County Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the June 18th meeting of Charleston County committees and council committees. I'm Joe Boykin. I represent District 8 and I currently serve as chair of County Council and at this time I'd ask our council members and our key staff to please introduce themselves starting with Mr. Wehrman. Rob Wehrman, District 3.

Teddy Pryor, District 8.

Larry Kabrowski, District 2.

Bill Tootin, County Administrator.

Kristen Salisbury, Clerk of Council. Clerk's House, District 1.

Brantley Moody, District 7.

Natalie Hamm, County Attorney.

Mr. Darby is joining us by phone.

Okay. At this time, I'm going to turn it over to Chairman Pryor of the Administration Policy Rules Committee.

that committee meeting you know what thank you mr chairman um members of this committee is uh is me as a chair jenny costa honeycutt connor middleton herb sass and the chairman so we do have a forum that's three of us here so our first order of business is the approval of the minutes of june 20 june 4th 2026. second the second any discussion Okay, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed, ayes have it. Item 2A, policy for funding outside agencies from council contingency. I believe this was the chairman and I, and I think Mr. Moody said we don't want everybody to be on the same page. They want to be uniform, so is there a motion to make council uniform with all the rest of the outside agencies, council contingency?

Mr. Pryor, I think the documentation that we were provided has a couple of things that we need to make a decision on as far as the allocations, less than $10,000, allocations greater than $10,000, and those types of things.

Okay, well, why don't we do this? Why don't we wait until we get full counsel here before we decide something on this? Because it's only five of us here, and Mr. Darby also, would it be okay if we just bring this back at another time when we got full counsel?

I'd make that motion.

Okay. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. So this will be taken up at a later date. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So now we move into our planning and public works committee agenda where all members of council participate. The first item is approval of the minutes.

Before we get into this matter, I suggest on the last one, we take that up sooner rather than later before this issue comes up again and we go, why don't we deal with this? Let's don't put it on the shelf and forget about it.

I'll bring it to the July meeting and then as long as everybody's here.

Yes, ma'am. You can start to interrupt.

That's okay. Approval of the minutes, June 4, 2026. Second.

Mr. Chairman, you want to chime in?

Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I would move that we defer this until we can get a motion. presentation from staff um hang on one second i was going give me just a minute here well if you come back to me a second but i you know and the chairman had actually discussed he's concerned as well as me with the trees as well as the the traffic light you know they made some things and so um You know, he just wants to make it better. So, you know, I told him I was in favor of deferring it until we could get some more information from staff.

I have the same question.

Yes, sir. By listening to staff and some of the people out there doing the public, I mean, the hearing, you know, some great concerns were brought up. And so that's what the chairman wanted to do. Mr.

Chair, if I may, after we take the vote on this, if I could just make a direct note to staff after we take the vote. I was going to say, after we vote on the motion to defer, I was going to see if I could make a directive at the appropriate time for staff.

OK, let me. Yeah, I think the chairman, I think I second the chairman's move. He made it, and I second it. OK. All right. Mr. Moody?

Yeah, same concern, just time frame. I mean, we had the dog bone. We've had this. I mean, something is going to have to happen over there. And somebody's not going to be happy. Nobody's happy. Maybe that's the right thing. But this has gone on. I think Mr. Summey was chairman when we were dealing with this. This is just nuts that it's still hanging around here like this. So we've got to figure out a plan and get this thing going. And if everybody's unhappy, we probably landed in the right place. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, you had anything? No, I was going to break for the vote. All in favor of the motion signify, the deferred signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Okay. This is deferred, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Due to recent public input I've received regarding the Central Park and Riverland Intersection Improvement Project, I would like to request that county staff provide a presentation in July on the history of this project, alternatives studied, including traffic analysis assumptions used with or without the Mark Clark extension, and the factors that led us to this current plan.

OK. That need a vote. Staff don't understand what he says. We're directing out of this committee to bring it back to us. So we don't need a vote, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tutin and his staff got the direction. OK. 2B is the extension of the moratorium in a historic district. Before we move in, I'd like to share this with everybody. The community of the town of Ten Mile has already gotten everything they needed. They've gotten their overlay district, and they've gotten everything they needed. So what I would recommend, and if somebody can do it, a motion is to extend the moratorium but but exempt and Take 10 mile out because it makes no sense to have 10 mile in and they've gotten everything they needed and These are the few communities Let them work with staff over the next two years to try to get the same thing if they don't then you know goes away But I don't think We need to keep 10 Mile in. And then we've got folks out there who've got contracts underway that's going to hinder them from doing what they need to do. So if someone makes a motion to move forward but just exempt the 10 Mile community, that's fine.

Mr. Pryor, I'd be willing to make a motion to extend the moratorium for 24 months. Yes, sir. But exclude the 10 Mile community and also the Tisdale family property.

