County Council - Regular Meeting

This time um we're going to ask council members to introduce themselves and their district. I'm Joe Boyin, Charleston County District 8. Um and I'm serve as chairman presently. Mr. Moody Moody, Charleston County Council, District 7, District 6. Darby, District 4, Sass, District 1, Mount Pleasant. Kristen Salsbury, clerk of council, [clears throat] county administrator. Jenny Costa, Honeyut, District Nine. Larry Krowski, District Two. Teddy Prior, District Five in District Three. Natalie Ham, County Attorney. Thank you all. At this time, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Prior, who's the chair of the planning and public works committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this is our planning and public works committee. All members of council participate. Item number one, approval of minutes. Move to approve. Second. Any discussion or deletion? All in favor signify by saying I. I. All oppose. Eyes have it. Item number two 2A is uh Ashley River Road request to consider and then following to be 2B CLDR. I move for planning commission recommendations on items 2A and 2B. Second. There's move and seconded. Any discussion?

One question. Yes sir. Mr. Tutin. Um I don't see Merl here tonight. I had asked him to check into this property, the abandoned the state abandoned tax credit. You all may recall that property we did, that empty dry cleaner on Highway 61 qualified for some state credits. U Mr. Johnson was going to look into that for me. If you could get an answer for that, that'd be wonderful. Okay. Anything else? All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Eyes have it. And that concludes our planning and finance committee meeting. Prior, sir.

At this time, we will call the transportation sales tax special committee to order. Uh I'm chair and all members of council are members of the TST special committee. Item one, approval of minutes. Move to approve. Second. All say I. I. All opposed. Eyes have it. Uh agenda item number 2A, future transportation sales tax draft projects. Mr. Chairman.

Yes, sir. Mr. I would move that um we make the following changes to the proposed allocations uh that we've discussed previously. Um of the $75 million that were made available from the featured project category by virtue of reduction of the battery extension project. I would move $25 million to the city of North Charleston priorities. I would move $25 million to transit with a uh designation that that be used for implementation of the downtown route study. I would move $25 million to the HGood Avenue improvement plan. Um I would also reduce the intersection unspecified allocation by $10 million. Reduce the pavement management allocation by $10 million. Um, with that two and then with a corresponding $20 million increase again to the city of North Charleston uh featured project slice, I would reduce uh the bike ped allocation by $25 million and increase green belt by $40 million. There is also even though there then a reduction to the general transit by $25 million. Um, I believe that is everything unless I need to specify the North Charleston projects. I believe we have a staff recommendation on those though.

Second. All right. Uh, any discussion? Yes, sir. Mr. Moody. First of all, Hey, good avenue. I think that's an outstanding inclusion project on that. Um, I was a little surprised about the intersection and pavement reductions because that's sort of wow what we do. But if we if we do this, can y'all check my arithmetic? That would make 690 transit 860 ped 165 and I'm including the 90 interest carry 284 seaw wall still at 225.

That's I'm sorry. What what did were you you were asking trans I'm with you until you said 690 690 green space 860 transit 165 bikes now I think that's right 4 interest carry and we still got 225 in there for the seaw wall Mr. movie about I believe that's right. I mean that adds up to 2 bill224 million which is 52% of the total pie. So that leaves 48% going to roads.

That's what I get. Mr. Moody, did you include debt service in that number? I did. Okay. I mean the cost of building the road I think is part of the roads too. So I would put that in there is and there's a there's a case to be made too if you delay there would be added cost. So it it goes both ways. You said how many what percent did you say that all added at be?

Uh I get a total of 2 billion224 million divided by 4250. I I I was just looking at there's if you look at the orange part of the uh pie chart, you've got 9.18% pavement management at 390 million, 2.66% and second TST carrier needs at 113 million, uh.59% of signal coordination at 25 million, uh 2.71% uh intersection safety program at 115 million and then 39.95% uh at 1.6 6 billion for feature projects which does include the better north bridge.

