►
Description
City of Charleston Committee on Ways and Means Meetings 7/29/2021
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
would
like
to
ask
miss
what
I
guess
about
our
fund
balance
I
and
it
was.
E
E
I
went
from
fund
reserves
and
obviously
the
storm
water
budget
over
there
or
the
tiff
I
should
say
over
there
kim
is
what
give
us
an
update
on
our
fandom.
F
Amy's
actually
out
on
vacation
this
week,
so
councilmember
warren.
Just
to
clarify
your
your
question:
are
you
referencing
the
fund
balance
that
exists
in
the
tif
currently.
E
F
Yeah
so
we
hold
our,
are
20,
we're
fine
there
at
our
20
threshold
and
and
we
do
have
the
funds
in
the
project
budget
for
this
contract
specifically.
F
D
If
I
may
give
a
little
background,
if
you
look
on
agenda
and
it
lists
all
those
different
amounts
that
make
up
that
project,
budget
of
3
million,
98,
000
and
so
forth,
those
were
all
monies
that
had
been
put
together
some
years
ago
now
for
the
renovation
of
the
julian
divine
center
and
all
that
work
got
completed
other
than
the
work
on
the
smokestacks.
D
So
there's
there's
enough
money
in
the
project
budget
to
do
this.
This
part
of
the
project
which
our
engineers
reported
was
what
was
needed
to
to
to
to
bring
them
into
better
compliance
and
make
it
safer
that
the
most
pressing
concern
of
of
the
from
an
engineering
point
of
view,
these
inner
liner
bricks
that
had
been
failing,
and
so
this
this
project
gets
us
to
safety.
If
you
will
or
a
good
step
of
the
way
there
and
is
within
the
project
budget,
we
we
actually
it's
kind
of
funny.
D
We
had
it
ready
for
the
last
city
council
meeting
and
through
no
fault
of
our
own,
but
a
little
technicality
we
had
to
re-bid
it
again.
We
ended
up
saving
untold
40
thousand
dollars
in
re-bid.
That
519
was
less
than
what
the
contractor
had
bid
the
first
time,
so
we
ended
up
saving
a
little
money,
and
maybe
that
doesn't
answer
your
question
at
all.
But
I
just
thought
that
background.
A
A
E
You
know
we
had
that
proposal
before
council
a
little
bit
less
than
two
weeks
ago
for
a
hundred,
and
I
think
seventeen
million
dollars
and
mr
rock
did
a
good
job
great
job
matter
of
fact
explaining
it
part
of
it
was
gonna,
have
I
think,
potential
revenue
opportunities
that
still
have
to
yet
to
be
worked
out.
G
E
That's
going
to
have
a
low
turnout,
because
obviously
this
the
mayor's
not
off
for
re-election
half
the
council
is
not
up
for
re-election,
so
we
know
it's
gonna
have
a
a
low
turnout.
Do
we
have
a
calculator?
How
much
taxes
would
have
to
increase
to
pay
for
this?
Is
that
going
to
be
part
of
the
question.
E
I'm
asking
mr
frolic
the
mayor.
I
guess
I'd,
ask
that
the
mayor:
do
we
have
the
how
much
millage
will
have
to
go
up
to
pay
for
this.
D
Well,
that's
the
way
it's
proposed.
No,
it
would
be
part
of
an
explanation
that
jeremy
cook
is
on
the
line
and
could
can
explain
why
we
ended
up
crafting
or
there
were
some
legal
implications
about
both
stating
the
amount
and
or
the
millage.
So
if
you
don't
mind
I'll,
let
jeremy
respond
to
that.
Well,.
E
D
That
was
not
our
intent
to
answer
the
question.
You
know
we
did
have
the
list
of
projects
presented
with
the
master
plan
that
totaled,
I
think,
114
million
dollars.
So
the
intent
is
that
this
first
involvement,
if
you
will
or
for
one
way
of
funding
all
of
those
improvements
this
this
would
be
a
component
of
that
there
will
be
other
ways
to
fund
the
the
the
whole
list.
But
the
anticipation
is
that
the
39
million
would
fund
items
off
of
that
larger
list
that
was
presented
with
the
master
plan.
E
Yeah,
I
understand
the
broadness,
but
the
referendums
that
I've
been
involved
with
over
the
decades
usually
have
a
list
of
projects
I'm
on
a
larger
level.
So
anyway,
I
I
mean
those
are
just
yes
or
no
questions.
You've
answered
it,
but.
A
Just
and
we've
had
this
discussion,
you
know
I'm
I
of
course
I
support
our
parks
and
trying
to
get
the
dollars
for
it.
A
I
think
it
would
be
better
served
if
we
did
it
in
2023,
when
there
will
be
a
much
larger
participant
voting
level
and
because
I
don't
want
this
to
it's,
it's
a
lot
of
money
and
I'd
hate
for
this
to
either
lose
because
it's
not
really
being
done
when
we
have
a
much
larger
voting
pool.
A
That
we
we're
going
to
be
putting
the
burden
for
parks
on
our
homeowners
that
I
think
that
we
also
need
time
to
look
into
other
ways
that
we
may
be
able
to
raise
this
39
million
dollars
where
everybody
participates
in
the
cost,
the
tourists,
the
renters
and
everybody
else.
A
So
my
my
concern
here
is
that
I
want.
I
don't
want
us
to
look
fickled,
and
by
that
I
mean
we
just
rescinded
a
tax
increase
for
two
mil.
So
now
we're
going
to
allow
our
our
get
the
constituents
to
determine
whether
or
not
they
want
to
put
a
two
mil
increase
on
them.
A
I
just
think
that
it
needs
to
be
flushed
out
a
little
more
determine
if
there
are
other
ways
that
we
may
be
able
to
get
the
money
through
talking
to
the
county,
seeing
whether
or
not
the
county
will
support
a
half
cent
sales
tax
or
something
which
would
then
make
everybody
pay
for
the
parks
and
recreation
facilities
that
they
use.
