►
From YouTube: City of Charleston Council Meeting - July 25, 2019
Description
City of Charleston Council Meeting - July 25, 2019
A
B
C
Thank
you,
Miss
Smith
matter
of
fact.
I
want
to
really
single
out,
but
I,
don't
to
mispronounce
your
last
names.
Alison
I
mean
she's
done,
and
her
legal
team
and
they've
done
such
a
wonderful
job,
because
this
is
a
difficult
question
to
try
to
frame
and
the
way
she's
communicated
with
us
has
been
second
to
none.
So
I
want
to
seriously.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
professionalism
and
all
of
this.
C
C
Carving
out
the
existing
homes,
we
agree
a
hundred
percent
I
believe
on
new
construction.
We
agree
a
hundred
percent.
If
a
house
is
sustains
our
struction
commercial
building,
sustained
substantial
damage
due
to
flooding
where
the
differences
would
be
if
buildings
or
houses
are
damaged
due
to
something
other
than
flooding
substantially.
The
fire
wind
hail
tree
damage
I've
been
through
foremost
in
termites.
In
then
the
reason
I
say
that
is
I
bought
a
house
off
foreclosure
not
too
long
ago
and
I
walked
inside.
C
You
know
when
you
buy
something
off
foreclosure,
you
can't
look
inside
you
get
to
look
outside,
I
walked
inside
and
man
did
I
grab
her
alligator
by
the
tail.
It
was
damaged
substantially
almost
substantially
by
termites.
We
got
there
just
in
time,
so
I
don't
have
to
lift
that
house.
I,
don't
have
to
raise
that
house.
C
What
I'd
like
to
do
maybe
save
a
lot
of
effort
at
matter
of
fact.
Even
I
read
the
feet
baby
now
and
in
it
it
counts
them
in
white.
It
actually
said
that
we
should.
We
need
leadership
on
city
council,
so
I'm
gonna
throw
out
to
my
colleagues
to
put
the
third
reading
of
the
ordinance
if
you
remember,
I
deferred
it.
Because
mr.
C
mayor,
we
were
going
to
get
the
information
from
the
National
Flood
Insurance
Program,
to
see
whether
we
still
can
carve
out
the
existing
houses
as
well
as
get
the
discount
on
the
flood
insurance
that
we
all
saw.
I
know
that
hadn't
been
determined,
but
you
know
what
maybe
we
should
go
forward
with
the
third
reading,
which
would
not
necessitate
even
putting
the
referendum
on
put
the
third
reading
in
front
of
Council.
C
A
E
A
D
D
G
G
G
F
G
F
G
H
H
We
would
also
adopt
that
for
any
property
that
was
destroyed
more
than
50%
due
to
flooding
would
also
have
to
meet
that
requirement
that
all
other
risks
be
where
you
are
and
in
answering
somewhat
of
what
miss
Jackson
said
about
the
the
5%
and
I
think
the
that
this
is
a.
This
is
a
deep
subject
and
people
don't
understand
it,
but
helping
the
confusion
was
I
read
one
article
in
our
paper.
That
said
something
about
we
could.
H
If
we
did
this,
we
would
get
this
25
percent
discount
and
he
kind
of
led
you
to
believe
that
you
would
get
a
twenty
five
percent
discount.
It
didn't
tell
you
well,
you
already
had
20
percent,
you
were
only
gonna
get
five
more,
so
it's
a
little
bit
misleading
there,
but
the
only
thing
that
I
think
we
haven't
considered
I
haven't
heard
it
discussed
around
here-
is
the
cost
of
insuring
all
of
those
other
perils.
All
of
those
other
risks,
the
tornado,
the
termites,
the
earthquake.
H
All
of
those,
if
we're
going
to
force
all
those
to
go
up
to
freeboard
plus
two,
then
somebody's
got
to
pay
for
that
insurance.
Now
how
they
we're
talking
about
that,
so
that
cost,
if
we
keep
it
like
it,
is
that
cost
shouldn't
go
up.
So
maybe
that's
offset
that
5%
I'm,
no
insurance
person
but
I
understand
a
little
bit
about
risk
and
if
you're
going
to
increase
the
cost
to
the
wrist
you're
gonna
have
to
pay
for
it.
So
I
think
it
works
both
ways.
H
I
J
Sterling's
gonna
add
a
comment
about
the
potential
for
first
reading
versus
third
reading
on
the
agenda
with
major
change.
One
of
the
issues
we
had
with
DNR
was
the
firm
that
we
had.
The
agency
we
had
correspondent
with
DNR's
concern
was
that
if
you
separate
the
substantial
damage,
substantial
improvement,
definitions
from
the
new
construction
definition,
FEMA
gives
all
three
of
those
under
the
new
construction
definition.
So
they
I
think
we
talked
more
in-depth
with
FEMA.
J
We
haven't
gotten
an
official
response
yet,
but
from
again
informal
responses,
they
think
there's
the
ability
for
us
to
do
that.
As
long
as
we
don't
try
to
say
that
new
construction
and
substantial
improvement,
substantial
damage
are
different
things
under
the
FEMA
definition
of
new
construction
and
I
know
that's
getting
incredibly
complicated.