Um well I I guess I would question why the better north bridge was put into the priority projects because if it's it's bike and ped call it what it is. If it's bike and ped put it under bike and ped send it to the voters let them tell us what they think about it. Um and I have that number though Mr. Boyin I was taking the 220 I was I was carving the 225 out of the 39%. If you look at the left side of if you look at the at our charts, the green, the blue, the bike ped, the debt service, north bridge, battery extension, the average Joe in my district that comes down 61 and sits in traffic for an hour every day. If we ask him if they if he wants 52% of his money going to that to other stuff,

that's what majority wants. That's what the majority gets. I'm just pointing it out. Thank you, sir. Yeah. Yeah. M Miss Money,

I just want to be clear because we have this on the screen behind us so visually constituents can see everything in orange on that diagram in my opinion is related to roads. Now the 90 million from the the bike ped project is specific to the infrastructure program because there's a chance we rebuild that facility, the entire bridge. And if we rebuild the bridge and add bike ped to it, well, that's a totally different thing than just a standalone bike ped bridge. But that is uh part of the bridge grant and prioritization of these different bridges across the whole state that that DOT is doing. Uh this is being submitted for that. So I I want to be able to use that 90 million if let's say we don't get the grant for for the bike pet improvement, it still stays in roads. And so that's why I think it was important to put that in there. But I when I look at that map, I those orange those slices in orange and we've tried to be as clear to the public as we can um are all including the debt service to build roads, which if you're going to incur debt to build roads, that's part of the cost of doing the roads is is going towards uh the road improvements. So when you add up just the blue and green, the 20.24 and 16.24, that's the only part that's not technically roads. Although I think transit is an infrastructure improvement as well. Thank you,

Mr. Weman. Um, yeah, I'll just to address a little bit of what's been said thus far, I would I would echo uh Councilman Honeyut's point on the north bridge specifically. I I think that's actually the main plan from what I understand now is is to try and, you know, induce and work with the state to just replace the entire bridge. Um and I and I yeah that

um and you know again I would agree that the debt service piece of this you know I think that's properly considered road money and and quite frankly you know the fact that it's going to speed up the actual provision of these roads um is something that I think we've heard loud and clear. I did also Mr. Chairman while I've got the mic want to maybe we read off a lot of numbers there. I want to just give a broader overview of of why I think this is uh a good compromise. I mean, you know, there's going to be stuff in this transportation sales tax that I'm not going to be super excited about paying for either, but ultimately I think we're we're stronger when we're together. Um and there are things that are are desperate needs um of all parts of this county that can be addressed by this and and you know, folks have different needs and so we've got different components of it. Um I think one good way to summarize what the motion on the table is is we freed up 75 million from the uh battery extension project. Um we would be moving that money into three different places. One is the Hood Avenue uh improvement which is obviously to improve some of the flooding and and and um improve the situation down there on Hood Avenue. I think that uh that you know keeping that on the pencil was an important thing for me. Um, it would also facilitate some projects in North Charleston, um, that I think we sort of addressed the idea that North Charleston, you know, I think sort of got the short end of the stick when we allocated all 90 of them to them, all 90 million of the North Bridge to them initially. So, it facilitates that as well. Um, and also, you know, this facilitates an increase to green belt. talked a lot about that, but you know, it also incre it facilitates a a a marginal increase at least to the total transit um number here. So, you know, understanding that that you know, that's important to a lot of folks. I'm hopeful that that can be seen as as sort of a way for us to come

together and uh hopefully support this plan. Um there's probably a million other words that could be said about the various numbers I just threw out there, but I will uh pass that along to others to do so. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Krassi.

Yeah, I just want to say um you know, our county is 100 miles long from north to south and as I said last week, this is a test whether a single member districts can work. Every area we have rural, suburban and urban areas and how do we make things that our job today is to try to come up with something that would meaningfully improve the lives of the people that live in Charleston County from north to south. And I recognize in the north area peninsula, Charleston, public transit is is much more important than it is East Cooper. Our thing in North Mount Pleasant, Almond Doll, and Mlullenville, is the green belt money so we can help our area stay rural and prevent it from becoming Highway 17 South. And I asked the the chairman, aren't there I mean, I recognize that probably the worst traffic we have is West Ashley. So our obligation is to put something that would meaningfully improve lives there. And I asked you chairman, can you tell us what project in this would meaningfully impact the lives of people west Ashley and how would that help them? Because our obligation is to try to come up with something and it's a complex thing because we're all different needs in different areas. So please tell us how it would impact the lives there in our projects.