A
A
I
think
that
everybody
should
have
the
obligation
to
pay
for
a
parks
and
recreation
facilities,
because
we
all
use
it.
So
that's
my
position,
I'm
not
going
to
vote
on
this
tonight.
For
that
very
reason.
A
I
do
think
that
one
if
we
do
it
in
23,
you
have
a
much
much
larger
participation
rate
of
the
voters
in
the
city
and
two.
I
think
we
need
to
have
some
discussion
in
the
interim
as
to
what
specific
projects
that
are
that
are
that
are
going
to
be
be
funded
and
to
get
with
the
county
and
determine
whether
or
not
they
would
support
some
type
of
referendum
for
a
half
cent
sales
tax
to
pay
this
39
million
dollars.
A
So
that's
my
concern
that
we
make
sure
that
everybody
participates
in
this
effort
and
it's
just
not
put
on
the
backs
of
the
homeowners
of
the
city.
H
Sir,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
share
your
concerns,
mr
chairman,
about
the
sharing
of
the
financial
burden
and
it
is-
and
I
think
you
meant
to
say
property
owners,
not
just
homeowners
but
as
property
owners
yeah,
who
seem
to
be
the
ones
who
carry
the
burden
on
all
of
this,
and-
and
I
agree
with
you
on
seeking
other
sources
to
help
to
fray
this.
H
H
If
we
don't
proceed
with
this,
how
long
would
it
sort
of
delay
getting
this?
This
planned
into
operation.
D
So
so
what
drove
to
39
million
was
two
things
one.
What
we
felt
was
a
limit
to
what
folks
might
support
in
the
resulting
millage,
which
was
which
was
two
mills,
as
I
mentioned
before,
and
then
in
a
presentation
the
other
night,
mr
o'rourke,
who
did
such
a
great
job,
not
just
in
the
presentation,
but
on
this
master
plan.
You
know
again,
his
list
of
recommended
improvements
was
114
million
and,
as
I
think,
council
member
griffin
asked
him
at
the
meeting
last
time.
D
You
know
how
much
would
it
would
you
recommend
us
putting
forth
to
get
this
thing
going
and,
and
he
said
he
responded
something
like
a
little
less
than
half.
This
is
actually
a
third
about
a
third
of
that
amount
and
it
fully
anticipates
y'all
that
we're
going
to
have
to
get
funding
from
other
sources.
D
Mr
chairman,
including
the
county
which
already
has
and
really
plays
into
our
plan
the
green
belt
fund,
which,
over
the
next
10
or
so
years,
we
have
the
we'll,
have
the
availability
of
about
another
15
to
20
million
dollars
for
purchases
of
property,
and
that's
part
of
the
plan
is
the
need
to
buy
some
more
property
for
for
parks,
future
parks,
and
so
I
would
respectfully
say
the
county
is
already
in
on
this.
D
We've
already
have
access
to
greenbelt
funding
in
order
to
to
help
us
realize
this
plan,
but
no
this
should
be
a
shared
responsibility.
It
shouldn't
be
all
on
the
property
owners.
This
is
a
third
of
the
expense
or
so
asking
our
property
owners
to
participate.
D
Mr
o'rourke
always
also
said
that
in
his
surveys
and
engagement
with
the
public
that
that
citizens
overwhelmingly
responded
that
they'd
be
willing
to
participate
and
help
pay
for
this
10-year
plan,
so
I
I
just
figured
first
of
all,
let
me
go
back
and
acknowledge
that
the
timing
of
this
is
very
tight.
The
only
reason
we're
bringing
it
to
you
before
our
next
regular
council
meeting
was
because
the
legal
requirements
to
get
it
on
this
year's
ballot.
D
To
be
honest
with
you,
we
just
the
plan
came
in
when
it
did,
and
you
know
the
calendar
is
what
it
is,
but
I
would
respectfully
not
want
to
wait
until
2023
to
to
ask
our
citizens
to
confirm
what
mr
o'rourke
said
that
I
I
really
don't
want
this
to
be
a
15-year
plan.
I
really
want
it
to
be
a
10-year
plan,
even
though
we'll
always
be
improving
parts
and
doing
things
with
parks.
I
get
that,
but
a
real
focus
for
the
next
10
years.
D
This
would
get
it
started,
and
if
mr
o'rourke
is
right
in
his
engagement,
I
think
our
voters
will
approve
it.
There
should
be
a
city-wide
race,
because
there's
a
commission
or
public
works
or
charleston
water
service
seat
on
the
on
the
ballot
which
is
which
is
city-wide
and
and
the
referendum,
would
would
make
sure
it's
a
city-wide
election.
I
mean
this
could
motivate
people
to
come
out
and
vote
and
participate
in
the
six
council.
Races
that
are
out
there
and
y'all
will
draw
folks
out
to
vote.
D
So
we
had
the
housing
bond
referendum
by
the
way
on
a
non-mayor
oral
year
and
it
worked
out
just
fine.
So
I
would
respectfully
ask
you
all
to
support
this.
We
we
passed
the
10-year
plan,
I
I
just
assume
get
it
going
and
we
got
a
lot
of
great
work
to
do.
I
think
it
improves
the
quality
of
life
for
our
citizens
to
have
more
and
better
parks.
So
anyway,
that
was
a
combination
of
thoughts
to
bring
this
forward
to
you,
admittedly,
in
a
kind
of
quick
fashion.
I
Thanks,
thank
you
chairman.
I
I
wanted
to
make
sure,
as
councilman
rasheed
just
said,
that
that,
if,
if
we
would
go
forward
with
this
referendum
and
that
it
would
be
approved
by
the
voters
that
the
property
tax
under
consideration
is
just
that,
it's
for
all
property
owners-
commercial
investors,
which
ends
up
coming
back
on
rental
tenants
because
usually
the
landlord
passes
through
taxes
to
renters,
and
I
also
share
some
of
the
stated
concerns
about
the
potential
for
low
turnout
in
an
off
year.
