►
Description
City of Charleston Army Corps 3x3 Advisory Committee 9/29/2021
B
C
D
D
B
B
A
Yeah
yeah.
Thank
you
certainly
appreciate
everybody's
time.
It
is
as
always,
yeah
we
have
a
number
of
issues
to
go
through.
I
think
at
the
end,
you
don't
want
to
kind
of
call
for
where
everybody
is.
You
know
heads
are
at
the
moment,
but
topics
of
conversation
we
have
on
the
docket
are
number
one.
Dale's
gonna
give
a
handful
of
quick
updates.
Handful
of
you
know,
I
guess
answers
and
feedback
from
comments
that
were
brought
up
in
the
prior
meeting
and
then
also
some
some.
A
A
You
know,
I
think,
that's
something
where
we
just
you
know
need
to
talk
through
kind
of
concepts
and
language
that
we'd
like
to
see
incorporated
with
regards
to
alignment
on
the
east
side
specific.
The
concerns
specific
typically
we'd
be
talking
about
today.
Are
the
aquarium
and
the
port
as
well
ford
properties
and
then
from
there
framing
out.
A
A
I
think
you
know
we
have
the
october
12th
date
and
then
at
least
having
some
preliminary
discussion
around
what
we'll
be
talking
through
on
that
october
12th
date,
we
have
one
meeting
between
now
and
then
bob.
I
see
you
I'm
just
trying
to
get
through
my
my
agenda
here.
Thank
you,
and
so
so.
Yes,
that's
that's
the
framing
for
the
meeting
and
then
you
know
bob
mentioned
the
the
kind
of
straw
vote.
A
The
way
I
see
that
going
is
just
having
folks
concerns
are
a
lot
like
what
we
did
last
time
and
and
then
helping
to
frame
something
around
those.
I
think
that's
as
important
as
anything
and
and
so
bob
with
that
said,
bob
please
go
for
it
and
anybody
else
has
any
questions.
Comments.
Thoughts
on
agenda
for
today,
please,
please
also
weigh
in.
A
A
You
know,
maybe
a
good
kind
of
in
between
is,
is
or
something
that
accomplishes
both
points.
There
is
you
know
what
concerns
and
just
please
do
you
know
like,
as
bob
mentioned
with
a
full
agenda,
you
know
what
concerns
do.
People
have
right
now
that
aren't
listed
on
this
agenda
as
far
as
broad
topic
items,
you
know
that
could
be
a
way
to
to
help
help
additional
thoughts
or
comments
or
color
on
there.
A
B
Mean
from
a
high
level
perspective,
I
think,
from
where
we
set.
We
think
the
50
million
dollars
in
aesthetic
mitigation
is
a
starting
point,
but
we
would,
you
know,
like
just
a
number
increased.
The
civic
design
center
has
done
some
really
dedicated
work
on
proposing
aesthetic
mitigation
and
usability
and
all
sorts
of
other
things
for
the
wall,
for
the
seawall
project
potentially,
and
I'm
not
sure
that
50
million
dollars
will
get
us
there.
C
C
Hey
good.
I
know
you
would
be
disappointed
in
me
if
I
didn't
bring
up
a
concern
being
processed
and
not
processed
for
this
committee
per
se
in
this
particular
concern,
but
process
for
how
the
work
moves
forward
from
end
to
ped
phase
and
what
I
mentioned
last
time
about
the
notion
of
trust
and
us
being
asked
to
trust
that
everything's
going
to
work
out
and
all
of
our
concerns
will
be
met.
A
F
I'll
be
quick
as
communications
person,
I
would
like
to
say
that
an
ongoing
problem
has
been
the
engagement
of
the
city
with
the
public
I
sent
around
the
latest
copy
changes
to
you
all
for
our
alleged
information
sheet.
Hopefully,
everybody's
been
able
to
read
it.
I'm
sorry,
it
came
late
for
the
agenda,
but
the
comments
came
late
as
well.
F
So
I
would
like
to
kind
of
wrap
that
up
at
some
point
soon,
so
that
we
can
give
dale
something
to
take
around
and
that
we
have
something
to
put
out
there,
but
public
engagement
is
a
serious
problem
for
the
city
in
general,
and
certainly
in
so
far
as
this
this
project
is
concerned.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
either
misinformation
or
not
information
out
there
and
we
can
blame
covid,
but
I
think
we
have
to
take
some
responsibility
also
for
that.
So
that's
my
two
cents.
Thanks.
A
G
Great,
thank
you.
Just
just
susan
just
mentioned
engagement
again
yeah
for
those
of
you
didn't
see
it.
I
sent
back
some
of
to
susan
and
others
on
that
document.
That's
being
prepared,
some
of
my
comments
not
trying
to
influence
or
do
the
influence
or
anything
but
just
provide
more
information,
and
I
think
some
of
the
suggestions
I
have
will
make
an
improvement
to
that
text.
That's
there
which
I
think
will
do
a
great
service
to
the
citizens.
G
On
engagement,
you
know,
there's
there's,
there's
two
things
here:
I've
been
we've
been
talking
to
state
reps
and
state
senators
and
and
federal
senators,
and
all
that,
since
the
optimized
plan
was
released,
I
think
it's
difficult
to
do
an
engagement
process
or
outreach
process
before
september
10,
simply
because
what
would
you
be
telling
them
and
you
knew
some
changes
will
actually
be
coming.
So
I
do
think,
there's
a
schedule
issue
there
or
a
moment
in
time
after
which
engagement
should
be
done.
G
G
I
am
available
to
the
neighborhood
neighborhood
association
community
association
to
the
vfw,
to
whoever
you
just
need
to
ask
me,
and
I
will
do
my
best
to
get
there
as
soon
as
I
can,
because
engagement
is
crucial
and
sharing
information
about
what
this
is
and
what
it
is
not
is
essential.
So
I'm
behind
you
I
make
that
offer
again.
I
don't
have
27
hours
in
a
day.
I
only
have
24,
but
I
will
do
my
best
to
do
whatever
engagement
is
needed,
so
just
put
that
out
there.
G
So
I
just
want
to
give
you
guys
everyone
some
update
on
things
that
have
happened
and
before
I
do
that
to
bob's
question
about
a
a
straw
vote
up
front.
This
is
related
to
my
first
topic.
My
thought
process
here
is
the
army.
You
all
have
questions
for
the
army
corps.
Some
of
you
submitted
them.
These
are
all
you
know.
We
looked
at
the
questions.
There's
some
awesome
questions
in
there,
so
I'm
curious,
but
the
core
is
going
to
report
back.
G
G
I
think
estrava
in
advance
of
those
questions
may
be
a
little
bit
improper
or
what
the
appropriate
word
is.
It
may
be
just
not
optimal.
I
think
some
of
those
answers
may
or
may
not
help
you
guys,
but
what
waiting
for
that
would
be
good,
so
that's
my
two
cents
and
discarded,
as
as
you
wish
again
that
document
of
questions.
I
thank
you
all
for
sending
questions
to
me
or
to
us
they
were
submitted.
G
I
made
them
anonymous,
so
the
court
doesn't
know
who
asked
what
and
again
a
number
of
great
questions,
and
we
we
anticipate
a
number
of
ants.
We
just
anticipate
those
answers
back
by
the
end
of
this
week
would
like
to
underline
that
the
city
was
disappointed.
That,
and
I
know
the
corps
of
engineers
was
disappointed
that
the
rosemont
community
meeting
could
not
go
forward.
They
had
spent
a
lot
of
time
preparing
for
that
kailyn
and
mr
maybank.
That
spent
a
lot
of
time
working
on
that.
G
But
to
be
the
postponement
of
this
meeting
came
at
the
request
of
the
community,
the
city
and
the
corps
were
prepared
and
enthusiastic
to
do
this,
so
we
hope
to
get
that
rescheduled
as
soon
as
possible
and
in
that
context,
if
there
are
other
folks
again
who
need
us
to
come
by
and
have
a
meeting
with
them,
please
let
me
know
you
know
I'm
as
close
as
a
phone
call
or
an
email
in
my
schedule
there
is
someone
getting
some
engagement
planned
again
core
on
october
5th.
We
have
a
chamber
event.
G
G
So
we're
doing
that
next
item
I
want
to
address
is
kevin
mills
sent
over
some
questions,
pretty
quick,
yes,
after
last
week's
meeting,
and
they
didn't
sort
of
raise
to
the
level
of
questions
for
the
corps
of
engineers,
but
they
were
good
questions
and
I
just
want
to
sort
of
share
my
answers
back
to
kevin,
so
kevin
asked
you
know:
hey.
Can
we
use
other
federal
sources,
other
federal
grants
or
federal
sources
of
money
to
meet
the
city's
cost
share
for
a
potential
surge
structure?
The
short
answer
is
no.
G
G
Drainage
is
wrong
because
those
are
those
are
segregated
signs,
but
if
get
a
grant
to
do
something
else-
and
it
would
free
up
money
elsewhere
in
the
budget
that
money
in
the
city
budget
could
be
reprogrammed
back
to
the
surge
wall,
and
that
would
be
okay
if
and
then
other
way.
If
the
city
would
get
a
grant
to
do
a
nature-based
feature
that
was
off
of
wagner
terrace
or
some
off
the
marina.
G
That
was
completely
separate
from
this
process
from
the
core
alignment
and
the
core
ideas
on
their
own
living
living
shoreline
structure,
and
if
it
could
be
integrated
that
money
could
be
used.
So
it's
not
an
easy
answer,
but
you
can't
double
dip,
but
you
can
be
ancillary
okay,
so
just
clarifying
that
kevin
asked
hey
if
you
move
into
ped.
Are
we
committed
to
everything
short
answer
is
absolutely
not.
G
We
can
pull
out
at
any
time
and
what
you
would
lose
there
is
simply
the
amount
of
money
that
had
been
invested
in
fed
up
till
that
moment
and
we
do
not
have
to
pay
back
the
corps
of
engineers
for
their
contributions
in
pay.
So
it's
just
it's
just
we
can
move
out
at
any
time.
Important
thing
bob
also
asked
hey.
