►
Description
City of Charleston Committee on Public Works and Utilities 2/22/21
A
A
D
A
Me
too,
but
it's
good
to
have
it
behind
you,
oh
yeah,
you
do
feel
a
sense
of
it
should
seem
like
you
won
some
award
or
something
after
you
yeah
this
idea,
because
I
don't
know
about
you
all.
It
seems
like
more
people
are
getting
this
thing.
Who
were
trying
to
take
the
proper
precautions,
people
wearing
the
masks
and
safe
distancing,
and
you
know
somehow
coming
across
it.
I
mean
my
my
son-in-law
recently
had
it.
A
D
A
F
A
A
Well,
let's
do
this,
let's
call
the
meeting
the
order
and
let's
buy
our
heads
for
a
word
of
prayer,
I'll,
say
generally
father
as
we
come
before
you.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
many
blessings
that
you
provide,
knowing
that
it
doesn't
have
to
be
done,
but
through
your
amazing
grace,
you
provide
for
me
so
much.
A
Thank
you
for
all
leadership
in
the
country,
our
state
and
our
city.
Thank
you
for
the
staff
that
doing
this
covert
environment.
Now
greater
than
a
year
we've
been
able
to
operate
this
city
above
and
beyond.
In
so
many
departments,
and
please
let
them
know
from
the
department
heads
to
recent
hires.
Let
them
know
that
they
appreciate
it
very
much.
A
We
pray
for
those
less
fortunate
and
do
what
we
can,
as
as
believers
and
your
word
help
things
better
for
them
and
we
pray
for
those
in
harms
way
in
the
military
fight
to
protect
us
and
keep
our
way
of
life
watch
out
for
them
and
their
families.
These
prayers,
we
ask
for,
in
your
name,
let
us
all
say,
amen,
amen.
All
right.
We
got
a
group
of
minutes
to
approve
of
december
14th
january
11th
january,
25th
and
february
8th.
What's.
A
That's
probably
moved,
and
hopefully
you
have
a
second
second,
probably
moving
seconded
any
questions
on
those
minutes.
Hearing
that
all
in
favor
would
you
please
say:
hi
hi,
any
opposed
all
right,
councilman
shahid
welcome.
We
just
started
the
meeting
and
just
approved
the
minute.
So
that's
where
we
are
on
the
agenda
item
c
said
a
public
hearing.
H
D
H
H
A
H
All
right,
let
me
let
me
see
if
I
can
share
a
different
screen,
then
okay
and
then
so
this
is
charleston
county
gis.
This
is
the
property
that
we're
looking
at.
That's
that's
floyd
drive,
that's
the
area,
that'll
be
abandoned
and
this
will
be.
You
can
kind
of
see
where
it
roads
coming
in
there
and
then
this
will
be
the.
H
H
But
really
the
request
today
is
just
to
set
a
public
hearing
to
close
and
abandon
that
little
cul-de-sac
at
floyd
drive
once
the
dedication
process.
The
the
subdivision
of
that
plat
I
showed
you
previously
is
completed.
The
other
area
floyd
drive
will
be
dedicated
to
the
city,
we're
going
to
deed
to
that
and
then
a
drainage
easement
associated
with
it
and
they'll
they'll
take
back
this
portion
of
fully
drive.
A
D
H
G
Yes,
sir,
this
really
isn't
the
time
or
place
to
talk
about
this,
but
I
will
tell
you
that
at
some
point
as
this
these
projects
go
through
the
pipeline.
There's
a
there's,
a
lot
of
resistance
from
the
community
out
there
a
lot
talking
about
high
density
development
in
an
area
that
is
has
a
choke
hold
for
traffic,
and
I
have
yet
to
hear
from
the
developer
on
this
I'm
going
to
try
to
reach
out
to
them
personally.
G
But
you
know
myself
and
councilmember
I
mean
sheila
and
councilmember
brady.
We
all
have
to
be
very
aware
of
this,
because
you
know
just
in
the
last
couple
years,
they've
built
very
high
density
and
by
giving
them
this
easement
it's
going
to
allow
them
to
really
make
that
property
more
valuable
and
eventually
build
a
heck
of
a
lot
more
out
there.
G
The
widening
of
glenn
mcconnell,
obviously
is
going
to
be
a
big
help,
but
you
know
that's
still
a
couple
of
years
away
and
you
know
they're
actively
working
on
the
widening
of
glenn
mcconnell,
but
we
have
seen
between
this
proposed
development,
that's
coming
and
then
the
expansions
of
carolina
bay.
That
area,
along
with
bolton,
landing
and
everything
that's
come
through
there
in
the
last
five
years
or
so
has
created
quite
a
traffic
impediment.
So
we
just
have
to
be
careful
there.
You
know
obviously
public
hearing,
that's
great.
We
want.
G
We
want
the
public
to
be
able
to
be
a
part
of
this
conversation,
but
I
can
promise
you
guys
that
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
pushback
against
the
future
of
that
road,
because
I
mean
I
went
from
a
just
a
red,
a
road
that
was
a
dead
end,
that
truckers
were
parking
their
trucks
on
overnight
next
to
the
walmart.
To
now
it
is
a
sprawling
community,
so
just
be
aware
that
that's
going
to
be
something
that
definitely
isn't
going
to
end
with
this
discussion
today,
thanks.
H
H
I
was
just
going
to
wearing
if
I
could
just
clarify
sort
of
so
really.
We
have
a
duty
to
maintain
this
little
cul-de-sac
here
and
all
we're
doing
we're
giving
up
the
duty
to
maintain
and
they're
getting
the
property
back
they're,
giving
us
the
0.76
acres,
which
will
actually
I
mean
they
can
do
that
anyway.
But
I
mean
they
don't.
H
E
C
A
C
A
C
The
road
every
time
we
we
we
install
a
fence
on
a
drainage
agent.
Our
inspector
meets
out
there
with
a
member
of
matt
fountain's,
stormwater
maintenance.
We
make
sure
that
there
are
not
going
to
be
any,
they
don't
cover
up
the
inlets
and
if
there's
a
swell,
we
make
that-
and
we
also
have
even
had
in
the
past
if
they
start
maintenance,
if
they
find
out.
There
is
an
issue,
you
know
the
encroachment
agreement
says
they
have
to
remove
the
fences
and
we
will
write
them
a
letter
and
state
that
okay.
A
G
Yes,
sir,
yes,
this
is
an
ordinance
that
I
proposed
back
in
19
and
the
our
staff
came
up
with
a
an
abbreviated
sort
of
blanket
ordinance
that
was
city-wide.
It
got
through
first
reading
unanimously,
and
then
it
sat
as
deferred
item
for
several
months
when
this
was
brought
back
up
at
council.
I
think
that
the
last
meeting
I
said
that
I
would
bring
it
back
up
and
start
over.
G
What
can
we
do
to
just
get
a
a
big
limit
on
development
in
very
low-lying
areas,
especially
in
wetlands?
You
know.
Obviously,
we've
spent
a
lot
of
money
over
these
past
three
and
a
half
years
on
studies,
a
lot
of
money-
and
I
thought
this
was
some
low
hanging
fruit
that
we
could
get
something
on
the
books,
especially
in
john's
island
church
creek
were
directly
mentioned
in
the
dutch
dialogues
charleston
report
several
times.
G
You
know
they
came
up
with
elevation
categories.
I
I
literally
took
this
straight
from
the
dutch
dialogue,
so
this
is
just
a
first
reading.
I
would
hope
that
we
could
get
this
out
of
committee
and
get
it
in
front
of
council
and
if
we
could
get
it
past
the
first
reading,
then
we
certainly
could
maybe
figure
out.
You
know,
get
a
lot
more
feedback
from
our
all
of
our
different
partners
on
what
they
think,
but
with
everybody
I've
shared
it
to
so
far.
G
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
common
sense
reasoning
for
why
we
would
not
build
in
very
low
elevations
in
church,
creek
and
john's
island.
So
that's
why
I
brought
it
up.
I
hope
everybody
got
a
chance
to
read
it
open
for
all
feedback,
and
hopefully
we
can
get
it
out
of
this
committee
and
get
it
in
front
of
the
full
council.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
remember
when
we
were
discussing
this
fact
back
seems
like
a
couple
years
ago,
but
as
mentioned
earlier,
we
have
done
through
several
studies
and
around
this
time
that
this
was
coming
forward.
We
were
in
the
middle
of
revising
our
stormwater
manual
and
I
think
that
we
also
adopted
the
dutch
dialogues
as
part
of
that
stormwater
manual
as
well.
My
concern
with
this
ordinance-
and
I
read
it
again
after
I
received
it
from
councilmember
griffin-
was
how
was
going
to
come
into
conflict
with
that
stormwater
manual
revision.
D
It
included
engineers,
lawyers
folks
from
our
stakeholders,
from
I
think,
department
of
natural
resources,
the
office
of
ocrm
and
several
other
state
agencies
and
council
I
mean
mr
fowler
could
probably
supplement
many
people.
I've
left
off
on
that
list,
folks
from
planning
department,
were
all
there
as
as
well.
D
My
concern
with
this
ordinance
is
that
it's
it's
going
to
come
into
conflict,
I'm
afraid,
with
parts
of
that
school
coming
to
complete
parts
of
that
strong
word
of
manual
that
we've
adopted
as
an
ordinance
and
that's
my
my
main
concern
with,
I
think
the
simplicity
of
it.
I
understand
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here
and
I
think
it
got
narrowed
down
to
specific
areas
within
the
city
boundaries,
but
maybe
mr
fountain
can
address
some
of
my
concerns
as
to
how
this
may
come
into
conflict
with
our
stonewort
emanuel
in
the
dutch
dialogues.
A
A
F
Sounds
good,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
and
harry.
I
appreciate
you
putting
this
together.
I
think
this
is
a
big
part
of
our
job
is
putting
together.
You
know,
proposed
legislation
and
and
working
through
the
process
and
start
off.
By
saying
I
mean
I
am
in
full
agreement
that
we
should
not
be
building
and
developing
in
ecologically
fragile
systems,
whether
it
be
on
you
know,
church
creek
or
on
james
island
or
john's
island
or
kane
hoy
or
wherever
the
case
may
be.
That's
not
a
good
way
to
develop.
F
If,
for
no
other
reason
than
to
just
have
a
more
kind
of
you
know,
that's
where
the
regulations
on
phil
are
right
now
and
whether
we
need
to
dial
that
up
a
few
clicks,
that's
that's
the
most.
You
know
I
guess
natural
place
for
these
amendments
to
go
as
opposed
to
sort
of
a
you
know,
a
general
portion
of
our
code,
and
you
know
on
the
legal
side
of
things.
F
I
just
think
we
need
to
be
cautious
of
how
very
strict
development
regulations
like
this
could
impact
property
rights
and
entitlements
and
and
people
that
are
at
various
points
through
the
development
review
process,
especially
folks
that
have
picked
up
vested
rights.
I
think
it's
that's
an
interesting
legal
question.
F
F
We
say
that
we
don't
want
development
to
take
place
in
inappropriate
places
right
the
way
you
would
you
do
that
through
best
practices,
in
my
opinion,
is
to
attack
that
head-on
through
zoning
right
I
mean
zoning,
tells
you
what
you
can
build
and
where,
where
you
can't
build
and
how
much
you
can
build
and
things
of
that
nature.
You
know
what
we're
talking
about
when
we
talk
about
fill
regulations
and
things
of
those
lines,
that
is
some
very
technical
code
related
stuff,
I
mean,
in
other
words
you
can
have
a
situation
here.
F
If
you
don't
align
your
zoning
with
your
code,
technical
requirements
such
as
you
know,
stormwater
manual,
you
can
get
into
a
situation
where
the
zoning
is
saying,
go,
go,
go,
go
we're
allowing
all
this
density,
we're
allowing
all
this
development
come
on
developers
develop
here,
but
then
they
reach
trc,
and
then
it's
no
fill
right.
So
I'm
not
saying
that
this
is
what
I
guess
what
I'm
suggesting
is.
We
can
address
a
lot
of
this
earlier
in
the
in
the
development
review
process
from
a
zoning
perspective,
and
it's
my
understanding.
F
You
know
I
haven't
checked
in
with
our
planning
staff,
and
you
know
the
comp
plan,
but
you
know
when
I
talked
to
jacob
about
this
a
while
back,
we
were
talking
about
overlay
zones
based
on
hydrological
features,
down
zoning.
You
know
low-lying
areas,
up-zoning
upland
areas,
that's
an
example
of
how
we
can.
We
can
put
some
of
these
zoning
measures
into
place
and
then,
lastly,
what
I
would
say
is
that
is
in
terms
of
designated
which
areas
of
the
of
the
city
these
rules
would
apply
to.
F
I
think
we
have
to
do
sort
of
an
all
or
nothing
approach,
because
what
I
don't
want
to
have
happen
is
we
place
very
strict
regulations
on
john's
island
in
church
creek,
which
incentivizes,
perhaps
poorly
conceived,
development
in
west
ashley,
james,
island
and
canal.