Second. All right. Now, discussion. Mr. Sass.

My question was the Tisdale property.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Because we already exempted them. Right. And so we don't want to change the zoning. They already have the current zoning. Mr. Krabowski.

I agree that Tisdale, we already had lengthy discussions on. We voted on that several times. And I agree with that. But I don't know why we exclude Tindwall. It's still important to have the moratorium on that. I don't know. They've not requested it themselves to be removed from this.

Am I correct in that? Yes, but they've already accomplished what they needed to accomplish, so there's no need in tying them into this. They've already got their overlay district. They've already got their historic preservation designation, so why would we keep them in something that's not going to benefit them?

I would think the moratorium would benefit them in addition to that. They haven't asked. I'm in favor of the moratorium being extended. I don't want to vote against not continuing the other places, but I would not be in favor removing them from it.

OK. All right. Mr. Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Kabrasky, my support of this has been that it is a finite amount of time with a date certain when it's over for major subdivisions. But also, it's being done to facilitate perhaps an overlay district or to receive historic preservation district inclusion.

and so for me there needs to be a reason why we would put a moratorium and it needs to be a finite time so that was my qualifications and support again i would just add from briefly as i've always said i've been through there countless times this is where the rubber meets the road in terms this is just north of um Carolina Park, Park West, Dunes West. As soon as we lift this moratorium, it's going to be hell-bent on every developer within shouting distance to move in there and push for major subdivisions every which way they can. And this is like the line in the sand. And again, they get through there. then they're on their way to go to McCloneville and make all my district like Hmong, Savannah. I just don't see why they remove the moratorium on major subdivisions. I understand that we've done things for them, but I don't want to hear from them. Can we defer the vote to hear from them how they feel about it first? I mean, I haven't heard any, my understanding from them, they want to keep the moratorium. They don't want it to be removed. Am I wrong in that? If I'm wrong in that and they come and say that, I'll defer to them. But my understanding is they don't want this moratorium lifted.

Did you get a call? Because I hadn't gotten a call from anybody.

After the last meeting, I discussed it.

I'm coming to you, Mr. Moody. But you can't use the moratorium as a roadblock to stop development if there's no need to. They have gotten everything they have applied for. And so, you know, they've got their historic designation. They've got their overlay district down there that prevents some of the same thing that you are trying to stop. So that's why I believe it's time to move on from them. But, you know, we'll all take a vote. Mr. Moody?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will tell you, and I think I told you, Mr. Pryor, in my 10 years on county council, This is the first time I've seen a moratorium. And I'm not voting for this because I don't vote for moratoriums. I can't think of anything more anti-capitalist, anti-property rights in anything in the world than stripping people's property rights with a moratorium. That said, this group has accomplished a lot in the 10 years. I think you just noted those. It's rare. Usually we just put a moratorium on, nothing much happens, and keep renewing it, renewing it, and renewing it. That has not been the case here. So I applaud the community and the county for doing that level of work. That said, there's an answer for it. If they want to maintain their community, don't sell your property.

All right.

That'll do it. Mr. Saad.

Thank you. And then I'm going to see if Mr. Darby wants to chime in.

Mr. Pryor. I don't want to see major subdivisions in the settlement communities, but I also do not support a moratorium. I just want to let you know. Thank you. No problem.

Mr. Werriman.

Yeah, I think when this came up last time, I had asked, you know, I certainly we've done a lot. I'm, you know, would default with Mr. Kabrowski to just keep it on until we know we've done more. So I'm probably going to vote that way. I guess maybe when this comes up on Tuesday, I would like to know, like, is there anything else that we could possibly do? Because I think that was sort of the question I raised, you know. i think i said we presumably can't just make major subdivisions illegal under state law i think we've we've answered that question that that's a no um but i would like to speak with staff in between now and i guess it's not tuesday next thursday um when this would be in front of council uh just to understand if if we have you know scraped everything from the bottom of the barrel then then i'm i'm understanding where we're going obviously it can't be a permanent thing but you know i i would default to a better safe than sorry

No, okay. And just so you know, this is not for the other community. This is only to take the Ten Mile community out.

What is Mr. Pryor saying, ma'am?

Mr. Darby, Mr. Pryor is saying that I think the motion on the floor is to extend the moratorium for 24 months. but exclude the 10-mile community because the 10-mile community already has their overlay district and the protections of the zoning that that provides.

Okay. All right.

I'm putting you on speaker now.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Brown.

Yes, ma'am. I would concur with Mr. Pryor. Yes. I think it's much needed. And since the community is presently being preserved, why not? Because that was the goal and the goal has been attained or reached. Right.