We
have
some
of
these
other
ideas,
the
sherwood,
the
biohabitats,
these
other
great
ideas.
Can
we
use
other
processes
to
model
those?
Can
we
do?
G
We
have
to
use
the
core
to
model
those
for
us,
so
we
better
understand.
The
answer
is
yes.
However,
it's
not
an
easy
yes,
because
you're
going
to
have
to
have
model
outputs
that
equal
the
way
the
core
does
these
processes,
so
their
economic
and
technical
and
engineering
models
can
digest
those
other
model
outputs.
So
what.
A
G
Is
where
it
gets
for
tricky
you're,
not
all
modelers,
but
neither
am
I
but
I've
watched
it.
You're
going
to
need
money
for
folks
to
set
up
the
model
you're
going
to
need
to
have
a
rational
definition
of
what
the
alternatives
are,
where
they
are,
what
they
intend
to
do,
and
then
you
have
to
get
the
programmer
to
put
that
in
the
model.
So
then
you
run
your
your
base.
Analysis
model,
sort
of
your
your
beginning
start
your
beginning
model
like
what
are
these
conditions
and
then
you
run.
G
G
G
G
G
One
is,
according
to
the
cro,
there
has
not
been
an
extensive
amount
of
interaction
between
this
city,
county
miami-dade
and
the
corps
of
engineers
that
are
doing
this
project.
So
this
project
is
being
done
for
them
by
the
norfolk
district,
not
by
the
local
district,
okay,
so
the
collaboration
that
has
been
that
has
been
underway.
There
has
not
been
as
robust
between
the
city
or
the
local
sponsor
and
the
corps
of
engineers.
G
One
is
a
much
longer
study
and
one
is
fairly
nature
based
if
you're,
adding
sand
onto
a
beachfront.
That
is
a
nature-based
solution,
and
so
the
concept
of
nature-based
solutions
being
excluded
or
included
into
the
miami-dade
csrm
project
has
been
a
bit
mangled.
So
that's
something
he
thinks
he
thinks
is
causing
some
challenging
there.
G
The
alignment,
so
the
structure
that
they
have
proposed
for
miami-dade
is
not
a
coherent
linear
structure.
It
starts
in
stocks
in
places
and
that's
because
of
elevation.
The
city
goes
up
and
down
and
up
and
down
right.
So
it
starts
in
the
north.
Part
of
the
city
then
comes
down
and
gets
lower,
and
then
it
goes
up
and
into
the
middle
part
of
the
city.
G
We
call
downtown
and
stops
and
then
it
picks
up
again
in
a
low
part
about
20
miles
south
of
there
in
an
area
called
cutler
bay,
so
sort
of
three
distinct
study
areas
and
that
that
it's
a
tiwal
only
and
it
splits
goes
down
streets
on
either
side
of
the
street,
as
we've
seen
here
in
in
charleston.
But
it
is
truly
splitting
poor,
neighborhoods
and
rich
neighborhoods
against
each
other.
G
There
are
substantial
questions
about
how
pump
stations
and
necessary
equipment
have
been
located
within
a
very
complicated
urban
footprint
there.
Okay.
So
a
lot
of
challenges,
not
the
same
amount
of
interaction
or
give
and
take
much
more
complicated
alignment,
and
then
the
public
information
that
has
been
put
out
on
why
the
city
pulled
back
is
is
headlined
with
the
city,
wants
more
nature-based
features.
G
That
is
true,
but
only
for
one
section-
and
this
is
this
section
of
the
csrn
project
that
is
in
cutler
bay,
where
you
have
you
have
an
existing
mangrove
and
then
behind
the
mangrove.
You
have
a
structure
that
would
then
deal
with
whatever
the
mangrove
surge
deal
with
whatever
surge
the
mangrove
itself
cannot
deal
with
it
and
people
have
said
hold
on
a
second.
Why
don't
just
we
do
more
to
restore
that
mangrove,
and
that
is
that
is
a
nature
based
feature,
and
it
looks
like
that.
Can.
E
G
There-
and
I
don't
know
what
the
core
of
engineers
said
about
that,
but
that
is
something
that
the
city
wants
to
pursue
because
you
have
this
existing
mangrove.
As
I
said,
mangroves
work
work
pretty
well
against
surge
if
they're,
if
they're,
if
they're
dense
enough
and
if
they're
big
enough.
So
that's
going
on
so
look
at
my.
G
B
G
E
G
E
G
Level
it's
going
to
take
a
while
to
get
an
answer
and
the
challenge
there
is:
does
the
city
have
alternatives
that
the
corps
of
engineers
can
ponder
the
asa
secretary
of
the
army
component
are
like
okay.
This
is
something
to
study
and
they
could
say
no
or
they
could
say
yes,
but
what
you
do
is
here.
The
study
has
an
authorization
duration.
G
It
has
a
time
limit
and
if
you
go
past
that
you
have
to
go
back
to
congress
to
get
the
money
and
if
and
if
there's
a
concern
by
someone
in
miami-dade-
that
if
the
answers
don't
come
quickly
enough,
they
will
have
lost
their
opportunity
to
get
whatever
federal
resources
are
possible
for
this.
So
it
is
a
fairly
complex
thing
underway
or
there,
but
hope
that
provides
you
with
some
information.
But
in
essence
the
alignment
is
is
tricky
in
a
lot
of
ways.
G
G
So
what
I
want
you
to
take
from
that
is
that
a
substantial
redesign
is
possible
in
ped,
because
the
jacksonville
district
said
so
so
be
aware
that
that
whatever
confidence
or
lack
of
confidence,
that
is
something
that
I've
heard
and
then
keep
in
mind.
There
is
two
other
csrm
projects
in
florida,
one
in
collier
bay,
which
includes
naples.
G
G
For
the
corps
not
their
advocate,
but
if
there
is
some
movement
for
the
core
on
those
projects,
but
the
miami-dade
one
is
is
trickier
and
then
just
two
more
two
more
quick
things
and
I'll
be
done.
I've
been
reviewing,
you
know,
coming
into
the
job,
trying
to
respect
everything.
That's
been
done
before
me
and
understand
it.
I've
been
reviewing
a
lot
of
the
correspondence
between
the
city
and
the
core
that
occurred
before
I
took
this
job
and,
of
course
I
was
familiar
with
a
lot
of
it,
and
I
know
you
are
too.
G
G
G
So
again
that
was
a
that's
a
firm
statement
by
by
the
dutch
dialogues
team
in
the
discovery
report
with
moffitt
and
nick
and
arcadis,
and
a
few
other
and
russia
robinson
design
engineers
local
firm.
That
was
our
conclusion.
The
city
has
told
the
the
corps
of
engineers
in
a
letter
from
the
mayor
sometime
in
december,
2020
that
it
was
looking
forward
that
the
dutch
dialogues
team
concluded
that
no
lpp
was
needed
and
was
looking
forward
to
completing
the
study
into
moving
into
ped.
G
That
has
been
officially
communicated
by
the
city
in
december
2020..
So
I
just
want
to
put
that
all
out
there
that
you
know
there
there's
been
some
look
at
this
already
and
that's
it
and
then.
Finally,
I'm
going
to
editorialize
a
little
bit,
but
I
strongly
believe
that
this
committee,
and
perhaps
the
city
council,
is
thinking
improperly
about
the
nature
of
the
decision.
It
has
coming
up
up
in
front
of
it,
and
that
is
because
this
this
decision
is
not
about.
G
Are
we
are
we
going
to
buy
a
1.1
1.1
billion
dollar
structure?
That
is
just
a
line
on
the
map?
The
answer
is:
that's
not
what
this
decision
is
about.
The
question
is
not:
are
we
going
to
forego
any
and
all
opportunities
to
perfect
this
alignment
in
the
structures,
interface
with
city
resources
in
the
in
the
city
environment
going
forward?
That
is
not
what
this
question
is
about,
because
that's
not
it
those
things
get
decided
and
fed.
G
G
G
Thing:
what
exactly
is
it
going
to
look
like?
What
kind
of
benefits
extra
benefits
can
we
get
on
top
of
it
all
those
things
they
cannot
be
answered
now
they
can
be
answered
and
paid.
So
the
question
this
committee
and
the
question
before
the
council
is:
can
we
move
into
pay
with
the
reservation
that
at
any
moment,
we
can
decide
we've
had
it?
We
don't
want
to
move
forward
that
that
opportunity
is
still
there.
So
I
just
want
to
say
that
there's
a
big
this.
G
This
decision
feels
really
big
and
it's
an
essential
decision
to
move
forward
and
if
we
decide
not
to
move
forward,
we're
probably
foregoing
the
federal
posture,
which
means
we're
going
to
be
left
without
a
surge
structure
for
a
substantial
search
structure
that
the
federal
that
the
federal
government
would
be
prepared
to
help
us
pay.
For
so
there's
an
update
for
you
and
there
you
go.
A
F
Understand
that
the
count
we
would
recommend
and
the
council
would
vote
to
proceed
with
pad
with
also
the
financial
issues
kind
of
dealt
with.
The
question
is,
if
part
way
through
ped
people
are
unhappy.
Who
makes
the
decision
to
stop
or
to
go
into
an
lpp
or,
however,
that
works?
Who
does
this
council
have
to
vote
on
that
do?
Are
we
engaged?
How
does
that
work?.
G
So
I
can't
speak
for
how
the
city
wants
to
set
this
up.
I
do
believe
I
will
say
that,
in
my
opinion,
this
advisory
committee
does
not
terminate
with
a
decision
the
disadvisory
committee.
However,
whoever
formulated
some
of
the
guys
may
be
tired
of
this
after
a
while,
but,
however
formulated
this
advisory
committee
should
be
looking
over
the
city's
shoulder
hand
in
hand,
and
I
don't
mean
the
battery
hand
in
hand
meeting
regularly,
saying
hey.
This
is
what
we
think
remember
remember
in
our
recommendations.
G
We
said
this:
what
are
you
doing
about
that
and
and
working
with
the
core
and
and
working
with
the
design
community?
That's
kind
of
work.