I'm going to hold my comments. Mr. Moody, I think wanted to go again. Yeah. Well, I I guess I I'm first to say it's inappropriate for me to speak again until I put out a chance. I'm sorry, Mr. Mil. I see you. I would like to respond, but speak first.

And I do appreciate that and certainly uh take issue of, you know, taking the 75 million from the city and then reverting it to different places. Um that certainly is an issue for me. And certainly those $75 million, there could have been additional city of Charleston inner and outer uh off the peninsula projects to include West Ashley and other areas that um and I know we've gotten in previous uh transportation sales tax, but certainly we still uh remain gridlocked and dealing with the same nightmare of traffic uh that everybody around the county uh in certain urban uh centers deal with. And so I wish that we and I know that there were conversations, lots of collaboration, and I appreciate all of that. And I still would advocate uh for that 75 million to be allocated in different ways. The same way that that 45 million was um carved out for North Charleston, I would carve the whole 75 million out for projects in uh the city of Charleston. And so, um, certainly if it were not going to the to the, uh, battery extension, there are still other worthy projects, um, you know, in Charleston, not necessarily just the peninsula that still need priority. And so, for that reason, certainly I appreciate um, you know, the new pie, but uh, I still find there to be uh, in inequity uh, in the funding formula. Mr. M.

Well, yeah. I'd like to see us. It hasn't been a good day.

I'd say that I um you know, no illness would not go on you. So, I'm good now, sir. I'm good to go, sir. All right. Um I didn't have a time to put my thoughts together because I hadn't been doing too well. And um if you all think um the jobs that you have are challenging, try being a principal of a high school and see what you get. Uh anyhow um the die has been cast and I again I didn't go through all my thoughts like I wanted to and uh I just want to read this dissertation that I rushed to to write so that I would not forget too much of what I want to say. Uh, but I'd like to read this ass something to you and I state that in the past several members several members and rightfully so have questioned the wisdom of my past. Many years before Mr. Grosski was selected or elected to county council, I was an appointed of 526 because of the harm to African-American lands. My wisdom was questioned when I led the charge to name a building of one of the most of the county most admired and respected chairman, Mr. Prior. When the community called for $10 million for affordable housing, which was not enough, I fought for 20 million. Time and time again, I tried to be on the right side of history, particularly local history, but seldom do others listen. and not to my arrogance. I would say this evening I am being questioned about my thoughts about Green Belt dollars. Firstly, I have always been a friend of Green Belt, so please do not question my loyalty. Secondly, however, I am of the opinion Green Belt is already gagging with

superfluity in terms of its goals. Charleston County's land through green belt funding has afforded the county to save nearly 50% of its land. Not 50% of its goal, but nearly 50% of its land in its totality. So in other words, Charleston County as we stand today is preserve 50% of its land. The goal for Green Belt was 40,000 acres. That's right, 40,000 acres. That was the goal. Today, Charleston County has exceeded its goal as 47,000 acres have been conserved. That's right. 47,000 acres. How much is enough? It is akin to a father who has five daughters. And as you know, fathers love their daughters as no love could ever be as evident. If you don't believe that, let a man bother his daughter whether she is married or not and see what you will get. There are five daughters wanting to go to college. The oldest already has her college fund intact with $100,000 paid in full. The four daughters have yet to have their goals completed, but the father has a plan to bring in dollars, albeit arduous. Upon hearing this, the oldest daughter goes to her father and says, "Daddy, I want some more money." The father says, "Your tuition has been paid. I have to help your other sisters. I want their goals completed also." The oldest daughter adamantly says, "Daddy, I want more money." Because of the father's love, he says, "I will give you 10% more because I love you." Daddy, that's not enough. I want 16%. The father who loves his others