I
I
And
I
know
from
the
report
and
from
the
master
plan
that
james
island
is,
is
the
beneficiary
of
probably
more
parks
as
a
percentage
of
the
whole
city
than
a
lot
of
the
other
boroughs.
And
I'm
I'm
worried
that
that
would
not
play
well
in
terms
of
support
for
adding
tax
a
tax
rate.
However,
we
would
decide
to
pay
for
the
debt
on
on
a
bond
like
this
in
jurisdictions
that
are
already
pretty
happy
with
the
parks
that
they
have.
I
I
literally
just
put
the
link
to
the
master
report
on
next
door
neighbors
over
the
weekend
as
an
information
item,
and
it
already
generated
some.
You
know
conversation
about
well.
Why
should
we
be
asked
to
pay
more
because
really
we
just
need
to
be
able
to
get
to
the
parks
that
we
have,
and
I
do
think
that
connectivity
is
a
huge
part
of
you
know
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish.
So
if,
if
this
goes
forward,
I
would
certainly
be
trying
to
encourage
citizens.
I
You
know
to
be
favorable
to
the
idea
of
we
have
pocket
parks.
We
have
a
lot
of
parks
that
we
might
be
able
to
you
know
theoretically
get
to,
but
we
can't
walk
or
bike,
and
so
I
I
think
we
do
have
that
as
an
opportunity.
But
realistically
it's
a
it's
a
minor
cost,
and
maybe
we
should
take
that
on
before.
We
do
anything
major.
I
D
That
that
answer
would
be
yes
and
so,
for
example,
on
john's
island.
If
our
municipal
improvement
district
goes
into
place
and
again
it's
making
up
that
delta
between
39
million
and
114
million.
Yes,
the
the
the
district
would
be
able
to
pay
for
park.
Improvements
on
within
the
district
in
johns
island
as
a
tif
district
would
be
able
to
pay
for
park
improvements
within
those
tif
districts.
So
it's
like
anything
else.
We
do
where
we
got
a
big
big
ticket.
D
We
got
to
split
it
up
into
digestible
chunks
in
order
to
make
it
all
happen.
So
the
answer
is
yes.
I
Well,
just
to
finish
my
thoughts-
I
I
am,
I
am
sort
of
you
know,
thinking
out
loud.
I
do
wish
that
we
had
more
time
to
consider
this
more
time
to
really
con.
You
know
discuss
with
constituents.
I
D
D
Yeah,
so
we'd
have
to
approve
it
now.
Let
me
suggest
this:
why
don't
we
have
a
workshop
after
we
know,
what's
going
to
be
on
the
ballot
and
go
ahead
and
take
the
list
of
114
and
prioritize
it
and
decide
which
ones
we
want
to
prioritize
for
this
39
million
that
and
we
would
know
that
and
be
able
to
let
our
citizens
know
before
they
they
vote
on
it.
That's
a
nice
good
idea.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Obviously,
a
lot
of
things
in
this
recreation
master
plan
for
us
you
know
I'm
also
all
for
parks
and
recreation.
I
think
most
of
you
know
I
couldn't
wait
for
this
plan
to
get
started
and
completed,
but
I
tend
to
agree
with
councilman
gregory
and
waring
and
listen.
I've
got
incredible
respect
for
tom
o'rourke.
B
Some
of
you
know
for
a
short
time.
A
long
time
ago
I
worked
as
a
parks,
operations,
specialist
and
assistant
manager
at
charleston
county
park.
Tom
knows
how
to
run
great
parks
and
he
knows
how
to
run
parks
without
it
being
a
financial
burden
to
to
his
county
or
his
representatives,
but
this
is
a
very,
very
good
master
plan,
but
other
than
this
proposed
ordinance.
B
The
list
of
things
and-
and
you
know
this
is
where
I
guess
I'm
getting
with
this-
what
we
had
over
2
400
surveys.
I
think
some
of
those
were
low
from
low-hanging
fruit.
Making
restrooms
available
was
one
of
them
on
them.
You
know
I
I
can
tell
you.
I've
been
to
bayview
park
in
west
ashley
park
and
found
the
doors
bathroom
lot
when
I
needed
to
use
them.
B
In
fact,
the
last
time
I
went
to
bay
view
there
was
a
person
waiting
to
lock
the
restroom
when
I
came
out
but-
and
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
things
on
there-
that
we
can
take
action
on
right
now
to
start
working
on
this,
and
I
think
I
think
the
number
one
step-
and
I
said
this
before-
that
enterprise
manager
position-
I
feel
like
in
my
mind,
is
the
first
step
we
need
to
take
and
we
probably
should
have
had
a
person
like
that
in
place
already,
but
taking
that
person
getting
that
enterprise
manager
restructuring
our
recreation
program
to
those
five
districts
have
a
director
for-
and
I
know
district
may
be
the
wrong
word,
but
those
five
different
areas.
B
I
think
a
lot
of
things
can
be
accomplished.
We
need
to
shift
some
responsibilities,
maybe
rewrite
some
job
descriptions,
realign
some
responsibilities.
B
You
know
tom
said
we
need
to
get
together
with
our
friends
at
the
sports
council,
kathleen
kartlin
and
the
cvb
with
helen
hill.
He
strongly
suggested
that
we
haven't
made
that
we
haven't
taken
that
step.
Yet
I
just
believe
that
we
can
do
some
things
before
we
hand
before
we
reach
our
handout
and
ask
our
constituents
to
pay
for
things
to.
B
Let
them
know
that
yes,
we're
serious
about
this
plan
and
we're
going
to
take
these
certain
steps
before
we
ask
you
to
to
to
pay
more
in
taxes,
so
I
mean
I
will
tell
you
that
I'll
probably
have
in
just
a
list
of
priorities
that
we're
talking
about
I'll,
probably
have
I
don't
know:
50
60,
mom
or
moms,
and
dads
out
there
of
kids
that
play
club
soccer.
Asking
man.