I
think
we,
if
we're
going
to
do
it,
we're
going
to
need
to
do
it
and
apply
a
consistent
set
of
rules,
city-wide
based
upon
the
satisfaction
of
some
objective,
hydrological
or
ecological,
or
you
know,
elevation
related
criteria,
but
I
think
this
is
a
good
start.
F
I
think
this
is
an
important
issue.
We
don't
need
to
be
developing
in
poor
places
way
out
into
the
hinterlands
it
it's
it's
negative
from
our
traffic
infrastructure
standpoint,
it's
negative
from
a
flooding
standpoint,
it's
negative
from
extension
of
city
services.
Standpoint
I
mean
I
can
go
on
and
on
and
on
this,
it's
not
a
good
thing
to
be
doing.
We
need
to
be
putting
our
development
and
our
density
along
existing
corridors
within
urban
areas.
That's
the
way
to
do
it
in
the
21st
century,
but
good
start.
F
A
E
E
We
had
just
studied
those
particular
areas,
but
if,
if
there's
a
a
good
proposal
to
come
forward,
I
would
concur
that
it
should
apply
everywhere
now,
when,
when
councilmember
griffin,
when
you
first
brought
this
matter
forward
some
time
ago,
it
it
ended
up
kind
of
getting
put
on
the
shelf.
As
you
know,
and
and
the
main
reason
was,
we
had
incorporated
a
lot
of
improvements
to
our
stormwater
manual
that
went
in
effect.
E
You
know
shortly
thereafter
about
the
same
time,
and
not
coincidentally,
number
two
on
our
agenda
here
is
to
discuss
the
process
of
updating
that
stormwater
manual
so,
and
mr
fountain
will
share
more
information
with
with
us
about
that.
So
so
some
of
those
items
that
were
areas
of
concern
that
were
raised
got
addressed
by
the
stormwater
manual.
Can
it
be
improved
upon
further?
I
believe
it
can
and
we
we.
E
We
should
continue
that
discussion
now
and
thirdly,
I
wanted
to
again
council
member
pell
brought
this
up,
but
how
do
we
best
address
the
issue
city
wide
and
and
and
that's
through
zoning?
I
concur-
and
I
don't
think
we've
shared
yet,
but
we
will
in
the
very
near
future
the
analysis
that
was
done
by
our
same
dutch
dialogues
partners
as
part
of
our
comprehensive
plan
review
we'll
be
bringing
that
forward
to
the
planning,
commission
and
the
council
in
the
next
few
weeks.
E
I
believe
and
you'll
see
again
it's
not
just
church,
creek
and
john's
island,
but
it's
city-wide,
wherever
you're,
really
near
water,
that
you
have
this
issue
of
marsh
encroachment
as
sea
level
rise
continues,
and
so
so
the
thought
of
changing
a
policy
again,
I
I
think
will
will
will
be
city
what
should
be
citywide
and
to
put
it
in
a
nutshell,
it's
basically
this
try
to
stay
away
from
the
water
and
build
and
develop
on
the
high
ground.
I
mean
it's
it,
it's
common
sense.
E
So
how
do
you
get
there
by
by
zoning
changes
by
additional
improvements
to
the
stormwater
manual
and
perhaps
by
even
building
code
requirements
that
get
specific?
But
but
what
I
do
fear,
even
though
this
is
a
great
a
vehicle
for
us
to
have
this
discussion
and
make
the
necessary
additional
changes
in
the
direction.
I
believe
we've
already
been
heading
is,
is
to
have
a
blanket.
E
You
know,
one
one
size
fits
all
and
I'll
give
you
an
example.
So
so
say
I
owned
a
piece
of
property
in
the
ecologic
zone,
which
is
from
6
to
10
feet
above
sea
level,
and
I
did
a
storm
water
management
plan
for
my
property.
It
included
not
only
appropriate
engineered
drainage
but
appropriate
mitigation
of
storing
storm
water
on
my
site
and
everything
I
was
doing
everything
right,
but
I
needed
a
cubic
yard
of
fill
over
here
to
to
make
things
work
out.
E
But
with
my
engineering
plan
in
place,
I
don't
have
any
negative
impact
not
only
on
my
neighbors,
but
anybody
in
that
drainage
basin,
so
to
have
a
blanket
one.
Size
fits
all
really
denies
that
person
their
their
property
rights
to
develop
the
property
in
a
in
a
very
thoughtful
and
appropriate
fashion.
E
So
I
I
I
get
the
the
message
and-
and
I
actually
I
concur-
that
we
need
to
be
careful
about
where
we're
building,
I
think
we're
heading
that
direction.
But,
honestly,
I
think
we
need
to
approach
it
through
further
refinement
of
the
stormwater
manual
through
zoning
changes
that
will
be
recommended
in
our
comprehensive
plan
and
even
looking
at
our
building
requirements
as
well.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
G
Just
to
answer
a
couple
of
the
questions
that
have
been
raised
first,
mr
mayor,
your
example
is
a
great
one
and
that
would
be
covered
by
the
section
of
the
ordinance
that
states
that,
if
an
exemption
needs
to
be
granted
that
it
would
come
before
the
public
works
and
utilities
committee,
so
there
there
can
be
exemptions,
but
it
just.
This
would
obviously
be
the
majority
of
the
properties.
But
your
example
is
a
great
one
in
terms
of
what
councilmember
shea
had
said.
G
So
a
lot
of
these
questions
that
you're
asking
I
did
put
that
into
this
proposed
ordinance.
But,
more
importantly,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
my
intentions
are
a.
I
represent
a
district
where
I
have
people
that
literally
couldn't
live
in
their
homes
for
years,
because
they
were
flooded
out
repeatedly.
Every
single
year
they'd
be
flooded
out.
I
had
people
that
were
paying
two
or
three
mortgages
at
one
time.
I've
got
whole
neighborhoods
that
have
been
torn
down
because
they
should
have
never
been
built
today.
G
The
church,
creek
and
in
this
basin
is
like
the
rest
of
the
city
or,
like
john's
islands
like
the
rest
of
the
city,
just
isn't
true,
and
so
two
years
ago,
when
I
brought
this
up,
it's
kind
of
ironic,
a
lot
of
the
members
of
council
were
saying
that
they
didn't
want
to
support
this
thing
all
the
way
through,
because
it
shouldn't
be
a
blanket
ordinance.
It
should
have
different
sections
that
are
looked
at
and
then
we
had
the
dutch
dialogue
report
come
out
and
we
spent
so
much
money
and
time
and
resources.
G
On
these
studies,
I
mean
to
me
we're
doing
a
disservice.
If
we're
we're
spending
taxpayer
dollars
spending
years.
Studying
these
things,
we
get
the
results
and
the
reports.
Then
we
don't
do
anything
about
them.
Now,
I'm
not
saying
that
we're
not
doing
anything.
I
believe
that
our
staff
has
done
yeoman's
work
on
the
stormwater
manual,
and
I
appreciate
this
update
today,
but
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
had
I
not
tried
to
pull
that
item
off
of
being
deferred.
G
You
know
talk
about
john's
island
and
church
creek
and
give
our
our
citizens
this
sense
that
we're
getting
ready
to
make
some
power
moves
and
then
we
sit
on
it
for
years.
You
know:
we've
been
sitting
on
some
studies
since
1984
that
people
are
have
just
given
up
hope
that
we're
ever
going
to
get
some
things
accomplished,
and
I
don't
believe
that's
the
case.
I
think
that
we
all
have
the
best
of
intentions.
I
think
all
of
us
care
so
deeply
about
our
districts,
but
I
want
you
to
know
that
this
is
just.
G
This
is
the
one
thing
that
you
know
I
ran
on
from
the
beginning.
I
promised
district
10
that
I
would
always
have
their
back
when
it
came
to
the
flooding
and
it's
just
something:
that's
not
going
away
anytime
soon,
and
I
just
I
thought
that
you
know
this
would
be
a
common
sense
way
to
look
at
it.
But
you
know
it's
obvious
that
there's
a
lot
of
different
interpretations
of
how
we
can
go
about
it,
but
you
know
I
would.
G
I
would
love
it
if
we
could
at
least
bring
this
out
of
the
committee
so
that
our
council
could
look
at
it
and
take
it
up.
As
you
know,
we
did
do
that
before
and
I
thought
I
was
being
you
know
fair
to
start
over,
but
I
would
love
it
if
we
could
at
least
get
it
out
of
this
committee
so
that
our
council
could
take
a
look
at
it
tomorrow.
Night.
A
Okay,
mr
fountain,
before
you
speak,
let
me
say
something,
but
you
can
come
off
a
mute.
I
am
number
one.
Let's
experience
some
very
good
conversation,
so
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
do
as
we
progress
through
this
I
mean
everybody
who
contributed
just
so
far
has
contributed
very
positive
conversation.
So
in
that
vein
is
certainly
how
I'd
like
to
move
forward
on
this
one
we've
had
so
much
successes
in
our
stormwater
drainage
department.
A
It's
that
momentum,
even
with
your
suggestion,
everybody
says,
got
some
good
parts
to
it
so
someplace
out
of
it.
I
hope
we
can
find
out
whatever
conflicts
we
have
mr
fountain
with
this
particular
audience
and
would
currently
exist,
and
then
maybe
hopefully
we
get
to
the
point
of
some
of
the
good
thoughts
that
we
can
tweak,
if
not
today,
certainly
plans
for
it
moving
forward.
Mr
fountain.
B
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
So
this
is.
It
is
a
very
like
straightforward
ordinance.
I
think
councilman
griffin
drafted
a
ordinance
that
is
clear
and
sort
of
the
intent
of
what
it's
doing.
I
think
there's
sort
of
three
areas
that
we
could
talk
about,
and
I
don't
know
how
deeply
we
want
to
get
into
the
first
area,
which
I
would
call
as
as
an
engineer
trying
to
explain
process.
I
guess
I
would
call
it
like
the
bureaucratic
side
of
an
ordinance
of
like
how
do
you
enforce
it?
B
A
B
So
most
of
them
are
pretty
minor.
I
mean
things
like
the
the
mean
sea
level.
Datum
would
probably
tie
to
like
a
different
datum,
an
navd
88
or
something
like
that.
Just
from
a
technical
perspective,
it's
the
same
idea.
I
think
those
are
those
are
minor.
The
building
code
trigger
you
know.
Most
of
our
applications
come
in
for
their
fill
that
and
do
not
involve
building
permits.
They
come
in
for
for
road
construction
plans
or
site
applications
early
site
packages.
B
So
technically,
like
you,
could
come,
do
all
of
your
fill
work
and
then
come
back
for
your
building
permits
later
and
we
wouldn't
necessarily
know
you
were
going
to
go
for
building
permits
at
the
time
of
the
fill
work.
So
just
again,
that's
that's
resolvable,
that's
just
the
that's
something!
Staff
normally
would
weigh
in
on
right
to
say:
here's
how
you
would
you
know
bureaucratically
fit
this
into
our
existing
permanent
process
right.
That's
that's
one
that
one's
addressable
we'd
have
to
obviously
figure
out
enforcement
and
penalties.
B
If
people
were
to
go
do
fill,
but
we
can.
We
can
certainly
talk
about
that
at
a
future
date.
I
mean
obviously
the
easy
one
is
saying
that
we
wouldn't
give
you
permits
the
the
hard
one
is:
what
happens
if
you
do
something
and
then
sell
the
property,
or
you
know
other
situations
like
that,
and
then
the
only
one
that
I
think
might
bear
discussion
is
the
in
councilman
griffin.
I
understand
where
you're
you're
going
to
the
variance
process.
B
I
I'd
probably
ask
the
legal
department
to
weigh
in
on
if
we
could
have
a
technical
ordinance
that
removed
like
development
rights
with
a
like
a
non-technical
variance
process
at
committee.
I
don't
know,
I
don't
want
to
speak
to
it,
because
it's
a
little
outside
my
area,
but
I'd
have
some
concerns
with
that
on
a
legal
challenge.
Probably
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
talk
about
that
counselor
and
if
we
want
to
kind
of
just
put
that
on
the
side
as.
H
Here
I
apologize
because
my
printer
is
printing,
so
then
it
gets
loud,
but
it
yeah
so
for
a
variance
to
apply.
You
can't
really
create
exceptions.
You'd
have
to
do
it
through
a
variance
process,
and
I
I
think
the
language
is
in
our
stormwater
manual
or
stormwater
ordinance
for
the
what
what's
required
to
grant
a
variance.
I
think
it's
similar
to
zoning.
H
We
need
to
figure
out
that
process
because
it's
not
it
wouldn't
be
a
good
process
to
go
to
a
committee
of
council,
because
it's
not
really
there's
no
state
law
supporting
that
and
they
don't
like.
If
you
go
to
the
planning
commission,
for
instance,
on
appeal,
if
we
get
sued,
the
circuit
court
defers
to
the
planning
commission
on
appeal
from
a
public
works
committee
decision,
they
would
not
defer
to
the
public
works
committee.
