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Since these are all projects we've already approved that the money's going to. Mr. Wehrman?

Yeah, no, I know I paused a little bit there. But listen, I trust the administrator. I trust our staff. I don't think they're going to take advantage of it or anything and make $500,000 moves by splitting them up or anything. I don't think we need to worry about that sort of thing. So I just, yeah, I'm good with it too. I didn't mean to suggest any concern or anything like that. Just wanted to clarify. Anything further?

All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Moving on to item six, miscellaneous items. 6A, resolution authorizing eminent domain by CARTA. Do I have a motion?

Move to approve.

All right, I'll second it. Any discussion? Mr. Moody?

Yeah, I think I've got some. I'm a little concerned about some of the things I've heard the last couple of weeks that I would like to get some clarification on. Namely, that is the cost of some of the utility moves that are associated with this project we've been told kind of all along we got it we're good you know we're good now i start hearing whispers about no maybe they're not so good so it kind of leaves me to wonder you know third reading's already passed and you know so county council again i'm i'm concerned that maybe this may have been known we didn't know Didn't have information. That concerns me greatly. I want to tiptoe here, Ms. Hamm, make sure I don't advocate one way or the other. You yell at me if I am, but you know my position. But that wouldn't have changed anything. But reputationally, I am concerned about what this does to Charleston County Council. And I would like an explanation. If it's here or Tuesday night or whenever it is, it needs to happen at that microphone. And we need to understand what is going on with these utility moves. Maybe not even just for this, but for all of our projects on the TST. All right. So I'm going to vote for this. I'm in favor of this. But I think there's a, I hate to, you know, we've got to dig deeper into knowing what's going on so that the public understands knows what's going on.

All right, Mr. Pryor.

Mr. Moody, would you wait until Tuesday so that way they can have enough time to do the explanation for what you're asking about? That's all I want to know. Not that somebody's prepared to do it tonight.

That's a fair point, Mr. Pryor, a fair point. They've got the weekend to get prepared and bring us data Tuesday. I think that's a great point. Thank you for bringing that up.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Chair, I also wanted to note that I am definitely for the Low Country Rapid Transit Project, but I'm against taking the land from the Exchange Club in order to make that particular parcel of land from the Exchange Club to make this happen. It's just such a shame that we can't negotiate something different. And I do understand my good friend, Councilman Wehrman, helped me under, at least in my mind, know what a no vote would mean. ultimately at this point but I just can't vote yes knowing that again it's a lose in my opinion as it relates to the exchange club the fair and the things that they do there every year anyone else all right I'm just going to weigh in a little bit at this at the end um

You know, this has a lot of history. And one of the things as far as impact on the fair, my understanding, we have Mr. Mitchum here to speak on this, is that the corridor has offered to the fair the use of this parking lot during the 11 or so days that they run the fair. So it may be paved rather than grass, but there would still be the use available to them. And Mr. Mitchum, you'd like to be heard on that?

say yes sir we did there was a request in the early negotiations that we make that lot available specific for handicap parking to enhance what they already had and and you know it'd be a lot that was paved it had lighting connectivity by sidewalk so yes we certainly made that offer

Would you also comment about why the other location won't work and also the consequences of delays in the project?