B
Is
this
going
to
mean
that
we're
going
to
have
more
soccer
fields,
so
my
child
can
practice
in
west
ashley
instead
of
having
to
travel
to
somerville
or
to
mount
pleasant
to
have
practice
for
their
club
team
and
right
now,
I'm.
I
can't
answer
that
question
for
them.
I
don't
know
whether
that
is
or
not,
and
if
I
can.
A
You
froze
kevin
we'll
next.
A
Oh
yes,
we'll
go
to
griffin,
councilman
sacramento.
Did
you
have
your
hand
up?
Okay,
let's
go
to
councilman
griffin,
councilman
griffin,.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
look
at
this
39
million
dollars
and
I
just
look
at
the
procedure
and
how
we
came
about
getting
to
this
point
and
I
got
to
say
I'm
a
little
disturbed
at
the
lack
of
planning
to
get
this
on
the
ballot.
It's
not
our
constituent's
fault
that
the
master
plan
just
came
out
last
week
and
it
shouldn't
be
our
responsibility
to
make
a
decision
like
this
to
put
something
on
the
ballot
in
this
short
amount
of
time.
K
Not
only
are
we
doing
a
disservice
to
our
citizens
by
asking
them
to
potentially
go
up
on
their
millage
right
after
we
just
took
away
two
mills
at
the
last
meeting,
but
they
don't
even
have
a
voice
in
this
fight.
Today,
I'm
totally
disturbed
that
we're
getting
ready
to
have
a
city
council
meeting
at
four
o'clock
and
we
don't
even
have
a
citizen
participation
period.
We
have
items
that
are
affecting
our
citizens
in
their
everyday
life
and
we
don't
even
have
a
section
in
there
for
them
to
be
heard.
K
Why
don't
we
put
all
of
those
items
on
the
ballot
and
let
our
citizens
decide
which
one
they
would?
Rather
if
they
want
to
spend
money
out
of
their
own
pocket,
let's
give
them
some
options,
not
just
throw
parks
and
recreation
on
there
and
say:
do
you
want
this
or
not?
We,
we
could
definitely
go
for
a
stormwater
bond
or
a
public
safety
bond
right
now,
we've
got
firefighters
that
are
literally
going
to
fire
houses
and
they're
standing
in
water.
K
K
Why
don't
we
put
a
stormwater
bond
together
and
put
that
on
the
agenda
or
on
the
ballot?
For
for
our
citizens
to
vote
on,
I
just
feel
like
this
is
a
sneak
attack
coming
in
at
the
last
second,
no
public
input
and
we're
going
off
of
some
surveys
that
were
done.
I'm
telling
you,
I
don't
know
many
people
that
actually
understand
how
a
bond
referendum
works,
and
yes,
people
may
say
that
they're
willing
to
help
pay
for
these
parts,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
they're
willing
to
increase
their
taxes.
K
To
do
that,
a
lot
of
my
constituents
are
saying:
hey.
We
already
pay
a
heck
of
a
lot
of
taxes.
You
all
should
be
able
to
get
it
done
with
what
we
pay
now.
So
I'm
disturbed
that
we
don't
have
a
public
comment
period.
I
think
that
we
should
give
our
people
options
if
we
are
ever
going
to
put
a
bond
referendum
on
our
ballot
to
see
whether
or
not
our
citizens
want
to
pay
for
pay
for
it
and
raise
their
taxes,
they
need
to
have
options.
K
K
A
And
and
and
if
and
if
I
may
and
I'll
come
to
you
next
councilman
shade.
A
Okay,
this
is
one
last
point.
I
think
that
needs
to
be
made
in
in
rescinding
the
the
three
million
tax
increase
with
a
a
one-time
payment
from
the
feds,
we're
still
going
to
have
to
find
that
money
in
22.
A
and-
and-
and
finally
I
mean
we
covet-
is
not
over-
we
don't
know
whether
or
not
within
this
year
we
may
have
to
shut
down
again.
Okay,
we
may
have
to
ask
for
a
tax
increase,
okay
again
in
order
to
deal
with
any
shortfalls,
so
just
strategically
to
me.
Okay,
I
just
think
that
we
need
to
be
a
little
more
thoughtful
about
what
we're
putting
out
there
as
a
referendum
and
and
consider.
A
A
L
You,
mr
chairman,
first
I'd
like
to
hear
I
thought
we
were
going
to
hear
from
mr
cook
about
the
reasons
why
we
can't
include
on
this
ballot
the
amount
of
monies
we're
going
to
have
to
raise
how
we're
going
to
raise
it,
how
we're
going
to
pay
it
back.
So
can
we
hear
that
first
and
why
we
can't
put
a
priority
of
projects
on
this,
and
then
I've
got
a
question
after
that.
J
Absolutely
I'm
glad
to
jump
in
mr
chairman,
if
you'd,
like
sure,
jeremy
yeah
absolutely
well
good
to
be
with
you
all
today.
So
I'm
on
the
question
of
the
millage.
You
know
it's
being
sized
to
what
two
mills
is
anticipated
to
allow.
J
At
the
value
of
a
mill
and
you'd
have
the
benefit
of
knowing
what
the
debt
service
actually
would
be
on
the
bonds,
as
opposed
to
proposed
debt
service.
But
as
to
this
as
to
the
specific
question,
because
it's
a
general
obligation
bond,
which
is
backed
by
the
full
faith
and
credit
of
the
city.
Our
our
view
is
that
you
can't
limit
it
by
the
in
the
question
to
a
certain
amount
of
mills,
because
then
you
take
away
the
aspect
of
it
being
a
general
obligation
bond.
J
So
it's
going
to
be
size
to
what
two
mills
will
would
allow
and
this
the
resolution
and
the
ordinance
would
provide
for
that,
and
we
would
do
that
at
the
time
of
the
pricing.
So
you
know
what
the
bond
interest
rate
actually
is,
but
the
question
itself
can't
limit
it,
for
example
the
two
mills,
because
it's
a
pledge
of
the
full
faith
and
credit.