A
FEMA
says:
if
you
do
substantial
proof,
you
do
substantial
damage.
That
is
new
construction.
J
So,
if
you
say
we
have
one
requirement
for
new
construction,
but
a
different
requirement
for
substantial
improvement,
substantial
damage,
we
just
need
to
make
sure
the
ordinance
reads
in
a
way
that
those
are
not.
It
would
be
change
in
the
FEMA
definition.
I
think
we
can
do
that
in
FEMA
says:
there's
a
good
probability
of
doing
that.
It's
just
making
sure
we
get
that
language
in
there
properly
and.
I
That's
and
I
think
that's
what
I
remember
the
report
coming
back
from
and
it
is
always
about
the
50%
rule.
So
if
it's
greater
than
50%
improvement
or
50%
damage
repair
from
whatever
occurrence,
if
you,
if
you're
making
that
distinction
from
a
either
new
construction
or
if
you're,
making
that
distinction
from
something
other
than
flood,
then
you're
not
getting
the
benefit
and
I
think
that
is
which
I'll
reported
someone
was
reported
to
us
several
months
ago.
So.
J
J
Yes,
FEMA
will
allow
you
to
do
different
levels.
We
just
have
to
make
sure
we
phrase
it
in
a
way
that
doesn't
look
like
it's
in
conflict
with
the
way
they
define
the
term,
and
it
may
be
that
that's
not
an
issue.
I
mean,
though
you
haven't
gotten
an
official
response
from
FEMA.
Yet
that
was
DNR's
concern
was
that
FEMA
would
have
an
issue
with
that
we've
been
corresponding
with
him
about
it,
haven't
gotten
our
formal
response
back
yet
from.
B
K
Only
issue
is
that,
obviously
we
will
have
to
work
out
the
language
a
bit
more
and
we
might
make
it
need
to
get
some
advice
from
FEMA
or
at
least
DNR,
on
the
exact
language
of
our
ordinance
change,
and
so
at
this
time
I.
Don't
think
it
would
be
appropriate
to
do
third
reading
on
the
existing
ordinance
because
it
doesn't
contemplate
any
of
these
changes,
and
these
would
be
considered
substantial
changes.
And
so
that's
not
something
that
we
would
want
to
do
on.
K
Third
reading
anyways,
so
I
would
suggest
maybe
having
the
discussion
be
on
an
ordinance,
including
councilmember,
wearing
suggestions
and
then
asking
the
legal
department
to
go
ahead
and
work
on
that
language
for
the
next
meeting,
at
which
we
would
bring
it
back
as
a
first
reading,
and
it
would
be
as
totally
separate
ordinance
than
the
one
that
is
pending
right
now
for
third
reading
and
we
can
deal
with
them
both
at
the
same
meeting
at
that
time
or
something
we
could
withdraw
or
worse
start
over.
You
know
again
with
a
new
one.
B
C
C
K
C
L
C
K
C
Come
come.
That's
what
we
voted
on
the
second
reading
and
when
in
the
mayor
and
our
flood
plain
manager
suggested
writing
to
NFIP
and
I
said:
okay,
I'll
defer
it
until
we
hear
back
from
them,
we
heard
back
from
them
and
it's
quite
frankly
it
was
nothing
clear
at
all,
though
think
we
need
to
move
forward.
In
other
words,
because
the
county
has
done
this,
that
doesn't
mean
the
county
is
right.
So
let
me
get
a
copy
of
the
second
reading.
So
council
could
be
clearer.
That
should
be
able
to
pull
that
up.
B
G
M
B
M
M
B
Was
made
some
time
ago,
it
doesn't
okay.
So
now
the
motion
which
is
not
on
our
agenda
and
we've
got
to
have
somebody
go,
get
a
pull
up
a
copy
of
it
or
go,
get
a
copy
of
it,
which
we
will
do
in
the
meantime.
We
can
continue
to
discuss
it
and
ask
mr.
fountain,
or
anybody
else
in
court
counts.
Remember
Griffith,
then
see
I've.
L
Got
a
question
and
then
I
want
to
make
just
a
couple
of
comments.
My
question
is:
did
we
did
we
ever
find
out
when
our
visit
was
gonna,
be
because
originally
we
wanted
this
done
quickly,
because
we
thought
the
meeting
was
going
to
be
this
fall
and
then
we
were
told
it
was
probably
postponed
to
next
year?
Do
we
have
a
date
yet
on
that?
So.
J
L
Already
heard
that
it's
not
gonna,
be
this
year,
correct,
okay,
I'm,
just
gonna
make
the
comment
that
no
matter
what
this
ordinance
says,
whether
we
take
it
as
amended
whether
it's
what
it
was
tonight,
I'm
not
voting
for
it
and
the
reason.
Why
is
because
we've
had
so
much
discussion
about
this.
We
beat
our
heads
over
it
for
so
long
I.
Don't
think
that
the
benefit
outweighs
the
cost.
At
this
point
we
have
so
many
more
questions
than
we
have
answered.