H
They
would
just
review
it
and
determine
what
they
want
to
do,
and
we
probably
need
to
look
at
that
and
change
it
to
make
sure
they
go
to
the
planning
commission
or
if
it's
the
bza
in
zoning,
it
would
be
the
bza.
But
we
don't
have
a
our
ordinances,
aren't
tied
together
in
that
way.
So
I
I
would
need
to
look
at
that
for
stormwater,
but
but
you
could
do
a
variance
and
there
are
specifications
for
that
under
state
law,
but
generally
they'd
go
to
the
bza
under
state
law.
H
B
B
You
know,
then
that
that's
grounds
for
basically
a
variance,
but
it's
based
and
the
reason
we
do
that
is
because
we,
you
know
the
manual
we
we
sort
of
hold
up
is
like
a
public
health
and
safety
document
that
kind
of
overrides
zoning.
So
we
say
basically
you've
got
to
have
that
technical
merit.
That
shows
that
this
is
more
important
than
like
a
pure
vested
right
from
a
zoning
perspective
right
right.
H
You
would
need
an
independent
review
body
in
order
to
enjoy
deference
in
court
it.
You
know
they
call
it
a
quasi-judicial,
so
the
bza,
the
bar
planning
commission,
those
are
quasi-judicial
entities
they're,
they
don't,
they
can
be
replaced,
but
they're,
not
answerable.
If
the
mayor
calls
them
up,
they
don't
have
to
do
what
the
mayor
tells
them
or
any
city
council
member
all
of
council.
Together
they
have
to
apply
the
rules.
H
The
city
council
gives
them,
but
if
city
council
passes
a
resolution
saying
you
should
grant
this
permit
they,
they
should
probably
ignore
that
honestly,
because
they're
supposed
to
be
judges,
not
not
employees
or
anything
like
that,
so
yeah
that
that
would
be.
The
question
is
how
to
deal
with
the
variance
process,
but
that
could
certainly
be
built
in
that's
just
a
change
of
language.
A
B
The
you
know
the
dutch
dialogue
report,
which
I
think
is
it
obviously
is
a-
is
a
really
valuable
report
that
we
use
for
a
lot
of
work
that
we
do
within
the
manual
and
within
our
development
projects
in
the
city.
I
think
council
griffin's
right
about
that
of
making
sure
we're
incorporating
that
into
what.
Basically,
what
we're
doing
and
what
we're
regulating
is
is
high
value.
B
I
think
it
the
below
six
feet
section
that
one's
relatively
straightforward
I
mean,
obviously
the
dialogue's
just
trying
to
prevent
areas
that
are
going
to
have
regular
flooding.
I
mean
below
six
feet,
you're
going
to
see
regular,
tidal
flooding
during
like
peak
king
tides,
higher
tides
than
that
you're
going
to
see
storm
surge
flooding
you
likely
are
conveying
water
from
other
parts
of
the
watershed
through
those
through
those
sections
of
land.
B
B
There
always
are
some
some
areas
where
that
there's
there's
questions
of
whether
that's
that's
exactly
what's
happening
or
not.
There's
some
coastal
properties,
for
instance,
where
you
see
storm
surge,
come
through,
and
sometimes
you
know,
sea
walls
or
or
fill
can
be
helpful
to
protect
those
properties
against
that
impact.
B
But
in
many
of
the
interior
areas
I
think
there's
a
lot
to
be
said
for
that
as
a
area
to
consider
that
those
are
important
conveyances,
they
are
areas
that
almost
always
cause
challenges.
We
certainly
did
incorporate
that
into
the
stormwater
manual
and
the
there's,
basically
regional
modeling
now
within
any
development
to
say
what
are
the
impacts
to
upstream
and
downstream
properties.
What
are
you
causing
by
displacing
that
flood
storage?
B
But
the
manual
does
allow
you
to
kind
of
move
that
around
within
your
site,
where
this
would
be
more
of
the
dialogue
style
approach
of
saying,
there's
an
ecological
value
to
those
properties
as
well.
So
that's,
certainly
something
that
that
could
be
considered
kind
of
from
an
ecological
perspective
is
something
we
don't
have
in
the
manual,
but
we
do
have
where
we
do
have
the
flood
protection
side
in
the
manual.
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
question
if
we're,
if
we're
focused
solely
on
flooding,
the
stormwater
manual
probably
does
address
that
that
section.
A
B
Yeah
so
the
second
section-
and
I'm
just
gonna,
touch
on
these
very
quickly.
We
can
kind
of
go
back
over
it,
the
second
section
between
six
and
ten
feet.
So
that's
that's
where
the
dutch
dialogues-
and
I
think
I
think,
councilman
griffin-
I
certainly
want
to
put
words
in
your
mouth
scott
from
first
I'm
trying
to
talk
about
the
dialogue
side
of
it
is
sort
of
talking
about
reducing
development
density
in
those
areas
it
says
you
know
it
wants
to
leave
more
than
50
percent
of
the
forest
canopy
in
place.
B
Basically
leave
that
natural
uptake
leave
those
habitats
it
talks
about.
Those
are
areas
that
you
know
generally
will
flood,
at
least
in
major
hurricanes
in
their
100-year
floodplain
cycle,
so
kind
of
bringing
people
out
of
that
risk
zone
or
making
them
more
informed
buyers
when
they
buy
into
those
risk
zones.
B
Those
those
are
challenging
areas
for
heavy
field
development.
They
are.
I
mean
that
councilman
griffin's
right
about
that.
If
you
bring
a
lot
of
fill
in
it's
very
hard
to
manage
the
offset
for
stormwater
again,
we
have
incorporated
that
in
the
new
manual.
Basically,
if
you
fill,
you
have
to
show
where
that
water
is
going,
that
you've
now
displaced
with
that
fill
you've
put
in,
but
we
only
required
on
right
now
on
properties
that
are
basically
half
an
acre
and
larger.
So
that's
one
thing
we'll
talk
about
with
the
manual
updates.
B
I
think
at
the
time
that
was
sort
of
a
compromise,
both
from
cost
and
the
amount
of
technical
work
required
for
a
development
if
you're
building
like
an
individual
single
family
home
or
if
you're,
building
a
small
site
when
the
manual
went
through
the
first
time.
It's
kind
of
a
compromise
between
all
the
different
entities
also
there's
a
staffing,
obviously
that
it
takes
more
people
to
review
more
more
proposals
like
that.
I
think
that's
an
area
that
we
will
recommend
and
I
that
somehow
needs
to
be
regulated.
B
B
I
think
what
you'll
still
see
is
builders,
starting
to
potentially
build
out
those
developments
with
basically
elevated
homes
and
yards
that
flood,
because
they
won't
be
able
to
grade
so
they'll.
Basically,
they
won't
be
able
to
have
lot
drainage
on
the
lots.
They'll
have
natural
grade
on
the
lots,
they'll
still
deforest,
which
obviously
causes
challenges.
That's
one
of
the
things
that
just
alex
was
event
that
was
against
what
you'll
see
is
a
lot
of
people
being
building
elevated
homes
on
lots
that
don't
drain.
B
B
I
I
think
there
is
a
challenge
with
your
property
owner
expectations
that
they
feel,
like
their
yard,
should
drink.
We've
all
seen
that
over
the
last
few
years,
right
as
people's
yards,
have
become
a
lot
wetter
from
the
increasing
rain,
intensities
that
that
I
think,
will
generate
a
lot
of
frustration
from
people
who
buy
those
properties,
not
understanding
that
their
yard
is
likely
to
be
somewhat.
B
I
mean
if
you've
gone
outside
the
last
week
and
walked
around
on
any
yards
like
that's
what
your
yard
would
be
like
from
you
know,
september
through
march
or
april,
because
you
wouldn't
have
the
transpiration
ever
transpiration
uptake,
so
that
that
is
a
concern.
If
they
go
that
route,
I'm
not
saying
builders
will,
but
that's
one
option
if
they
still
want
to
build
through
that
existing
intensity.
B
What
I
think
we've
been
trying
to
figure
out
a
way
to
put
together
with
a
the
new
cluster
zoning
or
the
the
conservation
zoning.
It's
almost
the
conservation
zoning
on
steroids,
where
it's
basically
saying
not
only
do
you
have
to
have
open
space,
you
have
to
have
untouched
native
forest
or
semi-native
forest
for
most
of
john's
island,
on
those
on
those
properties
to
continue
uptaking,
that
water
and
storing
that
water
and
acting
as
wetlands
and
sponges
and
there's
there's
a
lot
of
value.
B
To
that
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
if
you're
looking
at
it
from
a
pure
flooding
ecological
standpoint,
there's
a
lot
of
value
to
having
those
unimpacted
areas
on
the
low
wet
portions
of
properties.
I
mean
that's
something
that
you
can
and
I
think
you
know,
cosmographic
has
kind
of
the
front
row
seat
in
church
creek
that
church
creek
is
sort
of
what
happens
if
you
eventually
fill
in
all
of
those
low-lying
areas
and
build
homes
in
them.
B
Right
I
mean
you,
basically
have
flooding
that
is
very,
very
hard
to
fix,
because
it's
so
systemic
across
the
watershed.
I
think
there's
a
lot
to
be
said
to
try
to
prevent
that
from
happening
on
john's
island
and
minimizing
any
future
impacts,
obviously
in
the
rest
of
the
city
as
well,
so
that
that's
where
I'm
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
adjust
or
how
to
look
at
it
that
what
we're!
I
think,
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
say
not.
B
It's
not
just
fill
right,
it's
sort
of
saying
that
we
want
to
somehow
focus
development
into
the
better
parts
of
a
site
and
a
region
while
leaving
the
kind
of
native
vegetation
in
place,
which
does
a
lot
in
our
area
for
both
storage
and
water
uptake,
but
also
not
basically
putting
people
into
the
into
the
flooded
areas,
because
I
think
that's
something
that
we'd
like
to
get
there.
I
think
I
think
that's
something
that
we.
B
B
I
think
the
six
to
ten
feet
definitely
accounts
for
sea
level.
Rise,
climate
change,
hurricane
impact-
that's
it
is
an
ecologically
sensitive
zone,
but
I
would
I
would
almost
prefer
I
mean
from
a
pure
flooding
standpoint.
I
would
like
to
see
some
way
to
again
cluster
that
development
into
the
better
parts,
those
properties
and
the
lower
parts
be
left
without
fill
and
without
impact.
B
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
way
to
do
like
a
percentage
of
the
property
that
could
be
filled
versus
a
percentage
that
can't
be
filled
or
if
there's
a
percentage
that
you
have
to
leave
x
amount
untouched
in
order
to
get
filler.
There's
lots
of
different
ways
to
look
at
this
or
we
can
look
at
it
through
the
comp
plan
process
and
kind
of
say.
Is
there
a
zoning
approach
to
take
that
same
view
and
say
with
the
water
kind
of
the
water
study?
That's
been
done.
Water
study
worked
just
done
with
the
comp
plan.
B
Can
we
take
these
really
sensitive
elevation
areas
and
consider
a
way
to
again
focus
that
development
into
the
better
parts
of
those
areas
and
away
from
those
low-lying
damaged
areas?
So
I
think
there
again
there
is.
There
is
real
validity
to
that.
As
a
concern
of
filling
and
impacting
all
those
low-lying
areas.
B
You
brought
that
up
a
number
of
times
of
how
difficult
it
is
to
raise
slave
on
great
houses
in
the
future.
If
it
ever
becomes
a
challenge
right
and
you
lose,
you
know,
one
of
the
advantages
we
have
in
the
low
country
is
everything
is
so
flat
generally
that
each
vertical
inch
the
water
goes
up.
It
spreads
out
a
lot,
so
you
get
a
lot
of
extra
storage
capacity.
B
So
when
you
add
in
that
little
bit
of
extra
space
with
the
crawl
space,
something
like
that,
you
really
add
a
lot
of
extra
storage
capacity
for
that
water
in
a
hurricane
or
in
a
major
event.
And
yes,
it's
inconvenient,
and
we
certainly
don't
want
people
to
lose
their
cars
that
are
parked
in
the
driveway
and
things.
But
it's
a
lot
better
than
having
you
know
a
foot
of
water
in
your
house
to
have
some
of
that
water
in
your
crawl
space
or
in
a
garage
potentially
okay,.
A
So
if
you
were
to
summarize
your
four
key
points:
okay
below
six
feet,
some
merit
six
to
ten
feet:
cluster
on
the
better
parts
of
the
property,
maybe
a
certain
percentage
through
zoning,
getting
back
to
the
councilmember
pals
point
and
then
I
don't
know
maybe
fill
a
certain
percentage
of
or
not
I'm
just
going
off
your
point.
Those
are
two
that
I
got
three
and
four
would
be
what.
B
Look
into
and
then
the
the
last
one
I
guess
would
be
the
potential
for
eliminating
slab
on
grade
construction.
You
could
do
that
within
the
flood
plain
in
general.
Really
I
mean
it's.