J
J
If-
and
I
hope
that
makes
sense,
so
the
referendum
question
itself
does
address
that
additional
mills
will
be
need
to
be
levied,
but
you're
obviously
correct
that
it
doesn't
say
that
it's
going
to
be
two
additional
mills,
but
that's.
J
Yeah,
that's
yes,
sir,
that
that's
that's
true
and
if
that's
consistent
with
the
city's
bond
practice
is
to
issue
15-year
debt,
so
you're
exactly
right
that
it's
15
years
to
amortize
that
39
million
and
then-
and
I
realize
there
may
be
more
questions
on
that
point,
mr
seeking,
but
on
your
other
point
in
a
referendum,
certainly
can
but
doesn't
have
to
give
specifications.
So
you
know
we've
seen
on
some
referendums
locally.
For
example,
the
charleston
county
did
give
priority
and
and
projects
like
the
sales
tax
and
then
other
other
times.
J
City
of
hanahan's
recreation
project
just
approved
an
amount.
So
you
have
the
ability
to
do
it
either
way.
It's
it's
a
decision
to
make.
We
have
to
be
ready
to
address
priority
kind
of
questions.
If
you
list,
you
know
100
million
worth
of
projects
and
39
million
worth
of
funding,
but
you
certainly
have
that
ability
to
make
that
be
part
of
the
question.
If
that's
the
decision.
J
Yes,
I
think,
I
think,
that's
certainly
part
of
it
and
then
and
and
and
recognizing
as
the
mayor
point
out,
this
is
only
a
third
of
the
funding,
so
you
would
have
to
both
know
your
projects
and
know
the
relative
priorities
based
just
on
the
master
plan.
So
but
the
timing
is
certainly
a
part
of
that
analysis.
L
L
Mr
mayor,
the
most
recent
example
which
I
can
think
of
is
multi-playground,
where
we
just
did
a
close
to
700
million
dollar
renovation,
including
adding
pickleball
court,
so
100
paid
for
by
private
funds
and
of
that
700
000,
the
city
only
paid
for
half
of
it,
and
it
was
planned
and
thought
out
in
advance.
We
came
up
with
the
funding
before
we
started
the
project.
I
I
think
it's
really
difficult
on
an
off
off-year
election
to
put
a
referendum
out
there
for
39
million
dollars.
L
Well,
we
can't
tell
people
how
much
their
property
taxes
are
going
up,
how
the
money
is
going
to
be
spent
that
that
one's
a
tough
one.
For
me,
we
clearly
need
to
address
the
issues
of
recreation,
but,
against
a
backdrop
of
we're
going
to
in
november,
be
asked
to
vote
as
a
council
on
whether
to
fund
the
front
end
of
the
army
corps
of
engineers.
3X3
study,
I
mean
that's
going
to
be
a
huge
number.
L
You
know,
we've
got
drainage
obligations,
mr
mayor,
which
I
think
you
and
everyone
on
this
council
said,
are
our
priorities
and
we
have
no
plan
in
place
for
funding
that.
So
I
I
think
prioritization
is
a
real
problem
for
me
on
this
one
in
terms
of
the
projects
that
go
up
behind
this
referendum
and
where
you
put
the
recreation
bonding
in
relative
order
to
other
needs
that
we've
got
public
safety,
affordable,
housing
and
flooding
so
seems
like
a
quick
turn
on
something
we
should
think
more
about
to
me.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
think
this
has
been
a
very
healthy
and
a
very
good,
robust
discussion,
but
I
think
we
just
need
to
refocus
on
what
the
question
is
at
hand.
The
question
is
whether
or
not
to
approve
putting
this
referendum
on
the
november
ballot.
H
That's
what
this
is
is
doing
and
we
talk
about
transparency
and
we
talk
about
people
having
an
input
on
this,
that's
going
to
come
in
november
when
they
go
to
the
ballot
box
and
they
vote
on
this
thing
and
it's
our
obligation
to
make
sure
that
we
advertise
this
properly.
We
encourage
people
to
go
out
and
vote.
There
are
other
referendums.
As
I
understand
the
mayor
mentioned
they're
going
to
be
on
the
ballot,
there
are
going
to
be
some
city-wide
issues
on
the
on
the
ballot.
H
We
certainly
it's
not
going
to
be
to
the
same
level
as
a
memorial
vote
and
when
us
odd
number
council
members
are
up
for
election
or
re-election,
but
it
is
going
to
have
a
profound
impact,
and
I
think
that
we've
forgot
something
that
particularly
for
us
who
represent
parts
of
wes
ashley.
This
discussion
started
back
in
2017
and
2018
because
when
you
look
at
planned,
wes
ashley,
this
is
a
strong
component
of
how
to
revitalize
where
it's
actually
it's,
this
particular
part
and
there's
a
huge
chunk.
H
I
don't
have
the
plan
in
front
of
me
right
now,
but
there's
a
huge
chunk
of
the
work.
That's
going
to
be
done
on
this
plan,
and
I
asked
mr
walker
about
that
at
our
july
20th
meeting
that's
going
to
impact
west
ashley,
and
so
I
agree,
we
probably
need
to
have
a
better
definition
of
what
I
those
are
going
to
be
prioritized
over
there.
I
agree
with
the
mayor's
suggestion
we
have
a
workshop
on
this
site,
but
the
question
at
hand
that
we're
deciding
is
simply.
Do
we
put
this
on
the
ballot?
H
That's
it
if
we
can
put
it
on
the
ballot.
If
we
can
get
it
on
the
ballot,
then
let's
put
it
on
the
ballot
and
let
the
voters
decide
between
august
and
november.
We
have
a
lot
of
ground
to
cover
that
we
can
answer
some
of
these
questions.
That's
all
are
raising
that
they're
all
very
important
questions,
all
very
issues.
H
I
think
we
need
to
be
addressing
with
this
thing,
but
let's
get
it
on
the
ballot
and
let's
see
what
how
this
takes
us
and
because,
because
honestly
time
is
important
on
this
thing,
we
don't
put
it
on
the
ballot.