This
was
not
brought
up
by
a
councilmember
to
be
put
on
an
agenda.
L
This
was
to
maybe
get
us
to
an
extra
five
percent
at
the
next
meeting
the
next
visit.
Well,
we
can
get
that
five
percent
through
other
ways
as
well
and
I
still
haven't
seen
all
of
the
information
about
I
know
we
had
a
slide,
show
about
potentially
getting
other
points,
but
there's
plenty
other
ways
to
get
points
other
than
this.
One
way
your
point
about
the
county
and
the
city,
just
because
the
county
did
it
I
completely
agree
with,
because
look
at
the
density
in
the
city
compared
to
the
county.
L
Look
at
how
many
homes
are
in
the
city,
we
are
the
largest
municipality
and
the
state.
Where,
though,
really
the
largest,
you
know,
the
city
of
Charleston
is
so
much
larger
than
the
county
in
terms
of
the
number
of
houses
we
can't
be
making
decisions
based
on
what
other
people
are
doing.
That's
just
ridiculous,
so
that
point
to
me,
does
it
make
sense
I
think
we
stay
at
FEMA
plus
one
for
the
time
being?
That's
my
perspective
and
I.
Don't
want
I,
don't
want
people
to
think
I
voted!
L
No,
because
it's
as
amended
it's
because
I
think
we
should
stay
right.
Where
we
are.
We
don't
have
all
the
information
to
make
the
decision
and
at
this
point,
I
have
not
seen
any
proof
that
the
benefit
is
going
to
outweigh
the
cost,
to
the
taxpayers
of
Charleston
the
people
every
day
that
that
worked,
that
this,
who
would
affect,
especially
the
people
that
are
built
on
slabs,
it's
going
to
be
detrimental
to
them.
L
You
had
extra
foot,
I,
can't
imagine
somebody
who
who
goes
out
and
has
to
live
paycheck
to
paycheck
like
every
day
Charlestonians
and
then
they're
told
that
they've
got
to
come
up
with
an
extra
$2,500.
That's
a
lot
of
money
to
an
everyday
person.
It
might
not
be
to
some
but
ten
everyday
person.
It
is
so
I'm
voting.
No
thank
you.
L
M
J
M
Right
and
just
one
other
quick
follow-up
cuz,
we
talked
about
this
before
and
it's
just
been
a
while,
since
we
did
the
way
we're
gonna
set
this
up
is
there
are
certain
properties
in
particularly
in
the
old
and
historic
district
that
will
not
be
exempt,
that
they
will
be
able
to
apply
to
the
bza,
for
a
variance.
Is
that
correct?
M
J
N
That
is
that
you,
it's
not
me.
The
the
variance
request
would
go
to
the
board
of
appeals
under
the
Building
Code
and
that
there
is
documentation
from
our
board
of
Architectural
Review
staff
and
the
State
Historic
Preservation
Office.
Once
we
get
that
documentation
from
those
two
groups,
the
variance
is
heard
by
the
Board
of
Appeals
Board.
M
Has
been
and
I
don't
want
to
usurp
everybody's
time,
but
one
of
the
things
I
worried
about
and
I
still
worry
about,
is
the
conflict
between
people
asking
for
a
variance
trying
to
get
through
a
certain
height
to
meet
free
board
plus
two
in
an
area
that's
super
low,
where
they
have
to
may
have
to
go
up
five
feet
to
get
free
board
plus
two,
because
they're
currently
minus
three,
and
then
they
butt
up
against
some
pretty
tough
zoning
ordinances.
So
then
you're
gonna
have
to
get
a
second
variance.
M
D
One
of
the
things
I
would
suggest
is
recognizing
that
there
may
be
some
period
of
time.
That's
gonna
pass
before
we
actually
know
what
that
language
needs
to
look
like
in
order
to
not
be
in
conflict
with
FEMA
and
as
I
heard
correctly,
the
intent
is
fine,
it's
the
language
that
requires
some
tweaking
and
and
as
it
stands
currently
today.
If
we
were
to
pass
this
now-
and
we
find
out
six
eight
months
from
now
that
we
need
to
tweak
this
language
in
order
to
maintain
the
appropriate
credits
and
discounts
that
we
currently
enjoy.
D
I,
don't
think
anybody
in
this
room
is
going
to
deny
that
opportunity.
But
what
that
does
do
for
us
today
and
really
this
is
for
our
citizens,
who
may
be
on
the
lower
end
of
the
income
spectrum.
Is
that
today,
they're
not
protected
they're,
not
protected
at
all
and
there's
a
lot
of
homes
that
would
be
impacted
substantially
as
it
currently
exists.
If
we,
if
they
have
an
issue,
that's
non
flood
related.
D
We
can
do
it
right
now,
and
the
customer
Griffin
I
certainly
understand
the
the
the
issues
that
you
raised,
but
I
would
say
that
by
doing
and
and
making
these
carve-outs
part
of
the
ordinance
as
it
moves
forward,
we
will
in
fact
protect
those
folks
who
are
low-income
spectrum
who
are
at
risk
and
I
think
it
is
certainly
incumbent
upon
us
to
do
that.