That's
almost
one
way
to
consider
or
you
could
do
it
in
elevation
zones
either
one
would
be
would
be
worth
considering.
I
think
I.
F
Yeah
thanks
again
matt
for
that
very
thorough
explanation.
I
mean,
I
think,
that
you
know
the
concept
here.
The
goal
that
we're
trying
to
achieve
is
simple,
but
the
the
mechanism
to
accomplish
it
cannot
be
a
one-page
ordinance
it
just
it.
Just
is
not
that
simple.
Unfortunately,
I
wish
it
was.
I
wish
it
was,
but
a
couple
other
things
to
think
about
as
we
continue
to
work
through
this
very
important
discussion
is
you
know.
We've
talked
a
lot
about
future
development.
We
want
to
stop
future
development,
that's
poor
in
the
wrong
places,
etc.
F
What
about
all
the
people
that
are
currently
living
in
houses
that
arguably
were
pretty
poor
developments
to
begin
with?
So
let's
say
you
know:
hurricane
james
comes
through
this
fall,
god
forbid,
wipes
out
floods
out
100
losses,
entire
swaths
of
neighborhoods
in
you
know
the
basin
over
in
that
church,
creek
basin.
Okay.
So
now
under
current
fema
flood
regs,
and
just
our
own
zoning
rags
and
our
own
updated
stormwater
manual,
you
could
get
yourself
into
a
situation
where
neighborhoods
aren't
allowed
to
be
even
rebuilt
potentially
and
you
get
a
homeowners
insurance.
F
We
got
to
talk
to
kevin
about
this,
but
I
can
promise
you
there's
going
to
be
some
problems
on
that
front
as
well.
So
when
you
make
this
apply
so
broadly
to
all
ecological
areas,
not
just
you
know
new
development,
you
can.
You
can
create
some
very,
very
adverse
impacts
for
existing
homeowners,
existing
citizens
of
the
city
of
charleston,
existing
voters
and
taxpayers,
and
all
these
all
these
situations.
F
So
we
got
to
be
very
careful
about
that
and
and
to
the
extent
to
which
you
know
and
an
ordinance
like
this
as
applied
to
that
sort
of
scenario
could
amount
to
a
taking
under
the
fifth
amendment
of
the
united
states
constitution-
and
I
mean
that's
what
we're
talking
about
here
when
you
have
a
regulation
on
the
books
that
prevents
any
any
use
of
of
of
your
property.
So
there's
a
lot
of
complicated
issues
here
that
we
that
we
need
to
address.
F
You
know,
certainly,
since
I've
been
on
council
with
the
new
storm
water
manual,
and
I
can
I
can
promise
you
a
lot
of
those
developments
that
are
sitting
in
church
creek
right
now,
that
are
not
probably
the
wisest
decisions
in
the
world
wouldn't
be
allowed
today
if
they
were
to
come
through
the
door
under
our
new
stormwater
manual
as
it
exists
to
today.
So
I
think
we
just
got
to
be
very
careful
about
this,
but
again
I
kept
hearing
over
and
over
in
matt's
discussion
here.
F
I
think
you
know
frankly
we're
putting
too
much
of
this
conversation
on
matt
and
on
kinsey
and
his
department.
If
we
want
to
stop
homes
from
being
located
in
certain
parts
of
the
city,
then
we
need
to
step
up
to
the
plate
from
a
zoning
perspective
and
do
that
and
harry
I'm
going
to
just
tell
you
we're
talking
about
down
zoning
properties
by
the
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
you're
talking
about
the
government
coming
in
and
saying
to
huge
swaths
of
homeowners,
we're
not
letting
you
develop
here.
F
F
That
is
how
you
address
this
issue
front
on
head
on,
not
through
a
technical
code
requirement
through
a
very
specific
development
technique
and,
as
the
mayor
said,
sometimes
phil
is
no
problem.
Phil
is
not
inherently
bad.
Phil
is
a
tool
that
can
be
used
poorly
in
certain
contexts,
but
if
we
don't
want
to
see
homes
built
in
certain
ecological
areas,
we
need
to
define
where
those
ecological
areas
are,
and
we
need
to
be
up
front
about
down
zoning
taking
away
development
rights
from
those
property
owners.
F
F
It's
for
an
issue
like
this
that
we
all
know
all
too
well
from
our
personal
experiences
and
from
our
constituents
experiences,
and
we
certainly
have
the
record
that
we've
built
over
these
last
several
years,
whether
it
be
the
dutch
dialogues
and
all
these
different
studies,
we've
done
to
substantiate
and
defend
such
aggressive
government
regulation
in
court.
If
we're
ever
challenged
on
that-
and
I
think
we
need
to
have
the
stomach
to
to
do
that
if
we're
going
to
take
some
of
these
aggressive
actions.
F
But
I
just
want
to
be
very
clear
what
we're
talking
about
here,
we're
talking
about
taking
away
property
rights,
we're
talking
about
down
zoning
property,
we're
talking
about
almost
certainly
facing
lawsuits
from
folks
that,
like
to
sue
governments
for
takings
and
inverse
condemnation
and
all
those
different
kinds
of
things-
and
I
just
want
us
to
all
be
clear
about
what
we're
what
we're
getting
into,
but
again
very
important
discussion.
We
need
to
prevent
bad
development
from
happening
in
bad
places.
We
just
got
to
go
about
it
in
the
smartest
way
possible.
F
It
doesn't
incur
massive
financial
liability
to
the
city
that
doesn't
negatively
and
adversely
impact
existing
property
owners.
I
assume
want
to
keep
living
in
their
house
and
other
such
unintended
consequences
of
this
so
but
again,
very
important
discussion
and
I
think
it's.
This
is
a
a
very
worthwhile
conversation.
If
you
haven't.
A
Councilman
apparel
don't
go
on
mute
yet
when
you
go
back
to
the
issues
of
existing
communities,
believe
it
or
not,
that's
one
that
the
man
this
council
should
have
been
him.
Two
years
ago
we
went
through
that
quite
a
bit,
because
at
one
time
our
ordinance
would
take
the
assessed
value
to
determine
whether
you
fifty
percent
of
damage
above
it.
A
If
the
appraisal
is
higher
than
that,
50
threshold
is
even
hopefully
harder
to
meet
in
the
event
of
a
you
know,
catastrophic
event,
because
you're
talking
about
a
hurricane,
but
you
know
shoot
if
a
tree
falls
through
somebody
else,
yeah
not
because
of
a
hurricane,
it
just
got
rotted
and
just
fell
through
the
middle
of
it.
It
could
happen.
A
But
that
said,
if
these
existing
houses
and
you're
right
were
built
in
sensitive
ecological
zones,
would
they
be
ecologically
sensitive?
Now
that
they've
been
paved
over
and
all
of
that-
and
you
know
in
your
way
of
thinking,
they
got
reconsidered
because
they've
been
bulldozed
and
asphalted
and
concrete
nuts.
A
It's
one
thing
if
you
want
to
return
it
to
being
ecological,
but
would
that
be
considered
an
ecological
zone
if
that
were
included
in
our
on
this,
but
my
point
is
we
got
some
very,
very
good
points
going
on
right
now
and
I
don't
want
to
lose
to
say
we
had
a
good
conversation
and
no
action
steps.
I
think
that
would
be
a
travesty
if
we
did
that
on
this,
so
the
pathway
forward,
I
know
mr
mcqueen
is
going
to
think
up
something.
Look
at
that
question
that
mr
fountain
gave
him.
A
Mr
fountain
is
going
to
look
at
his
four
points.
Somehow
we
need
to
incorporate
zoning
into
this
as
well.
Councilmember
pal-
and
I
know
I'm
thinking
about
something
else,
I'm
forgetting
something
else,
but
that
comprehensive
approach,
I
would
think,
would
be
the
answer
on
this
one,
as
you
said,
not
there's
one
ordinance,
but
any
other
input
from
others
on
this.
Mr
mayor
councilmember
shaheen,
yes,.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
want
to
ask
mr
fountain
to
clarify
something.
I
I
didn't
misunderstand
him
on
one
point,
but
if
you're
not
allowed
to
fill
in
a
particular
piece
of
property,
I
think
you
mentioned
that
you
perhaps
could
still
build
that
you
just
you
build
up.
Did
I
did
I
hear
that
correctly.
B
So
so
that
somewhat
depends
on
how
we
define
phil,
I
think,
within
the
ordinance,
if
you
define
phil
as
being
any
material
brought
from
off-site,
then
obviously
building
materials
would
be
included
in
fill,
so
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
build
the
foundation
or
the
the
piles
at
that.
At
that
point,
and
man
chip
will
probably
tell
us
to
go
to
executive
session.
That
point.
At
that
point,
I
think
there's
a
there's
a
concern
that
you've
made
a
property
completely.
I
think,
if
we
I
don't
again,
I
don't
think
that
was
the
intent.
B
I
think
the
intent
was
for
for
sight
fill
for
mass
sight
phil.
If
we're
saying
that
we
would
allow
you
know,
foundation,
foundation,
footings,
piers,
pilings,
then
you
know
in
theory,
you
could
still
as
long
as
you
elevate
your
home
above
flood
elevation,
we
don't
really
have
much
in
the
way
of
code
requirements.
That
would
say
you
can't
have
your
yard
be
wet.
You
can't
have
your
driveway
or
garage
potentially
be
flooded
and
that's
similar.
B
What
you
would
see
in
like
a
beach
community
right,
you
would
see
the
homes
go
up
and
the
yards
and
properties
would
just
flood
every
time
there
was
a
really
significant
storm.
Our
some
of
our
beaches
have
a
little
bit
better,
better
soils
and
things.
We
don't
see
that
as
much
here,
but
that's
not
an
unusual
florida
keys
kind
of
been
a
good
example
of
that
lately,
with
some
of
the
sea
level
rise
events
they've
had
that's.
That
is
a
way
to
build.
It
doesn't
bring
in
much
fill.
A
Okay,
councilman,
okay,
thank
you,
councilman,
I'm
gonna
circle
back
to
you.
I
we've
had
some
good
conversation
here.
You
want
this
to
move
forward
as
a
motion
to
counsel
or
do
you
want
this
discussion
to
move
forward
and
then
we
get
come
back
and
work
because
I
think
council
would
benefit
from
hearing
what
mr
fountain
said
and
what
mr
mcqueen
said
with
councilman
appel
we've.
C
A
A
very
good
discussion
on
a
very
difficult
subject,
and
we
got
some
action
steps
that
you
know
once
our
people
have
a
chance
to
research
and
that
could
lead
to
some
substantive
changes,
but
so
how
you
want
to
move
forward
on
this,
because
I
think
councilman
brady
would
like
to
have
something
to
say
on
this.
I
don't
know
councilman
shealy
would
like
to
have
something
to
say
on
this
and
I
promise
at
tomorrow's
meeting
with
their
input
we've
had
our
chance
to
input,
hopefully
we'll.
A
G
A
G
Listen,
I
I
think
that
if
there's
a
better
way
to
do
it,
let's
do
it,
but
you
know
I
just
can't
sit
back
for
the
whole
length,
so
I
just
had
to
bring
it
back
up.
I
mean
it.
You
know
I'm
getting
ready
to
finish
off
my
fourth
year
on
council
and
it's
something
that's
been
coming
out
of
my
mouth
since
day
one
so
I
had
to
bring
it
back
up.
A
A
I
guess
let
me
finish
my.
I
guess
maybe
finish
my
thought.
If
this
conversation
goes
forward
to
council,
which
it
will,
because
when
we
report
it
will
one
or
two
council
members
or
three
may
come
up
with
some
points,
weren't
brought
up
brought
up
today,
which
will
give
mr
fountain
what
would
give
mr
mcqueen
our
planning
people
a
little
bit
more
information
to
come
back
to
this
same
public
works
committee
with
something
more
specific
that
can
be
hopefully
discussed
and
implemented.
A
Now,
that's
my
point
because
what
I
don't
want
to
do
is
have
an
up
or
down
vote
and
then
boom.
It
ends
right.
There
is
net
net
four
years
from
later.
If
we
don't
get
some
updates
on
the
below
six
feet,
the
idea
about
clustering
on
the
better
part
of
the
property.
From
six
to
ten
feet,
I
mean
that
really
made
a
lot
of
sense.
Building
on
a
slab
going
forward.
G
Form
address,
oh
mr
chairman,
if
I
may
yes,
sir,
yes,
sir,
the
just
so
we're
all
on
the
same
page
here,
the
dutch
dialogue
charleston
report
does
not
say
that
in
the
ecological
zone
you
can
cluster,
it
says
that
you
can
build
roads,
but
that's
the
only
exception
listed
under
their
report
under
the
ecological
zone
in
the
transition
zone.
That's
when
the
clustering
comes
into
play,
so
I
I
think
that
we
all
probably
need
to
go
back
and
go
through
that
report
again
and
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things.