You
know
pursuing
this
and
saying
hey
and
if
you
get
to
the
point
where
it's
like
we're,
we've
got
a
bad
recession,
we're
not
money
or
time.
I
we
don't
like
this
at
all,
then
I
think
the
committee
should
make
that
statement
to
council
into
the
mayor,
and
I
just
don't
know
enough
about
city
operations.
B
Sure,
well,
the
the
process
that
this
goes
through
and
the
commitment
that's
been
asked
for
by
the
army
corps
of
engineers
is
one
that
commits
the
city
to
some
financial
obligations.
So
it
would
have
to
come
through
the
ways
and
means
committee,
which
is
a
committee
of
the
whole
to
approve
it
and
I
guess,
to
alter
it,
to
amend
it
or
to
halt
it.
It
would
not
be
a
unilateral
decision
by
any
person,
one
person.
B
G
So,
on
behalf
of
the
on
on
behalf
of
the
cross
office,
the
resilience
office,
I
think
this
committee
is
essential.
It's
already
done.
Yeoman's
work
and
you're
getting
paid
a
whole
bunch
of
money
for
it.
I'm
just
joking.
I
mean
you
know,
you've
done
gilman's
work
and
this
transparency
is
needed.
So
I
think
it
should
continue.
A
A
I
know
herbert's
brought
up
several
issues.
A
lot
of
those
issues
have
been
addressed,
but
a
lot
are
outstanding.
I
know
that
the
coors
met
there
once
because
I
was
there.
It
was
a
good
good,
walk
through
good
meeting
but
again
still
several
outstanding
issues,
and
it
was
reflective
of
the
the
the
prior
concept,
not
the
current
concept,
and
so
you
know
I'd
like
to
use
this
for
this
subtopic
for
some
discussion
about
and
then
ultimately,
incorporation
of
a
recommendation.
A
C
G
C
So,
to
add,
maybe
to
add
to
that,
I
I
think
it's
critical,
that
I
know
that
the
city
and
the
corps
are
eager
to
meet
with
the
community
and
have
you
know
that's
in
the
works.
I
I
get
that,
but
I
think
that
there
should
be
a
meaningful
opportunity
for
the
community
to
be
engaged
and
that
a
resilient
study
should
include
community
planning
and
engagement
so
similar
to
what's
laid
out
in
the
in
the
the
recommendations
from
sherwood
that
that
be
part
of
the
process,
and
it
may
be.
C
A
A
D
D
There
have
been
efforts
by
the
corps
and
this
committee
chairs
to
answer
questions,
and
I
am
still
somewhat
not
certain,
because
I
can't
give
answers
to
the
community
to
the
questions
that
they're
asking
and
I
know
we
were
supposed
to
meet
yesterday
and
I
take
full
responsibility
for
that
not
happening.
I
should
have
been
more
assertive
as
to
timing
and
all
that
good
stuff,
but
that
that's
an
opportunity
to
miss
that
can
still
come
the
the
idea
for.
D
For
us,
for
me
to
go
forward
is
to
look
at
specific
questions
and
get
specific
answers.
I
I
still
don't
know
what
flood
proofing
means.
I
still
know.
No,
there
are
questions
as
to
putting
a
house
up
on
stilt
in
their
people
who
may
be
handicapped
or
different
questions
that
can
come
up
about
that
and
I
think,
looking
at
what
the
core
is
going
to
do
for
the
whole
city
and
all
the
communities.
D
All
these
answers,
questions
and
answers
are
relevant
and
that's
the
positive
side
of
group
setting
like
we're
doing
now
back
and
forth
with
questions
and
answers.
I
I
am
somewhat
apprehensive
in
in
the
word.
Trust
comes
up.
A
lot
of
verbiage
has
been
said
about.
This
will
happen.
That
will
happen,
and
I
am
somewhat
still
confused
because
at
one
point
I
heard
once
the
army
corps
of
engineers
get
to
a
point.
D
Whatever
we,
this
committee
injects
into
the
planning
or
to
moving
forward,
they
have
the
option
of
saying
no,
and
where
does
that
leave
the
city
per
se?
Are
they
going
to
go
along
with
the
court
because
they,
the
army
corps,
has
that
part
of
the
money
and
we
aren't
looking
at?
We
are
looking
at
not
being
able
to
generate
that
kind
of
fun,
so
we're
just
going
to
go
ahead
and
take
what
we
can
take
and
be
satisfied
with
that.
D
A
Yeah,
hey
the
sake
of
some
open
discussion
like
you,
I
can't
personally
answer
this
answer
any
questions.
I
know
the
committee
the
whole
and
we
talked
about
it.
You
know
I
don't.
I
think
our
general
agreement
here
is
that
we're
here
and
and
by
capacity
and
information
general
capacity,
but
with
that
said,
I
know
what
I
can
do,
which
is
figure
out
who
has
specific
answers
and
direct
you
to
them
or
direct
them
to
you
and
direct
them
to
the
committee
and
committed
to
them.
A
A
You
know
how
we
can
ensure
the
resilience
aspect
of
whatever
resiliency
risk
for
rosemont,
but
I
do
know
that,
as
a
committee,
we
can
do
exactly
what
we're
doing
right
now,
which
is
discuss
and
make
a
recommendation
for
resiliency
study
to
be
undertaken
by
the
city,
and
so
you
know
that's
that's
a
lot
of
the
reason
this
agenda
and
other
agenda
items
are
on.
You
is
because
you
know
this
is
what
this
is.
A
G
Those
answers
have
been
vetted,
some
of
them
there's
one
question
that
they
have
trouble
answering.
They
answer
the
seven
of
their
answers
for
your
question
about
what
happens
when
you
need
to
have
accommodations
on
a
home
to
be
elevated,
what's
legitimate,
that
is
legitimate
and,
as
I
understand
it
is
if
the
accommodations
are
needed
that
will
be
borne
by
the
federal
sponsor.
G
So
if
you
need
a
an
elevator,
an
elevator
or
a
ramp
wheelchair
ramp
up
to
your
home,
to
be
able
to
get
in
your
elevated
house,
then
that
is
paid
for
by
the
federal
government,
because
that
is
part
of
the
flood
proofing
process.
Okay,
so
these
are.
These
are
just
someone
else
had
a
wonderful
question
last
week.
Well,
I
never
thought
about
that.
G
Again,
some
of
the
questions
may
need
a
study
in
ped
or
review
and
ped
before
you
can
answer
that.
So
we
may
not
have
those
answers,
but
we're
trying
to
be
transparent
here.
Those
questions
have
been
forefront
with
me
and
I've
offered.
You
know
to
everyone
that
I
will
work
run
through
them
with
you
or
with
the
form
of
engineers.
At
your
request,.
D
I
I'm
not
discouraged
by
that.
The
fact
that
we
can
still
meet
and
fulfill
whatever
agenda
we
want
to
put
forth
can
happen.
I
just
would
hate
to
see
whatever
could
be
done
for
rosemont
or
any
other
community
in
the
charleston
peninsula,
get
pushed
along
down
the
road
and
it
gets
to
a
point
of
a
timeline
and
nothing
can
be
added
or
be
done.
I'd
hate
to
see
that
happen.
G
I'm
happy
to
bring
the
corps
of
engineers
to
this
call
to
say
here
here
are
herbert's
eight
questions
or
15
more
whatever
they
need
to
be
in
writing.
So
they
need
to
be
legit
questions
legit.
They
need
to
be
questions
in
writing.
That
can
be
answered.
So
that's
important
and
we're
ready
to
do
that
again.
There's
no
lack
of
desire
upon
in
the
resilience
office
or
the
core
engineers
to
not
answer
the
questions
I
just
want
to.
G
We
need
we
need
to
answer
these
questions
and
I'm
100
behind
that.
So
again,
let's
talk
hagen
and
I
will
talk
about
how
we
get
these
questions
answered
and
maybe
I'll
just
submit
them
to
the
core
and
they
can
answer
them
in
writing
and
they'll.
Be
part
of
this.
I
mean
I'll,
submit
them
again
into
the
core
and
say
give
us
your
answers
in
writing,
because
the
whole
committee
wants
them
and
that's
easy
enough.
I
can
do
that.
I
can
do
that
when
we
hang
up
today.
If
you
want
me
to
do
that.
A
And
if,
however,
that
point
haven't
listened,
you
know
or
listen
talked,
you
know.
Had
these
discussions,
I
mean
that's
part
of
I
think
it's
incorporated
in
our
feedback
committee.
Just
from
my
standpoint
committee
is
important.
I
mean
it's
have
a
specific
rosemont
resiliency
recommendation
so
anyway.
I
think
that
at
least
that'll
be
a
step
in
the
right
direction,
as
well
as
obviously
all
this
open
discussion
that
we're
having
now.
F
Yeah,
I
have
a
question
specifically
about
the
rosemont
discussion
in
the
plan
when
they
talk
about
the
non-structural,
flooding
mitigation
and
so
forth,
which
is
flood
proofing.
Raising
houses.
Oh
sounds
nice,
but
I
I
was
wondering
whether
the
core
has
any
examples
of
success
with
those
kinds
of
mitigations
that
they're
recommending
here.
G
Not
so
susan
pass
that
question
to
me
on
in
on
in
writing.
Just
send
me
an
email,
I'll
ask
for
those
examples.
Keep
in
mind
your
question.
Just
sort
of
blood
proofing
elevation
is
getting
it
up
above
the
surge
level
understood
right.
Okay,
that's
that,
so
you
don't
have
to
worry
about
anything
else.
That's
in
elevation,
dry,
flood
proof
and
wet
floodproof
homes,
and
that
just
depends
on
what's
going
on
there
right
what's
going
on
in
the
house
and
then
how
do
you
optimize
that
and
that'll
be
then
to
the
12-foot
level?
G
So
it's
that
12
feet
is
sort
of
important
because
it
sets
the
the
foundation
or
the
baseline
of
what
the
protection
level
is
and
then
is
not
so
the
direction
like
strongest
again,
don't
even
send
it
to
me.
I
will
just
ask
the
poor.
Let
me
just
put
it
on
and
I'll
see
if
they
have-
and
I
know
there
are.