Now
that
what
we're
doing
is
we're
kicking
the
can
down
the
street
and
we're
going
to
wait
for
two
more
years
and
the
progress
that
we've
lost
on
this
thing
is
a
two
year
worth
of
progress
lost
on
this
thing,
so
I
would
urge
all
of
y'all
to
vote
for
it.
H
M
Thank
you
chairman
two
quick
questions,
one
is:
is
it?
Is
it
possible
to
get
a
list
on
on
the
november
ballot?
Can
we
commit
to
that
to
to
do
that?
Is
that
possible
number
two?
If
we
vote
today
to
to
move
forward
and
get
it
on
the
ballot
could,
sometime
in
the
future
a
month
from
now
two
months
from
now
could
be
taken
off
the
ballot?
A
J
Yeah
we
would
have
to
look
into
the
second
part,
mr
sacrament.
I
I
don't
think
we've
encountered
that
before,
but
so
I
I
don't
know,
but
I
I
would
I'm
pleased
to
make
that
a
priority
to
be
able
to
get
that
question
answered,
but
obviously
not
not
in
time
for
what
y'all
are
doing
today
and
I'm
sorry.
What
was
your
was
your
first
question
for
me
as
well.
I'm
sorry.
M
Yes,
jeremy,
I
guess
the
first
question
is:
is
ultimately
having
a
list
of
of
projects
for
the
voters
to
look
at.
You
know
as
they
come
into
the
ballot
box,
and
I
would
disagree
with
some
of
the
comments
about
low
turnout.
This
could
potentially
help
turn
out
if
it's
advertised
and
promoted
correctly.
So
my
my
I
guess
my
question
jeremy,
is:
what
is
the
difficulty
making
sure
that
there
is
a
list
of
projects
on
the
ballot.
J
So,
mr
sacramento,
so
the
question
is:
what
would
we
have
to
do
to
have?
The
ballot
question
include
a
list
of
projects.
Is
that
correct?
That's
what
you're
asking.
J
J
So
if
the
decision
is
to
have
the
question
be
what
it
is
but
provide
that
information
to
voters
over
the
course,
the
next
few
months,
but
not
in
the
referendum
question,
obviously
that
process
could
go
on
after,
but
I
think
that
the
council's
decision
is.
We
want
a
referendum
question
that
lists
the
projects
that
would
need
to
come
back
before
council
and
be
submitted
by
that
august.
16Th
date.
M
D
Well,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
think
most
of
my
remarks.
I
I
kind
of
made
along
the
way
answering
a
few
of
those
questions.
I
I
would
just
reiterate
that
sizable,
intensive
citizen
engagement
did
lead
us
here
over
the
last
year
by
way
of
the
plan
itself,
and
we
all
know
this,
but
per
councilmember
shade.
We
we
are
just
putting
this
up
to
the
voters.
D
D
Playground
in
fact
came
from
a
city
bond,
as
did
the
the
municipal
golf
course,
improvements
that
were
made
so
and
the
daniel
island
recreation
center
that
we're
getting
ready
to
have
the
grand
opening
on
those
were
financed
with
the
city
bond
as
well,
but
this
one
specifically
asks
the
citizens
whether
they're
willing
to
pay
for
it
and
and
again
they
weren't
the
citizens
were
engaged
well.
I
guess
we'd
find
out
by
this
referendum
whether
tom
o'rourke's
engagement
was
was
statistically
correct
or
not
anyway.
D
I
I
trust
the
voters
on
this
and
I
think,
if
park
improvements
is
important
to
their
quality
of
life,
as
as
I
think
it
is,
and
as
mr
o'rourke
and
the
and
the
plan
thinks
it
is
that
I
think
our
citizens
would
would
support
it
if
they
don't
I'll
respect
their
judgment,
we'll
move
on
and
do
the
best
we
can.
I
I
couldn't
defer
to
councilmember
brady,
but
I
I
basically
just
wanted
to
follow
up
if
we
would
put
it
on
the
ballot.
As
the
mayor
and
a
few
of
us,
you
know
are
saying:
let
the
people
decide
and
if
they
decide.
I
My
concern
is,
is
that
I,
I
think
yes,
citizens
support
city
use
of
funds
for
parks
and
recreation,
because
it's
a
quality
of
their
own
lives,
but
we
haven't
given
them
the
opportunity
to
put
that
in
in
perspective
to
some
of
the
other
things
that
are
also
going
to
require
us
to
obligate
their
tax
dollars.
I
So
that's
my
concern.
I
hear
from
my
voters
all
the
time
about
you
know
they.
They
will
pay
taxes
as
long
as
they're
convinced
that
what
we're
asking
of
them
are
are
viable
and
desirable
uses
for
the
long
haul.
Sustainability
is
a
huge
issue,
we've
all
committed
to
that
over
the
last.
You
know
many
years
ever
since
you've
been
leading
this
administration
mayor
and
I
think
that's
the
right
priority
in
one
word.
But
what
does
that
look
like
in
terms
of
some
of
the
the
knowledge
that
we
now
have?
I
As
of
the
army
corps
study
the
dutch
dialogues,
the
drainage
study?
What
we're
expecting
to
have
is
what
we're
calling
the
water
plan,
as
well
as
the
the
demand
on
infrastructure,
that
some
of
the
municipal
improvement
districts
will
be
able
to
bring
forward
for
new
residents.
So
I
I'm
really
torn
about
this.
I
I
love
the
idea
of
getting
started
on
the
parks.
I
do
think
that
we
would
need
to
have
restructuring
of
our
staffing
and,
potentially,
you
know
new
people
in
place,
especially
this
innovative
enterprise
leader.
I
That
would
be
able
to
find
other
resources
that
you
know
we
have
not
really
put
together
as
a
government,
much
more
innovative
and
much
more
responsive
to
what
the
outside
investors
and
and
equity
sources
of
equity
and
leveraging
could
potentially
bring
to
us.
I
wish
we
had
more
time.