G
G
Looking
at
a
report,
you
know
we're
bringing
in
wagner
and
ball
we're
bringing
in
the
water
institute
of
golf
they're
coming
in
and
they're
helping
us
with
all
of
these
other
projects,
and
we've
got
this
dutch
dialogue
report
out
there
that
they
reference
quite
often
we
we
need
to
have
a
discussion
at
some
point
sooner
rather
than
later.
Are
there
discrepancies
that
we
don't
support
as
a
city
and
how
do
we
hash
those
out?
G
G
As
I
wrote
this
thing,
you
know
I'm
thinking.
Okay,
we
put
so
much
time
and
effort
and
money
into
this
report.
You
know,
but
if
we
have
issues
internally,
that
there
are
things
that
we
need
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
you
know,
I'm
happy
to
take
a
step
back
and
give
our
staff
enough
time
to
do
that.
Okay,
but
my
other,
my
other
point
is
you
know
with
with
the
stormwater
manual.
G
You
know
back
in
19.
I
brought
this
thing
up.
You
know
we
we
wanted
to
wait
till
the
manual
came
out.
You
know
we're
saying
that
there
may
or
may
not
be
things
that
are
in
this.
That
could
be
a
benefit
and
may
not
be
a
benefit
or
may
make
sense.
It
may
not
make
sense
so,
like
you
councilmember
wearing,
I
don't
know
where
we
go
from
here.
I
really
have
no
idea,
because
I
certainly
don't
want
to
keep
bringing
stuff
up.
G
That
may
be
counterproductive,
but
I
don't
really
know
what
our
what
we
want
to
do.
Do
we
want
to
use
the
dutch
dialogue
as
our
our
document,
or
are
we
trying
to
do
a
mix
of
a
few
different
things?
I
really
don't
know
what
we're
trying
to
do.
You
know
I
think
councilmember
bell
said
this
is
part
of
our
job
as
a
city
council,
as
council
people
to
bring
these
things
up
and
maybe
write
some
some
ordinances
and
try
to
get
some
legislation
passed.
G
A
E
So
this
may
take
me
a
few
thoughts
to
get
out
and
councilmember
griffin.
I
appreciate
all
your
reference
and
support
now
of
of
the
tenets,
the
the
idea,
ideas
that
were
put
forth
into
dutch
dialogues
and
and
glad
you
are
so
affirmative
about
that.
Now
I
mean
I
you
you
mentioned
how
much
money
it
costs
us
to
do
that
study.
E
I
think
I
helped
raise
half
of
the
money
outside
of
the
city
to
pay
for
the
the
report
and
the
effort
at
the
time.
I
don't
think
you.
I
don't
recall
that
you
supported
it
at
that
time,
but
but
be
that
as
it
may,
and-
and
I
appreciate
your
effort
also,
you
know
to
try
to
put
things
things
simply.
You
know
when
albert
einstein
came
up
with
his
theory
of
relativity
as
e
equals
m
c
squared
is
like
g.
E
It's
too
simple.
You
know
for
such
a
complicated
matter
as
describing
energy
in
the
universe,
but
he
figured
that
out
and-
and
we
have
a
a
complicated
system,
as
I
think
council
member
appel
did
a
much
better
job
of
describing
than
me,
but
back
to
the
dutch
dialogues,
we
have
been
using
the
report
councilmember
member,
to
inform
our
policy
going
forward
and,
admittedly
the
report
is
more
like,
as
they
say
in
the
pirates
of
the
caribbean,
a
guideline
rather
than
a
strict.
E
Our
own
stormwater
manual
was
informed
by
ideas,
principles
from
from
our
dutch
dialogues,
our
church
creek
authority
that
that
you
serve
on.
I
mean
we
kind
of
shifted
gear
as
to
the
future
projects
that
we
plan
now
to
pursue,
based
upon
the
principles
that
were
put
forward
in
the
dutch
dialogues
report,
many
of
the
things
we've
been
working
on
the
projects.
E
The
the
the
comprehensive
plan
update,
that's
coming
forward
in
the
next
couple
of
months
again
is
fully
informed
and
guided
by
the
principles
of
our
dutch
dialogues
effort,
so
to
say
that
we're
not
doing
anything
or
that
they
haven't
informed
us
is
just
not
so
now
a
plan
going
forward.
I
I
feel,
like
y'all,
we're
we're
doing
that.
Next
week,
our
community
development
committee
will
have
the
conservation
ordinance
presented
to
us.
E
We've
been
discussing
that
here
today,
as
that's
brought
forward,
we
can
make
appropriate
suggestions
and
input
to
that
ordinance
going
forward.
Next
on
our
agenda,
as
I
mentioned,
is,
is
mr
fountain's
report
on
the
storm
order
manual.
We
agreed
when
we
put
it
in
place
that
we
would
come
back
and
review
how
we
could
improve
it
going
forward
again.
Many
of
the
things
that
are
in
the
manual
address
filled
specifically
and
the
principles
of
the
dutch
dialogue
is
going
to
be
better
yeah.
That's
why
we
review
after
a
certain
amount
of
time.
E
The
comprehensive
plan,
as
I've
already
mentioned,
has
a
complete
report.
It's
really
amazing
by
the
same
team,
the
water
institute
and
and
by
wagner
and
ball
that
talks
about
this
is
a
city-wide
issue,
not
just
in
these
two
areas,
so
through
the
stormwater
manual
through
the
comprehensive
plan
through
building
requirements
that
could
be
informed
by
all
of
these
discussions
through
the
conservation
ordinance
coming
forward.
E
G
Mr
mayor,
you
made
mention
that
I
didn't
support
the
authorization
of
the
dutch
dialogue
study
just
to
clarify
that
I've
never
questioned
the
capabilities
of
the
water
institute
of
the
gulf
wagner
and
ball,
or
anybody
involved.
My
the
first
time
I
ever
ever
heard
them
speak
over
at
doc.
Street
theater
I
was
blown
away.
G
I
voted
against
that
at
the
time
allocating
that
fund
for
just
this
reason
that
I
felt
that
we
were
going
to
have
another
study
and
not
enough
action.
So
that
is
my
fear.
That's
why
I
continue
to
bring
it
up.
I
just
didn't
think
we
were
going
to.
It
would
be
a
good
idea
to
spend
more
money
and
then
have
a
great
document
on
a
shelf
that
we
weren't
necessarily
going
to
use.
So
all
I'm
doing
here
today
is
hoping
that
we
can
find
a
way
to
use
this.
G
I
thought
that
we
endorsed
it
and
that
it
was
something
that
we
were
going
to
be
using
quite
often,
but
I
think,
mr
chairman,
the
only
way
that
we're
going
to
be
able
to
allow
the
rest
of
council
to
see
this
at
least,
is
to
take
a
vote
on
it,
because
if
we
we
can
report
it
that's
fine.
But
if
we
just
shelve
it.
A
No,
no,
no!
No!
No!
No!
This
is
going
to
go
forward
as
a
discussion,
at
least.
Is
that
important
to
take
a
vote
on
whether
we
move
forward
or
not?
I
I
would
love
to
have
this.
This
has
been
so
constructive.
I
don't
want
to
lose
the
constructive
aspect
of
the
conversation
that's
been
held
here
today
and
the
mayor's
right,
our
manual,
can
be
improved.
Our
policies
can
be
improved,
that's
what
you're,
after
okay.
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
carry
the
discussion
forward.
F
I
I
promise
to
be
brief
on
this
here's
another
thing:
we
all
have
our
different
thoughts
about.
What
being
a
city
council
member
means,
what
being
a
legislative,
publicly
elected
official
means.
It's
my
view
that
we're
here
to
set
policy
at
a
10,
000
foot
level,
we're
not
here
to
start
getting
into
technical
manuals
and
and
start
splitting
hairs.
That's
not
our
job,
that's
not
our
expertise.
F
F
You
know
it.
It's
not
necessarily
our
role
and
our
best
use
of
time
and
our
best
use
of
our
capabilities
to
really
start
getting
into
the
weeds
and
into
the
details
here,
because
you
know
we're
not
storm
water
engineers,
we're
not
hydrologists.
You
know
it's
on
some
level.
All
we
can
do
is
sort
of
hit
these
issues
from
a
very
high
level
and
have
our
our
staff
take
over
and,
of
course,
you
know
periodically
check
in
and
see
how
everything
is
doing,
and
I
think
we've
been
doing
a
whole
lot.
F
As
the
mayor
has
said,
I
mean
to
say
that
we're
not
doing
anything
with
respect
to
the
dutch
dialogues
is
just
not
true,
I
mean,
and
it's
often
it's
common
frankly,
for
you
know,
planning
documents
to
be
put
together,
and
you
know
not
everything
be
done
at
once.
In
fact,
I'd
be
willing
to
say
that,
in
the
universe
of
planning
documents
that
are
put
together
by
consultants,
the
the
the
dutch
dialogues
has
already
been
used.
A
B
I
thank
you
sherman
just
one.
One
point
I
I
should
have
mentioned
earlier:
it's
it's
more
focused
geographically
than
than
city-wide,
but
we
do.
One
of
the
things
we
did
take
from
the
dutch
dialogue
on
john's
island
was
we.
We
have
worked,
and
we've
reported
on
this
a
few
times
at
committee,
but
we
have
a.
B
I
know
we
have
a
long,
a
long
list
of
reports,
sometimes
sometimes
it
gets
lost
until
we
get
to
construction
level
yeah,
we
do
have
the
national
fish
and
wildlife
foundation
grant
work
on
john's
island
with
the
basically
with
wk
dickson,
biohabitats
and
water
into
the
gulf,
where
we're
sort
of
complementing
some
of
the
work,
that's
being
done
in
the
comp
plan
on
the
johns
island
basic
flood
study
where
we
are
taking
a
look
at
where
are
these
regional
flow
paths?
Where
are
the
the
wetlands
on
the
island?
B
Basically,
how
does
conveyance
work
so
we
can
say
how
do
we
need
to
preserve
these
features
and
make
sure
they're
being
accounted
for
by
design
professionals
as
they
come
in
with
new
permits?
So
that's
something
at
least
for
that
that
one
region,
which
certainly
again,
is
not
city-wide
but
one
region
that
we
have
advanced
that
work
and
we're
continuing
to
try
to
drive
towards
how
to
incorporate
that
into
a
planning
document
into
technical
review.
A
G
A
G
Carry
it
forward
as
a
motion,
and
then
you
know
if
it
fails
and
break
it,
and
if
it
doesn't,
then
we'll
go
back
to
the
drawing
board,
but
I'm
never
going
to
quit.
Trying
I
I
definitely
have
a
lot
of
work
that
can
be
done,
but
I
would
hope
that
we
could
have
a
robust
discussion
at
council
tomorrow
night.
D
Just
wondering,
mr
chairman,
I've
followed
what
the
mayor
has
said
and
councilman
repels
follow-up
conversation
with
all
this,
and
this
sounds
like
we
need
more
work
done
to
this
thing,
and
I
mean
that
so
it
we
can
report
it
out
to
full
council.
Tomorrow,
councilman
griffin
mentioned
something
early
that
I
had
to
go
back
and
just
rethink
have
we've
already
passed
passes
as
from
a
first
reading.
What
is
really
the
status
of
this?
This
ordinance.
A
D
D
A
And
like
no,
we
need
to
go
forward
so
others
from
council
can.
I
think
we
should
go
forward
as
a
discussion
either
way
either
way
we're
going
to
have
the
discussion
and
council
lamar.
I
do
believe
you're
going
to
have
some
more
input
from
other
council
members
living
in
sensitive
areas.
I
would
think
I
hadn't
talked
to
him,
but
I
would
think
councilman
brady
would
have
something
to
say
about.
A
I
think
so
I
think
we
can
have
the
discussion
and
I
think
out
of
that
discussion,
maybe
we'll
get
one
or
two
points
for
our
people
to
come
back
to
us
and
report
at
this
committee
at
a
future
date,
if
not
the
next
meeting.
So
is
that
emotion
on
your
part?
I
want
to
move
this
along.
All
right.
Is
that
emotion
on
your
part,
councilman
griffin,
yes,
sir,
to
move
it
is
to
prove
the
the
ordinance
or
to
move
it
forward?
Is
a
discussion.
G
A
Well,
why
don't
we
do
that?
We
take
a
motion
to
move
it
on
as
a
discussion.
Is
that
your
motion?
Yes?
Okay,
do
we
have
a
second
for
that
I'll
second?
Secondly,
any
more
discussion
hearing
down
all
in
favor,
please
say:
aye,
aye,
aye
aye,
all
right,
I'm
telling
you
man,
we
don't
need
to
lose
the
good
aspects
of
discussion
we
had
here
today,
it'd
be
a
failing
on
our
part.
B
And,
mr
chairman,
just
very
briefly
this,
this
was
just
intended
to
be
setting
out
what
procedure
we
want
to
follow
to
bring
the
manual
back.
When,
when
council
had
passed
the
manual
in
july,
they
had
asked
us
to
basically
sort
of
take
it
for
a
test,
drive
and
implement
it
for
six
months
or
so,
and
then
try
to
come
up
with
a
process
to
make.