I
know
there
are
examples
of
floodproof
homes
elsewhere
in
the
u.s.
I
just
don't
know
if
the
corps
of
engineers
has
been
part
of
those
that
okay.
A
Yes,
thanks
susan,
I
mean,
I
guess
you
know
interested
time.
I'd
like
to
you
know
I'll,
send
out
language
on
this
front.
So
I
guess
just
by
a
would
like
to
kind
of
get
this
language
out
for
a
recommendation
for
a
resiliency
study
for
rosemont
and
get
that
that
formalized
show
of
hands
for
everybody
that
isn't
support
of
crafting
language
to
that
front,
which
is
to
be
agreed
upon.
D
Yes,
I
was
listening
to
laura,
and
I
I
am
looking
at
specifically
rosemount
as
to
the
army
corps,
has
set
an
agenda
for
rosemount
and
would
not
and
we're
looking
at
maybe
possibilities
of
incorporating
other
entities
as
far
as
options
as
viable
to
help
along
with
the
mitigation,
and
is
there
a
way
we
can
get
an
answer
to
what
laura
had
said.
As
far
as
incorporating
other
ideas,
along
with
the
army
corps
idea,
and
where
will
the
city
come
in,
to
give
assistance
to
providing
some
sort
of
mitigation
there
outside?
D
Maybe
the
scope
of
the
army
course.
I
I
just
hate
to
look
at
seeing
rose
mountain
left
and
I'm
going
to
use
the
term
vulnerable
without
a
sense
of
protection,
and
that
to
me
doesn't
make
sense,
because
what
the
science
says
the
sea
is
rising.
It's
what
already
coming
in
from
title
so
the
storm
when
it
hits-
and
I
say
when
it
hits
I'm
I'm
being
practical
that
sooner
or
later
wrote
the
charleston
area.
A
storm
is
going
to
come
central
to
this
area
and
where
would
that
leave
rosemont
without
any
sort
of
protection?
D
And
again
this
does
this
not
pertain
to
rosemount
I'm
talking
about
rosemont.
But
again
I
look
at
the
whole
overall
picture,
I'm
in
the
committee-
and
I
don't
want
to
just
be
one
mind
and
just
think
of
my
roadmap,
I'm
trying
to
think
about
the
whole
city,
because
that's
the
objective
point
to
protect
the
peninsula.
A
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
echo
what
herbert
said.
I
think
that
globally
for
the
peninsula,
since
this
is
only
focused
on
the
peninsula,
I
agree
that
any
assets
that
are
not
protected
in
the
current
alignment
of
the
perimeter
protection
wall
should
be
further
studied
in
order
to
make
a
knowledgeable
recommendation
out
of
this
committee.
Mr
chairman,
so
I
think
I
would
want
to
piggyback
on
herbert's
concept
and
idea
and
make
sure
that
everything
is
being
studied
that
currently
sits
outside
the
alignment
of
the
perimeter
protection
world.
B
A
A
G
So
I
I
was
caught
in
the
middle
of
all
this
in
some
ways
and
that's
my
job
the
other
couple
weeks
ago.
I
want
to
reiterate
that,
through
the
discovery
report,
analysis
of
which
I
was
a
lead
part
of
and
on
behalf
of
the
dutch
dialogues
team
or
the
discovery
report
team,
we
strongly
recommended
that
the
alignment
be
moved
eastward
as
far
as
possible
to
make
it
rational
and
coherent.
A
G
We
strongly
believe
that
without
a
doubt,
question
that
we
have-
and
I
know
there
are
no
engineers
here
on
the
on
the
call-
I
don't
think-
but
what
does
that
mean?
Does
it
mean
in
the
water
which
brings
with
it
a
whole
different
cost
and
constructability
and
environmental
permitting
challenge,
as
well
as
a
navigation
channel
impact
challenge,
or
do
we
or
do
we
limit
it
to
the
land
side
of
the
high
water
mark,
as
close
as
feasible
close
as
possible
to
that
high
water
mark
of
the
cooper
river,
on
the
landboard
side?
Of
that?
G
That
makes
rational
sense
for
the
structure
for
its
constructability
and
essentially
for
the
port
operations,
and,
if
you
think
about
moving
down
to
union
peer
terminal,
how
would
you
locate
a
structure
there
on
the
land
word
side?
That
would
enable
that
property
to
be
redeveloped
in
an
awesome
way.
G
B
Thanks,
mr
chairman,
I
just
want
to
go
on
record
and
echo
the
comments
you've
heard
previously
from
our
neighbors,
both
immediately
to
the
north
and
enter
the
south
jordy
and
dan,
we're
greatly
interested
in
finding
a
solution
that
will
safeguard
both
commercial
and
cultural
assets.
That
line
the
east
side
they're
critically
important
to
the
economic
impact
of
charleston
as
well.
As
you
know,
future
generations
that
respond
to
the
attractions
that
align
this.
A
H
It
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
obviously
dale.
I
appreciate
the
position
that
the
city
is
taking,
because
I
do
believe
that
my
concern
is,
as
you
mentioned,
the
position
is
as
strong
as
it
is
today
that
these
assets,
the
city,
wants
them
protected,
as
it
was
nine
months
ago.
However,
when
the
realignment
came
out
in
the
report
on
december
on
september
10th,
the
corps
did
not
respond.
So
therefore,
as
much
as
it's
important
to
the
city
to
have
a
realignment
to
protect
these
assets,
it
didn't
seem
to
resonate
with
the
court.
That's
my
concern.
H
My
concern
is
that
it's
not
as
though,
after
the
fact
the
city
said,
hey,
we
better
make
sure
the
corps
understands.
We
want
these
assets
protected.
The
court
said
that's
great,
we
hear
you,
but
we're
not
doing
it,
and
there
are
reasons
behind
that
right.
It
might
be
economic,
it
could
be
constructability
whatever
the
issues
may
be.
H
H
All
that
has
been
phenomenal
as
far
as
optionality
and
alternatives
to
what
could
be
a
phenomenal
attribute
to
both
protect
these
assets
and
create
tremendous
space
for
the
city
of
charleston
and
improve
the
access
to
the
waterfront
for
all
of
our
citizens
and
visitors
that
come
to
this
region.
But
again
it
was
brought
to
the
army
corps
attention
and
they
ignored
it,
and
the
proof
is
in
the
pudding.
We
got
the
realignment
and
the
report
that
was
done
by
wagner
and
wall
specifically
showed
a
region.
H
H
Thinking
that
there's
going
to
be
flexibility
from
the
group
that
is,
promoting
this
alignment
to
think
it's
going
to
change,
and
so
that's
my
skepticism
as
to.
I
completely
believe
the
city's
intentions
to
want
to
protect
this,
but
I
feel
as
though
I
would
want
way
more
assurances
as
to
what
we're
getting
other
than
hopefully,
the
core
will
be
flexible
because
I've
worked.
I
I
don't
see
the
flexibility.
G
G
G
That
would
go
around
that
would
be
definitive
and
that
definitive
line
is
what
the
core
of
engineers
needs
to
make
to
run
their
model
against
for
protection
for
over
topping
for
interior
hydrology.
So
if
we're
capturing
the
amount
of
storm
water,
that's
going
to
come
over
the
monitor
over
topping
that
would
come
over
over
top
of
it
for
pulling
pulling
the
water
behind
it
for
real
estate
acquisition
cost
and
for
constructability
costs
right.
G
G
That
is
there
now,
and
I
will
say
this
as
a
as
a
as
a
advertisement
for
my
friend
ellen
davis,
who
is
on
the
phone
who
has
worked
with
everyone
on
this
process,
who
is
perhaps
more
knowledgeable
about
the
the
strangeness
and
the
opportunities
and
the
frustrations
about
this
process.
As
anyone
on
this
call,
alan
has
done
yeoman's
work
to
show
what
how
this
alignment,
where
this
alignment
could
be,
what
options
are
for
this
alignment,
how
it
could
be
multi-beneficial
how
it
could
do
a
lot
of
different
things,
and
I
hope
you
know.
G
We
hope
that
you
guys
will
be
willing
to
listen
to
him
next
week
to
give
a
summary
of
all
the
things
he's
done
here,
because
it
is
just
yeoman's
work
and
I
think
you
all
deserve
he
deserves
that
you
listen
to
him.
He
doesn't
know
what
he's
done
because
it
is.
It
is
on
behalf
of
the
city,
his
love
for
the
city
that
he
has
done
this,
and
it
shows
a
potential
way
forward.
That
may,
in
fact,
answer
a
lot
of
them.
G
There
are
a
lot
of
questions
that
I
have
about
this.
You
know
I
don't
dive
into
a
murky
water
easily,
either
right,
so
it's
sort
of
foolish
to
break
your
neck
right.
So,
but
allen
has
done
some
work
here.
That
will
help
us
all
understand
better,
what's
possible
and
how
you
can
improve
this
thing,
not
that
this
is
an
advocacy
piece.
This
is
like.
Oh,
the
city
has
been
thinking
about
this
very
carefully
and
anyway,
that
is
a
teaser
for
what
we
hope
we
can
that.
C
Yeah
yeah,
I
just
want
to
say
well
thank
you
for
that.
Thank
you
for
that
dale.
As
always,
I
know
we've
had
these
conversations
and
we
know
where
the
city
is
on
it.
You
know
we'll
be
looking
at
solutions
with
the
core,
and
you
know
the
engineers
can
figure
that
out.
Like
you
say,
I'm
not
an
engineer.
I
don't
know
there's
one
on
this
call
so
we'll
see
that
I
will
point
out,
though
you
know
well,
if
what
is
to
this
committee
is
a
question
about
some
sort
of
directive.
C
On
this
front,
I
will
be
asking
for
much
stronger
language
than
what
was
submitted
in
the
non-federal
sponsor
comments
on
the
matter
which
were,
and
I've
got
it
pulled
up
on
my
screen
here.
It
says.
Currently
the
city
is
discussed
in
discussions
with
the
port
for
potential
for
potential
realignment
of
the
wall
along
scpa
property.
C
A
That's
great,
that's
why
we
have
this.
You
know,
that's
why
we
have
this
time.