That's
what's
really
just
dragging
me
down
for
this,
so
thank
you
for
letting
me
speak.
A
Councilman
grady,
forgive
me
for
going
out
of
turn
councilman
brady.
N
You
are
new.
Thank
you
chairman.
I
just
wanted
to
voice
my
support
for
this.
You
know,
I
think
one
of
the
things
is
we
at
least
I've
gone
around
and
talked
to
constituents.
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
they
voice.
The
most
support
for
is
that
they
would
like
to
see
more
parks
and
more
recreation
opportunities,
and
that
goes
for
outer
west
ashley.
N
You
know
the
portion
of
inner
west
ashley
I
represent
as
well
as
john's
island,
especially,
and
I
I
think
we
need
to
let
the
citizens
to
councilmember
shades
point.
You
know
ultimately
tell
us
if
they're
willing
to
pay
for
it,
but
we
owe
it
to
them
when
they've
been
telling
us,
both
through
the
plan
and
individually,
that
parks
are
an
important
quality
of
life
component
for
them,
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
you
know
riding
around
hilton
head
the
other
week
as
you're
driving
along
some
of
the
corridors.
N
You
see
signs
that
say
you
know
this
area
conserved
from
this
area,
preserved
from
commercial
development
by
the
town
of
hilton
head
island.
You
know
that's
a
passive
park
opportunity
in
charleston
that
this
can
help
fund
is
to
have
the
city
be
able
to
conserve
land
for
enjoyment
by
our
citizens
and
constrain
in
development,
and
so
you
know
that's
that's
the
things
that
I've
been
hearing
and
I'd
like
to
voice
my
support
for
it.
O
Yes,
the
same
thing
I
was
hearing
in
my
community
and
the
community
I
represent,
and
all
the
city
parks
parks.
We
need
to
do
better
with
our
parks,
because
we
got
our
parks
that
really
need
some
up
upgrade
in
our
areas
and
I
believe
we're
doing
this.
This
should
help,
but
I
see
also
giving
the
the
community
the
chance
to
say
yes
or
no.
They
can
vote
yes
or
no
on
this
if
they
want
to
and
that's
putting
it
out
to
them
because
they
don't
have
to
be
paying
for
it.
O
So
I
said
I
would
vote
for
to
give
them
an
opportunity
to
say
yes
or
no,
but
I
know
it's
a
need,
because
I
know
it's
a
need
in
my
area,
but
giving
them
the
opportunity
to
say
yes
and
no
that's
what
I'm
looking
at,
because
we're
putting
it
out
to
the
community
and
then
the
community
is
going
to
have
to
be
the
one
paying
for
it.
The
same
thing
as
we
did
with
the
20
million
barn
when
we
did
it
for
affordable
housing.
O
When
I
pushed
for
that
also
because
the
community
said
they
wanted
to
see
more
affordable
housing
right
now,
the
community
want
to
see
more
better
parks.
They
want
to
see
parks
upgraded,
they
want
to
see
it
better
than
it
is
now
in
certain
areas,
and
that's
what
I'm
hearing
the
community
so
I'll,
I'm
going
to
support
it
and
let
the
community
decide
if
they
want
to
pay
for
it.
Not
if
they
don't,
then
they
can
vote
no
on
it.
A
Any
more
questions,
the
the
the
the
the
one
thing
that
I
would
I'd
see:
councilman
mary,
that
I
would
leave
us
with
is,
if
we
vote
for
this
and
it
goes
through
tax
increase,
they
decided
that
they
want
it.
Okay
come
2022
if
we
have
a
shortfall
and
we
then
have
to
decide
to
raise
taxes
for
the
shortfall.
A
E
Mr
mill,
when
you
add
councilman
mitchell,
with
all
due
respect
when
you
bring
when
you
bring
up
the
first
housing
bond
and
you
compare
that
to
the
bond
recreation
bond
for
daniel
allen
and
for
the
bond
that
came
out
of
to
help
with
the
park.
You
know
maury
marie
parker,
at
every
instant.
We
didn't
have
to
raise
taxes
to
do
that
in
every
instant
we
didn't
have
to
raise
taxes.
E
We
didn't
have
to
go
to
the
public
to
asked
them
to
raise
taxes
because
we
were
not.
We
already
have
a
deficit.
E
We
have
a
deficit
going
into
2022
budget
planning
right
now,
and
you
say
why,
because
just
as
the
chairman
said
that
money
that
we
roll
back
the
tax
increase
on
in
lieu
of
one-time
money
coming
in
from
the
government,
we
didn't
offset
that
with
expenses
with
cuts,
which
means
we
cut
the
revenue,
the
dependable
revenue,
the
millage,
but
we
didn't
cut
the
expenses
so
as
we
go
into
planning
2022
and
some
of
this
with
all
due
respect
is
experience
and
having
done
budgets
councilman
brady,
I
hear
you
on
your
constituents.
E
E
That's
why
charleston
county
park
system,
mr
o'rourke,
being
the
executive
director
at
the
time
they
used
to
come
out
with
individual
bonds
and
then
they
too
joined
in
with
half
cent
sales
tax,
because
everybody
shared
in
the
in
the
cost,
raising
taxes,
and,
I
sure
hope
the
madam
clerk
put
this
in
the
minutes.
Raising
taxes
doing
a
pandemic
is
horrible
and
saying
putting
the
question
on.
That's
all
we're
doing,
putting
the
questioning
on
respectfully
councilman,
she
it's
much
more
than
that.
E
We're
not
doing
it
with
the
transparency
of
raising
taxes,
knowing
that
this
mayor
and
council
is
entering
a
plan
year,
22
already
in
the
deficit.
Now
that
the
last
military
rules
back,
I
thought
it
was
three
million,
but
maybe
it
was
two.
Mr
frolic
am
I
right
in
that
the
maximum
amount
of
taxes
that
we
could
increase
at
81
years,
six
mills,
if
he's
still
on
they,
can.
P
It
depends
we
get
a,
we
get
a
new
calculation
every
year
from
the
state.
