Town Council - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded. The regular town council meeting of June 8th, 2026, the town of Surfside Beach. Please stand as we begin with an invocation that I will do. Heavenly Father, I pray for your blessings upon this town and this council as we conduct the business of the town of Surfside Beach. You call each of us to love our neighbor and we must do so as we do the work of the town and let our town be a light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. The Apostle John speaks of Jesus. We have known and believed the love that God has for us. Love has been perfected among us in this, that we may have boldness because as he is, so are we in this world. Your love, Father, allows us to walk in your spirit, to walk as Jesus, as we cannot in the flesh. The Apostle Paul says, walk in the spirit. The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Again, Paul says, for God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. Father, let us use that fruit of the spirit, the power, the love, and the sound mind that only comes from you, that one spirit that we have in you before we speak or act. Father, I ask all this in the name of our Lord, our Savior, your Son, Jesus Christ. Amen. Pledge allegiance to the flag the united states of america and to the republic of which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all all right thank you very much all right we're going to move on to item three notions relating to the agenda mr mayor mr laura i'd like to make a motion to remove the item 6b business committee update

Mr. Van, if you'd like that delayed too. Maybe the next meeting.

Mayor? Oh, second. Yeah, that's right, we got approved. You did? I did second.

All right, any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries and that meeting is, that item is removed. Any other motions?

No, Mr. Mayor. Well, I'd like to make a motion that we, move the business item F up to immediately following public comments to accommodate a request from Keith Nelson.

All right. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. And we will do that immediately after public comments.

We're now looking for minutes approval.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of the May 26, 2026 Town Council meeting. And?

Any other?

That's all I have. Is there another one? Oh, and the Town Council, I believe it should be the fee schedule workshop meeting minutes of May 19, 2026.

I thank you. I'll second that. All right. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Minutes are approved. We'll now move on to public comments on agenda items only.

Good evening, Mayor, Council.

My name's William Kington, 1312 North Dogwood. 7B, I'm going to ask you to turn this down. We offer 46 spaces in front of the Holiday Inn. We also have 12 that we offer at the gravel lot. These are all free. In the past, we've offered weekly passes. I think now it's $70 a week. I think that's very reasonable for somebody that wants to bring a vehicle from who knows where and wants a place to park it. We offer a lot of free spaces, but we also have a lot of expense to go along with. I would ask you to turn that down and thank you very much. Thank you, sir.

Any other public comment? All right, we're now going to move into the item we just moved, which was 7F. Chief Nelson speaking about the 40-county multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan.

I appreciate you allowing me to jump forward. My brother's been has an issue in health and he's having surgery. So basically, we've been working on this for over a year with Horry County and other jurisdictions, including Conway, Myrtle Beach, Atlantic Beach, up there. It's pretty much the same plan that we've had in the past. We went over it. I also met with John Adair and Heather before she left to see if she had any input or they had any input to put into it. It was delayed a little bit because it had to go to FEMA to be approved by FEMA. Basically, what this plan is, is any type of, for instance, for our town, flooding is a major issue. If you were to have a hurricane or anything like that, dilapidated buildings, sand, everything. So those are the things that are all included in this plan with it. We also have to have this plan to incorporate grants back or receive any FEMA money. So that's what this was all about.

right um we need a motion before we begin any discussion i think that's that's fine no i didn't ask for it before i want to let you go mr mayor like the motion make a motion that the uh council blue approved resolution 26-0220 a resolution adopting the 40 county multi-jurisdictional all hazards mitigation plan for the town of surfside beach thank you all right uh

Any discussion, questions, comments for Chief Nelson? I'm just going to say, kind of to reiterate what you said, this is FEMA required, encompasses the whole area of Horry County, including the municipalities, at least most of them in Horry County. I'll be honest, I didn't read the thing. I heard it's huge. I didn't look at the thing. I think that's what you guys are here for. I don't think anybody on this council is going to add any wisdom to it. We're trusting the two and the rest of Horry County, the emergency management team they have.

That is the one new thing this year is everybody in Horry County went into this versus Myrtle Beach in the past had their own entity that they did, but Myrtle Beach came in this year with us.

Okay, okay. Yeah, I mean, I don't have any problem with it. I know personally, I'm not going to add one iota

guidance to this thing so i'm going to trust that you guys are going to help any other questions comments system right just hi yeah chief when i uh heard from mr vincent that uh it was this this mitigation plan was as thick as a full-time phone book i uh when i was going over and i decided i would take your recommendations that we went into uh we sat down as individuals for the town as well as for the county and implemented any issues

and added it in. And for the most part, it's the same that we have. It's the same problems we always have. But I did reach out to John Adair and I reached out to Heather at the time to find if they had any issues with Mark's position, Heather, and they had nothing to input into it at that time.

Very good. Thank you.

Any others? And this is double-sided. Okay. I'll say half a tree.

It's for the next five years. That is the old All right, if there's nothing else, then the motion is to accept the plan as presented. And Ms. Poston, will you call the roll?

Mr. Hyatt? Yes. Mr. Coleman? Yes. Mr. Lawhorn? Yes. Mr. Staney? Yes. Mr. Walz?

Yes. Mayor Krause? Yes. Motion carries unanimously, 6-0. Thank you, Chief Nelson, and take care of your business. All right, we're moving back to communications, item 6A. The final courthouse chamber building project overview. Administrator Vincent, you want to talk about that?

Yes, Mr. Mayor and Council. Unfortunately, when we changed our meeting from Tuesday to Monday for the primaries, Preach and Associates was not able to participate in the presentation. We'll try to get them here from June the 23rd to do the presentation. But the last two pages of your report, you've got a construction cost summary. which indicate what the cost estimator has placed on the project. And then the last steps is you got your planned review bidding timeline. So this week, the bids will go out to contractors, and then the bid opening date is July the 30th. Region Associates is working with Horry County to design a training facility. So they said they're receiving a wealth of contractors that are interested in this project. So that's the good news. Yeah.

All right. This is a discussion item or I mean a communication item only. So no motions to be made. Any questions or comments for Mr. Vincent? Go ahead.

Oh, I was just going to, Mr. Mayor, I was just going to make one comment. Just the public. This, this thick thing is, is full of basically reminders to us of, uh, floor plans, site plans, elevations that we've already approved. They've just put it all together for us. And the last two pages is what we've been anticipating and expecting, which is the price in writing. So we now have it where we thought, well, we totaled $4 million and they come in at $3 million. But the anticipated construction start date is exciting. Things could change, but august 30th is an exciting exciting day so we'll hope it happens july 30th uh august 30th to break ground with with bidding yeah the bidding's july 30th and hopefully august 30th will be ground groundbreaking but that's what i'm looking for but i know these dates could move okay thank you i got the comments and stand around with a long problem at all this is how you do you wanted to you know i have a question

This escalation at six months for $67,000, what is an escalation? Does that mean they're going to speed the project up if we give them more money?

Escalation is increasing prices.

Just an increase in prices. It's just inflation. So we're not getting a quicker. No, sir. What a disappointment. I also have a question for Mrs. Gruber. We have the money for the total project cost of $3.9 million reserved, correct? Thank you.