Yes, sir. It is a long history. We started off with one site, which their leadership proposed, did an environmental public hearing, worked on that piece. Leadership changed. They asked us to move to a second site. And initially, the first site, we were proposing a 20-year lease. The second site, They propose they sell it to us. So we made the adjustments, did another environmental public hearing process. Subsequently, additional change in leadership, because obviously the project's been going on for a few years, and they change leadership, I guess, annually. The site that has been discussed most recently is not one we've done an environmental on. We've completed the entire environmental process. So we'd have to open back up the environmental process In addition, they offered us a five-year lease, which I have to have a 20-year lease to make federal investments on a site. That's the government's way of making sure that if we spend money that we recoup the benefit of those dollars. And then secondly, the lease amount was valued at about two and a half times the value of the property, which we said we cannot spend public money like that. If it's cheaper to buy it, we have to buy it. And the last thing is the access to that point is at the far end of the property. If you're familiar with that site, it's two lanes that narrows down to one lane at that particular point. So it's right in right out there. We need to go left. So it would not function the way it's configured. And DOT would not change that given the proximity to the widening coming back to one lane. It's just not safe. So we couldn't quite make that work. If we were to try to delay that and open up the environmental, you know, you're talking at least six months probably, maybe longer. As you all know from your experience with road projects and environmentals, you never quite know what you got until you're into it. So that schedule is always kind of a guess in the beginning. In addition, at this stage of the game, we have a firm budget. Our commitment from the federal government is $375 million, which is 60%, but it does not change at this point. If we start getting out of scope on that budget by spending additional dollars, we have to make those dollars up with a 100% local dollar. We no longer would be able to access that based on some ratio. So it's a pretty significant deal from the standpoint we're at a phase now where we're fully funded. We still have to execute the agreement, and this is sort of the one last piece that we have to get in place. We have all the other agreements in place, 100% plans, environmental is complete. So if we delay this, We have some contingency built into the budget, which is a budget we review monthly with the feds. So they keep a very close eye on that, because they're not going to allow us to start the project if they're not sure we can build the project. So right now, we have some time delay contingency built in on top of contingency related to pricing. So we have some contingency built into the fact that asphalt may increase in price over time. So we don't have a lot of time left because we've already been delayed on the delay contingency. I've got about three months. After that, it's a million dollars a month that I have to find from somewhere. I don't want to be back here finding it from you or trying to find it from you. So that's kind of where we're at. We just don't have a lot of options here. It's not something we acquire right away from time to time. There's a number of parcels on this, and eminent domain is not something we want to do. It's just where we find ourselves given the circumstances.

Anyone on council? Mr. Kaprowski.

Thank you very much. You've given some cogent reasons. The people from the Exchange Club, they strongly feel that this will not allow them to continue the fair and the other things there. How do you factor that in?

Well, I will say that our first meeting with them, which goes back to 2020, I think, they viewed it as a win-win because we're going to be coming through there every 15 minutes. Now, granted, during the fair with troopers managing traffic, it's going to get affected a little bit. We agreed to provide some additional capacity during that. But their position, they described it as a win-win from the standpoint that They make their money at the gate. They historically have not charged for parking. So we would be bringing people to the fair, to the gate, to go in, pay, and spend money. So they saw it as a positive thing that folks who might not otherwise be able to go to the fair could actually go to the fair and participate, spend money, contribute to it. You know, we we had a number of things in addition to the parking, you know We talked about some free advertising for them to help promote the fair We talked about discounts for folks who pre-purchase their tickets to go the fair Talked about a free senior day on their senior day all designed to try to generate You know greater participation at the fair, you know through the gate also helps us with ridership So it's kind of a win-win as we viewed it. So I You know, we don't see it as a negative. We just disagree on that subject. I agree with the original leadership. I thought it was a good plan. I thought it could be a very good, positive experience for both us and them. And we just have not been able to come to terms.

Anything further? Okay. Hearing none. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Nay.

So I've got nay is Middleton and Pryor?

And Kabrowski.

Kabrowski.

Pryor.

Okay. So five to three. Okay.

Motion carries. All right. Finally, last agenda item for finance is food insecurity study. Request to consider.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would move that we approve up to $20,000 from council contingency to support the planning effort to develop a Charleston Regional Food Council You know, this is something that CAJM has been looking at. One thing to note is my understanding is the money would actually go to the Coastal Community Foundation for disbursement purposes, but that CAJM would be sort of, or has been, leading an effort to engage. Sorry, I need to let the motion be seconded. I apologize. Thank you.

Probably move to second it. All right, over for discussion.