Slot,
of
course,
scheduled
out
in
this
topic,
is
to
incorporate
incorporate
that
into
our
into
a
recommendation.
George,
maybe
it'd,
be
helpful.
If
you
could
maybe
send
you
know,
maybe
send
some
language
to
me
on
that
front.
Absolutely.
H
H
You
know,
folks
that
on
the
design
side,
we'll
want
to
steer
this
towards
a
phenomenal
element,
incorporating
nature-based
solutions,
a
park
element
right,
I
mean
we
talk
about
the
eastern
edge
of
the
peninsula
and
I
want
to
just
make
sure
it's
known.
I
mean
obviously
it's
important
for
the
port
assets
with
respect
to
its
economic
impact,
on
not
just
the
city
of
charleston,
but
on
the
state
of
south
carolina,
but
there's
other
assets
on
the
eastern
edge
of
the
peninsula.
H
I'm
glad
that
kevin
brought
them
up
right,
I
mean
we
have
to
think
about.
Not
just
you
know
the
union
pier
columbus
terminal,
but
we
have
a
wonderful
park
called
charlotte
park.
That's
at
the
terminus
of
charlotte
street.
That
is
a
phenomenal
asset.
We
have
the
fountain
walk
offices.
I
think
we
then
have,
of
course,
the
aquarium,
and
it's
not
just
about
you-
know
the
aquarium
with
respect
to
its
exhibits,
but
it
actually
is
very
instrumental
in
what
it
does
with
the
sea.
H
Turtle
rescue
and
a
lot
of
those
assets
are
not
protected
right.
We
have
the
liberty
square
and
fort
sumpter
tour
buildings.
Up
there,
we've
got
a
dockside
condominiums,
which
is
residential
groups,
we're
going
to
have
an
unbelievable
international
african-american
museum,
the
maritime
center,
the
the
wharf
side
condominiums,
like
there's
a
lot
of
assets
and
then
I'll
go
further
south.
Beyond
the
beyond
the
union,
pier
terminal
we've
got
fleet
landing
restaurant,
the
cooper
hotel,
the
wonderful
riley
waterfront
park,
there's
so
many
assets
that
have
been
neglected
with
respect
to
protection.
H
So
I
think
it's
great
that
we
have
actually
opened
up
the
dialogue.
I
think
it's
great
that
herbert's
brought
it
up
with
respect
to
what's
happening
on
the
west
side
of
the
peninsula.
I
mean,
I
know
everyone
is
focused
also
on
lockwood
and
the
medical
district.
This
is
just
such
a
very
complex
issue
that
needs
what
you
said
is
so
true
right.
H
The
core
has
been
given
a
lot
of
information,
but
look
and-
and
I
have
a
tremendous
amount
of
respect
for
what
the
poor
is
doing
right,
I
mean
they've,
been
given
a
mission
and
they're
trying
to
fulfill
that
mission,
and
that
mission
is
come
up
with
the
least
expensive
or
less
costly
approach
to
create
a
perimeter,
protection
wall
and,
as
I've
said
it
in
the
past
and
I'll
say
it
again.
That
is
not.
You
know
the
highest
and
best
approach
to
trying
to
solve
this
issue.
H
It's
really
taking
a
very
rudimentary
approach
and
saying:
look.
You
told
us
build
a
wall,
it's
going
to
be
12
feet
high
in
certain
instances.
We
all
understand
elevations
change,
so
it
won't
be
12
feet
in
one
spot.
It
might
be
three,
it
might
be
four,
but
ultimately
it
was
take
the
path
of
least
resistance
and
create
a
perimeter
protection
wall
and
make
it
as
least
expensive
as
possible,
so
that
our
our
benefit
cost
ratio
will
skyrocket
and
it'll
give
us
an
opportunity
to
secure
those
funds.
H
I'm
actually
disappointed
that
the
cost
went
down,
because
I'd
rather
push
hard
for
the
right
solution
at
whatever
cost
and
then
figure
out.
How
do
we
pay
for
it
as
opposed
to
just
making
it
less
expensive?
So
we
think
that
that's
going
to
make
it
a
more
viable
project
so
that
that's
my
impassioned
approach
to
this.
H
I've
listened
to
all
my
fellow
committee
members
and,
and
all
of
them
are
phenomenal
with
respect
to.
I
literally
everyone
has
been
done
doing
so
much
work.
I
feel
as
though
we
all
have
a
second
job
now
and
it
might
be
a
yeoman's
effort,
as
you
say,
dale,
but
everyone
on
this
committee
that
come
makes
time
for
these
meetings.
It's
not
just
the
time
that
we're
dedicating
to
the
meeting.
It's
also
all
the
preparation
that
we're
doing
in
advance
to
the
meeting.
H
H
A
Thank
you
dan.
That's
very,
very
well
said,
and
certainly
I
appreciate
that
impassioned
is
good
right.
I
mean
especially
with
folks
like
yourself,
who
put
the
work
in,
have
the
knowledge
base
to
through
which
to
be
impassioned
so,
and
I
appreciate
that's
a
great
segue
actually
to
put
a
fine
point
on
on
b
tori.
Please
do
send
me
that
language
everybody
send
language
over
and
then
we'll
incorporate
the
specifics
of
that
and
and
have
discussion
based
on
that
at
our
next
meeting.
A
A
With
regards
to
what
the
city
standpoint
incorporating
aspects,
the
the
questions
been
brought
in
anytime
numbers,
can
we
incorporate
aspects
from
the
various
reports
that
the
the
core
has
not
incorporated
the
date?
And
you
know
that's.
You
know
what
alan
has
has
has
done
as
well
as
more
so
than
that
framed
the
perimeter
protection
wall
into
into
the
the
city's.
You
know
design,
aesthetic
and
done
a
lot
of
what
what
dan
talked
about
previously,
and
so
you
know
that'll
be
on
the
agenda
for
this
coming
meeting.
A
I
think
that'll
be
a
good,
a
good
presentation
to
lead
into
nature
and
natural
based
solution
that
nature
and
natural
based
features
if
everybody
is
comfortable
I'd
like
to
especially
given
timeless
now
and
push
that
back.
This
discussion,
subtopic
c
back
until
after
that
presentation,
I
think
we'll
have
a
lot
to
talk
about
then,
and
certainly
don't
want
to
don't
want
to
forgo
that
information
and
what's
an
important
discussion.
A
A
It
sounds
like
with
regards
for,
for
example,
a
rosemont
resiliency
study,
potentially
there's
you
know
some
federal
funds
for
that,
given
that
it's
outside
the
scope
of
this
specific
project
now
more,
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
use
this
time
for
is
discussion
around.
I
think
there's
been
a
lot
of
concern
about
reason.
I
mean
good,
obviously
reasonable,
concern
about
hey.
Are
we
signing
on
to
fund
the
full?
You
know:
250
million
dollar
non-federal
cash
outlay
for
the
non-federal
match,
and
I
think
that
that
is
a
question
I
mean
you
know.
A
A
Push
away
from
the
project
and-
and
you
know,
go
our
separate
ways
so
to
speak,
and
so
you
know
I
do
want
that
to
be,
or
you
know
I'd
like
to
have
discussion
around
this.
I
think
it's
a
relevant
recommendation
to
say
hey
if
at
any
point,
we
need
to
clarify
that
if,
at
any
point
we
elect
based
on
a
series
of
circumstances
not
to
move
forward,
we
need
to
be
able
to
withdraw
from
the
withdraw
from
the
project
or,
if
we
run
into
prohibits
us
from
moving
forward.
A
A
E
It's
probably
an
accurate
statement.
It's
a
little
bit
of
a
red
herring
though
too.
If
the
city's
not
going
to
commit
to
the
whole
perimeter,
then
it
shouldn't
commit,
because
if
you
track
the
value
of
this
infrastructure
against
the
percentage
completion,
you
know
there's
really
no
value
until
it's
done,
because
if
there
are
gaps,
if
there
are
whole
sections
of
the
perimeter
that
are
left
unprotected
water
seeks
its
own.
E
E
A
B
A
A
I
think
there
are
certain
sections
where,
for
example,
getting
that
preliminary
exam
I'll
just
call
it
existing
conditions.
Information.
I
think,
that's
a
value,
I
think
that's
money
spent
at
a
market
rate
that
we
would
dale
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
here,
but
we
would
have
a
match
for
so
to
me.
That's
that's
relevant.
A
I
think
when
you
get
into
you
know
land
acquisition
when
you
get
into
specific
hard
costs
relating
to
the
in
design.
As
long
as
you
say,
when
you
get
into
design
when
you
get
the
land
acquisition,
you
get
the
hard
costs
relaying
to
the
perimeter
of
protection.
I
think
you
know
to
reuse
one
of
your
pawns.
I
think
that's
that's!
When
you
get
into
the
to
the
sunk
sunk
cost,
you
know.
E
If
we
do
go
partial,
though
everyone
recognizes
that
it's,
the
greater
good
is
to
keep
the
peninsula
from
being
inundated
and
a
large
part
of
it
destroyed
for
maybe
a
decade
with
that
comes
some
trade-offs.
Some
negatives
water
view
access.
You
know,
construction
issues,
so
we
will
absorb
all
those
negatives
with
a
very
limited
satisfaction
on
the
positives.
H
Well,
first
off
I'm
gonna,
be
I
better
be
careful
because
I
don't
know
how
I'm
going
to
follow
you
bob.
I
think
your
next
stop
is
going
to
be
the
comedy
store.
But
ultimately
I
agree.
Here's
my
thinking
on
it
if
we're
talking
finance
right.
So
I
view
this
from
the
perspective
of
we
have
a
project
that
we
are
seeking
to
make
a
recommendation
on
whether
or
not
we
should
proceed.
H
Is
it
money
that
we're
depending
upon
from
the
county?
Is
it
money
we're
depending
on
from
the
state?
Is
it
other
grants
that
we're
looking
for
so
that
we
can
look
at
it
in
its
whole
and
say
man?
We
better
be
ready,
because
in
2027,
when
we
think
we'll
be
starting
on
the
west
side,
that
funding
is
going
to
come
from
this
source
and
at
least
we
know
that
we
can
start
to
mitigate
where
those
sources
may
be
we've
been.