If
we
can
do
it,
and
certainly
we
can
yeah
Thank
You
Cal.
B
J
B
So
if
I
may
ask
you
a
question
of
mr.
fountain,
the
carve-outs
were
discussing
are
not
to
change
the
definition
of
construction
but
to
exclude
other
perils,
a
fire
earthquake
or
some
other
peril
from
basically
forcing
someone
to
go
to
+2,
even
if
they're
in
the
flood
zone
special
flood
zone.
If
it's
another
parent.
So
my
question
is
this:
if
we
were
to
do
that,
is
there
any
jeopardy
for
our
existing
CRS
points
in
our
existing
20%
discount
that
we
currently
enjoy?
B
J
Long
as
the
ordinance
retains
the
existing
base,
Friedel
brace
frequent
elevation
plus
one
those
points
stay
in
place
with
the
existing
CRS
score
to
get
us
a
20%
discount.
It
only
be
if
we
were
to
do
anything
that
altered
the
our
existing
ordinance
with
that
one
foot
of
free
board
above
base
flood
elevation
right,
if
you
were
to
say
if
you
were
to
say
that
the
carve
out
was
took
it
all
the
way
back
to
base
flood
elevation.
J
That
would
that
would
remove
the
existing
points
as
long
as
you
as
long
as
you
only
do
more
protection
for
new
construction,
it
wouldn't
impact
the
existing
points.
Okay,
we
just
need
to
make
sure
the
language
is
appropriate,
but
it's.
The
method
of
doing
that
FEMA
has
indicated
informally
is,
is
approvable
right.
So.
B
B
O
Mr.
cheeley,
thank
you,
Thank
You,
mr.
mayor
I'm,
I'm
confused
a
little
bit
because
if
we
change
this
ordinance
to
where
the
existing
ordinance
now,
if,
if
we
take
the
other
perils
out
of
there,
are
we
not
changing
the
original
ordinance?
And
is
that
not
I
mean?
Does
it
put
us
in
any
jeopardy
because
we're
taking
those
perils
away?
So,
as.
J
Long
as
you
only
remove
the
additional
perils
for
better
use
of
a
term
from
the
additional
foot
of
elevation,
then
you're,
okay,
on
the
on
the
existing
as
long
as
those
perils
still
are
required
to
go
to
base
flood
elevation
plus
one
and
as
in
the
current
ordinance
that
coordinate
current
ordinance,
then
you
still
retain
the
points
for
that
work.
It
would
only
be
if
you
extended
that
carve
out
and
said
we're
gonna
take
those
back
to
base
flood
elevation
that
you
would
lose
the
points
gain
from
that:
okay
activity.
Okay,
so
this
isn't.
J
I
That's
go
stayed
the
same,
then
we're
creating
a
second
class.
That's
going
to
have
plus
two
only
applying
to
new
construction
and
only
applying
to
any
damage
outside
of
applying
the
damage.
Only
the
requires
from
a
flood
in
the
other
type
of
damage,
based
upon
an
improvement
or
based
upon
damage
from
a
hurricane
or
tornado
or
tree
falling
through,
is
not
going
to
apply.
I
Let
me
just
rephrase
this
so
I
make
sure
everybody's
clear
on
this
and
to
councilman
Griffin's
point.
If
we
do
nothing
and
we
don't
pass
plus
two,
we
were
at
plus
one
and
that
plus
one
regardless
of
the
nature
of
the
damage
or
regardless
of
the
improvement,
you've
got
to
build
your
house
or
fix
that
move,
that
house
up
to
a
standard
to
FEMA
standards,
plus
one
foot,
okay
and
then,
whatever
benefits
we
get
out
of
that,
we
keep.
I
If
we
carve
out
and
say
we're
going
to
go
to
plus
two
and
in
your
plus
two
except
poor,
some
damage,
that's
created
by
a
hurricane
or
tree,
fall
into
whatever.
Then
you've
got
to
maintain
the
plus
one
of
the
damage,
no
matter
how
it
happened
or
the
improvement,
no
matter
how
it
happened.
So
you're
creating
two
issue:
are
you
creating
two?
That's
what
you
said
he's
creating
two
classes.
I
Because
that's
what
he's
trying
to
explain
to
us
we've
got
to
maintain
the
benefits
to
maintain
the
benefits
plus
of
what
happens
to
you,
how
home
you've
got
to
maintain
that
no
matter
what
happened,
what
caused
the
damage
that
you
keep
it
at
the
current
level
that
we're
all
right
now!
So
that's
what
I
heard
him
say
and
if
I'm
wrong
with
that
correctly.
Yes,.
J
J
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
B
It's
it's
different.
I
would
respectfully
say
that
that
we
need
to
keep
the
20%
insurance
discount
in
place.
I
mean
I,
understand
we're
trying
to
protect
those
who
might
have
another
parallel
to
to
protect
them
from
having
the
Rays
at
home
and
there's
certain
dollars
exposure
there,
but
the
immediate
exposure
people
to
lose
their
discount
on
the
existing
know.