daughters as well and sees their needs and says to the oldest honey I love you but if you do not accept the 10% because you really do not need any more as your goal has been met. And if you do not accept the 10% I'm sorry you will not get anything. That's how I feel. We need to procure dollars for those entities whose goals have not been fulfilled. The $40,000 acre goal for Charleston County has been met. What more do we need? Also, there is a contra distinction between green belt funds and affordable housing. Have you ever thought about it? The more land which is reserved, there will be fewer affordable houses which will cause the housing market to get higher because there are fewer acreage. This is not a matter of doing both at the same time. This is not a matter of which is more important. This is a matter of the million of dollars to preserve land contributes to the unaffordability of procuring affordable houses. So let us not speak too sublimely about affordable housing when we directly and indirectly contribute to the unaffordability. The wealthy always gets its way. And please do not accuse me of being anti-wealth because I agree with the amount because I don't agree with the amount green is asking. However, the majority of the dollars go to the halves and not and the have nots does not get it. One family I learned alone procured $5.7 million. The African-American and disadvantaged whites get very little in comparison. Furthermore, which to me is something of an affront, everyday people are the common person are paying taxes for green belt for land they can never walk on. I understand the

importance of green space and the necessities thereof. But there's something wrong when the public could walk on only 8.629 629 acres of land. We 629 acres of land whereby and although there are tax dollars the public does not excess or cannot walk on the 19,131 acres. It just does not add up. At least for me it is definitively a form of taxation without public access. And in this totality, our energy for county council should to procure dollars for everything is misdirected. The same energy, the same vivacity, the same vitality events here should be events towards state representatives. Ever since representative Glenn McConnell, Bobby Harold, Arthur Ravenell left the state house, Charleston County has never received in comparison to the up country. Here we are double taxing ourselves because the state of South Carolina, particularly the up country, is derelct in its duties. We should fill the state house chambers to demand the paving of our roads and other matters. It'll be nice if we would do a protest there. Finally, I am not a opponent of green belt. I am just not do going I'm just not going to propose the 16% or the 20% because the goal has already been met. But in the final analysis I will abide by the majority of the citizenry if it goes before them because if the public says give more the green belt I will follow the desires and the directives of the public. But as it stands today, the

goal of a green belt was 40,000 acres. We have exceeded the goal and yet now we asking for more. The county is already 50,000 I mean uh almost 50% in the preservation and now we asking for more and the people uh in terms of transportation roads need much more. Didn't mean to be that um loquacious. Forgive me. Mr. Wearman, I think I need to correct my motion. I think at the end I said that there would be $25 million removed from transit. Uh that would actually be 15. That's what accounts for there being a net $10 million increase in the transit.

Your correction is noted. Seconded. Okay. All right. Um anyone else to speak? Mr. Moody, Mr. Prior.

Thank you, Mr. for sure stating what [clears throat] my thoughts were as well with the goal that we have we have succeeded with green belts and I too like you was a proponent of it when it first started when Mr. Boston brought this to our attention. Didn't know what was going on, but we took a leap of faith and it has been one of the best program that we've had in Charleston County. But I see on the pie chart it went from 15 to the 16.24 and Reverend Milton is correct. We're going to be taking funds from out of the city. So if we found this money, why wouldn't we put it back into the city versus putting it in the green belts when we already said green belts should be getting 15%. You know, I understand the um the due pressure of some and I think some of us up here, you know, all of us like to preserve, but this is a transportation sales tax and transportation mean roads and moving people around and um while I like you know uh what this pie chart is except for the 16.24 24. You know, I can't in good conscience support that. You know, when the last tax was passed, they got 10%. We're giving them an extra 5% now, you know, of green belts. The first was 15, the second was 10, and now is back at 15. And so it makes it difficult just because somebody asks for something we say is worthy. I mean, we must look to the future, and Mr. Darby made an excellent point. If you preserve everything, where are you going to build? It's only going to increase the price of of the housing market. So, I while I don't

agree with this pie chart. I'm still a proponent of green belts, but I just think a 15% is well enough. And um you know, if the majority says they want to move, that's up to the majority. But I just can't because I made a commitment to 15% and I'm standing with the 15%, sir. Thank you. All right. [clears throat] Um, Mr. May again. All right.