So
right
now.
Yes,
it
is
six
mils,
but
it
could
be.
It
might
be
a
little
bit
different
after
we
get
with
with
the
cost
of
living
increase
in
all
in
the
population.
It
just
depends.
E
All
right
now,
we've
already
so
two
mills
would
be
committed
on
this.
We
have
not
told
we
have
not
given
pay
raises
to
our
employees.
E
Okay
in
a
very
very
difficult
year
in
a
pandemic
year,
we
need
money,
we
need
our
employees,
we
need
drink
money
for
drainage,
we
need
affordable,
housing
and
yeah.
We
want-
and
I
agree
with
that-
we
want
great
parks,
but
as
council
lady
jackson's,
we
already
have
great
parks
and
I
think
when
it
comes
to
pay,
raises
or
maintaining
our
talented
employee
staff.
E
I
think
that
comes
ahead
of
this
when
it
comes
to
being
able
to
balance
that
budget
after
something
passes,
saying
that
hey,
we
want
you
to
increase
it
for
parks,
you're,
not
thinking,
as
we
did
the
last
last
year
entering
this
time,
do
we
have
to
lay
off
firemen?
Do
we
have
to
lay
off
policemen?
Do
we
have
to
lay
off
any
employees?
All
of
that
is
part
of
our
responsibility.
That's
what
we
got
elected
for
not
for
singular
items
in
this
particular
case
right
here.
E
So
as
we
go
into
it
right
now.
If
this
were
to
pass,
we
got
four
mills
to
give
pay
raises,
because
certainly
we're
going
to
go
into
next
year
without
giving
pay
raises
we're
going
to
lose
run
off
a
lot
of
our
talent,
we're
going
to
raise
taxes
doing
a
pandemic.
All
councilman
gregory
is
right.
I
got
my
math
in
my
pocket
in
my
own
office
right
now.
E
You
know
why,
because
the
delta
variance
is
coming
back,
it's
here,
mr
mir,
you
and
your
team
did
a
great
job
doing
the
pandemic,
but
just
our
revenues
are
not
back.
We've
had
to
even
incentivize
downtown
by
giving
free
parking.
That
was
a
great
idea
on
our
councilmember
apparel
part
to
try
to
encourage
business
to
come
back
and
making
it
easier
to
patronize
our
downtown
merchants.
E
So,
in
this
particular
case
and
the
transparency
of
this
is,
I
can
see
the
text
messages
going
back
and
forth
right
now
trying
to
improve
the
arguments,
but
the
people
not
playing
that's
one,
failing
of
zoom
messages
right
here
to
try
to
improve
the
met.
E
The
argument
to
push
through
an
idea
now,
eventually
we'll
have
this
vote,
and
eventually,
if
seven
votes
prevail,
I
guess
it'll
be
on
the
ballot,
but
to
put
it
on
the
ballot,
not
giving
the
taxpayers
transparency
and,
and
just
how
much
is
costing
the
taxpayers
is
a
part
to
put
it
on
the
ballot
without
a
list
saying
this
is
how
your
money
is
going
to
be
spent
again.
It's
just
terrible
and
to
put
it
on,
ask
people
to
increase
taxes
without
the
full
story
doing
the
pandemic.
E
B
Well,
thank
you.
I
guess
I
was
just
trying
to
say
that
I
think
there's
steps
in
this
plan
that
we
can
take
before
we
before
we
ask
for
our
taxpayers
to
to
to
pay.
I
you
know,
I
don't
think
we've
done
anything
at
this
point
to
push
this
plan
forward
and
we're
already
asking
our
taxpayers
we
need
to
prioritize,
but
we
need
to
take
the
things
that
we
can
do
in
this
plan
right
now
to
show
that
we're
committed
to
this
and
get
it
started,
get
it
rolling.
B
So
so
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
say.
A
L
A
C
Just
gonna
say
that
I
I
don't
really
have
much
to
add,
but
I
agree
with
what
councilman
you
chairman
have
said,
and
council
members
wearing
and
seekings
and
sheeley.
You
know
that
I
I
think
you
can
go
out
and
you
ask
people,
don't
you
want
more
parks
and
who's
gonna
say
no.
We
all
we
all
want
more
parks
and
you
know
more
amenities,
no
one's
gonna
say
no
to
that,
and
you
know
I
would
be
guilty
of
this.
C
I'm
not
trying
to
you,
know,
dump
you
know
dumb
people
down
or
anything
like
that.
But
if
somebody
said
to
me
and
would
you
be
willing
to
pay
for
it,
I'd
be
like
well
yeah
sure
I
think
it's
completely
different
once
the
rubber
hits
the
road
and
how
it's
going
to
be
done,
and
I
just
second
those
statements
that
were
made
and-
and
I
and
I
think
you
know
my
folks
in
my
district-
they
don't
have
a
reason
to
come
out
in
november.
C
C
With
all
due
respect
and
again,
you
know
not
not
trying
to
disrespect
the
process
or
anything.
That's
just
the
reality
of
the
situation,
and-
and
I
agree
you
can't
last
week
say
we're
gonna,
take
away
the
two
mil
increase
and
now
this
week
hey
do
you
want
to
bring
it
back
that
just
doesn't
that
doesn't
sit
right
that
doesn't
sit
right
on
my
head
of
my
heart,
so.
G
A
A
K
I
just
want
to
finish
off
by
saying
that
you
know
yes,
everybody
on
this
council
wants
to
give
our
constituents
the
opportunity
to
make
this
vote,
but
when
we
can't
look
them
in
the
face
and
tell
them
exactly
how
much
it's
going
to
cost
them,
and
we
can't
even
tell
them
how
the
money
is
going
to
be
spent.
What
sort
of
vote
are
we
actually
giving
them
and
for
those
reasons,
I'm
not
going
to
vote
yes
for
this.
A
G
A
B
O
A
E
L
K
I
O
A
Yes,
move
for
adjournment.
Second,
so
move
see
you
in
a
few
bye-bye,
so.