I've got a couple of months longer, so I know that. So for the inevitable cost of overruns, do we have money for that as well?

Because I've never seen anything come in on budget.

Second question, Creech is going to serve as the project management function? Correct.

As well as myself and Eric Ross. And we're comfortable with that? Yes, sir.

Okay.

Any others? All right. Thank you, Mr. Vincent. We'll now move. We are skipping the business committee update, so we'll look at the cybercrime investigation update, and I've asked for this to be a regular standing item as long as there's anything to say. So can you just give us an update there?

Yes, sir.

Mr. Mayor and Council, nothing more or in addition to what we've discussed in the last several weeks. But basically what the Municipal Association is waiting for is the forensic report and also the status of the recovery efforts from the bank as well as the SLEP. So until we get those three items, into the hands of our carrier. There have been things kind of . But efforts are still being made by SLED, the bank. And that's it. The forensic audit has been completed.

We just need to proceed. Okay, so I'll start with a couple questions. The insurance folks need all of that, too. Is that what you're saying? That's correct. Yes, sir. So they really can't start. I mean, they've done an assessment of what we did. At least the insurance company, the legal team for the insurance company made a presentation or a discussion with you. That's correct. We haven't seen it. I mean, you reported on that before. So they're just, before they can determine responsibilities, they want to see all of those reports, I guess.

Correct. So the Great American Insurance Company is the primary. So until they complete the report and submit it to Matthew.

And is there any idea what timings are for that? Weeks or months? I would say the next two weeks. Oh, okay. That's actually good. I was leaning more toward months. I'm glad to hear that. And then internally, you and Director Gruber have been reviewing procedures. You've already made some changes, correct? Yes, sir, we have. Okay. I just want to make sure that's clear. And specifically the departments that would typically engage with contractors, which I would guess would be public works, events, and maybe facilities. They're probably the ones that would deal with outside contractors more than anybody, right?

So there's additional forms that these contractors will have to fill out with the exact information based on how they want to be paid. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, I just want to make sure we're kept up to date with all of that as well. So, okay. Any other questions, comments? I've got one. It's long.

Real quick, training for staff. Have we been looking into what additional training we could provide to ensure that they would be on the lookout for these types of things that occur?

Yeah, we've worked with Heritage Digitals, our IT consultant, so we do receive the training per employee, but we're thinking about something more of a group of employees.

Yeah, I would highly recommend that. I mean, I see the training that it's not a lot. So, I mean, to me, it would be very beneficial for those folks that are involved with dealing with money and contracts that have some kind of additional, whether it's in-person or whether it's online, whatever. But I think it would be helpful to give them, you know, just better tools to identify these types of things before they happen.

Even the finance department has attended some seminars and conferences already, and they are attending those things.

right then uh we'll move on to determine whether there's going to be any distribution of losses between our town and the contractors down i understand it's just too early and um any kind of determination yet to know where the system was entered by the cyber criminals uh i know that forensic report via zoom indicated that it was it was intercepted on the contractors okay and um has there been any suspects identified that you know of no sir not that moira and um okay that's all thank you

Three times, OK. We're going to move into business items now. So business item 7A, I need a motion for the municipal budget.

Mr. Hyatt. Since Mr. Walz isn't going to come in, I will.

Everybody else can do this. I will make a motion to accept ordinance number 26-1000 and ordinance of the town of Surfside to adopt the 2026-2027 fiscal year municipal budget and to set the tax billage rate for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2027.

Second. All right. You want to say a few words, Director Gruber?

Nothing has changed since first reading, I just want to remind everyone we have had four meetings on different topics came to this budget. I think it's a pretty good budget this time. So that's about it.

All right. Thank you. I mean, as you said, we have discussed this several times. So any other questions, comments? I do have a question.

It's on the fee schedule, which is attached to the budget. But under the FOIA fees, We have black and white copies costing $0.20 a page and color copies costing $0.80 a page. But just down lower on the same page under other services, we have copies in black and white at $0.10 per page, 50% over first cost, and copies in color at $0.25 a page instead of the $0.81 charged for FOIA. So I'm wondering, are we overcharging people for FOIA requests. You see where I'm at?

Yes, we looked at FOIA with the redactions and probably updated that and missed the other. I don't know. Would that be fair to say?

Well, the ones below are for notaries and black and white copies. I'll have to talk to Fabitha about that again. She's the one who did this section based on FOIA law.

All right, but this is the second reading, and I think we want to nail it down.

We even had a workshop to go through these things with a fine-tooth comb, and now we're at second reading and throwing it back to the beginning.

Well, I picked it up early. I'm sorry. Can we pass this subject to you rectifying the two?

Absolutely. We can.

And I'll amend the motion to add that we rectify the two costs so that they make sense to the public. I'll second the amendment.

So I'm going to clarify that. There's no legal issue with doing that after the fact?

No, sir.

OK. Any other discussion, questions, comments? All right. In that case, the motion on the table is to accept this budget as presented with the caveat, I guess, that we need to rectify the difference between the black and white and color copies for FOIA versus any other issues. With that, Ms. Poston, will you call the roll?

Mr. Hyatt? Yes. Mr. Coleman? Yes. Mr. Lawhorn? Yes. Mr. Stamey? Yes. Mr. Walz?

Yes.

Mayor Krause?

Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Budget's approved with the caveat that we need to look into that situation about the Copy costs. Okay. Next item is to amend the parking situation, the trailer parking. I need a motion for that.

7B.

Accept the first reading of ordinance 26-1001 ordinance to adopt the municipal, excuse me, I'm sorry, I'm reading the wrong one, ordinance to amend section 9-16H decals, registrations, and exemptions. Somebody?

Second. Thank you. All right, Mr. Benson, do you want to give us a little rundown of this?

Yes, I know Mr. Kinkin came up and mentioned not to pass it, but this is just clarification. John O'Day already indicated that once we got, uh, Once we looked at our ordinances just recently, this is just clarification so that on section 9-16H, that people, bikers know not to park their trailers at the beach access on 13th South. They need to actually park their trailers on street lot parking spaces between Ocean Boulevard and Carport. And also to clarify on 16th through That's 17th Avenue North. That's just clarification. That's not changing anything. Okay.

All right, so I'll start this. It's paid parking in the gravel lot on Surfside Drive if they want to use that, right? That's correct. Okay, so we're not changing that.

No, sir.

We've been offering for years free parking at either any town. It's just we're clarifying it's not the beach lot. I mean, I hope people aren't trying to back their trailers into that lot, but... I guess it is good to clarify it. And then the lot on the 17 side of Holiday Inn. That's the other one. That's correct. So if they want to park at the gravel lot, they have to still pay for that.

That's correct.

And we have a weekly rate for that, I believe. We do. OK. All right. It's just clarification. Just clarification. I get it. OK. Any other questions, comments?

Yeah. So we're not losing any. Excuse me, Mr. Brown. We're not losing any parking income by this change. No, sir. All we're doing is clarifying where the parking is or is not. Right.

During bike week.

That's right. Very good. Mr. Mayor.

It's common. Just for clarification, the 13th South parking lot off the boulevard, 16th North by the Howell Inn, that's free.