All right, I apologize for that. You know. between the title of the motion and then explaining what it means, I got lost there. But in any event, so yeah. So this is a planning effort. The money is essentially would be going to a consultant. Cajun has already begun an RFP process. I think the RFP was included in the application. I think they've got maybe nine or 10 submissions under that. thing i do want to point out is we are not funding the we are not funding all of this this would be contingent on them finding the the other funding the the bids are not i don't want to explain i want to expose too much about their bid process but suffice it to say they are not under twenty thousand dollars so um this would be contingent on them going out and finding that difference from from other sources but ultimately i think this is an opportunity to to address a number of issues that we've all talked about for a long time. We talk a lot about empowering nonprofits and nonprofit coordination, avoiding duplication of resources. And the issue of food deserts and food insecurity is one that has become increasingly problematic, particularly in North Charleston. And so this is not necessarily something that they just came up with out of the blue. Folks know how Cajun works. They put a lot of study into this. Of note, I will note that Wake County, North Carolina has a very thorough plan that they developed. It's 100 pages. It's sort of similar to our Housing Our Future plan. And so for folks who might be wondering, well, why can't folks just get in a room together? I'd say two things to that point. One, this has been a problem for well over 10 years, particularly in North Charleston, probably 20. City of North Charleston put a great deal of effort into this, haven't really improved it. So if it was as easy as just bringing the nonprofits together, I think it would have happened by now. Then you can also look at, we've got letters of support from Lowcountry Food Bank, Our Lady of Mercy Community Outreach, and others. So I think that the folks who are doing this kind of work also agree that this is necessary. Some of the things that can come from this are food pantries, these hub sites, mobile markets. That's one thing that I think Columbia, Richland County, was able to do when they put together a plan. So I think that this is striking at a need of the community that is only growing. We've seen how food prices have skyrocketed. We've seen grocery stores closing. And for folks in the community to want to come together and solve that crisis, I think is great. And I think that if we can provide some initial starting funding for them to take that process and hopefully let it fly, then I think that is money well spent and a great way to get the most bang for our buck on a very difficult issue. Mr. Kabrowski?

Thank you. Rob, for addressing an important issue, but does this then make us a partner with CAJM and how are they going to, what methods and what is the process that they're going to solve this problem and how are they going to solve the problem of poverty?

Yeah, so I should have mentioned Judge McFarland is here, as we noted earlier. Judge McFarland, if you would like to add anything to what I just said, I did want to give him an opportunity to sort of speak for the hard work that the Cajun folks have done. While he's getting ready, I will answer your question. I think the question is basically, what are some of the things that this can produce? The idea is to find out what's going to work best here, what is already working well here, how can we supplement that. I mentioned there's been a number of things that have come out of this in other communities. Like I said, there's been more partnership to sort of supplement some of the school meal resources. There's been establishing these food pantries. There's been, again, the mobile markets, which are, as you can imagine, sort of a mobile, fresh market site. I think they've done a lot of work in Wake County on just expanding education about what resources are available and then working to sort of develop other food sources like community gardens and that sort of thing. Again, I've spent a lot of time looking through this Wake County one, which is a good 80 pages or so. Oh, no, 95 pages. It would do a disservice to go through the entire thing with you all today. Yes, it would be. But, Judge McFarland, if you want to speak on that, I think it would be helpful.

Well, just very briefly, Mr. Grabowski, the objective here is not to solve the poverty problem. That is a much larger problem that is addressed through a lot of governmental programs, some of which have been cut recently, SNAP, WIC, Medicaid. What we're trying to achieve here is to bring together all of those agencies, nonprofits, that are engaged in the work of addressing food insecurity among the some 51,000 residents of Charleston County who are determined to be food insecure. And so we've got all these organizations like the, headed principally by the Lowcountry Food Bank, Lewis Smith, some of you, and I think you've worked with him, the churches, Mount Moriah, all of these churches and organizations that are trying to address food insecurity by providing healthy foods and meals to those who are food insecure. This is just a temporary measure. Now, what the council will do is allow all of these groups to come together and ensure that what is being provided is being done so in the most efficient and effective way to address food insecurity. One of the things I want to mention, when we undertook this issue back in November of last year, when we voted to address food insecurity as a part of CAJM's annual issue assessment, We did not know that in June of this year, the South Carolina Institute of Medicine and Public Health, in their roadmap for food system policy in South Carolina, recommended that regional food policy councils like what we're talking about be established. So we didn't realize that we were acting consistent with what is already being proposed for every part of South Carolina. And so we are here. This request is to hire a facilitator who will bring all of these local groups who are addressing this issue together, form this council. They will run the council. It's not Cajun council. As we noted in the proposal, the Coastal Community Foundation will be the recipient of the funds, will disperse to the facilitator. that we want to bring on to organize this effort to address the food insecurity in Charleston County.

Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Pryor.

Thank you. And thank you, Judge, for your tireless work and everybody else too. But as you know, I've always said I would like to see y'all have some skin in the game. If y'all really believe and what y'all are doing, and which I know you do, you should come to the table with something. We were told by y'all organization, y'all have 100 churches. That's what we were told from there when we were doing the affordable housing. So if each one of those churches put up $200, that's $20,000. You've got enough to fund, and then when your study comes back, Your county may be in a better position to say, we can help with this or we can help with that. Because if this study comes back and we put money out front, of course you're going to be back here asking for more. Now, the city of North Charleston, which has the biggest food desert, are they putting anything into this? The city of Charleston, Mount Pleasant? I mean, it's like everybody is coming to Charleston County. and saying y'all got this big pot of money, but we don't. I mean, we are struggling to make it like everybody else. And so I would like to see y'all, as I said, if you got 100 churches, $200 a piece will bring you $20,000. You got something in the game that's more easier for me to sell this to my council members about funding this going forward. You got Boeing, you got Mercedes, you got ILA, Volvo. Even a local delegation from the state should be kicking in to do something. But all this tremendous amount of money that they said they have up there that they can't spend, I think this would be a good project. So have y'all been working with these individual groups? Y'all just came to the county.

First of all, we are approaching North Charleston. We are in discussions with North Charleston, the city of Charleston, and of course the county as the initial three governmental bodies we are approaching. We also plan to approach Mount Pleasant as a fourth governmental body. With respect to skin in the game and the churches, it is, first of all, there are only 40 congregations that now make up. Someone may have said that some years ago when we started the affordable housing issue. But there are only 40 congregations. But our congregations are part of the groups that are supplying food through their own funding to address this problem already. So we come from a position where we are already engaged in trying to address food insecurity. Now, the consultant is being brought on so that we can, as I said, more effectively efficiently address the issue of how food is distributed, what policies there should be. And when you mentioned the corporations, the council itself must engage with community businesses and organizations to raise the kind of funding that it will take to address this problem. It is not something that $200 from 40 congregations will address the problem. What we're trying to do is get the council established in a way that will allow us to come back to you as well as other organizations and say here is the most efficient here is what those organizations that are engaged in this work have decided is the best way for all of us government nonprofits business community to partner and be able to address food insecurity in this area. So the funding here is coming from, you know, certainly for people who, members of our community as you spend the tax dollars. The question is whether this is an efficient way to spend tax dollars to form a regional food council. And hiring consultants is regular government action. And we are not going to benefit as an organization. This community is going to be the beneficiary of what comes out of the spending of a maximum of $20,000. If we can hire a facilitator at a lower cost, then your cost will be less. But we are certainly pressing North Charleston, as Councilman Werman said, is Exhibit one for why we need this council. Just to give you a point about North Charleston, Mayor Burgess has told us that they made every effort to find a grocery store for the southern end of the city and have been unsuccessful in doing that. Well, as he said to us, you know, would this council be able to assist with that? And certainly it can. And that's the kind of effort where we bring folk together. Because everybody's operating in their own silos right now. So Mars Street has a food bank. We do, too. Mount Moriah has a food bank. But they're not coordinated in the way to best serve the needs of those who are food insecure in our community.