We
haven't
been
given
any
of
that.
H
Coming
from
and
what
does
the
forecast
look
like
because,
like
bob
said,
the
worst
thing
we
can
do
is
start
this
project
and
then
let
it
sit,
trust
me
incomplete
projects
become
an
eyesore,
and
then
they
don't
even
provide
their
effectiveness.
So,
ultimately,
if
we
wind
up
in
a
situation
where
we're
just
going
in
hoping
that
at
every
turn,
money
will
arrive
to
be
able
to
do
this.
That
is
a
recipe
for
disaster.
H
I
think
that
if
we
owe
it
to
ourselves,
we
owe
it
to
every
citizen
that
will
be
required
to
pony
up
money
for
this
that
we
have
to
see.
Where
is
the
money
coming
from
specifically
and
in
what
time
period
is
it
coming?
And
then
this
way
we
can
make
assessments
as
to
you
know,
we
better
be
ready,
because
in
23rd
we're
going
to
need
40
million
and
we
don't
we're
hoping
it's
going
to
come
from
wherever
it's
going
to
come
from.
We
need
a
forecast,
and
ultimately
I
will
tell
you
this
developments
are
harder.
A
Yes
makes
sense
and
agreed,
so
so
the
latest
I
have
on
that
is
the
city's
dale
again
there's
another
curriculum
from
wrong.
Dale
kalin,
the
city
I
believe,
is
putting
together
like
I
was
like
a
sources
and
uses
like
a
schedule,
revenues
and
then
the
cost
outlay
as
well.
I
so
anyway,
I
I
don't
know
where
they
are.
G
B
A
B
G
We
have
asked
for
a
strategy,
a
financial
strategy
here,
to
show
where
the
money
can,
where,
where
sources
of
revenue
are
now
that
could
be
used
for
this,
because
not
all
tips
and
and
vehicles
like
that
can
be
used
for
this.
There
are
other
source
fees,
existing
fees
that
can
be
used
for
this,
and
there
is
some
room
to
use
them
for
this
and
then
there's
a
discussion
of
peninsula
y,
mid,
etc.
G
I've
asked
for-
and
I
was
told
I
will
get
some
level
of
financial
accounting
and
a
financial
strategy
for
how
this
could
be
funded.
Going
forward.
We'll
have
to
make
some
assumptions,
I
mean
look,
we're
you're
you're
talking
dan.
If
I
heard
you
say
you
want
the
350-page
financial
analysis
with
18
addendums
with
spreadsheets
on
that
infant
item.
That
is
not
going
to
occur,
because
that
is
very
costly
too,
because
we
are
asking
you
to
make
a
decision.
G
Do
we
move
into
ped?
So
we
can
understand.
Can
we
do
this
with
the
core
of
engineers?
Do
we
want
what
we
can
co-design
with
the
core
of
engineers
and
ultimately
somewhere
in
the
middle
pad?
Do
we
want
to
pay
for
this?
Is
it
worth
it?
We
don't
know
the
answers
to
those
questions,
yet
so
the
request
for
oodles
of
pages
of
spreadsheets
about
exactly
how
this
is
done.
G
So
I
agree
that
said
with
the
reconstruction
of
high
battery
and
with
a
ped
phase,
one
that
would
get
constructed
from
the
coast
guard
station
tying
into
the
reconstructed
low
battery,
then
going
around
up
to
the
high
ground
at
the
citadel
above
the
joe,
because
that's
phase
one
of
construction
that
would
provide
much
higher
levels
of
protection
for
the
medical
district
from
both
a
surge
event,
as
well
as
title
events,
because
the
structure
will
be
designed.
As
I
understand
it,
it's
it
is.
G
It
is
in
the
cores
tsp
that
the
structure
will
be
designed
to
operate
at
eight
foot
tide.
So
right
now,
when
we
get
the
major
flooding
level,
it
will
be
closed,
so
you're
going
to
get
that
level
of
protection
and
we
know
with
sea
level,
rise
that
major
flooding
tide
at
eight
foot
is
going
to
be
7.7
feet,
10
inches
at
some
point
in
the
near
future.
So.
G
Benefit
substantial
one
from
completing,
even
just
phase
one,
but
if
the
water
gets
high
at
a
certain
point,
it's
just
going
to
go
around
it's
going
to
go
around
the
low
battery,
it's
going
to
go
around
the
citadel
and
it's
going
to
come
in
and
back
for
the
city
you're,
absolutely
right.
The
complete
project
is
the
perfect
project,
but
there
are
answers.
There
are
important
benefits
to
be
secured
for
the
most
vulnerable
part
of
the
city,
the
medical
district
and
the
lockwood
corridor.
G
G
A
Thank
you.
I
think
you
know
it
goes
to.
I
think-
and
you
might
have
made
this
point
where
they're
there
we
don't
understand
where
our
wrists
are
on
the
off
dance.
Oh
yeah,
okay,
I
understand
where
our
wrists
are,
and
so
maybe
that's
something
we
can
incorporate
into
the
into
the
projections.
The
city's
working
on
and
source
and
use
is
just
hey
and
it
can
just
be
an
input
there
from
a
timing.
Standpoint
of
hey
these
are
where
we
don't
get
incremental
benefit
from.
A
F
E
Couple
quick
ones
dale.
I
wasn't
suggesting
that
partial
completion
was
a
zero
benefit.
I'd
just
say
it's
totally
disproportionate.
Second
to
to
susan's
point
in
a
lot
of
other
points
that
have
been
made.
Can
we
get
a
definitive
clarification
on
where
the
water
plan
stands
relative
to
the
city's
budget?
E
Is
it
in
the
budget?
How
much
is
in
the
budget
who's
going
to
do
it?
What's
the
level
of
commitment
we've
been
circling
the
drain
on
this
for
five
months
now,
and
then
they
all
they?
Oh
god,
I
love
you
like
a
brother,
but
I'm
gonna
push
back
a
little
bit
on.
You
know
there.
It
was
a
little
bit
of
kicking
the
can
down
the
sidewalk
with
it
made.
It
didn't
make
sense
for
us
to
start
to
engage
partners
until
we
had
the
updated
draft,
I'm
good,
that's
baloney!
E
E
E
G
You
yeah
bob,
I
have
thick
skin,
so
you
can.
You
can
push
back
on
me
and
I
I
appreciate
that
you're
doing
this
in
the
best
of
attention.
So
let's,
let's
keep
that
open?
You
know,
that's
I
don't
mind
being
pushed
back
against
one.
It's
part
of
this
job
and
it's
important
that
we
all
have
thick
skin
and
the
right
attitude
to
move
forward
together.
So
that's
that
I
will
check.
As
I
understand
it,
I
would.
G
G
Or
the
rfp
to
rfq
next
in
the
next
calendar
year,
and
if
it
gives
you
any
confidence
or
any
level
of
consternation
or
fear,
there
has
been
one
massive
water
plan
done
and
it
was
done
in
new
orleans
and
it
was
done
led
by
my
friend
david
wagner.
So
they've
done
it
so
again.
I
know
something
about
this,
but
I
know
how
they're
done
and
I
have
a
strong
feeling
that
you
guys
misunderstand
what
a
water
plan
is
and
I'll
be
happy
to
explain
it
to
you
and
also
susan
you're
right.
G
It
is,
I
said,
before
it
isn't
either
or
it's
and
and
we
cannot
ignore
the
stormwater,
the
groundwater,
the
title
and
the
compound
flood
effects
of
the
current
condition,
and
then
the
challenge
is
that
sea
level
rise
brings
exacerbating
all
of
those
agreed
100
percent.
So
this
is
a.
This
is
a
big
thing
and
surge
is,
but
one
surges
surge
is
the
most
deadliest
and
the
most
devastating.
G
E
Absolutely
dale,
I
don't
think,
there's
any
question
about
that.
The
headway
you've
made
in
a
very
short
amount
of
time
you
know
is,
is
awesome.
So
thank
you,
you're
right,
not
to
take
any
of
comments.
I
think
part
of
the
role
of
this
committee
is
to
hold
the
city
accountable,
agreed,
so
agreed
for
what
that's
worth.
A
Second,
at
dale
we'd
certainly
appreciate
everything.
You've
done
so
well.
You
know,
I
think,
maybe
the
best
path
forward
here.
You
know
I've
taken
a
bunch
of
notes
on
specific
comments.
If
anybody
could
email
me
specific
comments
concerns.
I
understand
it's
a
big,
it's
a
big
topic,
but
you
know
we
began
to
distill
a
lot
of
it
on
this
discussion
today.
E
A
I
appreciate
that
I
think
I'll
get
the
get
get
the
hook
here
in
in
20
30
minutes,
and
so
I
agree,
I
think
that's
a
great
way
to
do
it.
Let's
do
it
bob
suggested
on
that
front.
Endorse,
don't
endorse
or,
or
you
know,
don't
know
need
further
clarification,
and
so
I'm
gonna
go
in
the
order
of
my
screen
so
bob,
since
your
the
little
hand
is
up
that
puts
you
first.
A
C
C
D
A
H
H
You
know
the
idea
to
put
us
to
a
vote
on.
Yes.
No,
maybe
you
know
I
don't
like.
Maybe
maybe
to
me
is
a
no
is
not
a
vote
right,
so
I'm
going
to
say
based
on
what
I've
seen
to
this
point
in
time,
I
would
not
recommend
to
move
into
the
pet
phase,
especially
with
all
the
unanswered
items,
because
I
am
skeptical
that
once
you
let
that
process
begin
we're
we're
dependent
on
something
that
we
can't
control.
H
H
But
clearly,
if,
if
you
want
to
know
I
mean,
if
we're
going
to
make
a
decision,
then
if
I
were
told
today
make
a
decision,
my
recommendation
would
be
not
to
move
into
the
pet
phase,
because
bob
said
it
best
right.
There
are
some
costs,
but
to
me
there
are
other
pressing
issues
in
the
city.
Calhoun
west
is
a
big
issue
right
I
mean
there's
other
storm
water
management.