Yeah. Real quick and and Mr. Darby, thank you for the comments on the green belt. The only point I wanted to make on that was that, you know, at the end of our program, we will have spent $431 million on green space. There was an article in the paper this weekend that the state of South Carolina spent 359 million. The entire state, if I read that correctly. So, we've not only lapped the entire state, we're now asking for, you know, doubling down. That's a king's ransom uh shakedown, if you ask me. Um, I guess I would I want to answer Miss Miss Honeyut, but I had a question about the clarity statement we got from the mayor this week. As I read that, I think your motion was just to basically protect the medical district. I thought maybe you can amplify that, but their their clarity statement seemed to say they're going to go from the Asher River all the way down to the Ravenel and if there's leftover money, they're going to keep on going up. And I didn't think that was covered in your motion. So, I'd like to see that clarified by either by you or the city or whoever. Those those need to match and I didn't think they did. But to the the message I'm I'm taking to my people and you know seaw wall the guy that lives down 61 or the guy that lives at the end of of Harborview Road if you ask them if a seaw wall that people are biking and skating on as a as a infrastructure project I like my chances u of that answer being no. So I don't consider it that. Uh, I think the people in city of Charleston, if you live in West Ashley or James Island or John's Island or the unincorporated areas of those, you should be appalled because the, you know, the thinking that the city downtown always gets the money and everywhere else gets screwed. I got exhibit one for you right here. It's called Seaw Wall. So, it's it's appalling that how many projects like these $45 million projects that are done in North Charleston, that's a great list. How many of those could be done with $200 million? But

let's protect those nice pretty houses down there and screw everybody else. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Uh, a few things. Um, Mr. Weman, if I'm correct, um, there's been a lot of characterization that the 50 million from the 75 million was not going to be in the city of Charleston. As I understood in my conversations with you, uh, 25 million was going to the Hateg Good project. I'm pretty sure that's still in the city of Charleston, is it not? Okay. Thank you. And second point was you told me that the 25 million for Carter was to be used for downtown route study implementation of that mean $25 million on a study. That means $25 million spent putting buses based on the study.

Thank you. Okay. So that's that. Um as to uh transportation infrastructure and that's multimmodal and it's carrying cost and carryovers. Um, I have 53.52% tallied for that uh portion of the uh TST allocation. Uh, I think that's a substantial amount of money for all of that. Uh, I don't have a problem with it. Um, uh, I hear all the discussions about green belt. Uh, you know, I think what might be is being missed, you know, it's one thing if the population of the state of South Carolina was spread evenly in every county and every municipality across this state, that would be one thing. But we have a disproportionate amount of folks moving to our portion of South Carolina. Uh yes, they certainly have a right to live where they will. Um but not everyone has to live in Charleston County. And you know, this push for preservation of land is about preserving why we live here. It's our sense of place. And to to have an arbitrary goal of acreage saying, "Okay, we're through now." It doesn't make any sense to me. Um, you know, the more people move here, I think the greater need for green space for their recreation and getting out and having access. Um, I'll go back down this road one more time. Uh, I hear all the stuff about public access. We've got a ton of public access. Our park system is full of public access. Uh, a lot of our partners, uh, Low Country Land Trust and others have allowed public, uh, access. All of our boat landings that were purchased with green belt money and that are you know future boat landings and water access are public access. One thing that the reason why that