And I thank you for your answer. But you said Mayor Burgess told you to come to Charleston County. Well, I mean, you know, absolutely they've been trying to get grocery stores for years. You know, back six, seven, eight years ago, we were trying to do that. But grocery stores just won't come because of the income per capita and, you know, the theft. Here we have been trying. Mayor Summey tried. Now Mayor Burgess is trying. But, I mean, this basically where the food desert where he is at, he should be putting something out as well, too, and then coming and asking us to assist versus sending you to us. No, he didn't say. This is a county problem because, you know, what I would like to see is all three of the big three entities get together and then come back. We all fall short and ask us to say, well, maybe can you all make it up? but everybody is saying the county put up $20,000 for the study, but I would like to see what North Charleston, City of Charleston, and Mount Pleasant does, and then y'all come back to us and say, can y'all make up the shortfall?

Well, what we have done, we got an estimate for the cost of a facilitator, and we split it three ways. Yes, sir. So we won't move until we are able to secure funding.

How much would that cost if it's facilitator?

Somewhere between 55 to 60 is what we have been told. Wow. 55,000 to 60,000. We've gotten, we've sent out an RAFP. We've got an RAFP where there was a bid that was lower than what that amounts to, but we haven't, that decision hasn't been made yet. But we are asking all three of the large companies governmental bodies in this area to support this effort so that we can get off and running fairly quickly. It is going to be a monumental task certainly to address this issue but we think that government has a role and we certainly plan to press and I think Mayor Burgess at our Nehemiah Action was supportive of it. So we don't think that we will not be able to convince the other municipalities, you all are the first ones that have taken it up as an issue, and we hope that we can get your support so that we can address this problem in a regional fashion.

Thank you, but I still say, you know, sometimes, you know, you've got to do things yourself when others won't do for you. I mean, I agree with you. We have a food pantry that we serve people three times a week, and we don't get any help. That's coming from out of the congregation. How long are you going to be able to sustain that? Don't know I mean you got Mr.. Smith. You know who we help out tremendously during the year, but when that grocery store shut down Everybody's that left there. It's coming to him now so now he's looking for more help and I think the quickest way to get the help to the people is yeah We can do a study, but take that money and and put it in so he can supply more groceries and more needs in the city that's actually just hurting the worst right now without a grocery store. But I support y'all efforts, but I just don't support the county being the biggest. And I would like for them to make a commitment before we make a commitment. I mean, if we do pass this, it might be contingent on the other four, the other three. you know, stabbing up and saying they're going to split it because you say it's 60,000. And if four people does that, that's about 15,000 apiece.

Yes, that is correct. 15, yeah. Right now we're working with three.

Yeah, but that's what I'm saying. If all four commits, and it makes it easier, and it shows, you know, solidarity and unity. So, I mean, Mr. Wehrman, if you would amend your motion to say contingent on the other three, you know, coming into the fold before the money is dispersed, that's something I can support.

Well, now, I do want to clarify. I think that they have not engaged really much at all with Mount Pleasant yet. And so I don't want to set it up in a way that it's completely impossible. I mean, from what I'm hearing, that is effectively not necessarily all three, but... Two of the big three, it sounds like we aren't realistically going to.

Let's go with the City of Charleston.

I think I would amend to say that, yes, if City of North Charleston and City of Charleston also contribute, that it could be contingent on that. I think it's basically there already. But, you know, that's a slight change from what we're at. Councilman Middleton.

Again, that's the motion, 20,000. We recognize that the other 20,000 split comes from the other two municipalities. Certainly, if they don't engage, then there is no because they don't have enough money to move forward. So certainly I'm certain that county funds would not just be sitting at the Coastal Community Foundation if the other monies are not there. So I don't know if that, I think it would almost be redundant because it's almost implied by virtue of the motion. Mr. Moody.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pryor, I agree very well with what was stated, Mr. Worman. I agree with everything you said right up until the end. You said and Mr. Darby has said a number of times for this organization, they have got to start putting some skin in the game. They've got sweat equity in. They've got no cash equity in, in my opinion. You all have said that a dozen times, and I think that's the case here. Based on the letters of recommendation that Mr. Worman cited, there's enough brains and there's enough dollars in that group to come up with the $20,000 that government doesn't have to get involved. Now, what I would be interested, Mr. Worman, and when they do the study and come back, is to say, we need your help to get this food to the end user. We need $10,000 to go to the Lowcountry Food Bank for this purpose or to go to 1-8, whatever. That's what I would be interested in hearing about, not paying for some study. I can't support that. I'm interested in what the end user is going to get, not in what a consultant is going to get. And I think they can fund that themselves. Thank you.