What
we
got
right
now
would
be
immediate,
it's
you'll
be
all
in
I'm.
B
The
real
purpose
is
just
to
protect
our
property
long-term
from
flooding
the
higher
we
build,
the
better
off
we're
going
to
be
with
increased
extreme
weather,
rain
bombs
and
sea
level.
So
if
you're
building
something
new
today-
and
you
expect
your
house
to
last
40
or
50
years,
where
we're
expecting
a
2
to
3
foot
level
2
to
3
foot
rise
in
sea
level.
C
Omit
the
discussion,
the
difference
really
is
no
new
construction.
Everything
you
spoke
about.
This
now
was
new
construction.
I.
Think
100%
of
us
agree
on
a
new
construction.
Certainly
overwhelming
majority
has
agreed
on
new
construction
right,
but
we
have
a
ton
of
homes
and
you
know
certainly
called
out
low
to
moderate-income
people,
because
I
have
a
lot
of
that
in
might
in
my
district,
but
virtually
everybody
that
has
a
house
on
a
slab.
That's
been
built
since
FEMA,
plus
one
went
into
being
in
the
city
of
Charleston.
Almost
everybody
would
fall
into
this
risk.
C
B
C
It's
really
the
existing
homes
that
we
talked
about
in
the
part
that
frankly,
I
find
hard
to
grasp.
Mr.
fountain
is
that
this
proposal
doesn't
cost
the
National
Flood
Insurance
Program
one
painting,
not
one
penny,
because
if
you
have
damage
from
another
peril
again
fire
when
tree
damage
earthquake
the
National
Flood
Insurance
then
doesn't
pay
a
penny
of
that
clean,
not
one
painting
that
claims,
so
it
doesn't
expose
them
to
any
additional
financial
risk
at
all.
That's
why
mr.
C
Muir
and
I
brought
it
up
and
I
know
you
think
it's
a
jab
at
you,
but
I
agree
with
you
when
we
spoke
about-
and
this
is
what
Councilman
Griffin
was
talking
about,
keeping
it
at
FEMA
plus
one.
You
said
they
already
in
that
trap.
That's
right
and
I
agree.
Listen,
that's
not
a
jab
at
the
men.
These
homeowners
are
already
in
the
trap
in
that
risk,
and
we
put
him
there
not
FEMA
City,
Council
and
I
voted
for
that.
C
C
We
only
concentrated
believe
me.
I
will
finish
in
a
second,
so
Jackson,
okay,
we
only
talked
about
flooding,
and
here
we
are
five
years
later
talking
about
flooding
and
we
talk
about
and
I
say
this
respectfully
I
thought
about
what
Councilman
seeking
said
at
the
last
meeting.
He
said
you
know
what
we
make
decisions
all
the
time
about
people's
in
their
homes,
but
we
don't
make
decisions
that
could
subsequently
displace
communities,
and
it
is
not.
C
If
we
have
another
storm
is
when
we
have
another
major
storm
hit:
Charleston
many
of
the
people
who
were
able
to
repair
their
homes
in
place
after
Hugo,
under
that
under
the
FEMA
plus
two
would
not
have
been
able
to
do
that
and
when
I
asked
mr.
Joker
at
the
last
Public
Works
meeting,
what
did
the
city
use
as
a
standard
to
determine
50%
damage
the
moment
he
said
the
county
assessed
value.
Everybody
in
this
room
knows
the
county
assessed
value
is
a
low
value
and
I'd
also
asked
them.
C
Do
they
subtract
up
the
land
value?
He
said
yes
well
by
the
time
used
to
track
up.
Let's
man,
you
told
me
that
the
land
that
the
house
that
you
live
in
it's
worth
more
than
your
home,
your
home
than
the
actual
structure,
the
dwelling.
So
if
this
subtracted
out
the
value
of
the
land,
that
means
frankly
its
economic
discrimination,
you
will
be
able.
The
claim
will
be
able
to
hit
that
fifty
percent
threshold
faster
in
the
moderate
income
areas,
then
certainly
an
area
on
at
the
battle.
C
Frankly,
if
you
have
a
multi-million
dollar
home,
if
you've
got
a
full
million
dollar
home
you're
gonna
have
to
have
damages
in
the
millions
to
be
able
to
hit
substantial
damage.
But
if
you
have
a
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollar
house-
and
fifty
thousand
of
that
is
land
and
the
reason
out,
that's
not
out
the
line.
C
I
actually
had
MLS
do
a
search
from
the
Ashley
River
bridges
to
wall
pool
bridge
to
the
North
bridge,
all
the
way
to
Mark
Clark
expressway
for
vacant
lots
50
unless
one
of
them
popped
up
one
lot
for
$50,000
less.
So
if
you
subtract
50,000
from
the
house
that
assessed
at
a
150,000,
if
you
sustained
damage
of
fifty
one
thousand
dollars
of
fifty
thousand
one
dollar,
you
had
substantial
damage.
You're
gonna
have
to
lift
that
home
and
the
numbers
that
have
been
put
out
to
the
public.