That
needs
to
be
addressed,
and
I
don't
know
what
the
dollar
amount
is.
H
Is
it
500
000
that
we'd
be
putting
into
a
pet
phase
and
then
pulling
the
plug?
Is
it
a
million
dollars?
Is
it
three
million
dollars
again?
These
are
all
things
that
would
be
shown
in
a
forecast
so
that
we
could
make
a
decision
about
what
we're
doing
financially
right.
I
mean
that's
the
way
you
I
would
address
the
project.
I'd
say:
okay,
you
know,
is
it
worth
risking
five
hundred
thousand
dollars,
possibly?
Is
it
worth
risking
five
million
dollars?
C
H
And
again,
I'm
willing
to
be
I'm
begging
to
be
convinced
differently.
I
mean
literally
I'm
begging,
somebody
please,
you
know,
come
in
front
of
this
committee
and
tell
us
why
we
shouldn't
constantly
have
consternation
over
assessing
the
facts
that
are
being
presented,
and
I
am,
I
will
be
100
on
board,
because
I've
said
it
and
I'll
say
it
again.
We
have
a
serious
issue
here.
It's
not
something
that
we
need
to
we're,
not
putting
our
head
in
the
sand.
H
We
have
a
very
serious
issue
that
includes
managing
water
in
the
city
of
charleston,
and
I'm
also
going
to
reiterate
again
it's
not
just
about
the
peninsula.
The
city
of
charleston
extends
beyond
the
peninsula,
and
so
we
have
to
make
sure
that
we're
focused
on
all
those
issues
as
well,
which
clearly
we
know
this
doesn't
do
so.
I
know
that's
a
long-winded
vote,
but
when
you,
when
you
want
to
have
qualifiers
on
reasoning,
then
you
got
to
provide
as
many
of
the
qualifiers
that
you
can.
A
A
G
G
B
A
I'd
be
remiss
if
I
didn't.
I
almost
forgot
to
do
this,
but,
and
I
spoke
with
dennis
earlier,
dennis
frazier,
you
know
he's
on
a
plane
right
now.
You
know
he
he
would
support
moving
into
bed
is
the
is
the
short
version.
I
think,
there's
a
sense
of
risk
with
regards
to
the
medical
community
here,
and
so
you
know,
that's
the
his
response
and
feedback
and
in
our.
A
Earlier
today,
and
so
with
that
said,
are
there
any
other
final
comments?
Thoughts,
I
see
seriousness
your
hand
up,
and
you
know
after
we
get
through
those
we'll
go
ahead
and
adjourn
and
appreciate
everybody
taking
the
extra
time
today
by
the
way,
I
think
it
was
a
very
fruitful
meeting
susan
and
then
dan.
A
No,
I
I
personally
have
come
some
concerns
about
after
reading.
All
of
it
I
mean,
I,
I
don't
think
it.
I
think
it
casts
an.
I
don't
know.
I
I
hagoon
personally
has
some.
This
is
not
chairman
hager.
This
is
remember,
a
good
has
some
concern.
I
don't
know
if
everybody
feels
the
same.
Only
I
just
haven't
had
enough
time
to
review
it
and
provide
substantive
comment.
I
think,
after
all,
the
changes
were
incorporated.
A
A
B
Thanks
dan-
I
I
just
I
know
you
didn't
want
to
have
a
conversation
about
the
document
today.
I
want
to
defer
that
but
susan,
I
did
I
apologize
for
getting
your
comments
late,
but
I
did
send
some
comments
over
to
you
and
I
would
prefer
at
least
having
the
questions
and
comments
address
before
moving
forward
with
the
document.
C
Laura
yeah,
so
I
susan,
I
also
sent
you
a
note
that
I
have
some
I'm
sorry
that
I
was
late,
but
I
also
have
some
feedback
and
would
be
supportive
of
us
continuing
to
develop
this
document.
I
think
it
is
an
important
product
from
this
committee
and
as
we
can
get
it
to
a
place
where
everyone's
comfortable
and
I
really
appreciate
the
hard
work
that
you
susan,
have
put
into
it,
because
I
I
know
that
that
is
a
lot
of
work.
So
thank
you
for
doing
that.
C
One
is
what
was
the
point
of
this
straw
vote
that
we
just
took?
Was
this
just
to
have
a
collective
understanding
of
the
temperature
of
us
as
individuals
on
this
committee?
That's
question
number
one
and
question
number
two:
could
you
clarify
what
we're
doing
with
the
discussions
that
we
had
around
those
four
sub
points
in
the
agenda
where
we
talked
about
recommendation
language,
you
asked
us
to
email,
you
ideas:
where
are
we
headed
with
that?
Could
you
just
be?
I
want
to
be
really
clear
about
what,
where
we're
headed.
A
We
need
to
get
more
recommendations
together,
and
so
that's
really
what
we're
doing
here
so
rosemont
specifically,
you
know
we
need
that's
been
brought
up
a
number
of
times
alignment
been
brought
up
a
number
of
times
that
natural-based
features.
It's
it's
been
brought
up
a
number
of
times
really
having.
A
I
think
enough,
but
I
think
this
october
6th
meeting
will
help.
Do
that
probably,
and
finance
has
obviously
been
brought
up
a
number
of
times,
and
so
so
we
need
to
form
recommendations
around
those.
You
know
it
was
a
point
that
was,
it
was
brought
up
by
bob
as
a
suggestion
I
think,
on
our
last
meeting.
It
was
a
great
point
I
think
yeah
it
does
help
us
take
the
temperature
of
the.
A
D
The
uncertainty
to
the
four
points
leaves
me
in
in
a
position
that
like
as
if
I
just
started,
I
don't
know
and
and
and
if
I
don't
know,
then
I'm
not
going
to
vote
yes
for
something.
I
don't
know
you
see,
so
I
I
I
think
also
excuse
me
and
and
asking
susan
or
saying
the
student
you're
gonna
send
her
and
you
two
have
a
debate
or
or
a
conversation
over
whether
or
not
to
put
the
communique
out
without
us.
G
G
That's
a
matter
of
the
output
of
this
effort,
we're
all
professionals
we're
all
doing
our
best.
So
hey
we
have
questions
about
nnbs,
it's
our
nature-based
features
we
want
more,
and
thus
you
need
to
do
x,
y
and
z,
whatever
that
is,
someone
should
take
it
on
and
break
their
recommendation.
Finance
rosemont
resilience,
eastside
alignment,
the
water
plant.
We
have
the
one
water
plant,
but
any
of
those
other
things.
G
Lead
on
it
and
circulate
it,
that'd
be
awesome,
so
I
think
that
it's
just
so
essential
and
then
this
document
I
got
my
favorite
pick
last
week
by
you
all
for
having
some
comments
or
things
on
this
and
I'll.
Take
that
for
what
it's
worth.
I
think
the
things
that
I
suggested
were
improvements,
but
let
that
be
what
that
forward.
Is
I
made
some
more
today
in
a
transparency
that
said,
if
I'm
going
out
or
hey
or
kaelin
or
the
mayor,
whoever
is
going
out
to
talk
with
folks
about
this.
G
Committee,
if
we
have
something
say,
the
advisor
committee
is
fussing
hard
with
this
and
we're
the
citizens
folks
and
we
don't
have
the
technical
knowledge,
but
this
is
what
this
is,
how
we
understand
it
so
having
that
available
not
in
a
month,
but
sooner
than
that
would
be
great,
because
I
represent
I'm
working
for
you
all
too
right.
So
again,
the
document
is
getting
much
better.
Sorry,
the
document
is
improving
through
edits.
So
let's
do
it.
Let's,
let's
get
it
done.
A
Thank
you
and
that's
a
good,
that's
actually
a
good
segue,
so
right
now
we're
scheduled
to
have
usually
be
in
front
of
city
council
october
12th,
one
meeting
in
between
now
and
then
october
6th
in
that
meeting.
I
just
finished
a
lot
of
work,
we'd
like
to
use
that
for
a
presentation
balance,
and
so
it's
not
going
to
leave
us
a
lot
of
time
and
I
need
to
look
I
frankly.
I
need
to
look
at
the
educator.
B
B
A
A
A
And
so
it's
it's
actually
already
scheduled
on
our
update
10
of
second
three
well,
the
3x303
committee
update
to
council.
I
mean
given
particularly
given
allen's
willingness
to
present
new
information
to
us,
which
will
be
great
to
see,
but
it
will
take
away
from
discussion
time
towards
finalizing
commentary.
I'd
be
be
in
favor
area
in
favor
of
moving
from
the
12th
to
the
26th,
but
what
it
does
do
is
we
can
use
the
12th
to
at
the
least
present
water
recommendations.
A
Anything
we
agree
to
on
on
the
sticks.
We
can't
agree
to
on
the
six
as
far
as
formalizing
language
so
anyway,
that
that's
I'm
opening
that
up
for
discussion.
I
I
I
could
go
either
way.
I
think
a
lot
of
it.
We
probably
is.
We
have
to
let
everybody
know
now,
but
we
don't
know
what
we're
gonna
come
to
on
this
dan.
Please
please
go
for
it
and
then
bob.
H
Yep,
well,
I
definitely
feel
as
though,
since
we
were
recommending
the
water
plan
that
should
get
in
front
of
council
as
soon
as
possible.
But
my
question,
mr
chairman,
is
not
only
for
you
but
for
all
of
my
fellow
committee
members,
and
that
is
at
some
point:
don't
we
owe
it
to
our
representatives
in
city
council?
I
mean
look
we
today.
It
seems
as
though
everybody
shared
their
opinion,
and
so,
if
we
did
a
straw
poll,
I
guess
my
question
to
all
my
fellow
committee.
H
Members
is:
what
is
it
going
to
take
for
you
to
make
a
definitive
recommendation
because
we've
been
doing
this
for
five
months?
If,
if
we
think
that
we're
gonna
get,
I
know,
I'm
not
gonna
get
the
answers
I
need
in
two
more
weeks
I
mean
I'm
certain
of
that.