It's free to the bikers.

to the bike business. I just want to give a little history. Years ago, we got a ton of bikers here. And what was happening, and at the same time, we had people who were allowed to park on Ocean Boulevard. And it was wall-to-wall . It made sense to let them park and get them off the street. and getting in the parking lots. Now, the two parking lots we're talking about, at that time of year, hardly anybody ever uses them. So it was a good gesture to get them to do what we wanted them to do, which is get them off the street, get them off Ocean Boulevard, get them off the sidewalks in the right of way. So I think it's well worth letting them park there in an office. that they're letting them park other places, but they're having a pain. I have no problem with that. It's those parking lots people actually use. So we would lose revenue if we let people park this. And I think it's good. Thank you.

All right, with that, then the motion on the table is just to accept this ordinance change as presented as a clarification. Ms. Poston, will you just call the roll?

Mr. Hyatt. Yes. Mr. Coleman. Yes. Mr. Longhorn.

Yes.

Mr. Stamey. Yes. Mr. Walls.

Yes.

Mayor Krause.

Yes. Motion carries unanimously and is approved. All right. Our next business item is the, oh, in order to change the agenda and order of proceedings. We need a motion for that. Mr. Walls.

I'd like to make a motion. We accept the second reading of the motion. I don't know.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve first reading of the ordinance 26-1002, ordinance to amend section 2-39B, 13-14, agenda and order of proceedings. I'll second it.

Mr. Benson, do you want to give us a rundown on this?

Um, and this is, this is housekeeping keeping matter for two dash 39 agenda and order proceedings under B 13 or, uh, agendas show that after an executive session, we'd list motions for executive session. However, by ordinance, it needs to be stated.

All right. So I'll start this one too. Um, we've been kind of working under the, uh, understanding that all that it's understood. that after we have executive session, we could have a motion. And now we're just saying, okay, we're adding that officially to the agenda as a potential option for us to use.

Okay.

Anybody else?

Mr. Mayor? Mr. Hyatt? Yeah, I'm very much against this because I believe that after an executive session, whatever has been decided in executive session, unless exigent circumstances exist and they're defined in the law. The item should go on the next agenda so the public has a chance to review and come here and comment. When we meet after an executive session and pass motions, everybody is left, there's no one here, and the public is kind of cut out of the discussion. I don't like the public being cut out of the discussion, so I would oppose this and say that

exigent motions from executive session but all the others should move to the next meetings again in my opinion thank you any other comment mr mayor mr wallace like to make the comment that people are allowed to stay and return after executive session it's not like we're making them leave so that we can do something when they're not here that was kind of implied and i don't i don't want people to think that we do that i mean If they want to know what's going on after executive session, they can stay and reenter the council chambers after the executive session to hear what we decide and hear the motions that we're making. Just my two cents.

Mr. Mayor, let me see if anybody else wants to take a first turn. Mr. Lawhon.

I tend to agree with John's thought, but I'm not sure this stops that from happening and doing this, because I think you have a couple of options with motions from the executive session. One might be a motion to have it on the next agenda for both then, which would satisfy what you're concerned with. Some might be pro forma to where it's not controversial or whatever, we can take care of it right then. So I'm not opposed to this, but I do take your comment that there's something that comes out of the executive session that really needs to be, that the public needs to have a good opportunity to understand why we're doing what we're doing. Deferring that to the next meeting would satisfy that.

Yeah, council can certainly do a few things, either just not take a vote and put it on the next agenda item, or if there's some disagreement about whether to proceed with that particular motion following the executive session, somebody can make a motion to table that until a subsequent meeting, and that could be edged out sort of on a case-by-case basis.

I agree with what Mr. Lawhorn just brought up, but it also allows us to do something. It could be controversial and do it right away if we needed to. It opens the gate. Sometimes you might have to fire someone or do something. And we have to do it right away. We don't have to wait two weeks. We don't have to have a special meeting. So most times it's just going to be a simple motion. And if it's anything bigger than that, and it can be, it can wait. We can wait for two weeks. There's not a problem.

You want to speak again? Yeah, go ahead. We do ask the public to leave. We don't make them leave. They're welcome to stay outside. Sometimes executive session goes on for two or three hours. They're outside and the weather can be cold. So though they're not made to leave and have the right to come back in and listen, in reality, they really aren't. So that's one of my concerns. And the other is that there are exigent circumstances that come up and the law allows the town council to go into executive session and take action after executive session under exigent circumstances. But I'm not speaking about exigent circumstances. I'm talking about the run-of-the-mill procedures where we discuss things and then we make a motion. It should go on the next agenda so the public is aware of it, can study the issue, can come up during public comment and address the issue if they so choose. That's all I'm trying to make happen.

Mr. Mayor. Mr. Stanley. Hopefully in next year, maybe by this time or a little later, we'll have a chamber that we all can stay in and they can sit here and wait over how many hours they want to stay. We'll have a place that we can actually exit to and come back into the council and you will not have to leave. So hopefully that's taken into consideration. And as Mr. Wall said, You don't have to leave. You can come back after the executive session if you want to know what's going on.

So, ma'am, Ms. Cullen? I was going to bring up that exact same point that Mrs. Staney brought up. And that's what happened years past. Our council would go into the town hall. They had a conference room there, and that's where they held executive session. Same thing is going to happen when we get the building built. And in those days, though, we didn't have live streaming. We didn't have it so you could sit home and listen to the media. And now you're afforded to do that. So people will be informed if they want to stay up. I sometimes don't want to stay here until 10, 11 o'clock, but it's part of the business. If they're interested, they're not forced to leave or they're not forced to turn off the media. I understand what Mr. Hyatt is trying to say, but in this day and age and in the future, with the council, James, we're going to have to leave. They're not the same people.

I guess I'm just going to add one more comment as well. In most cases, when we do executive sessions, it's because we can't discuss it publicly. So there are some issues, like when we went through the contract for Mr. Vincent, I'll use that as the most recent example. We ended up not making motions through most of that because we just continued working on what we were doing. And when we finally had it done, then we put it on the next agenda. So that would fit this case. But if we are dealing with a personnel issue or something, it may not be an exigent circumstance, maybe not firing, but it's just something we have to do. It doesn't matter if we wait two weeks, four weeks, 20 weeks. We still can't discuss it publicly. So we may as well just make the motion as soon as we come out of executive session and move on. So I think the number of times where there is something that has to be an executive session but can be public in a couple of weeks, we can easily address those by saying, OK, the motion will be to add this to the agenda next meeting. So I don't see any big concern about transparency in this case.

Mr. Mayor, just a clarification. Even if you make a motion once during your 24 council meetings, still got to have this language on the format.

I think what Mr. Hyde is saying, we could amend that. He's already spoken twice, so I'll put that in. Thank you.

All right. Any other comments? I would just like to say that I know that this council, without exception, is all about transparency. So if there is something that we can share with the public, I would support any motions in moving it on to the next meeting agenda, if it's something that can wait and that we can present to the public and make them aware of exactly the topic that we're going to discuss so that they can speak. But there again, those situations, I think, unanimously, we would support a motion to move it to the next meeting. But I just wanted to say, That's what I was thinking about, John, when I made that mention, is that there are some things we come out of executive session that have to be taken care of right now. And they're not something in the future. We can't make it an agenda item on the next meeting because it's still protected information. So thank you. That's it. Just a quick comment.