He's saying he's in favor of excluding the 10 mile community because the goal has already been met. And, you know, and you got to look at some of the landowners in there too, you know, have been waiting some of them six years to do something with their property. Okay, so whether we exclude them, I would keep them in. I mean, I just don't want us to get in trouble for using this as a weapon, this illegal estate, to stop development. It may disrupt the business. So that's my take on it. So the motion on the floor is to extend the moratorium to those other, could you call out the other, Andrea, do you know the other districts, so everybody will know what they're voting on, the other districts? subdivisions that we're going to extend the moratorium for to allow you all to work with them?

Sure. Yep. So it's Bee Field, Phillips, Hamlin Beach. Well, 10 Mile was excluded. That's it. Yeah. And we do have some future applications coming in. And then this also included the historic districts that are on the National Register. So like the Ashley River Road Historic District and some others that are also included.

And I did see something. Somebody sent in something from Red Top.

We are working with them, but they don't have their application in yet. But you will be seeing some other historic districts come through in the near future.

But we've got to put a timeline on when they can submit these things because we can't hold this thing up and then we'd be here for 36 months instead of 24 months.

Mr. Chairman. Call for the question.

Okay. Well, that's fine. Let's call for the vote. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Salisbury, would you do a roll call vote?

Yes, sir. Mr. Darby.

Ma'am.

It's your turn to vote.

Yes, I'm in favor of the moratorium, ma'am.

Yes, sir. Okay, it's absent. Mr. Kabrowski.

No, I'm in favor of the moratoriums that continue for all of them. I don't want to vote to exclude 10 mile. I'd like the clarification from Mr. Darby if he understood that this was going to exclude 10 mile.

Mr. Darby, you understand, like I said, that the 10-mile community is excluded because they've already got their overlay district?

Yes, ma'am. I would concur. Thank you. Nay.

Mr. Pryor?

Yes.

Mr. Sass? Nay. Mr. Worman?

Nay.

Mr. Boykin? Aye. The motion fails with three ayes, four nays, and two absent.

Okay, so the motion fails. So there is no moratorium on no property. I just wanted these people to understand who voted no, which is that you voted against your own preference. So Mr. Grabowski.

Oh, ma'am. Can I change my vote, please?

Yes, sir. You could change your vote to nay, but that makes it the same.

Yes, but I may need to break it back up, ma'am.

Yes, sir.

He's in consideration. Mr. Grabowski. back up now to you can make a motion to make the motion to extend the moratorium on all the historic districts does he get a second second can we define the term okay 24 months like the last yes sir okay without the exclusion that's a second okay mr. Osbury and without any yes more conversation call the roll

Mr. Darby?

Yes, ma'am.

It's your turn to vote. Mr. Kabrowski has made a motion to extend the moratorium in all of the districts, including the 10-mile.

And exclusion of Mr. Tisdale's property, I think.

And Mr. Tisdale's property is included in that. It's not excluded. All right.

No, I mean. It's not excluded.

It's included.

Is he still saying something? I'm sorry.

The motion was to continue. the moratorium on all the historic districts, but exclude Mr. Tisdale's property from that since we already voted on that.

Okay, Mr. Tisdale's property is excluded.

All right, so is there a second to his motion, an amended motion for 24 months?

Is there a second? Yes, I would amend the second.

Okay, okay.

I'll go with that. Yes. Mr. Kaprowski? Yes.

Let me ask this because I forgot. Before we continue, I'm going to look at the attorney and ask, is there a problem with excluding the property of Mr. Tisdale before they take this vote? No. Okay. There's no problem. Okay.

All right. Mr. Moodie? Mr. Pryor?

I'm going to go aye. They excluded Mr. Tisdale.

Okay. Mr. Sass? Nay. Mr. Worman?

Yes.

Mr. Boykin? Nay. Okay. That motion passes with four ayes, three nays, and two absent.

No, Mr. Darby has voted.

He voted.

Yeah. Yes. Report a yes.

Yeah. So it passed. Four ayes, three nays, two absent.

Forgetting about Jimmy. All right. So this will move on to our council meeting on Tuesday. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Now we'll move on to our finance committee. All members of county council are members of the finance committee, and I serve as chair.

Item one.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Ayes have it.

Move to approve item 2A.

All right, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Move for approval of consent agenda 3A through D. Any discussion?

All right. Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Ayes have it. 4-8. Staff recommendation.

Second. All right. Any discussion? Yeah, just to explain what this is so the public knows, because it might, you know, it's Herb's district, but it also impacts mine, and people would want to know what this means going forward. What exactly are we approving? What part of the 41 is this?

Mr. Kowarowski, this is basically the inspectors that go out and inspect the work. They also do plan review on the front end to make sure it's constructible, to make sure the means and methods used, the road can be constructed.