number is so high you know that it's whatever 19,000 acres or whatever of of non whatever the number was Mr. Darby I'm sorry uh of nonpublic access. That was the cheapest conservation we've done in this county. 10 cents on a dollar. You don't have to own it. You don't have to pay people to upkeep it. And the bargain sale of development rights by land owners is completely lost on everyone sitting up here. Apparently, I I don't understand that. They could have sold it out and pocketed the money and moved away. They're heroes in my opinion that they chose not to profiteeer. They chose to preserve land that had been handed down generations. And those are cars that are not on the road. you know, more more congestion, more of a um uh burden upon our EMS, fire, police, our landfill, less pollution. We talk about resiliency and sustainability. That's the front line right there. If you don't build it, people can't move into it. We are doing a great job here with our um uh housing our future plan, you know, looking at the land bank along transportation corridors for folks that don't drive or have a car. I think there's a lot to be proud of here and how in the way we've carried on business here. I I I applaud um Mr. Wearman for accepting my invitation to sit down. It was an honest conversation. I I like what we put together here. I think it's reasonable. Um and I think a lot of thought and care and consideration went into it. And uh you know, I would love to have a you know, 90 consensus on this council, but we it's clear that that's nowhere near that. So um at that uh we'll close discussion.

No sir I I need to I need a rebutt sir. No sir Mr. Kabowski.

Well I just want to briefly respond that the it is I agree with what a Joe said that the with the green space. I mean ask people what they've seen with their own eyes over the last 10 years. how much every day that they lose what they love about living here is is plowed over uh put in concrete and developed. Imagine if we just stopped this program 10 years out and be more and worse. I just feel it's it's not a thing for the wealthy. It's people your sense of place of where you live in your neighborhood. If they're very wealthy, they go somewhere else for their green space. If you live here, we've seen people. How many times have we come up the biggest groups of people we've ever seen in front of us are for people the live and they see the big huge developments coming. I didn't see wealthy people. I saw people of all types of life reflected who lives in Charleston fighting that. That's what this is about. And in places, Mlonville, we have Seiwe, we have Northern Mount Pleasant, the Republic track, the White Track. These will be thousands and thousands of new homes coming here. And our obligation is to the people who live here now, not that the people who may live here in the future and retain our quality of life and sense of place. And again, people can see with their own eyes what's going on. And it also is a part of uh you know the preserving it from more traffic. But again, I like before we voted in this this I asked the chairman again I asked him about the projects that will address the traffic west Ashley which he didn't address. I like that to be part of it because again the issue we have is coming up with something that helps all 100 miles of us from north to south. There's different priorities [clears throat] in different areas but our job is to make a meaningful impact in people's lives. But if you would answer that

I I will right after Mr. Darby speaks. Thank you, Mr. Darby.

Uh, when it comes down to public access and folks who are purchasing land by means of tax dollars, no matter how we sum it up, it's still not fair. Uh, because poor people can't come up with land that they're going to get $5.7 million for a 4.2. There's still inequity in that. And I wish that we would preserve, you know, these poor communities and uh these disadvantaged white communities and communities of color as much as we preserve green belt space. Now, I usually don't use this AI or this I I'm just not that kind of guy technically. I just pulled this up and it says inaccessible green space is a major equity issue as studies show that 74% of pe communities of color and 7% of lowincome communities disadvantaged whites in the United States face nature deficits while taxpayers fund these areas barriers like poor design lack of maintenance safety issues and private nonwalkable gated spaces prevent equitable access to vital physical and mental health benefits So I don't care how you whitewash it. It's still not fair when tax dollars are spent toward folks and you can't even walk on the land. Now we've paid for land that yeah we can walk on 8,000 some odd acres but still results in 19,000 acres we can't walk on. You can't take your son or daughter on and yet you paid for it. So that's not getting argument but public excess. We not going to do that because it's simply not fair. I don't care how you size it up. Anyone else? Mr. Sass.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, well, this is a good spirited conversation. Um, I I happen to be a a great advocate for green belts. Um, I know that when the first transportation sales tax was designed, green belts were a part of it. And then it was in the second one and and this one. I think it's a very important part of that equation. And yes, we may have reached our original goal, but there's still we can still do some more. And I just want to point out there's things like if you look in Mount Pleasant, you look at Boon Hall. Um Boonh Hall was right there in the middle of town. It's preserved and it was a real bargain sale. Um the state and the county participated and the and the town to to acquire that. Um, and so now it's a an area where it is public access and just like the settlement communities, we're we're helping the settlement communities. I was in a meeting this week with the settlement communities. We're trying to get some historical designations for those communities. So it doesn't happen overnight, Mr. Darby, but it's happening.