What Skip just said is exactly what I was trying to say. Maybe I didn't say it as clearly as he did. But bottom line is we need to use some common sense on this stuff. There is stuff coming out of executive session that absolutely can be discussed in front of the public, and it can wait for a couple of weeks to be resolved. I completely support it in terms of the next, get the table and get moved for the next time. But as others have said, there are circumstances that have to be done that night. So this gives us the option to do either. Well, there we go.

Mr. Stamey, unless you have something to say, we're all done.

I'm done.

We've all had two terms except Mr. Stamey. With that in mind, the motion on the table is to accept this change as written. Ms. Poston, will you call the roll?

Mr. Hyatt.

I'm going to stand on my principle.

No.

Mr. Coleman. Yes. Mr. Longhorn.

Yes.

Mr. Stamey.

Yes.

Mr. Walz.

Yes.

Mayor Krause.

Yes. Motion carries 5-1 and is passed. We will now move on to item 70 D, uh, to amend it.

I thought I talked to Mr. Benson earlier. I thought this had been pulled from the, um, the window. I'm confused. I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah. I'm good. Just tell me.

Just start the point.

I want to make a motion to approve first reading ordinance 26-1005. Ordinance to amend the town of Surfside Beach, South Carolina zoning map from his own land located at pin number 461010. Bacon land from public land to

So you want highway commercial? We got a second. Director Broder, you want to fill us in?

Thank you, Mayor and members of the council. The item before you this evening is a zone change for a single parcel of land located directly behind Town Hall on Sandy Lane. Following a duly advertised public hearing before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission decided unanimously to forward this zone change to the council based on findings that it made. Those findings are that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. It doesn't constitute spot zoning. And the land, and this was, as you probably know, was part of a land sale to an individual. And one of the things that we're doing is, this is our parcel. We're rezoning our parcel from PL public land 2C1 commercial, which is consistent with all of the parcels on Sandy Lane. When it was zoned, PL, it was kind of like a blueberry and strawberry patch. It was all there all by itself. Now it's been made consistent with all the other properties along Sandy Lane. And as I mentioned, it's owned by the town. It's a vacant parcel. We suspect that the owner will probably develop it commercially with the zoning that's in place. And as I mentioned, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing. I do not recall anyone from the public or anyone from the Planning Commission being opposed to this. So it was pretty much a to my aunt, if you will, sort of one of the few rezonings that I would be able to say that to you about. But without much fear. That concludes my staff report. I'm glad to answer.

Mr. Stegg, this property is some property that we bought, and when we bought it, we rezoned it at that time for the town. So it's just actually going back to what it was prior to this. So once we sold it, it had to go back to the C1 district. So that's all this amounts to, nothing big.

I'll ask the question.

Not only is this consistent with comprehensive planning, this is required for the sale, right? I mean, it cannot be public land once it's owned by somebody else, right? That's right.

Yeah, you can't have public land sale by the town to your individual zone, C1.

And C1 is the consistent zoning along, say, C2 or C3 or C4. C1 is the is the Southern District Council.

Others? I'll just add that the closing of the property will take place after Saturday.

Okay. In that case, the motion on the table is to approve this zoning change as written. Ms. Poston? Mr. Hyatt? Yes. Mr. Coleman? Yes. Mr. Lawhorn? Yes.

Mr. Stamey? Yes. Mr. Walz?

yes mayor crowns yes motion uh passes unanimously and is approved thank you director broder we're now on uh 7e a sign amendment or ordinance and i need a motion no um i make a motion to uh to approve this the first reading ordinance

amending Chapter 17, Article 6, Section 17-601, sign regulations to exempt visible signs from regulations applicable to private signs.

I'll second. Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor and Mr. Council, again, this is one of those items that rarely comes to the Planning Commission. This doesn't receive a lot of pushback. This emanated from a conversation that the Planning Commission was having on a tangential issue. They asked about, how do we control the signs that the town puts out? And I said, well, in most cases, towns are exempt from their own zoning regulations. So we said, well, do we in fact have that regulation written into our zoning ordinance? And guess what? We did. So the newer language is that basically, Any signs erected or maintained by the town of Surfside Beach for governmental purposes, traffic requirements, signs for limited traffic control, events, those sorts of things, do not have to play by the same rules that private signage does because most of our signage is off-site. In other words, we place signs all over the town, whereas private signage, as you know, is prohibited from having, you know, you can't have a restaurant down on Ocean Boulevard advertising up on Highway 17, for instance. You can't do off-site signs. So this was one of those items that came up. Everybody thought that we were good until we actually reviewed the ordinance, found out that we actually didn't have an ordinance in place except here. So we're amending Chapter 17, Article 6, Section 17, 601, signed regulations, and it now has a new section called exemptions. This is the exception.

Thank you. Questions, comments for Director Broder?

Mr. Mayor? I have a couple. One is where you have on the second page of the resolution. Alex, you have the exemption applies only to signs installed by or on behalf of the town and shall not be construed to apply to private signage, but yet in the staff report on the last page, it says the amendment does not exempt private signs and does not allow private parties to install signs in the public right away or on private property without compliance. So I'm puzzled because they don't seem to be matching statements. Let's see.

Basically what it means is that the town doesn't follow the regular sign regulations. And exemption is embodied in the sign regulations that are regulations for private signage. So, rather than creating a new chapter into itself, the Planning Commission felt it was best that right after the title of sign regulations that the first item there would be exemptions. And that's good ordinance writing. We want the reader to know instantly, do I have to abide by this or not? And a lot of our regulations don't do that. So the Planning Commission said, while it may seem at first a little quirky to do that, we wanted to make sure that the public and also fire department, public works department, everybody who puts up signs knows that they don't have to comply with the provisions of private sign.

Okay. I kind of understand that because I'd studied this issue while back during the campaign. I understand what the issues are with private signage and other regulations. One thing I'd like to add, though, is that I was also a victim during political campaigns because people were allowed to put their signs on public right-of-ways for all sorts of things, not just the government, but yet political campaigners weren't allowed and our signs were pulled. And I would just ask that we have equal enforcement. If we're not going to allow signs on the right-of-way, that means nobody, not just political campaigners.

That's a ticklish part of what I also call constitutional law. A few years ago, I want to say it was the Supreme Court who passed something, and I don't remember the name of the case. But basically, this is what planners walked away with. And this is a layman's explanation. I'm not giving you the constitutional law here. And that basically said, when it comes to political elections, don't mess with some, don't mess with political signs. Don't remove them, don't replace them, don't do anything. And the reason is, is because they have a, I want to say, and perhaps the attorney can correct me if I'm wrong, But basically what it said was, is we don't have the right to pull those out of the public right of way. And I certainly remember at least two communities I worked with, but that was something that came down literally from the town administrator. When it came to public elections, do not mess with signs. Do not pull them out of the ground. Do not replace them. And I can remember earlier in my career doing something like that. I had a whole truck full of political signs that had been placed in the public right-of-way and was quickly told to go back and replace those signs back where they were, that they were in a special class by themselves.