C
Now
the
newspaper
is
done
a
better
job
recently,
but
they
took
your
talking
points
mister
me
and
mr.
Joker.
They
came
up
with
that
one
thousand
there,
twenty
four
hundred
dollars
to
lift
a
house,
one
foot
now
in
subsequent
articles
they've,
said
going
up
to
as
much
as
a
hundred
thousand
dollars.
But
when
you
it
is
a,
it
is
a
peril.
C
Frankly
that
we
on
the
2014
council,
put
thousands
of
homeowners
in
and
to
say
that
we're
gonna
do
nothing
to
help,
take
them
out
for
a
5
percent
discount,
maybe
on
the
flood
insurance
and
nobody
has
calculated.
If
you
increase
the
building
costs,
homeowners
insurance
will
go
up
and
you
know
that
homeowners
insurance
will
go
up
yeah,
you
may
get
a
discount
on
the
flood,
but
if
you
cover
more
perils,
more
risk
than
shura
has
to
get
the
money
from
someplace
and
you
get
that
from
premiums
so
I.
Throw
that
out.
C
Put
extra
considerations
may
affect
you
got
people
around.
Virtually
everybody
on
this
council
is
in
that
category
I
mean,
maybe
maybe
one,
maybe
you
know
you
in
that
category
too
cuz
you
not
a
FEMA
bus
to
everybody
around.
This
council
would
be
subject
to
having
a
potentially
raised
a
home
if
they
had
substantial
damage
from
another
parallel.
So
the
easiest
thing
to
do
is
not
fix
the
problem,
because
the
people
didn't
understand
what
we
did
to
him
in
2014,
because
we
didn't
have
the
extended
conversation
about
what
if
something
happens,
other
than
flooding.
Thank
you.
F
I
think
we
had.
We
had
such
a
good,
comprehensive
presentation
for
mr.
Joe
a
few
months
ago,
and
you
know
I
wish
I
most
of
the
details.
But
what
what
we're
not
talking
about
are
the
homes
that
the
majority
of
the
homes
in
in
our
city
are
insured.
We
have
property
casualty
coverage,
so
if
you
have
a
peril,
that's
not
blood-related
and
you
have
to
you
know,
replace
your
house
from
a
fire,
but
the
insurance
company
is
going
to
require
you
to
go
to
the
to
the
flood
zone
height
and
they
will
cover
it.
F
It's
a
it's
a
replacement
cost
now,
maybe
some
people
don't
have
replacement
cost
for
their
insurance?
Maybe
some
people
are,
you
know
not
choosing
to
pay
that
at
that
premium.
But
what
we're
talking
about
now,
if
we
decided
to
change
the
plus
one
ordinance
and
separate
out
the
other
perils
everyone
who
buys
flood
insurance,
you
know,
as
responsible
stewards
in
the
whole
city
would
lose
their
20%.
So
now
we're
not
talking
about
just
not
taking
on
they're
giving
people.
The
five
percent
we're
talking
about
going
backward
and
put
any
more
people
at
risk.
F
I
know
that
mr.
Dalton
had
found
his
statistics
about
how
many
people
you
know
that
were
eligible
for
flood
insurance
in
a
special
flood
hazard
area
zone
were
not
covered
and
it's
a
small
percentage.
So
we
can't
we
can't
take
away
people's
opportunity
to
pay
for
their
flood
insurance
and
get
the
discount
that
our
community
has
put
the
points
together
to
give
them
today.
F
L
Believe
it
was
the
great
poet
Winnie
the
Pooh
that
once
said
every
once
in
a
while
the
best,
something
is
to
do
nothing
now.
I
agree
with
you
to
do
nothing
in
the
sense
of
this
entire
topic
is
the
wrong
thing
to
do,
but
to
make
a
decision
tonight,
I'm
not
saying
we
should
defer
it
I'm
saying
we
should
table
it
altogether.
L
For
now,
we've
got
four
months,
at
least
until
they
come
visit,
and
we
need
to
see
some
numbers
I
want
to
sit
down
and
look
at
a
value
of
a
home
and
actually
go
through
some
math
about
how
much
we're
saving
at
20%
what
we
would
save.
If
we
took
some
things
back
from
plus
one
and
we
would
still
get
a
discount,
it
may
not
be
20%
but
I
believe
there's
a
15%
discount
instead
of
the
20.
We
need
to
look
at
that.
We
need
to
look
at
what
we're
at
now.
L
L
But
we
maybe
we
need
to
have
a
workshop
with
some
people
from
the
community
that
do
this
sort
of
thing
to
actually
talk
some
numbers,
because
I
want
to
see
whether
or
not
we're
actually
saving
people
money.
By
going
up.
You
know
you
say
that
we're
doing
it
right,
sea
level
rise,
I
get
that,
but
the
whole
premise
of
this
when
this
whole
thing
started
was
hey,
we've
got
it.
L
We've
got
a
meeting
here
and
we
want
to
get
to
twenty-five
percent,
and
these
are
easy
points
that
was,
it
was
not
your
idea
of
hey
you
sea
level
rise
and
we're
going
to
do
this
and
do
that.