I
wish
that
I
could
say
differently,
but
you
know
if
we
keep
put,
we
push
this
out
now,
three
or
four
times
so
at
some
point
you
know
we're
not
a
voting
body,
we're
making
a
recommendation.
H
So
I'm
just
opening
up
to
the
committee
and
look
to
me
this
is
the
most
important
thing
facing
all
of
us,
and
so
I
just
want
to
know
you
know
the
question
was
asked:
why
did
we
have
the
straw
poll?
I
mean,
I
guess
it
took
everybody's
temperature
and
to
me
it
really
comes
down
to
yes
or
no,
because
if
there
is
uncertainty
well,
then,
to
me:
that's
it!
That
answer
is
no.
You
know,
I
mean
it's
not
yes,
it's
no,
because
we
have
all
these
qualifications.
H
So
if
we
keep
pushing
this
out
to
make
a
recommendation,
I'd
like
to
know
from
my
fellow
committee
members
what
it's
going
to
take
for
them
to
make
a
commitment,
because
do
we
even
have
the
time
to
get
everything,
we
need
to
make
a
firm
commitment
about
what
we
want
to
recommend
to
city
council.
And
I
I
just
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
A
Dan
I'll
I'll
jump
in
there
I
mean
I.
I
would
argue
that
I
think
our
job
is
to
say:
hey
we've
discussed
this
we've
gone
through
the
work
we've
done
put
in
all
this
effort.
Here
are
the
myriad
of
issues
that
we've
found
you
know,
and
in
general
you
know
I
I
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
say
now
it
is.
It
isn't
our
ordinance,
but
it's
tough
to
your
point.
H
And
so
that's
my
and
that's
my
point,
hey
good,
that
that
would
lead
to
a
recommendation
not
to
proceed
because
there's
enough
there's
not
a
yellow
light
in
front
of
us
is
there's
a
string
of
red
lights
in
front
of
us.
So
to
me
you
know
I
get
it.
I
mean
we
can
provide
a
list
of
qualifications,
but
to
me
that's
a
no,
because
either
that's
going
to
create
a
situation
where
it
means
that
we're
not
moving
forward
with
this
plan
and
by
the
way
it's
just
the
plan
like.
H
H
A
A
Now,
if
we
say
hey,
this
is
a
terrible
idea
because
of
x,
y
and
z,
or
no
because
of
x,
y
and
z,
or
we
say
hey,
we
feel
uncomfortable
with
it
because
of
x,
y
and
z.
That's
that's
a
different
story
in
my
mind,
but
you
know
I
I
do
think
we
need
to
provide
substantive
feedback
and-
and
you
know,
I
think
that
substantive
feedback
are.
Are
these
issues
that
we
have
outstanding?
A
G
Well,
so
the
other
side
of
the
equation
is
this
thing?
We
don't
know
enough
information,
I
agree
with
you,
dan
and,
and
I
think
we
all
know
you're
a
developer.
You
get
this
information
by
moving
forward
into
further
studies,
not
construction,
but
further
studies.
And
then
you
see
what's
possible
in
the
ground
conditions,
given
all
those
other
things
that
are
going
to
happen
here
and
then
you
make,
and
then
you
say:
okay,
we
have
enough
now
to
to
move
forward.
G
Feels
unaffordable
now
well
1.1
billion
or
2
billion
or
600
million,
which
the
city
will
have
to
pay
for
all
by
itself.
That's
that,
then,
that's
going
to
be
even
more
unaffordable,
so
part
of
the
issue
here.
Subtext
to
this
decision
is:
can
we
forgo
right
now
the
65
percent,
that
the
federal
government
is
willing
to
pay
to
help
us
see,
help
us
to
construct
a
surge
structure
that
we
think
is
needed
again
with
all
of
those
open
questions
and
they're
legit?
And
I'm
not?
G
I
don't
want
to
take
anything
away
from
your,
your,
your
endurities
and
anyone
herbert's
and
anyone
else's
very
serious
concerns
they're
all
legit,
we
just
don't.
We
can't
get
some
of
those
answers
until
we
can't
get
some
of
those
answers
and
have
the
federal
government
help
the
city
cover
the
cost
of
the
structure
without
moving
into
tech.
It's
it's
almost
that
simple.
G
H
G
H
H
Dale,
I
don't
disagree
and
what
I'm
saying
is
it's
if
you
want
to
equate
it
to
the
development
world?
Okay,
if
somebody,
if
an
investment
partner
came
to
me
and
said,
I've
got
a
billion
dollar
deal
for
you,
but
I'm
going
to
put
up
65
of
it
and
I
want
you
to
go,
build
a
hotel
on
a
deserted
island,
that's
inaccessible
to
any
human
being.
Okay,
that's
great!
That
he's
going
to
give
me
65
percent,
but
I
can't
commit
to
35
percent
it's
about
the
project
it.
We
can't
let
this
concept
of
having
financing
available.
H
H
And
then
we
can
go
through
the
financing,
because
you
know
it's
like
in
the
development
world.
Just
because
there's
capital
available
for
a
certain
asset,
class
or
product
type
doesn't
mean
that
everybody
should
be
like
a
herd
mentality
move
to
that.
It
needs
to
be
project
specific
to
make
to
make
it
really
a
viable
project.
B
A
E
E
E
Protection
around
the
peninsula
is
the
three
by
three
study,
the
right
solution,
so
I
think
we
have
to
keep
framing
it.
That
way,
in
terms
of
you
know
the
tension
about
wanting
more
information.
You
know
I
do
think
it's
a
natural
progression
of
crawl
walk
run.
You
know,
I
think,
we've
gotten
a
lot
of
information.
E
Maybe
some
questions
have
been
resolved.
There
are
still
questions
outstanding.
How
many
of
those
will
be
addressed
through
ted?
How
many
won't
be
because
the
army
corps
is
intransigent?
I
think
that's
where
we
have
to
start
clarifying.
We
did
take
so
in
terms
of
the
straw
vote.
It
very
much
was
we've
been
doing
this
for
five
months.
If,
if
someone
held
a
gun
to
my
head,
I
wouldn't
have
been
able
to
say
where
kevin
stands
on
this
yay
or
nay
or
you
know,
go
to
ped.
E
I
think
where
we
did
get
a
little
bit
of
consensus
was
we
need
to
know
more.
This
is
a
crawl
walk,
run.
Progression
of
understanding
is
the
3x3
project,
the
right
solution
for
perimeter,
protection,
which
is
dutch
dialogues,
which
is
everybody,
and
we
said
you
know,
I
think
the
consensus
was
let's
move
to
ped.
So
I
think
that
was
illuminating,
at
least
for
me,
because
I
didn't
have
a
clue.
E
C
I
just
want
to
chime
in
there
for
just
one.
Second,
when
you
said
the
consensus
of
the
group
was
to
move
to
pad.
I
heard
the
consensus
of
the
group
was
to
move
to
ped
with
a
laundry
list
of
contingencies,
so
just
want
to
clarify
that
that's
my
take
on
where
the
group
is.
There
is
a
long
laundry
list
of
yes,
but-
and
I
think
that's
needs
to
be
noted.
A
F
I
I
understand
the
city
did,
but
okay,
so
this
when
I
say
they
came
along,
they
came
along
to
our
consciousness.
What
if
there
were
no
army-
and
there
were
no
army
plan-
and
this
this
whole
three
by
three
project,
were
not
an
option.
What
would
charleston
be
doing?
What
would
be
the
alternative,
and
is
that
viable
and
can
we
because
that's
the
only
other
way
to
look
at
it?
F
B
G
G
G
So
that's
a
quantification
of
that
risk
that
you
should
all
again
the
vulnerability
analysis
is
out
there.
It's
a
public
document
have
a
look
at
it.
It
speaks
to
this
risk.
So
again
it's
not
surgery
or
other
risks.
It's
all
the
risks
together
and
a
water
plan
at
the
same
time
as
a
surge
risk,
compete,
study
or
deeper.
G
G
As
we
know
is
costly
right,
surge
protection
is
even
more
costly
because
of
the
amount
of
infrastructure
needed.
It's
just
an
awful
risk
right.
So
when
your
opportunity
then,
is
retreat
manage
retreat
in
a
wise
way,
because
insurance
rates
or
property
taxes
or
house
values
or
whatever
decline-
it's
like
I'm
done.
This
is
no
longer
coming
viable
or
it's
on
his
retreat,
which
is,
after
a
certain
event,
in
an
unprotected
area.
I'm
done.
I've
lost
my
home,
I'm
going
to
rebuild
somewhere
else,
talk
about
new
orleanians
who
are
now
in
houston
in
atlanta.
A
So
anyway,
so
I
think
we're
going
to
keep
doctor
12
states.
The
is
the
point
cool
all
right,
so
we're
good
there.
So
I
don't
have
any
I
mean
it's.
This
is
good
additional
discussion
times
about
an
hour
past
our
lifetime,
and
we
obviously
have
some
more
work
to
do
on
this.
With
regards
to
continuing
to
edit
the
the
the
communications
working
group
document,
which
again
susan,
thank
you
so
much
for
all
your
hard
work
there.
A
I
know
yeah,
yeah
and,
and
so
that
and
then
also
framing
up
these
recommendations.
Once
again
october
6
we'll
have
alan
davis
presenting
to
us.
Thank
you
to
alan
davis
and
really
looking
forward
to
that
and
after
that,
we'll
have
a
discussion
regarding
natural
and
nature-based
solutions,
as
well
as,
hopefully
the
opportunity
to
to
finalize
a
handful
of
recommendations
and
potentially
the
ideally
the
communications
working
group
info
sheet
as
well.
B
A
D
A
That's
how
those
things
go.
It's
good
we're
good
we're
getting
on
the
book
and
books
and
it'll
get
done
so
appreciate,
y'all
everybody's
staying
all
over
it!
Well
good!
All
right!
Well,
thank
you
all
again,
very
much
look
forward
to
lots
of
email
traffic
in
between
today
and
a
week
from
today
and
and
telephone
calls
and
all
that
good
stuff
and
also
yeah,
looking
forward
to
seeing
everybody's
language
on
the
recommendations
and
in
this
coming
meeting
thank
y'all.