Well, thank you. I like your philosophy. Frankly, the law does allow political signs to not be in the right-of-way, but it has to be evenly enforced, and that's all I would request. Absolutely. I like your philosophy. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Colman.

I have mixed feelings about this. I've always hated the government saying pick up a whole bunch of laws. You don't have to follow them. We had a councilman who actually said it. They wanted to do something. I forget what it was. He said You're kidding me? We're the government. We don't have to follow all the laws. Personally, I think we have too many laws. There are too many things you can't do in this town. I don't want to see you flooding with signs. But there should be a happy medium here. You know, you've got something going on in your store. Why shouldn't you be able to put a sign or two around? The town does it. The signs are all over the place. I don't like when government says, we're making a law, we don't have to follow. I think it should be fair way for everybody, an equal base. I don't think the government should be able to do something that regular citizens wouldn't do.

So I'm going to try to clarify in my mind now. So this would apply to our barbecue festival, for instance, our Memorial Day observance. We can put signs in right of ways and say that's going to be Monday, May 25th, or whatever it was, and things like that. But then we have rules. We have to be gone in 48 hours.

Sorry to interrupt. That was actually one of the hottest debated issues on this was how long are we going to allow them to keep their signs up? And we went everywhere from seven days to 24 hours, and we landed on 48 hours. And I even advised that I thought 48 hours was pushed to get some of these things taken down in that amount of time. But the commission was adamant that they needed to come down to 48 hours, that we can't leave these things up. A lot of them get tattered and torn and ripped up as they've been advertising for that event for possibly three weeks. The sign's been sitting out there for three weeks. The planning commission wants it down.

Okay, so have you reviewed with Director Adair? I mean, especially if we have a Saturday event, 48 hours, Monday morning, and they come around on the weekend some too, but a full-strength Monday.

I think the planning commission was, when they planned it on 48 hours, understood that we're not expecting not working days to account for that. We could amend that language in the final meeting if you feel appropriate. But I also want to address custom count. We're not doing this without going back into our own side ordinance and making sure that people can advertise a bit more than they have been able to in town. Everybody on the Planning Commission feels the same way. Councilman Coleman feels that is that we're going to unregulate ourselves, so to speak, legally, because we've been doing it for years, folks. We've just been doing it. We'll have to get the sign code and look at how do we make business here successful without sort of the lab called the obnoxious and whirly-giggy signings that can happen, and I'm sure you've seen it around the town. So we are going to be going back into the sign ordinance, meeting on that, and actually trying to ungrip some of the things we have.

Okay, so in that case, and I would probably support that. I mean, I guess it depends on what the details are, but that makes sense on the surface. So a store, storefront, has its own property, and it can size it already and probably never will be able to put signs in other places.

Off-premise signs. Now, I believe that letting that cat out of the bag would be disastrous for us because we'd have advertising on 17 with big arrows, you know, we don't want to go there. But I believe that one of the key things is when a business opens is we restrict how long they can do that sort of new opening signs and, you know, now open and new business and those sorts of things. We tend to crank that down pretty tight. And I think we should be a little bit more flexible in allowing new businesses to really punch forward and punch upward and be able to let people know.

So there'd be a little more leniency in existing ordinances, but it's not probably going to be wholesale changes. No, it's not going to be wholesale at all. Whereas we don't have premises to put our signs. I mean, when we do the barbecue festival or memorial day, I mean, we can put it in the park, but I mean, it's on public land. It's the only place for us to put them. We're in the right of way. We kind of have to have some exemptions for it to make sense.

Well, like I said, I mean, I was sitting at the client commission meeting. It was probably not humorous to all of you, but it was humorous to me in that somebody said, well, who's permitting those signs to be put up? And I looked at them and I went, I'm not permitting them. What's the review of the ordinance? Oh, my goodness. We don't actually have something in the ordinance that said they were exempt from the sign regulation. So, well... On one hand, you can look at it, we're exempting ourselves, at least we're finally putting it in writing that we're exempting ourselves because we've been doing it for years, just simply exempting ourselves.

Well, I support looking at the freedom to extend the rights of the business owners, but I think this is a common sense approach to advertising our own events and items like that. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Walts? If I could. We're missing, if I'm wrong, everything that we're doing, the signs that we're putting out is to promote all the business, all businesses in this town. We're bringing business. We're bringing individuals. Temporary for events and everything. We don't just do this. We do it for the good of our whole town. We do.

it's not totally government trying to do something no it's it's we're still doing it on behalf of the businesses and the restaurants right so when we have events and we advertise them and bring people in and of course we don't want to restrict you know 35 mile per hour speed limit signs or any of that kind of stuff no but we need to be able to put those up you know director of dairy needs to be able to put those signs up when traffic or safety is involved. And until now, we've never had an exemption saying that that's possible. So we're just really kind of cleaning house here a little bit. And coming back to the sign ordinance, we're going to do a little cleaning of house there too. Again, I feel that we're a bit restrictive in what I would call the punching up of a new business announcing itself on this tree.

And the second thing I'd like to say for the good of the order is that it's been, for me, two and a half years of frustration where we have come across a lot of ordinances that definitely needed somebody. And it's nice to see that you guys, I mean, we're sitting five or six in front of us in one meeting where we're cleaning up language, we're clarifying, you know, meanings so that they're not so broadly interpreted and misunderstood by the public who have to mind them. So I appreciate the efforts that you and the planning commission are making.

I'm sure they appreciate you saying that because they work very hard.

I know they do. And they're kind of like us. They don't get many out of voice. So thanks. Thanks for what you're all doing. Exactly.

Others? Mr. Mayor. Mr. Hyde. I'm glad that the town will be able to put up signs and it's on right away. I think it's justified. But now this has gotten a little messier because now I've just learned that businesses are also allowed to use public right-of-way time. Well, citizens live here, too, and, you know, they do garage sales or they might have an open house to sell their house and other things. So I would really like to see a time-limited maybe use of the right-of-way by citizens for a day or two. So when you're working on a signed ordinance, I'd appreciate something like that.

Excellent idea. The Planning Commission actually did discuss that. There's a type of sign that probably a new name for all of you is what we call snipe signs. Those are the ones that are on the fork and they stick them in the ground. Those are always in our right of way. And we have the right to go and move them anytime. But again, going back to sort of, if you will, taking a step back off of our enforcement staff, perhaps an allowance of up to 24, 48 hours before those signs have to come down too. I mean, you know, having a garage sale or things like that, it happens. They're out there. I mean, that's one of Nick's sort of, you know, one of the things that he concentrates on. Like on Tuesdays, he goes out, he literally brings back a truck back of snipe signs, and they're in the back of the truck throwing them away. So it's an ongoing issue. I'm sure the Planning Commission will love tackling snipe signs and where they're allowed and where they're not allowed to come up with them.

That should be a lot of fun. I think I need to clarify something. I just got confused. Mr. Hyatt said the businesses could use the right-of-way. Where is that in here? It says you can't.

If that's in there that way, that's a mistake.