B
And,
and-
and
I
don't-
I
don't
think,
you're
right,
mr
trump,
I
don't
think
we
need
to
get
into
the
substance
of
the
update
at
this
point,
because
I
think
there
is
still
a
lot
of
information
together.
I
just
wanted
to.
I
guess,
make
a
recommendation
then
and
then
get
some
opinion
from
the
committee.
My
my
original
thoughts
were
that
we
would
basically
have
you
know,
have
this
discussion.
B
Let
full
council
know
as
well
that
we
are
gathering
information
and
input
from
council
members
related
to
the
stormwater
manual
anything
they've
had
from
their
constituents
that
they
want
to
make
sure
we're
addressing.
Certainly,
I
have
a
lot
of
that
already
from
the
last
six
months
of
discussions
with
council
members
on
projects,
we
would
take
that
information
reconvene.
B
The
stakeholder
task
force
that
we
did
with
the
manual
which
we've
kind
of
kept
that
group
loosely
together,
discuss
those
items
as
well
as
any
items
that
the
task
force
members
have
that
they
would
like
to
weigh
in
on.
Since
we
we
have
a
pretty
broad
group
of
members
on
that.
Obviously,
as
a
stakeholder
group
and
then
sort
of
take
that
task
force.
Recommendation
and
information
back
as
a
report
out
to
public
works
utilities
committee
to
say
here's
kind
of
what
the
opinions
were
from
the
task
force.
B
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
get
a
consensus
out
of
the
task
force.
It's
very
different
interest
groups
but
sort
of
hear
opinions
here.
Are
things
they've
liked
and
not
liked
here,
recommendations
they
have
for
changes
and
that
and
then,
at
that
time,
have
that
discussion
in
more
detail
at
public
works
utilities.
Mr
chairman,
to
see
what
we'd
want
to
look
at
updating
with
the
manual.
B
But
I'll
certainly
give
the
task
force
at
least
a
month
or
so
to
make
sure
we
have
time
to
gather
before
we.
We
convene
it
to
make
sure
we
have
time
to
gather
any
input
from
council
members
as
well
as
any
other
information
that
comes
up
related
to
councilman
griffin's
ordinance
with
the
fill
restrictions,
and
then
we
can.
We
can
look
at
reconvening
them,
probably
in
in
april,
with
the
intent
to
come
back
to
public
works
utilities
committee,
maybe
in
may
or
june,
with
those
recommendations.
Well.
B
B
And
I
mean
certainly
from
my
standpoint-
we
we've
mentioned
it
briefly.
I
mean
I
do
have
some
from
a
staff
concern.
We
have
some
concerns
with
some
of
the
smaller
sites.
I
think
we're
still
seeing
issues
with
phil
that
there
really
isn't
much
restriction
on
them
and
that's
something
we
do
need
to
address
that
wasn't
really
taken
into
account
the
original
manual
and
I'm
sure
other
people
have
other
suggestions.
In
addition
to
that.
So.
A
Okay,
all
right!
Thank
you
on
that.
Now
on
the
num
item
three,
I
asked
to
put
this
on
and
I
did
speak
with
amyos.
You
know
cfo
ms
wharton,
and
she
had
some
numbers
to
come
forward,
but
really
to
tie
the
tif
accounts
to
the
actual
project.
It
would
be
better
if
we
gave
her
a
little
more
time.
So
if
it's
okay
with
you
all,
I
asked
her
to
if
she
could
bring
that
forward
at
the
next
meeting,
which
would
be
two
weeks
from
now.
A
Okay,
we'll
get
the
tiff
balances
and
all
the
tips
across
the
city
and
how
much
money
is
being
allocated
from
one
tif
account
to
different
drainage
projects
around
the
city,
but
that
would
be
great
information
for
all
of
us
to
have
and
a
little
bit
more
time
for
her
to
report.
That
accurately
would
make
a
whole
lot
more
sense.
So
if
that's
okay
by
acclimation,
I
hope
we
can
defer
that
discussion
and
move
forward
to
item
four,
which
is
a
2021
small
project
allocation.
Mr
fountain.
B
So
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
we
wanted
to
talk-
and
certainly
ms
wharton
feel
free
to
weigh
in
on
that.
But
if
we
want
to
just
briefly
go
through
the
where
the
existing
allocations
are
for
the
drainage
fund,
not
not,
how
do
we
reallocate
or
where
do
we?
You
know,
input
future
monies
but
kind
of
what
has
already
been
funded
and
budgeted
and
allocated
by
council
in
the
past
before
we
kind
of
touch
trace.
A
I
I
I
And
then
marcus
street
17.5
million
is
projected
to
start
in
2023.
The
majority
of
that
funding
comes
from
the
stormwater
bond
and
then
we'll
have
the
market
street
street
streetscape
in
this
as
well,
because
they
kind
of
are
a
package
deal
together
and
right.
Now
that
has
a
funding
shortage
of
almost
4.3
million
dollars
that
we'll.
A
I
I
A
A
B
B
The
initial
work,
the
kind
of
best
bang
for
your
buck
incremental
fix
work
has
been
adding
storage,
basically
flood
storage
and
that's
what
the
nif
grant
is
for
is
to
basically
obtain
low-lying
property.
Remove
soils
from
those
low-lying
properties
be
able
to
store
more
water
in
places
who
want
to
store
it
rather
than
on
people's
properties
and
in
the
roads
and
in
their
houses,
which
is
kind
of
where
it
sits.
B
We're
very
hopeful
that
the
tiff
in
that
area-
and
that's
where,
like
ms
work,
will
probably
talk
about
that
a
little
bit
in
a
couple
of
weeks
that
the
tiff
starts
to
generate
revenue
and
starts
to
be
able
to
basically
be
used
to
pay
for
some
of
those
improvements
in
this
area.
Since
that
was
kind
of
the
hope
with,
I
think,
setting
up
that
tip
for
for
stormwater
purposes.
B
We'll
have
probably
a
series
of
recommendations
for
green
infrastructure
and
right-of-ways
we're
actually
looking
at
some
options
to
divert
portions
of
the
basin
out
into
other
areas
through
like
highway
61.
Do
some
other
improvements
and
the
I
mean
the
pump
station
is
still
an
approach
that
that
could
benefit
the
basin.
That
one
is
more
of
a
cost
benefit
consideration
issue
that
you're,
probably
looking
at
somewhere
to
somewhere
on
the
order
of
ten
years.
B
Probably
five
to
ten
years,
is
an
absolute
minimum
for
design
and
permitting
for
something
along
those
lines
and
depending
what
scale
you
build
it
at
somewhere
between
30
and
50
million
dollars.
So
it's
just
something.
We
haven't
advanced
aggressively
and
that
we're
trying
to
find
things
we
can.
We
know
we
have
funding
to
be
able
to
build
and
create
some
some
short-term
improvements
for
flood
situations
in
the
basin.
G
Yes,
sir,
let
me
just
ask
a
question:
real
quick
about
the
drainage
fund
money.
This
was
this
money
that
was
allocated
before
we
started
looking
at
phase
four
spring
fish
burn,
or
is
this
money
that
became
available
by
us
getting
the
state
funds
the
the
more
allocation
from
the
sieve
on
that
money?.
B
So
that
and
this
one,
do
you
wanna?
Take
that
one?
Do
you
want
me
to
take
it
go
ahead
sure
so
so
that
the
spring
fish
burn
money
had
been
sorry.
The
church
creek
money
had
been
set
aside
before
this
did
money
was
the
most
recent
round
of
stim
money.
Of
course,
there's
two
different
allocations,
but
before
the
most
recent
round
of
stip
money,
the
national
fish
and
wildlife
foundation
grant
money
is
also,
I
believe
we
actually
got
the
original
notifications
prior
to
the
most
recent
recent
right
infrastructure
bank.
G
The
reason
I
asked
that
is
because
I
you
know
we
were
talking
about
having
such
limited
amount
of
resources
in
the
drainage
fund
having
to
deplete
it,
because
we
had
run
out
of
money
in
a
lot
of
ways
on
spring
fish
burn.
So
having
that
some
of
that
money
free
up,
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
whether
or
not
this
money
was
that
money
or
whether
this
was
separate
sure.
B
A
I
Woods
all
drainage,
fun,
we're
hopeful
for
some
nif
with
grant
money
on
this
one,
but
we'll
have
to
wait
and
see
on
that
john's
island,
the
nif
with
john's
island
restoration
plan.
This
is
just
master
plan
services.
It's
not
it's
not
anything
more
than
that!
That's
235
with
half
a
half
and
half
grant
and
drainage
fund.
I
G
G
B
F
I
B
G
G
A
B
That's
right,
yes,
yeah
the
low
body.
The
low
battery
also
had
had
a
million
dollars.
That's
right!
Sorry
about
that
yeah!
We
do
have
some
potential
on
this
one.
We're
certainly
optimistic,
potentially
for
another
iria
grant
or
another
grant
opportunity
on
king
yuji
we're
just
we
wanted
to
make
sure
we
have
funding
before
we
started
building
things
on
the
project.
So
that's
why
it's
got
the
allocation
that
it
does.
I
A
Well,
let
me
ask
this
this
question
for
mr
mayor.
I
guess
mr
fountain
too,
mr
mayor
remember.
I
know
we
took
out
of
that
2.3
or
2.4
that
was
remaining
from
the
bridge
project.
We
took
a
million
out,
I
believe,
for
affordable
housing.
Remember
it
was
supposed
to
be
for
streetscapes
and
I
brought
drainage
if.
E
Well
that
that
those
remaining
funds
were
left
in
the
huge
street
streetscape
project,
which
kind
of
dovetails
with
this
one.
Okay,
it
goes
right
up
to
the
other
side
of
the
railroad
tracks,
I
believe-
and
so
ideally
they
should
both
get
done
and
and
and
you
can
fix
the
drainage
and
improve
the
strength.
All
the
way
from
king
over
to
morrison
drive
that
money
is
still
there
and
and
councilmember
griffin
already
asked
the
question,
but
I
I
was
going
to
offer
that
in
that
cooper,
river
bridge
bridgette.
E
I
A
A
B
Yeah
yeah,
so,
mr
german,
this
one-
and
this
is
one
of
these
challenges
when
we're
trying
to
allocate
future
money
when
we
don't
have
a
design
yet
so
this
this.
Basically,
we
have
aecom
currently
working
to
do
the
you
know
the
cleaning
survey
and
modeling
to
develop
project
options
kind
of
similar
to
what
we've
done
in
like
central
park
or
some
of
these
other
basins.
B
What
ms
wharton's,
showing
here
is
what
was
sort
of
sitting
in
the
original
tiff
allocation
for
cooper,
river
bridge
for
drainage,
work
right
and
then
I
think
that
the
number
you've
probably
seen,
I
think,
was
a
just
a
placeholder
number
that
was
put
together
as
part
of
the
looking
at
options
for
future
tif
dollar
future
tiff
dollar,
bonding
with
the
dis
in
coordination
with
the
design
center.
So
we
kind
of
were
looking
at
different
basket
of
projects
that
could
be
done
out
there.
It's
just
too
early
to
really
have
a
good
sense.
B
Yet
we
know
we
know
it's
not
going
to
be
inexpensive
to
fix
the
area,
but
at
some
point
we'll
hit
a
diminishing
return
portion
of
the
curve
that
it
stops
making
sense
to
keep.
You
know,
keep
making
improvements.
I
just
don't
have
that
information.
Yet
I
need
another
six
to
twelve
months
to
give
you
a
good,
a
good
set
of
financial
numbers
out
there.
That's.
B
B
A
A
I
I
And
then
that's
the
funding
sources
for
all
of
those
and
it's
just
a
little
bit
short
because
of
that
because
of
the
market
street
drainage
project.
So
you
know,
grants
has
been
the
highest
is
the
highest
funds
that
we're
utilizing
for
a
lot
of
that.
But
that's
because
of
the
of
those
said
money
for
the
spring
fish
burn
project.
A
I
Okay
and
then
so,
this
is
the
projections
that
we
have
for
the
next
five
years
and
it's
really
draft
form
because
we
don't
have
it,
you
know
perfectly
allocated
out,
but
for
the
next
five
years
and
it
might
be
a
little
confusing
the
these
are
the
fund
balances
and
of
of
this
fund
balance.
This
is
restricted
for
projects,
and
then
we
have
unassigned
fund
balance
and
the
one
thing
that
we're
talking
about
is
a
reserve
policy
goal
like
we
have
for
the
general
fund.
I
Go
about
doing
that
so
we're
doing
some
research
and
we'll
bring
something
back
to
all
of
you
on
what
is
a
good.
It's
just
there's
not
a
whole
lot
of
guidance
on
how
you
do
that
for
a
capital
project
fund
and
so
and
we're
trying
to
internally
figure
out
what
would
make
the
most
sense
taking
into
the
project
contingencies
that
we
already
have
built
into
the
projects
so
that
we're
not
reserving
too
much,
but
we
still
have
something
there
just
in
case
something
you
know
happens.
So
that's
what
we
have
in
there
for
right
now.