Does this include the part of Highway 41 that goes through the Laurel Parkway? So if I Vote for this. I'm approving that going forward through the park.

It does include that section of the roadway, but this is not the construction contract.

It's not the actual construction, but it's related to the construction through the park. That is correct. Is that fair to say? Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. 5A?

Move for committee recommendation.

I'm second.

Yeah. All right. Okay, I'm going to do both eyes, Mr. Park?

Yes, sir. Okay, 5A and 5B. I have a proper move and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Moving to agenda item 6A. And maybe all the way to 6D to have a motion.

Recommendation 6A through D. Second.

Can I pull out 6D for discussion? I don't have any.

For approval item 6A through C. Second for that.

Okay. Any discussion of 6A through 6C? Mr. Moody.

Question on 6A. As I understand this, this is simply a mechanism to preserve the property values that are out there. in this area? Loella? I'm sorry, Ms. Smalls. So the ...

Okay. Yes, sir.

... is not putting a line of credit or anything. They're not getting cash out of this property. They're just doing this ... the appearance, because there's actually going to be a second mortgage, but this will show help the properties show that they're comparably valued out there.

Yes, sir.

So it's just a mechanism to make sure they don't decrease or increase in some time the values of the surrounding homes.

Right. So the total will be the same as the appraised value for the property. They have the cost to the homeowner is about $250, and then the difference is in the second mortgage, and that brings it up to the appraised value.

Anything further?

I want to go to 6C. Just ask a question. So these are the urban and tribal grants for 2026. Is that CDBG block grant? That's one of them, yes. That's one of them. I know I spoke to you earlier today and asked a question. Is this question actually concerning us as far as, you know, what percentage will go to affordable housing, what percentage will go to Community grant programs, is this included in this?

With the CDBG funding, that is mainly for the public. So we are providing emergency home repair. We're giving funding to different food banks. So that's what we were talking about earlier.

So yes, CDBG is that one. So that is included. And for y'all, I spoke to Ms. Smalls because I am a little concerned that we're going a little too far with, I wouldn't say a little too far, but we're making everything affordable housing and it's not reaching the people in the poor community that it needs to. When you're looking at, like I told Ms. Smalls, we need to look at programs like helping people with utilities and food and other things. But she did explain to me that $750,000 would be allocated to affordable housing. Okay? And so, you know, and I was, you know, telling her, you know, that's the way the grant read. We'd have to go with that. Some of the money, most of the money, to reach the common man or the common woman, the people that really needs it. You know, fixing up a house, you know, it's easy to put 50 grand to fixing a house and keep it affordable because somebody's staying in it rather than losing it and then they got to go find somebody else. And so she's going to, you know, look into that and bring things back. We can do that. And feeding programs, utility programs, yes, I'd like for us to be involved in that as well, too. So that's why. And thank you so much for the information.

Anything further? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. 6D.

Staff recommendation 6D. I'll second. Second. Okay.

I'll probably move to second it. Mr. Kaprowski.

Briefly, if I can ask the staff, I tried to read and understand the part about the situation. This is part of the multi-county of Colton County. Where is the the new parcel and it says MCPB is a key component of the legal structure allowing the county to offer special source credit to incentivize development of desired affordable housing units. The MCPB agreement with partner Colton County and where is the parcel and what would the parcel have to do with Colton County and how does the agreement partner us with Carlton County with something that's in Charleston. How does it? I'm still trying to understand the connection with Carlton County, how they benefit or what role they play in this. And where's the parcel? Is it near Carlton County or what part?

Mr. Kabrowski, the parcel is located off of Rivers Avenue in North Charleston. This is associated with the Rivers Landing tax abatement project that council approved maybe a month or so ago. Typically, we would bring all of these parcels that you all approved at the end of the year to add them to the multi-county part. That's the last step in the process. But this particular developer cannot wait that long due to closing requirements, so we're asking you to go ahead and add that to the part.

Does it have anything to do with Colton County?

It does. It's the state legal instrument that allows us to offer tax abatement through the multi-county park. It requires having another partner county that you partner with. So they can take advantage of tax abatement through this park in their county. We can take advantage of it here. They get a very small 1.75% of the paid FLO.

From this project?

Yes, sir. Just like if they cite one in their county, we will receive 1.75% of the revenues on that.

All right. Thank you very much.

You're welcome. Is there any further discussion? Yeah. I recognize Mr. Pryor.

Yes, sir. I need to recuse myself from this because it didn't have who the people were. And so I recused from the last vote when the river line number came up.

Yes, sir.

So I need to recuse myself. So somebody needs to second that motion. Seconded. Okay. Seconded by Mr. Sass. And I recuse myself.

Okay. All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

No. All right.

We have four ayes and one nay from Mr. Gabrowski. Yes, sir. All right. There being no further business, we are adjourned.