That
was
not
what
what
the
reason
was
when
we
were
approached
in
the
beginning
of
this,
so
I
think
we
had
the
wrong
idea.
When
we
first
started
out,
we
were
looking
for
an
easy
way
to
get
up
5%
but
5%
compared
to
what
the
alternatives
are
and
what
insurance
is
you
could
be
lacking.
L
You
may
be,
there
could
be
a
detrimental
thing
to
not
only
one
person
but
to
an
entire
family,
an
entire
lineage
of
people.
They
could
lose
their
home
forever.
Somebody
who's
been
in
a
home
for
a
hundred
years,
but
doesn't
live
downtown.
They
could
lose
their
home
forever
because
they're
never
going
to
get
a
variance.
Their
chances
of
that
is
zero,
never
been
one
in
the
city
west
of
the
Ashley
and
I,
don't
see
one
coming
so
we've
got
to
do
a
better
job,
getting
all
of
the
facts
and
and
crunching
some
actual
numbers.
L
We
had
that
insurance
guy
come
one
time,
but
I
wasn't
totally
sold
on
that.
I
really
wasn't.
He
said
the
right
things,
but
you
know
what.
Why
would
why
would
I
buy
his
opinion
over
my
comrade
on
council
who's
been
in
a
a
insurance
agent
for
years
and
years
and
he's
he's
got
some
things
he's
worried
about
and
I
gotta
trust
them
on.
That
we've
got
some
serious
issues
here
and
we
don't
need
to
be
doing
this
for
the
points.
Q
Q
Let's
see,
I
mean
let's
go
back
to
what
a
very
simple
picture
of
what
I'm,
what
I'm,
trying
to
tell
you
here
by
doing
that
I
this
thing
definitely
says
and
less
substantial
improvements
or
results
of
an
event
other
than
flooding
and
therefore
are
exempt
from
the
increase
of
elevation
from
1
foot
2
to
3.
That's
what
we've
got
on
that's
on
the
second
reading.
My
question:
yes,
are
you
200%
sure
that
your
recitation
of
the
points
and
all
of
this
good
stuff,
and
and
who
is
actually
that
who's
the
culprit
here?
Q
J
So
DNR
is
the
state
agency
that
is
in
charge
of
implementing
the
National
Flood
Insurance
Program
at
the
state
level,
so
delegated
authority
from
the
federal
government
DNR
has
sent
a
formal
letter
saying
they
have
concerns
that
FEMA
would
potentially
challenge
the
ordinance
language
that
that
is
the
only
thing
we
have
this
point:
there's
no
certainty
or
guarantee.
It
is
not
a
letter
from
FEMA.
That's
why
we've
been
reaching
out
to
FEMA
trying
to
get
confirmation,
I,
believe
phone
we've
talked
with
him
about.
There
is
an
approach
where
you
could
do
it.
J
We've
asked
FEMA
a
couple
of
months
ago:
FEMA
tends
to
prefer
that
you
send
them
recommended
language
and
that's
what
we've
kind
of
come
back
at
that
point.
Of
course
we
tabled
this
discussion
for
the
referendum
discussion
and
we
haven't
advanced
the
other
discussion
because
we've
been
working
on
the
referendum
discussion
at
this
point.
It
wasn't
where
we
were
going
to
bring
this
back
up
or
also
what,
if
we
would
have
continued
that
approach.
I'm.
J
P
Can
can
I
ask
the
attorney
something
real
quick
about
this.
This
draft
because
is
I.
Read
it
okay,
ed
eliminates
it
eliminates
the
one
fee,
no,
no
I'm.
How
I
read
it
now,
you
may
read
it
differently.
Okay,
it
eliminates
the
one
feet.
One
feet
is
not
not
mention
anywhere
in
here:
okay,
so
one
one
foot
relevant
right
right,
one
foot
so
so
the
way
I'm
reading
this
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
that
distinction
that
we
just
kind
of
explained:
okay,
that's
it
for
the
one
foot,
any
peril
will
require
XYZ.
P
K
That
says
that
the
increase
from
one
foot
to
two
feet
applies
only
to
structures
damaged
as
a
result
of
flooding,
but
I
don't
see
where
we
actually
preserved
the
one
foot
and
what
paragraph
above
it
so
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
really
look
at
this
strap.
This
is
the
first
time
I'm
really
looking
at
it
too.
So
we
may
need
to
do
some
more
work
on.
B
In
Section
four
little
letter,
I
little
number
I,
it
says
in
in
bold
print
underlined
unless
a
substantial
improvement
to
the
existing
and
manufactured
home
is
a
result
of
an
event
other
than
flooding
and
therefore
is
exempt
from
the
increase
of
elevation
from
one
to
two
foot
feet.
So
it's
preserving
the
one
foot
and.
B
A
C
Need
to
do
something
for
legal
staff,
because
it's
so
much
work
on
this
to
get
it
in
for
the
day,
but
beyond
that,
I
don't
have
any
problem
deferring
it,
because,
hopefully
we're
gonna
come
back
and
finish
it
right.