I
A
I
A
G
I
This
right
here
that
this
would
be
to
spend
by
fiscal
year.
So
this
would
be
above
and
beyond
what
we
need
in
the
drainage
fund
every
year
and
then,
if
you
add
all
that
up,
cumulatively,
that's
what
it
is,
but
for
each
separate
year
that's
about
how
much
we
feel
like
we
would
have
extra
every
year
in
the
drainage
fund
that
we
could.
C
B
You
know,
nine
million
dollars
is
kind
of
the
the
additional
money
beyond
what's
been
allocated
into
projects.
Then
the
next
year
it's
another
seven
million
dollars
in
theory
becomes
available.
Then
the
next
year
3.4
million
more
becomes
available
than
1.9
million,
then
3.8
million.
So
the
cumulative
is
showing
you.
B
If
you
assign
no
new
projects
at
in
2025,
you
would
have
accumulated
an
additional
fund
balance
of
like
25
million
dollars
that
you
could
be
using
on
projects,
but
the
the
per
year
rate
is
showing
you
how
much
comes
open
each
year
because
we
do
bring
in
revenue,
but
we
also
spend
at
a
different
rate
than
the
revenue.
So,
like
you
see
up
front
the
first
couple
years,
there's
some
bond
refinancing.
B
Yeah,
so
all
the
all
the
projects
that
ms
wharton
just
showed
those
budget
numbers
are
all
included
as
allocated
money
already.
So
that's
not
within
those
additional
dollars.
Additional
dollars
are
actually
money
that
could
be
allocated
into
additional
projects
over
those
next
five
years.
It's
just
we
can't.
We
can't
spend
the
whole
25
million
dollars
in
2022
when
partially
because
of
engineering
purposes,
but
also
some
of
it
doesn't
become
available
until
2023,
2024
or
2025..
A
I
It
is
it's,
so
we
have
a
cash
flow
of
all
the
expenditures
for
the
project,
so
you
just
might
have
more
expenses
in
one
year
than
the
other,
and
so
some
of
these
projects
are
just
getting
started.
So
that's
why
you'll
see
it
decrease
because
you'll
have
bigger
expenditures
in
those
in
those
later
years.
I
B
B
So
again,
mr
chairman,
these
these
are
the
ones
that
have
been
currently
allocated
and
budgeted
by
council,
so
dupont,
wapu
has
design
funding
which
is
not
shown
on
here,
and
it
had
the
original
kind
of
study
side
which
is
not
showing
here.
We
try
not
to
go
back
in
time
as
much.
This
is
the
projection
I
guess,
of
future
spending,
but
you're
right.
We
don't
have
the
the
design
money
shown
within
this
one
for
dupont,
but
we
do
show
it
on.
A
B
And
some
of
that
so
there's
more
projects
that
we've
worked
on
than
are
shown
on
there.
Those
are
kind
of
the
major
capital
allocated
items
somewhat
just
for
for
being
able
to
read
it
and
have
it
be
in
a
font
size
that
anyone
can
can
see,
but
I
think
yeah
miss
wharton's
about
to
jump
to
the
slide
that
I
think
you're
you're.
Looking
at
mr
chairman,
which
is
what.
I
B
There's
there's
the
design
money
is
all
to
be
expended
this
year
in
that
in
that
collaborative
work
with
the
county,
but
it
was
also
funded
out
of
the
small
project
account
not
out
of
the
drainage
fund.
So
it's
sort
of
a
cross.
That's
where
we're
talking
about
that.
This
matters
for
the
small
project
allocations,
because
we
funded
that
design
work
out
of
the
small
project
allocation
last
year,
so
it
doesn't
show
in
the
drainage
fund
cash
flow
calculations.
It
only
shows
in
the
small
project
cashflow
allegations.
I
Okay,
so
then
next
we
have
unfunded.
So
these
are
the
unfunded
projects
that
we
have
a
cost
assigned
to
or
that
we're
expecting
anyway,
earhart
tunnel
was
a
14
million.
We
have
applied
for
a
cdbr
cdbgr
grant
in
that
amount.
Then
I'm
almost
10
million
dollars,
so
our
city
portion
of
that
project
would
be
about
4.2
million
dollars
and
then
here's
the
dupont,
wapu
areas,
one
two
four
and
five
through
eight
central
park
wamba
and
brought
in
lockwood.
Meanwhile-
and
so
I
don't
know,
if
you
have
any
questions
on
those.
A
G
I
G
B
So
they
did
develop
the
prioritization
system.
We
have
that
we've
been
working
through
and
testing
it,
and
if
we
we
think
we
have
it
in
a
pretty
good
place.
So
the
next
step
for
us
is
to
start
working
through
these
projects
and
scoring
them.
The
the
previous
slide
that
ms
horton
had
are
relatively
straightforward
for
scoring,
because
we
have
that
conceptual
work
done
so
these
are.
These
would
be
relatively
straightforward
for
having
the
data
available
to
score
them.
The
second
set
of
projects,
some
of
these
we
could
score.
B
We
could
take
very
conceptual
scores,
it's
hard,
it's
hard
to
have
it.
You
know
it's
just
this
age-old
problem
of
engineering
right
that
you,
you
have
to
almost
spend
money
to
figure
out
how
much
money
you
need
to
spend
in
order
to
do
the
rest
of
the
project,
and
sometimes
you
find
out
it's
not
a
good
path
forward
and
you
need
to
back
up
which
is
very
frustrating
to
everyone.
B
But
these
are
where
we
talked
a
little
bit
at
the
budget
ad
hoc,
with
potentially
looking
at
using
the
utility
fee
to
almost
develop
like
a
concept
budget
each
year
to
say:
let's
put
a
couple
of
these
projects
through
a
you
know,
fifty
thousand
dollar
type
assessment
to
figure
out.
How
much
would
this
actually
cost
to
do?
What
would
it
look
like?
B
B
Right
so
we
could
score
the
projects
that
weston
sampson
had
put
forth
like,
but
the
if
you
remember
right
with
those
the
challenge
with
those
is
that
most
of
them
rely
upon
the
pump
station
being
built.
So
you
end
up
having
that
as
your
your
kind
of
core
project,
so
the
add-on
projects
are
relatively
inexpensive,
but
that
core
project
is
a
high,
a
high
valuation
project.
So
we
haven't
gone
back
and
scored
it
because
we
weren't
sure
we'd
have
that
kind
of
funding
allocation
available.
B
B
They're
looking
to
see
what
else
we
can
do
in
addition
to
a
pump
station,
it
wouldn't
necessarily-
you
could
still
build
a
pump
station
if
we
ever
have
that
kind
of
funding
allocation.
If
we
don't
you,
you
can
build
other
projects
that
will
do
improvement
and
the
the
way
to
kind
of
leverage
it
is
sort
of
similar.
To
these.
You
know.
B
G
B
C
A
Appreciate
that,
mr
mayor,
I
tell
you,
you
know
this
approach
and
I
hope
after
this,
mrs
wharton
and
mr
founder,
I
hope
we
can
push
this
out
to
the
entirety
of
council.
Maybe
they
can
get
a
quick
glance
at
it
before
tomorrow's
meeting,
but
you
know
that's
that
broad
approach
that
I
believe
if
we
continue
to
build
momentum.
A
Eventually
we
can
have
you
know
some
sort
of
again
half
cent
sales
tax,
even
if
we
have
to
join
in
with
the
county,
because
obviously
wes
ashley
james
island,
johns
island
you've
got
end
city
and
outer
city
even
up
kane
hoy
peninsula.
In
and
out
that
you
know,
we
fix
our
stuff.
If
the
county
can't
fix
this,
you
know
it
doesn't
do
a
lot
of
good
a
lot
of
times.
So
you
know
I'm
a
big
fan
of
half
cent
sales
tax
work
for
the
transportation
and
the
bridge
certainly
works
for
schools.
A
D
B
B
Million
dollars
probably
makes
sense
to
look
at
from
drainage
fund
perspective
because
we're
really
getting
into
capital
project
territory
with
that
kind
of
expenditure,
unless
we
want
to
at
some
point
significantly
increase
the
amount
of
money
within
the
small
project
allocation
because
we're
talking
about
a
million
dollars
per
year.
If
we
start
trying
to
fund
three
or
four
hundred
thousand
dollar
projects.
Out
of
that,
we
really
only
have
the
ability
to
do
you
know
two
or
three
projects,
so
that's
kind
of
the
threshold
we've
been
looking
at,
but
it's
still
fluid.
B
It
is,
I
mean
we
have
a
little
bit
of
a
a
gap
right
now
between
these
sort
of
projects.
That
are,
you
know,
five
to
ten
million
dollars
in
projects
that
are,
you
know,
fifty
thousand
hundred
thousand
dollars.
That's
that's.
One
option
is
to
try
to
close
that
gap.
By
saying
we
could
use
more
small
project
allocation
money
for
those
kinds
of
work,
or
we
can
bring
the
drainage
fund
level
down
and
start
looking
at
those
out
of
the
drainage
fund,
but
you're
right
we've
got
to
figure
that
out
one
way
or
another.
D
B
The
grant
there's
a
whole
series
of
different
grant
options.
The
the
ones
that
everyone's
sort
of
familiar
with
are
the
fema
grants,
which
historically
have
actually
been
very
challenging
to
use
and
fema's
in
the
middle
of
redoing
their
whole
grant
program,
basically
to
create
the
brick
grants
the
building
resilient
infrastructure
in
communities.
Maybe
I'm
going
to
butcher
that
acronym,
but
it's
a
sort
of
their
attempt
to
redo
the
pdm
grants
in
a
way
that's
more
applicable
for
entities.
No
one
knows
exactly
how
that
will
go
the
first.
B
This
is
the
first
year
to
apply,
so
we
did
apply
just
to
try
to
get
a
sense
of
how
the
plan
works
and
how
they'll
be
allocating,
but
that's
that's
where
they
expect
to
have
the
major
kind
of
traditional
fema
grants
about
500
million
dollars
a
year,
potentially
across
the
country.
The
grants
we've
been
successful
with
have
been
pretty
varied.
I
mean,
obviously,
we've
done
a
number
of
the
buyout
grants
with
fema
we've
done
the
infrastructure
bank,
which
obviously
is
a
state
level
agency.
B
We've
had
success
with
scria
recently,
which
is
a
state
agency.
The
state
grant
agency,
national
fish
and
wildlife
foundation
is
actually
funded,
mostly
through
noaa
sort
of
a
federal
agency
that
gives
out
grant
awards,
basically
on
behalf
of
noaa,
primarily
obviously,
we've
had
some
success
with
the
army
corps
of
engineers
as
a
federal
agency.
B
What
has
kind
of
suburban
sprawl
slash
over
development
led
to
problems
with
flooding,
so
we
try
to
we
try
extremely
hard,
and
certainly
our
grant
writer
does
a
great
job
with
helping
us
with
this.
Sarah
fishera,
but
we
try
extremely
hard
to
find
projects
that
fit
well
into
a
grant.
Rather
than
saying
here
is
a
pot
of
money.
D
I
D
B
Yeah
70
yeah
and
a
deal
a
great
deal
that
is
spring
spring:
fish
burn
with
infrastructure,
bank
and
again
the
infrastructure
bank
wants
to
see
large-scale
projects
that
benefit
regional
transportation
right
so
for
them
fixing
septa
mclark.
You
know
us.
17
corridor
was
a
a
great
kind
of
meshing
of
priorities
on
that
project.
A
I
I
G
G
I
One
additional
project
just
because
it's
it
it's
also
kind
of
short
on
funding
and
because
mr
fountain
also
manages
this
project,
but
it's
a
low
battery
seawall
and
we're
about
31
million
dollars.
30.8
million
dollars
short
for
funding
that
right
now.
So
that
is
another
project
that
we'll
have
to
think
about
as
well
and
how
we're
going
to
go
about
funding.
I
A
A
I
A
A
I
I
I
E
A
E
A
A
B
A
B
Okay
and
I'll
send
out
I'll
send
out
some
information
about
where
we
are
with
small
projects
that
are
available
for
funding
that
I
know
about
and
a
description
of
each
of
those
projects
for
the
committee.
So
please,
let
me
know
if
there's
projects
you're
aware
of
that
are
not
on
the
list
for
consideration,
because
it's
the
ones
that
I
have
accumulated
over
the
year
and
how
we've
set
them
up.
But
we
can
talk
about
that
in
more
detail
again
at
the
next
meeting.
I
A
H
It
seems
to
be
taking
10
or
15
years
for
people
to
get
once
they
get
their
design
to
get
all
the
easements
in
place
to
get
the
second
petition
done
and
the
submitted
to
city
council,
which
is
delaying
the
projects.
As
a
result,
we
have
you
know
a
very
large
balance
in
the
non-standard
service
fund,
but
it's
controlled
by
our
franchise
agreement
with
dominion
energy.
So
it's
not
money,
that's
sort
of
generally
available
for
the
city.