Yes, sir.

And we and Phillips is already the first one that has [clears throat] become a historical community. And now 10M in Mr. Krosky's district is trying to do it. um and other ones are going to follow. Um there's lots of different ways to preserve the land. That's another way to preserve the land. As far as the green belt percentages, about 49 or 50% of the land in Charleston County is protected, but that's not all. We didn't do all that. We did a big we did a chunk of that, but there's other other conservation groups that did it as well. It wasn't just us. And so this gives us an opportunity to find wellpositioned properties that can make a good park or that we can use in the future. And the acquisitions when we buy these properties, when we buy them, we spend a lot more money than just putting an easement on. And I I don't want to get in an argument with you about the easements.

Um all I'll tell you is when you buy development rights, you keep that property from being developed. And that's part of what the green belt is about. Um, and the other part is having parks that we can all walk on. Now, I'm I a lot of work went into this. Um, I like the pie chart. I will I will caution and point out that every one of these every one of these little slices of pie is really important. Um, to me, it's really important the pavement management, intersections, and things like that. And the second carryover needs, those those are very important. I I don't want to see those those get reduced. But uh I I I I'm pretty much in agreement with this. I'm not I don't agree with everything. None of us can agree with everything on this chart, but I can I think I can agree with it enough to support it. [clears throat]

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Sass. Any further comments? Miss Honeyut.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Worman, for working so hard to uh sort of get all of these uh nuances together. Um, the only thing I would note just for the purposes of transparency is we focused a lot on the three biggest cities in the county. Um, we've not paid a whole lot of attention. I think it was you, Mr. Prior, that brought up uh the question of some of the other smaller towns uh within the county and I just want to make sure uh we're sending this back to the public for feedback. I think there's going to be a second motion coming up in a moment um to make sure we get that back. But I think part of that process will be further refining. Are there specific projects um within maybe smaller areas? I represent Seabbrook for instance. They have a repetitive flooding pro problem on Seabbrook Road um during high tides. And so there's opportunities for resilience needs to be met within these numbers and we'll even look further into that. But what we hope to get is a response from the public as to hey here's kind of where we are. Um how do y'all feel about this? And we get an honest assessment and feedback from that. The only other thing I wanted to point out is uh to answer Mr. Moody's question about the the battery wall. Um you know yesterday I went down the city finally um finished out its project that started in 2017 uh to rebuild the battery wall. Look that that has been a part of Charleston for decades and to extend this to have a form and function combined. This is an infrastructure project. The seaw wall is not just a a bike path. It is actually protecting the city from flooding. And yes, in my comments when we cut it down to 150, the intent was making sure that we protected the medical district. What the city came back and said is no, to make this thing work holistically, we need 225, which we passed in that committee meeting the 225. And I do believe that wraps around the whole city, not just the medical

district. But what we did is added back Hey, good. We want to make sure we address Calhoun Street needs. Uh they've got their own project also going on that's part of the 16 referendum. But addressing all of those goes to public safety across the county. If you're driving them from West Ashley in an EMS to get to MUSC and you can't because it's flooded, that's a problem. That affects West Ashley residents. It affects everybody on the south end of the county. And so I would argue and I represent that area of of the district at least you know south of Queen and I'm the one that cut from it. It's still a priority need. And so uh I think that that argument get argument can be made countywide. Uh and it is specific to the city of Charleston, but they also generate a lot of this revenue for the program. And so that's why we split it up between the city of Charleston, the city of North Charleston, and the city of town of Mount Pleasant uh to try to bring that equity that we've been talking about. So I hope to see further refinement as we hear back from the public. Um but I'm very proud of what we have been able to develop here today.