I
deferred
it
to
get
letters
from
the
DNR
and
the
National
Flood
Insurance
Program,
but
that
has
not
really
materialized.
This
should
be
decided
on
prior
to
the
next
election.
Okay,
it
will
all
due
deference.
We
talked
about
insurance
discounts,
we're
in
the
middle
of
hurricane
season.
C
Right
now
we
coming
up
on
a
30th
anniversary
of
Hugo.
What's
that
September
twenty
seconds
thirty
years
since
we
had
a
direct
hit
and
that
wasn't
quite
a
direct
hit
if
a
hurricane
were
to
hit
right
now,
these
people
that
are
in
jeopardy
that
we
talked
about
could
not
repair
their
houses
in
place
as
they
did
30
years
ago.
They
could
not
do
it.
Okay,
and
what
you're
going
to
see
I
brought
up
the
example
about
Anson
Baron
Anson
Bar
was
flooded,
doing
Hugo.
A
E
C
A
different
plan
put
in
place:
we
can
go
out
and
enjoy
the
plan
right
now
we
walk
around,
get
some
ballpark
to
condos,
etc.
That
could
happen
to
South
Pine
Point
autumn,
or
that
could
happen
to
burns
down.
That
could
happen
to
the
Moreland
area
that
could
happen
to
South
Windham
in
everything.
It
could
happen
to
gas
in
green
and
we
got
to
do
nothing
about
it.
C
C
We
would
act
right
now,
kicking
the
can
down
the
road.
Let's
not
act,
so
I'll
defer
it
to
the
August
meeting,
I.
Think
staff
for
the
putting
all
this,
because
I
think
we
could
have
put
that
on
the
referendum
and
the
whole
purpose
was
to
elevate
the
level
of
this
conversation
for
more
people
in
the
city
of
Charleston,
because
they
need
to
know
what's
happening
today.
Homes
and
I
tell
you
that
one
other
thing
that
I
need
to
bring
up
and
I
spoke
to
Council
about
yesterday.
C
Briefly
Tuesday
we
had
meeting
at
CPW
and
believe
it
or
not.
They
brought
this
up,
as
do
you
realize.
If
we
have
a
major
hurricane
and
CPW
gets
swamped,
then
they
go
have
to
come
into
new
building
requirements.
So
that
means,
while
we
try
to
get
our
essential
services
back
up
our
building
permit
department's
not
going
to
give
them
a
permit
to
get
the
water
and
sewer
back
on
line.
C
That's
a
highly
capitalized
business.
You
all
may
remember:
we've
just
approved
thank
129
million
dollars
in
refinancing
I.
Think
it
was.
Was
it
mr.
Joker
council,
lady
that
we
spoke
to
was
a
floodplain
manager?
That
said
we're
gonna
hold
them
to
a
higher
standard.
Well,
if
you're
trying
to
get
his
sense
of
services
back
up,
we've
been
here
doing
Hugo
what
happens?
The
fleet
of
utility
trucks
come
in
from
other
neighbors
and
States
trying
to
help
us
the
military
came
in
and
we
were
glad
to
see
him.
C
Can
you
imagine
if
our
water
and
sewers
services
had
to
go
through
and
apply
for
building
permits
and
approvals
through
CRM
and
DHEC
before
we
get
sewer
services
in
line?
What
was
told
to
me
is
that
things
will
be
getting
to
back
up.
Our
system
wouldn't
be
equipped
to
handle
it.
Sewage
would
be
beginning
to
back
up
in
homes.
Restaurants,
hotels,
bars.
C
We
have
not
thought
this
through,
so
there's
more
to
think
about
and
you're
right
more
people
is
in.
That
would
be
an
advice
and
that
peril
that
we
all
now
know
more
about
than
we
did
when
they
were
first
brought
to
us.
So
let's
defer
it
to
the
August
meeting
that
we
got
homework
to
do.
Councilman
is.
P
F
F
We
don't
know
when
so
III
think
we
just.
We
need
to
stop
piecemealing
this
and
it
counts.
I'm
over
wearing
I
I
know,
I
I
know
I'm
a
thorn
in
your
side
about
all
of
this
I
am
what
what
bothers
me
in
our
discussion
is
that
we
have
the
base
elevation,
no
matter
what,
if
any
houses,
if
Anson
burrow
was,
you
know
washed
over
and
needed
to
be
reclaimed
again,
they
would
start
at
the
base
elevation
and-
and
so
we
can't
get
rid
of
that-
that's
that's
a
federal!
You
know.
Zoning
requirement.
C
F
L
B
Favor
of
deferring,
please
say,
aye
any
opposed
you
guys
have.
No.
So
that's
the
added
item
to
our
agenda.
We
now
have
the
resolution
regarding
the
referendum.
Can
I
entertain
a
motion
to
withdraw
all
in
favor?
Please
say
aye
any
opposed
the
eyes.
Have
it.
We
had
a
committee
chairman
of
the
Audit
Committee
is
left,
but
I
would
assume
yes,
that
the
same
report
that
he
gave
it
Ways
and
Means
Committee
stands.