Yeah, it says the new exemption says signs erected and installed are maintained by the town of Surfside Beach for governmental purposes are exempt. This section, such signs include blah, blah, blah. This exemption applies only to signs installed by or on behalf of the town and shall not be construed to apply to private signage. Private businesses, I think that means, or private persons. Signage directed by the town should be removed within 48 hours. I mean, so I don't know where, I'm not sure where you got the idea that public or the businesses could use it. And in the, in the, analysis here that Mr. Hyatt quoted before. It said public signs or this amendment does not exempt private signs and does not allow private parties to install signs in the public right away. We're on private property without compliance. So if you're painting a house, you can't do that. Correct. And that's the way it's always been and it still is. So I don't know.

Yeah, that doesn't change.

I don't know if I'm confused or you're confused. He stated that businesses are allowed to put up signs for grand opening Okay. Thanks for clarifying that.

We've got people out there.

Yeah, in the world, what I might understand, the third thought is now allowing us. What I was talking about here is as the final mission is for us, we want to look at some

that we want to look at some minor exceptions for private companies to do a better job at punching up their app opening, punching up a special event. I mean, we are very restrictive when it comes to those.

You're just opening up a few freedoms, just not changing. All right. Without letting it go free. Okay. Any others? All right. With that in mind, the motion on the table is to approve this ordinance as written. Mr. Poston, will you call the roll?

Mr. Hyatt?

Yes.

Mr. Coleman? Yes. Mr. Longhorn?

Yes.

Mr. Stamey? Yes. Mr. Walz?

Yes. Mayor Krause? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. And it is approved. Okay. You know what? Of course, I won't get a unanimous vote next time. All right, we are now moving on. We moved item 7F, so we're moving into 7G, and I need a motion for the repeal and replace Chapter 3 ordinance.

Mr. Mayor? Mr. Hyatt. I make a motion that we accept for first reading ordinance number 26-1003, Surfside Beach Ordinance to Repeal and Replace Chapter 3, Animals, Article 3, Birds and Waterfowl, Section 3.52, birds and waterfowl findings and determinations. Section 3.53, prohibited activity. And Section 3.54, penalties.

Second. All right, Mr. Hyatt, you've been leading the charge on this one. Do you want to just kind of walk us through what you're doing? Yes.

We started out like you got the goose issue as it was a standalone issue. And then all of a sudden we started getting feedback at workshops and elsewhere from members of the public saying, hey, you know, we probably ought to include squirrels and maybe we ought to include seagulls because they attacked people on the beach expecting food and a lot of other wildlife that exists in our town. So instead of making it a goose ordinance, it's a no feeding wildlife ordinance. But it does have an exception. Everybody's familiar with people feeding what's called perching birds and songbirds. And this does not apply to them as long as the food does not spill from the legitimate feeding of perching birds to a point where it's now accessible to other wildlife that can't by this ordinance be fed. This ordinance has been studied by a lot of people in town. Chief Meikle has chimed in two or three times. The prosecutor for the municipal court has chimed in. He has signed his paralegal who worked many, many hours on this. Mr. Brochette, our town attorney, has chimed in. And I believe this is a good ordinance. But there is a last-minute change, and I want to make, amend my motion to include this change. This change came about last night when Mr. Brochette was free from his weekly duties and had a chance to look at things. And he suggested that maybe we make a slight change. And that change is in second page, section 3.53, no feeding of wildlife. And it says, presently, no person shall remove intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. Ms. Rochette says that's not necessary. So we're removing that part, and it will now read no person shall feed wildlife, excuse me, including squirrels, seagulls, and waterfowl on public or private property within the town of Surfside Beach, which includes the town's parks and beaches unless otherwise permitted by law or in the lawful furtherance of their control. And then we're also doing the same change to Section B and removing intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently to just read, no person shall create or foster any condition or allow any condition to exist or continue, which attracts and or results in a congregation of wildlife within the town of Surfside Beach. This provision is not intended to create an obligation to rectify any condition created or fostered by others, except by children or pets under one's control. That means if you're walking down the beach and you see a spilled bag of chips, you're not required to stop and pick it up. That's what that last section does. If it's created by somebody else, you don't have an obligation to rectify it, only what's under your control. So I'd like to amend the motion to add those three changes.

Second. All right. So we have a second on that. And we'll continue to debate. Do you want to say anything more about it at this point, or turn it over, open the floor?

Yeah. You know what? I said three, and I only told you two. So I need to add two. No, never mind. I got it. I got it. I got it.

All right. All right. Any other comments?

I really have no problem with most of this. The only thing, only problem I have is up to 30 days in jail.

It's cheating .

I don't know how the courts work in here. Actually, you can find anybody, which just goes on and on and on. I would hate for somebody to go, I don't care who it is, hate for somebody to go into jail for 30 days. And it could happen. A feeding cloud. I have a confession to make. Hopefully the statute of limitations is up. I came down here about 25 years ago. I took my kids when we were young.

We went to Floral Park Lake. I'm sorry about that.

I didn't know it was against the law. You're not the only one. And I'll tell you what. That was some of the finest memories my kids have. I'm going to feed the turkeys. I get it. There are people in town who feed them each and every day. That's food should be fine. to put a citation to doing it. And I don't know if we have a way to check how the courts are handling this. Because if they're just brushing it off and not doing anything about it and not finding people, I don't know, maybe they are. But that might be the problem. That might be why people continue to feel the disease, or anyone. I mean everything else I get it, but I don't. And I know some tourists with their kids who are feeding some squirrel.

Then.

I really, at the end of the day, don't want anyone to be arrested. Up to 30 days. There's a way to stop this prior to that. And that has to be enforcement equally and fairly for people who do it every single day and then brought to the court. And, hey, the judge works for us. And if he's not finding these people, then maybe he should find a new job. And I don't know if that's true. Maybe it is not what's happening. I don't know, maybe the chief can inform us.

Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong, counselor. I believe now it's listed as a civil infraction, and I think the legislation is to make it a criminal sanction. And to make it a criminal sanction under state law, it has to follow a certain guideline immediately to judge the latitude for those penalties. which would be up to $500 and up to 38. That's not requiring you to just do that. That's giving, if it's going to be going from a civil fraction to a criminal statute, there has to be a penalty section that reflects criminal penalties. And that is what an ordinance, their penalties aren't for ordinances. Is that correct, counsel?

Yeah, I mean, from the prior meetings, counsel wanted to, increase the potential penalties to include traditional criminal penalties, such as possible jail time. So when we amended this, we made it clear. And so in order to do that, you have to get some direction. So 30 days, that's the max that you can give for municipal ordinance under state law. So there's a few different ways that you can handle that to address Mr. Coleman's concerns. I think as a practical matter, just like in any sentencing, if you can get zero to 30 days, the judge, if convicted or if there was a guilty plea that wasn't already arranged with the officer where there was an agreement as to potential penalty, then the judge would normally look at mitigating factors, hey, I was a tourist, I didn't know, won't happen again, those sort of things, or aggravating factors such as repeat offenders, other things that may be going on to perhaps warrant a higher end of the possible sentences. Now, counsel could say that even under the worst of circumstances, we don't want it to be 30 days. We want it to be whatever else it could be. You could break out if you wanted to a maximum based on second, third offenses, etc. That starts to get a little bit more technical when you have to figure out what that is. But certainly, even if you left it as is, the judge upon a conviction would evaluate the mitigating and the aggravating factors. So if you wanted to at least have that potential that repeat offender or some egregious violator would have the risk of jail time, then you have to authorize it as of September.