Any other Okay, I'll I'll answer your Okay, Mr. Kowski. Uh, as the West Ashley projects contained into this, uh, there's the, um, Glenn McConnell Parkway Magwood connection or fly over Magwood coming off of 526, I believe, is what that project was. Uh, the US 17 South widening from Dobin Road down to Main Road and a portion of the uh, US7 South widening below Main Road that's still in the city of Charleston to Ran tools Creek. That's all in the city. And then the argument one way or the other, you know, the West Ashley half of the better north bridge project would be in there as well. So those are some of the projects that West that West Ashley would benefit from.

Thank you. Those will have a big impact. Well, going four lanes to six lanes uh on set on one of the worst congested roads coming into West Ashley. Yes, it will help a lot. Well, that's what I meant. Yes, sir. Okay. Sure. Um Okay. I think that concludes the discussion. Um, madam clerk, would you please call the role on this one? Yes, sir. Mr. Derby, nay. Mrs. Honeyut, I. Mr. Kabowski, hi. Mr. Middleton, nay. Mr. Moody, nay. Mr. Prior, no. Mr. Sass, I. Mr. Worman, I. Mr. Boyin, I.

The motion passes with five eyes and four nazs. Um, Mr. Chairman, I would move that we send this out for public comment for no less than 30 days. I have a second question. Yeah, I'll second it. I have a question. My [snorts] my question is how is it going to be sent out? Um, Mr. Adams, would you please address how we're going to uh take public comment, please, sir?

Sure. Eric Adams, public works director. Uh so we would implement a similar uh program as we did the first phase of the public outreach program. So we would hold uh meetings around the county in person. We would have a survey online that could be completed and then we would also do a more scientific uh polling where uh representative sample of voters around the county would be pled. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Adams? Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Um, we got a properly uh made motion seconded. Uh, any discussion hearing? None. Uh, all those in favor say I. I. I. All opposed? Nay.

Um, I think I got it. Okay. Middleton Derby. Are you an I or a

30 days a poll? I don't have a problem with, you know, people making you know, suggestions. But what I do have a problem with, and I hope you would check these things and make sure they have a Charleston County address, just not an email coming in from somebody from out of town or Bertley County or Dchester County. So, I don't know, Mr. Adams, how y'all can determine that, but I would ask that everybody have a Charleston County email address because this was a Charleston County project. I mean, it's easy to flood these things with folks from out of town, California, New York, Florida, Burkeley County, Dorchester County, uh, you know, it's easy to do that. So, if you don't live in Charleston County, that shouldn't even count. So, I hope that we have some type of way that we can control that.

I concur, Mr. Prior. All right. Uh, with that, then we will adjourn the transportation sales tax committee and call the finance committee to order. Uh, all members of council, members of this committee, and I serve as chair. Uh, at this time, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to add a resolution honoring Charles Middleton II to the agenda at request of Mr. Prior. So, move. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Eyes have it. We need to also approve that or we need to add it to the agenda. Yeah, we're just going to add it to the consent agenda. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. Um, okay. Uh, approval of minutes February. Second. All those in favor say I.

I. Opposed. Eyes have it. Uh, item 2 A. Move for approval 2 A through now. F. Mrs. Clerk. That's right. Second. Oh, I'll second that. The question is um historic preservation appointment. Is that yours, Mr. Boren? Who? Who? That's mine. That's mine, too. The person the Okay. Okay, I I'll pass this on until Tuesday and then I can get it. Okay. Okay. All right. Any Okay. Any discussion? All right. All those in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. Eyes have it. I follow you. All right. Um. All right. The uh taking up item three, recommendation from transportation sales tax special committee. Recommendation.

Second. All right. Properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. N. made. I just want to make sure, madam clerk, do I need to specify both motions or does that include the committee? I think it covers both because it says recommendations from that committee. Thank you. All right. Okay. Um at this point, we will adjourn the finance committee and go into our special county council meeting. Uh, item one, Freedom Information Act.

In compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, notice of meeting was posted and agendas were distributed to news media and persons requesting notification. All right. Item two, 2A, transition. Any recommendation again? Second. Recommendations. Yes. Okay. All right. Got properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed? The eyes have it. Um, at this time we are adjourned. Okay. All right.