It
has
to
be
used
for
these
non-standard
service
projects,
but
under
the
current
formula
the
city
pays.
H
There
are
seven
neighborhoods
that
are
still
waiting:
ansonboro
country
club,
2,
wapoo
heights,
south
battery
chad
street
and
the
green
street
old,
windermere
south
windermere.
Then
a
portion
of
clifford
street
those
of
all
submitted
first
petitions,
anson,
burrow
and
country
club
2
have
their
designs.
H
Secondly,
we'll
retain
the
petition
method
and
the
people
that
are
still
waiting
will
still
have
some
priority
status
so
once
either
wapu
heights
or
ansonborough
gets
construction
approval.
Then
then
south
battery
trad
street
and
the
greece
street
they'll
move
to
the
top
of
the
list
to
get
design
plans
done,
but
in
the
meantime
I
might
be
10
years
from
now.
In
the
meantime,
city
council
can
say:
well
we
want
to
split
50
50
with
ian
with
dominion.
I
keep
wanting
to
call
it
scng
this
project
over
here.
H
We
don't
need
a
petition
from
the
neighbors
or
anything
like
that.
We're
just
going
to
go
ahead
and
the
city
will
pay
50
from
there
from
the
undergrounding
fund,
and
you
know
from
the
money
already
there.
Dominion
will
match
that
50
percent
and
we'll
go
ahead
with
that
project.
Without
waiting
for
wapu
heights
or
ansember,
I
mean
yeah
wapo
heights
or
anson
burrow
to
get
to
the
next
petition
phase.
H
But
during
the
interim
city
council
has
the
ability
to
do
other
things,
and
this
is
just
sort
of
outlying
outlining
all
that
the
big
difference
with
doing
it.
That
way
is
the
city's
contributing
instead
of
35
we're
contributing
50,
it
doesn't
come
from
general
funds.
It
comes
from
non-standard
service
from
funds
that,
under
the
franchise
agreement
in
place
since
1996
dominion
with
dominion
done
with
hole,
but
they
sent
us
a
separate
check
from
our
utility
from
our
franchise
fee.
H
H
If
you
know
during
a
year,
we
we
use,
we
used
it
all
for
a
city
council
approved
project
and
didn't
need
it
for
a
project
on
the
list.
Dominion
would
match
up
to
the
530
000
for
the
projects
we
did
so
again.
Other
new
ordinance
previous
projects
still
have
priority,
but
city
council
also
has
the
right
or
the
ability
to
use
the
non-standard
service
funds,
which
is
the
undergrounding
fee.
The
undergrounding
fund
tracy,
who
I
think
was
not.
H
It
was
not
supposed
to
be
able
to
join
us,
but
I
think
she
is
on
the
phone
has
sort
of
drafted
guidelines,
for
we
don't
want
it
to
be
completely
discretionary.
You
need
some
basis
to
to
build
your
decision
around
to
use
the
funds
so
you're,
not
there's
no
equal
protection
type
issue,
so
she's
built
in
standards
that
the
committee
has
reviewed
and
hopefully
will
finalize
that
will
guide,
city,
council
and
public
public
works
and
then
city
council
in
in
creating
the
priority
list
moving
forward.
H
A
A
My
understanding
is
that
north
charleston
used
a
number
of
ways
to
underground
international
boulevard,
and
so
I'm
around
the
coliseum,
and
all
of
that
I'm
just
wondering
whether
we're
using
all
I
think
greenville
had.
I
spoke
to
mr
cassas,
with
sc
e
and
g.
That's
probably
probably
about
two
years
ago,
multiple
ways.
Other
cities
are
doing
it.
I'm
just
wondering
you
know
we're
going
to
revitalize
west
ashley
make
these
boulevards
look
a
lot
better.
We
gotta
get
more
money
than
half
a
million
dollars
at
a
time.
H
Yes,
sir,
and
and
I'll
say
I
danny
his
or
mr,
is
it
castle
cases
I
can
never
pronounce
his
awesome
he
sort
of
proposed.
I
think
north
charleston
and
melt
pleasant.
They
do
you
know
it's
based
on
basis
points
which
is
the
percentage
of
your
franchise
fee,
and
I
think
I
sort
of
calculated
50
basis
points
based
on
our
last
franchise
fee
and
it'd
be
like
900
and
something
thousand
dollars.
H
The
problem
is
that
that's
that's
coming
from
the
general
fund
that
that
extra
right
now
that
extra
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
goes
straight
into
the
general
fund.
So
I
mean
certainly
city
council
every
year
during
his
budget,
could
allocate
that
400
000
to
from
the
general
fund
to
the
undergrounding
fund.
If
it
wanted
to-
or
it
could
have
been
the
franchise
agreement
to
do
that
and
have
dominion
match
it.
H
I
think
danny
has
begun
the
process
or
has
reached
out
to
me,
and
we
do
want
to
sort
of
look
at
the
numbers
to
see
if
there's
a
way
that
you
could
save
you
know,
so
dominion
would
match
up
to
the
same
amount
right
so
that
that
creates
about
two
million
dollars.
Let's
say
I'm
just
going
to
round
up
right
and
if
there's
projects
that
we
pay
for
from
the
general
fund
and
the
reduction
is
enough
that
it
would
justify
it.
Certainly
you
could
do
that.
H
H
anywhere
that
I
know
about
so
you
know
that's
that's
kind
of
where
we
stand
now,
but
it
any
increase
to
the
extent
would
be
on
the
table
would
come
from
the
general
fund.
It
would
just
be
taken
out
of
our
franchise
fee
and
instead
of
going
to
the
general
fund,
it
would
go
to
the
non-standard
service
fund
and
be
used
for
those
projects.
A
H
H
Funding
mechanism
is
still
the
same,
and
you
know
that
may
be
worked
out
differently
in
the
future.
I
think
over
the
course
of
the
short
term.
You
know
I've
spoken
amy
and
matt
and
gone
through
it,
and
I
think
they
had
the
same
impression.
I
did
that
there's.
You
know
unless
there's
a
that,
there's
just
no
money
to
to
do
that
right
now
without
getting
into
more
details
in
the
budget,
and
you
know
that
that's
something
we
can
certainly
look
at
and
then
also
you
know.
H
We've
we've
discussed
the
issue
about
especially
moving
the
previous
projects
forward,
being
able
to
fund
somebody
to
coordinate
with
with
dominion
and
whether
or
not
that
could
be
paid
from
the
fund
and
somehow
matched
by
dominion.
I
think
the
benefit
of
that
I
I
think,
maybe
last
year
when
we
started
this
process,
there
was
like
7.5
million
dollars
in
this
in
the
fund
and
and
that
money
will
just
sit
there.
H
It's
only
the
city's
money
that
money
just
sits
there
until
under
the
current
ordinance
until
one
of
these
seven
projects
gets
authorized.
So
we're
just
we're
just
sitting
on
this
money
that
we'd
like
to
be
able
to
use
for
underground
projects
like
stony
field
might
might
have
been
one
where
we
could
have
done
that.
So
that's
kind
of
the
the
idea
is
that
that
person
could
coordinate
to
get
those
projects
moving
faster
and
also
kind
of
help
with
the
other
issues
involving
dominion.
H
We
we
did
something
that,
like
that
with
the
magnolia
development
agreement,
where,
as
part
of
that
development
agreement,
the
there's
a
consultant
that
works
with
magnolia
and
that's
I
don't
know-
I
think
the
developer
like
pays.
A
portion
of
that
consultant
fee
or
whatever
whatever
it
is,
so
it
would
operate
similar
to
that.
So
those
are
the
major
points
again.
I've
got
the
draft
ordinance,
but
it's
I'm
still
waiting
on
comments
from
danny
and
then
the
utilities
committee,
I
think,
supports
the
current
ordinance.
H
It's
just
getting
those
comments
and
having
a
the
last
meeting
where
they
actually
vote
on
it
to
because
they
do
have
to
comply
with
foia
they
pretty
much
all
at
the
last
meeting.
Everyone
who
was
present
voiced
approval
of
the
ordinance
as
drafted.
So
that's
I
don't
know
if
any
other
members
council,
member
appel
or
I
don't
know
if
councilmember
chapo
is
still
on
or
the
mayor
or
tracy
have
any
other
comments
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions.
E
So
two
things
I'll
mention
one
is
on
the
existing
projects.
It
will
allow
them
ansenberg's
example,
council,
member
dale
chapo
knows
where,
if
they
can't
get
all
their
easements
in
place,
if
they
can
just
get
a
portion
of
them
in
place,
that
they'll
be
able
to
move
forward
with
a
project,
even
though
it
might
not
be
the
the
the
whole
neighborhood,
maybe
it'll,
just
be
half
of
it
and
in
a
similar
fashion.
E
Mr
chairman,
the
fire
station
11
project
on
savannah
highway,
the
the
international
african
american
museum,
we
undergrounded
right
in
front
of
the
museum
and
the
little
one
here
at
stony
field
that
we
just
approved
the
easement
for
tonight
we're
paying
100
of
that.
With
this
ordinance
in
place,
we
could
have
split
that
50
50
with
dominion
and
saved
between
those
three
projects,
probably
about
a
million
dollars.
So
this
is
going
to
give
us
the
flexibility
to
use
these
funds
and
and
and
get
some
things
going.
E
D
I
I
talked
to
susan
and
chip
about
this
because
there's
a
one
of
my
neighborhoods
asked
me
about
the
process,
and
that
was
just
sort
of
stunned
by
the
length
of
delay,
and
so
whatever
we
do.
With
this
thing,
we've
got
to
figure
out
a
better
mechanism
10
to
15
years
from
the
part
of
the
first
inquiry,
getting
the
applications
in
getting
the
petition
signed,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
the
measures
mentioned
even
getting
the
portion
of
that
area
approved.
D
We've
got
to
come
up
with
a
better
solution
and
guidelines
on
getting
this
thing.
Moving
a
lot
faster,
I
mean
the
folks
who
initiate
this
they're
gonna
be
moved
out
of
the
neighborhood
or
or
long
haul
someplace
else
by
the
time
they
stay
started
and
they're
not
gonna,
see
the
benefits
of
their
hard
work.
So
that's
just
my
two
cents
for
it.
I
just
think
we've
got
to
do
it.
You
know
you
use
this
term
councilman
aware,
and
I
like
it
like
it,
we
can
do
better
than
that.
You
know
on
this
particular
project.
D
We
can
do
better
than
that.
We
got
to
figure
out
a
way
of
how
to
do
that
and
and
the
other
project
that
is
getting
a
lot
of
attention.
I
want
to
get
a
lot
of
attention
old
town,
road
about
part
of
the
revitalization
and
efforts
of
west
ashen
that
that
highway,
that
road
needs
attention
on
getting
those
lines
down.
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
just
want
to
echo
all
the
you
know
everything
the
mayor
said:
there's
a
lot
of
good
hard
work
that
went
into
this
process.
You
know
chip
did
an
amazing
job,
putting
together
this
ordinance.
This
is
a
very
complex
legal
document
that
y'all
will
see
and
he
worked
very,
very
hard
on
it
and
then
tracy
mckee,
of
course,
was
very
helpful.
In
the
process
dominion
we
had
neighborhood
representatives,
susan
perlstein,
troy
miller,
as
the
mayor
pointed
out
and
and
councilman
shead.
F
I
I
want
to
let
you
know
that
you
know
your
sentiment
that
you
just
expressed
is
exactly
what
we
brought
to
the
table
when
we
got
this
process
moving
last
year,
which
was
how
do
we
get
more
dollars
set?
How
do
we
get
more
projects
going?
How
do
we
get
more
things
moving
and
and
what
sort
of
animated
that
process
was?
F
The
thought
process
was
why.
Why
should
this
be
any
different
than
all
the
other
infrastructure
projects
that
the
city
green
lights
every
day
right,
whether
it
be
storm
water,
whether
it
be
traffic
calming
whether
it
be?
You
know,
whatever
the
case
may
be?
We
don't
have
this
sort
of
overly
complicated
multi-step
petition
process
all
these
different
things.
F
But
this
is
just
a
great
effort
and
I'm
going
to
be
so
excited
when
we
start
seeing
some
more
of
these
power
lines
start
to
get
buried,
because
that's
ultimately
the
way
we
prevent
some
of
this
really
aggressive
tree
trimming
that
we've
all
been
seeing
in
our
districts
to
one
degree
or
another.
So
it's
an
exciting
project,
and
this
is
a
great
milestone
that
we're
sort
of
bringing
it
to
public
works
utilities
committee
and
hope
to
have
the
final
ordinance
passed
this
year
sooner
rather
than
later.
So
thanks
everybody.
I.
A
C
D
Put
on
the
agenda
for
next
meeting
a
discussion
about
sidewalks
being
blocked
and
what
we
can
do
with
from
a
public
safety
standpoint
of
addressing
that
issue.
So
we
don't
need
to
discuss
it
right
now.
I
did
tell
the
folks
that
I
would
just
bring
it
out
to
make
sure
it's
on
the
agenda
for
discussion
next
next
meeting.