All right, Mr. Wayman.

I do want to actually, Mr. Pryor, I don't know if I would amend it, and I guess the amendment wasn't accepted by Reverend Middleton anyways, but I just want to point out that with it unamended, I think not only to Reverend Middleton's point, it's basically already there anyways, because they're effectively going to need probably both of those municipalities to participate regardless. But even if we were to amend it, it forecloses the possibility that maybe they do pass the hat around at the churches to have them contribute, or maybe they do go to local businesses and have them contribute. So I would urge you to consider that maybe the um sort of safeguard that you're looking for is kind of already built in and that um you know maybe some of the skin in the game possibilities would even be foreclosed if we were to build in that explicit requirement that had come from city of charleston or city of north charleston

So what are you saying? The money would be held in abeyance until the other three, the other two commit?

What I'm saying is the money would be held in abeyance until they have the money from somewhere, be that city of Charleston, be that city of North Charleston, be that the churches, be that businesses, be that some other grant they go out and get.

I can agree with that. We hold out abeyance, and the money won't be dispersed until they come up with the other $40,000. It wouldn't anyway. It wouldn't anyway. Yeah, it wouldn't be dispersed. So, I mean, if that's what your motion is, I can support something like that.

To the extent that requires an amendment, I'd accept it. I think that's in the motion, though.

Briefly, I find myself in agreement with what Councilman Moody said. He articulated better than I could. He expressed my concerns. about putting the money towards the ends and there's many there's few people who i respect more than judge mcfarland i've known him for probably 30 or 40 years there's a wealth of of talent in there to do the study They should have hired you to do the study.

Well, that's the price. That's, um.

Yeah, because you're smart.

I couldn't say it any better. You're smart enough to do it.

That's a second of those feelings. And my respect for Judge McFarland and what Councilman Pirate has said. Thank you. That's all.

Mr. Middleton? I'd like you to say something. Okay. Sorry. All right. With no further discussion, um, Call the roll on this one. Okay. Please, ma'am.

Yes, sir. Mr. Darby?

Aye.

Mr. Kabrowski?

Nay.

Mr. Middleton?

Aye.

Mr. Moody? Nay. Mr. Pryor? Aye. Mr. Sass? Nay. Mr. Worman? Aye. Mr. Boykin?

Nay.

Okay, the motion ties.

Motion tied. Yes, sir. I'd like to set it to full council without a recommendation, Mr. Chairman. Member Sonny Cat will be back on Tuesday.

That's fine. We'll let it go. Is that permissible? Yes, sir. We'll let it go with no recommendation.

That's fine.

I think that's fair. All right. Well, that concludes our Finance Committee meeting. At this time, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Wehrman, Chair of our Human Resources Committee.

Thank you, Chairman Boykin. Yes, this is the Human Resources Committee. I sit as chair, Councilman Darby, Councilman Moody, Councilman Sass, and then, of course, Chairman Boykin are all members of the committee. Our first item on the agenda is the minutes. Move for approval is Chairman Timberlake. All right. Move. Do we have a second? Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The minutes are approved. All right. Second item is the performance appraisals for county council employees. I think we have need for an executive session. Is that right?

Yes, sir. There is a need for an executive session for county council to perform the performance evaluation for its employees.

All right. Very good.

So moved.

Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor?

Mr. Pryor is not on this committee. All in favor?

Appreciate your enthusiasm, Mr. Pryor.

I'll second.

In the back.

Mr. Sass made the motion. Properly seconded.

Moved and seconded. All right.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. We're going to go enter executive session. We will be out shortly.

Yeah, we go. Yes, sir.

Senator. She was good. As I can tell her. She loves him. My granddaughter. She did a great job. All right. I'll call you tomorrow.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're back from executive session where we discussed the performance of the council employees. No votes were taken. No decisions were made. I think this concludes the HR committee meeting for today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.