Well, and on the other word, this isn't that same language. So you'd be stranded from that same language for the ordinances. And taking the discretionary from the judge on what the sentence is. And to your point before, there are instances where there have been people cited and fined, they paid a fine and continued to do it. And that was part of the reason I understood this, is that those civil sanctions and those fines were not curbing behavior. So you wanted to give the courts a little more ability to impose those criminal sanctions to curb the behavior. Right now, the civil is, it's $200 each time. It doesn't increase, and it's $200. So if you have the money to pay $200 every time you get caught, there's no sense in stopping.

The criminal actually has to have some kind of time served.

Or can I just see a fine? You don't necessarily have to impose a potential object. But you can only impose $500 at a time.

I get that. I'm just saying, I'm a criminal offense, and one of the penalties, the penalty doesn't have to be

It doesn't have to be to the judge so that the judge has the discretion of sentencing. Like the counselor said, if it's a first-time offense and the person didn't know and the judge comes in and he can dismiss it and fine, whatever, and then if it's a multiple person who continues to knowingly, intentionally violate the statute based on prior convictions, then the judge can decide up to those criminal sanctions.

We're looking to take care of recidivists. People do it over and over again. They don't care. And I get that. That's what I want. I don't want some little old lady who throws out some folks.

No, I agree. I don't think anyone would ask for those penalties. Lots of times the prosecutor will come to us and ask the circumstances surrounding it and what recommendations we have. Obviously, we've never recommended that and we won't be arresting anybody up this is if someone does it they're getting a citation and then it's up to the judge to decide if they want to go to jail or not i don't know if they did get their names we'll say the judge will face them uh once they're sentenced uh we don't it comes out of not our phone i can tell you or you can or account or account thanks for it once um When we arrest someone until they're sentenced, while they're in custody, we have to pay the bill. Once their case has been adjudicated and they've been sentenced to time, then our county or either state and the State Department of Corrections pays it. Your county detectives. So again, if we're not arresting them for this, there's no cost to us for incarceration because once the judge imposes the fine, if he imposes the sanction, once they get If they went to jail over this.

Okay, I'd like to make a couple comments. I looked up some misdemeanor offenses in town and section 116 of our code says, and I think this is an agreement with state law, that if it's considered a misdemeanor fines are up to $500 and jail time is a possibility up to 30 days. Am I right about that?

That's the max that the state allows municipalities to penalize under one of their ordinances.

And in our ordinance, we say we're defining the misdemeanor automatically means up to $500 and up to 30 days left to the discretion of the judge. We'd have to carve it out and make a special penalty for this one. So here's some that have $500 fines and up to 30 days in jail time. section 15501 naming a street without planning commission approval on a flat map uh 17 section 17 914 design overlay violations section 1233 improper sidewalk cafe section 8-125 improper use of a laser pointer section 17 620 improper signage looking at our earlier uh uh issues section 4-30 unauthorized peddling or solicitation section 7-3 debris on a private lot section 12-23 improper event on public property and i got the wrong section number but improper beach obstructions all of those can be fined up to 500 and 30 days in jail so these things exist i don't think the court is putting people in jail for these things um And I'm not going to put Chief Mitchell on the spot, but every month we see a report that talks about citations and warning citations. And the warnings are always more than the actual citations. I don't think he's looking to arrest anybody unnecessarily. I think we try to enforce these things through education. Director Adair previously said we used to, provide little cards for the rental units that said, here's some things you should know in depth. And one of them was don't feed the geese. Maybe we could look at something like that again. But I am not concerned that some tourist who throws out a couple of pieces of bread is going to get arrested and spend 30 days in jail. I think we can handle this, and the court system can handle this, just like it handles all these other things that don't come to fruition. because they're dealt with maybe through code enforcement and education. So I'm not concerned about jail time on this. And I think it is for that recidivist, for that softball, somebody who just disregards the ordinance and says, I'm not going to follow it. I don't care what you say. I'm going to do what I want to do. That's the kind of people that we need to deal with. And if anybody thinks that's targeting anyone, I mean, we've had a couple of fiascos recently with our workshop and the the hbo event um it's targeting no one if you're not feeding geese or wildlife you're not going to have any trouble there's nothing to happen so just the wild animals leave them alone every expert we've talked to and even the ones that call themselves well the experts all say feeding them is bad all the goose guardians and defenders have never brought for a case that says, here's why we should feed geese. There's no reason for this. And then, of course, like I said, we're extending the rest of wildlife to make it make sense. I agree with that. And I believe also Mr. Hyatt, at the advice of the paralegal, also suggested community service as an alternative for the judge. So I think this thing is completely buttoned up, very well thought out, and ready to go.

Mr. Mayor, I'll mention too, the only reason I submitted the suggestions to Mr. Hyatt was I pretty much tracked Horry County's ordinance and the verbiage that we have some consistency, even though we don't have to be exactly the same. And if you start getting into these things, if they're ever litigated, if there's any questions, sometimes you draw distinctions that it's not like Horry County because it's crafted this way or that sort of thing. So I think given I think Horry County's was done in 2019, so it's been around five or six years now. I think we made a change without changing the intent. I think the intent was for it to be a strict liability offense. That is to say, you do it in order to care what you intended to do. You did it because it's an offense. That was a reason for the change. I'll mention one other thing with regard to Mr. Coleman's concerns. Mr. Coleman, I guess theoretically you could have a criminal offense that did not carry at least the threat of some potential incarceration. But, you know, that would be a distinction without much of a difference, and it would limit the court's ability to ultimately enforce, like you say, just ongoing recidivism or noncompliance with payment of fees and fines or things of that nature. So whether we wanted to utilize the full extent of the 30 days that were permitted by state law or some special lesser amount. My thinking would be that if you're going to treat it like a criminal offense, it probably needs to at least be the threat of some kind of incarceration.

Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Stange. I think this is a good start. And I don't think that this town is out to get nobody or a a female, kids, anybody that actually, you know, it's going to happen. I think this is more intended to take care of the people who don't obey the laws. And if one of our police officers sick somebody and they tell them don't do it and they come back four days later and the same happening over and over. I think this is more what this is intended for. And I think this gives the judge a whole lot of leeway to make a decision on what she decides from how many times you've been to court or how many times you've been ticketed. I think this is a very good start and not intended for nobody. If you don't do it, you won't be prosecuted for it.

Mr. Longhorn. A couple of comments and a couple of questions, I guess. Just to reiterate, there is nothing in this that's inconsistent with what Horry County's ordinance is on this subject.

Well, as it relates to the penalty section, I think we track it just about verbatim with the changes. Okay.

So basically any penalties, if you do it in Surfside Beach or you do it in Garden City, you'd be subject to the same penalty. That's correct.

Okay.

And to reiterate, we're not looking to lock up anybody throwing some oats out in their front yard for the first time. Is that correct? Correct statement?

That's correct. I mean, we enforce it the same as any other ordinance, you know, based on education or something. I mean, it could run up there all day long. There would be no selective enforcement. We're enforcing this the same as any other ordinance.

To include? The tourists with three or four little kids who throw some bread in the water for turtles, we're not looking to cuff them and take them away. Okay.

On that point, like I said, just to repeat, the summons is that of an organ summons, so the trigger for any even potential incarceration is only once there is a conviction or a plea or something by the judge, barring some other conduct in conjunction with interaction with police or otherwise that would not be restable.

So anyone cited would be treated like anybody else in the judicial system. Basically, they would process is like attractive, right? Right. So you have the ability to fight it. You have the ability. Okay, got it. The one thing I didn't see in here, and I think I know the answer, but I want to make sure there's nothing in here about penalties or issues for people who might harm the geese. I know that's been a consistent theme from some folks that there are people out there harming peace all the time and we're not doing anything about it.

Well, there's state law that covers that, so you can't create an ordinance that expresses that.

Correct. If that occurred, then we would be enforcing state law. So you all would be enforcing the state law and referring it to the appropriate authorities in the state? Yes, absolutely. And then the last point, and Chief already kind of talked about it, um consistent enforcement is going to be key in all this i mean we you know this isn't intended to identify an individual or individuals this is we are trying to protect the geese and there's not as the mayor already said there's not a single expert in this field that has said that feeding the geese is good for the geese the the idea is that we we are trying to make sure that the geese are treated like wild animals and they get their food and they They behave like wild animals. So that's it. I mean, that's where we're at with this, correct? That's the intent, that's right. Okay, thank you.

Any others? All right, with that in mind, let me make sure I remember this. The motion on the table is to accept this ordinance as written with the additional changes that Mr. Hyatt presented removing intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, and a couple other things. Everybody clear on that? All right. With that in mind, Ms. Poston, will you call the roll?

Yes, sir. Mr. Walz? Yes. Mr. Samy? Yes. Mr. Longhorn?

Yes.

Mr. Coleman? No. Mr. Hyatt?

Yes. Mayor Krause? Yes. Motion carries five to one, and it is passed. With that, We've concluded our business. I didn't get to say no objection. All right, so we've concluded the business portion and we will now move to section eight, public comments. Town services or business conductor? And I see none. So we're going to move on to town council discussion and comments. I'm going to start with Mr. Hyatt.

Jeff, this is kind of a nice evening for me because during my campaign, I started working on an abuse issue against a lot of controversy. We've worked with a lot of people. I mentioned some of the people earlier, but we also work with the public. Many of you that are here and perhaps not here came forward and offered ideas. Many on this council offered ideas, and I tried my best to to take what everybody said and incorporate it into this ordinance. And I do feel that we have a very good ordinance. And yes, what was pointed out by Mr. Lawhorn and Chief Mikkel, the state law, which mimics the federal law protecting migratory waterfowl, doesn't need to be restated in our town. It's already a law on the books that can be enforced. it's also applicable, not just this ordinance. But anyway, I appreciate everybody that helped get this ordinance passed, and I'm glad to see that we finally got to this point, and I hope that it begins to make a change in our community for the better on a lot of issues that people have brought to our attention. Thank you. All right, thank you, sir.

Mr. Longhorn. I don't really have much to add to that. I do want to thank Mr. Hyatt Mr. Bouchette and Chief Mikkel and everybody else that was involved in this. I know this was a ton of work that's encompassed many months. So I appreciate the efforts. I do think we came up with something that's helpful. So beyond that, thanks for coming. We almost got in an hour and a half, pretty good. So anyway, that's it. Thanks for coming. See you in a couple of weeks. We're not done yet, but that's right.

Mr. Walz. I just want to thank everybody for coming out. Those listening in, again, I think I'm repeating myself. I want to thank Mark for doing such a great job with the planning commission. We have been a struggle and a frustration for us with interpretations and contradicting language in our ordinances and so forth. And I'm glad to see that we're finally diving in and getting a lot of good work done. And it was impressive the amount of work that we got done tonight. And again, I would also like to thank Mr. Hyatt for spearheading this ordinance. This one thing that I can be proud of at the end of my term as councilor is that this council has not shied away. There have been issues that we have taken on. some major some minor but other councils over the years have tended to kick that can down the road as it being too controversial or too whatever but we have not shied away from any of these things and we're getting we're cleaning some things up and getting some things done and i'm i'm proud of this council and appreciate you all being a part of us and give us your feedback see you next time all right thank you sir uh mr coleman i just thank you uh

I also want to thank Mr. Heineck for writing the ordinance. I didn't like the part about incarceration and I think it gives too much power to judges. Judges do some crazy things. If it's on there, you can do it. I don't think it warrants incarceration. You need service, I love it. I think that's the best punishment. And the thing about Horry County does it this way, We never followed any of them. And I give you two instances.

Hence, on the beach, we decided to allow that.

Our carts drive around 24 hours. Nobody else is doing it. So we do things differently. It's a great place to live. It really is. I just want to continue my confession. I am so glad that we've got the budget done. They are some good things in the budget this year. The surf side, we as a town are gonna

see some new sidewalks for the end and some other things done in our budget, we will allow. I'm proud of the council for getting this all worked out. Thanks. I'm going to jump on the bandwagon. Thanks, Mr. Hyatt, for getting this bird foul passed. So that's a great thing. And hope to see everyone in about two weeks.

Thank you, sir. I'll wrap up. I think it was a good meeting tonight. We covered a lot of ground, numerous items, and we had some good discussions. I think you saw a diversity of opinions on a few things, but we came together, worked through everything, and I think this council is working pretty well together, so I appreciate that. You know, we talked a little bit about harming geese, goose abuse. Well, now we're at about six or seven weeks since we We're told there was so much evidence, and I don't think we've seen it yet. I've asked for it before, and I know the chief has said bring it to him, but I mean, maybe it's coming somewhere down the road, but I haven't seen it yet. I do like the uniqueness of Surfside Beach. I was at a little luncheon with the mayors of Horry County just this week, and one of the items that was mentioned was, you know, maybe we should talk about standardizing beach rules. And I said, well, if we're going to do that, go in my town and my council, we'll go along with it if you adopt ours. And they said, actually, they're not bad. And I think the tents is probably the biggest one. It is good, I think, because people don't know what jurisdictions they're in a lot of times. Where is the Garden City Surfside Beach line? Where does all the incorporated stuff north of us? And we hear no. you know, if you're a resident, I mean, a visitor, you don't necessarily know that. So consistency is good, but to a point, I'm not going to do adopt anything that doesn't make sense. But I think in this case, the, uh, the goose ordinance makes sense. And if you've got something well written already, then, you know, no reason to reinvent the wheel. So I'm pleased to use already counties, uh, ordinance in this case, not so much on golf carts, not so much on beach rules. All right. Um, that's about it for now. So, uh, Unless there's anything else, I don't need one thing.

Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wallace. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn this regular meeting of the town council.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Motion passes without objection. Come on!