2026-10-20 - Committee on Public Safety

00:02I think we're ready.

00:03I think we're ready to get started.

00:05>> We're ready.

00:06>> Okay.

00:06>> Okay. So, we have a quorum. Are we and

00:08and we're streaming. Okay. Great.

00:11All right. Well, thank you everybody for

00:13being here this afternoon on this

00:15beautiful fall

00:16afternoon, beautiful weather, beautiful

00:18day, beautiful week. Um

00:20want to call to order our public safety

00:23committee meeting for October 20th,

00:262026.

00:27It is 4:00 p.m.

00:29If you would, I'd like to start off with

00:31just a moment of silence, please.

00:40>> Amen. Thank you.

00:42>> All right. So, uh

00:45our next on our agenda are the m the uh

00:48meeting minutes from September 15, 2026.

00:52>> Move for approval.

00:53>> Second.

00:54>> Got a motion to approve and a second.

00:56Any uh additions, deletions, any other

00:58questions among those meeting minutes?

01:00Uh if not, hearing none. All in favor of

01:03the minutes passing, please say I. I.

01:07>> Any opposed? The eyes have it.

01:09Okay. So,

01:10as the mayor was saying just a few

01:12minutes ago, we've got several items

01:14here that um require no match, but are

01:17an approval to either submit um an

01:20application for a grant or to accept a

01:22grant. Um, if we could maybe uh

01:27several of them do not have a match.

01:28That would be items number four, five,

01:316, 7, and nine have no match.

01:34I would move that we take those together

01:36and move for approval.

01:40>> Second.

01:41>> Second.

01:42>> Okay, we've got a motion to take those

01:44together and for approval.

01:46Um,

01:47any discussion on this? Any questions on

01:49any of these grants?

01:51Hearing none. All in favor of those

01:53grants, please say I.

01:55>> I.

01:56>> I.

01:56>> Any opposed?

01:58The eyes have it. Now, let's take uh

02:00number.

02:02>> Mr. Chairman, if if Yeah, I'm sorry. If

02:04you want to take that last one, I

02:06apologize.

02:07>> Okay. If you'd uh we could take item

02:10number eight. This is a police

02:11department approval to accept the FY26

02:14port security grant program award in the

02:16amount of $314,453.

02:20That grant will fund maritime operations

02:22and safety gear and portable X-ray

02:24systems for hazard detection for the

02:26Charleston Police Department. The grant

02:28does require a 25%

02:30cash match of $78,613

02:34which CPD has budgeted for FY27.

02:39>> Move for approval. Second. We

02:41>> have a motion to approve and a second.

02:42Any discussion on this

02:45hearing? None. All in favor, please say

02:47I.

02:47>> I.

02:48Any opposed? The eyes have it.

02:52>> Okay. So, now we're going to move up

02:54item number 11.

02:56>> Well, if if I may, I think and I I'll

02:59ask the clerk for clarity here, but

03:01since we skipped over public

03:04participation, maybe we just amend the

03:07overall agenda

03:08to have item number three come next,

03:11which is public participation.

03:14And then

03:15uh we would have

03:17item 11

03:18which is the consideration to the

03:20amendments of the or uh first amendment

03:22ordinance

03:24followed by

03:25number 10 which is the presentation on

03:27fire station 20.

03:29So that would be my uh motion to

03:32amend the agenda to allow for three to

03:35fall in now

03:37then

03:38uh item

03:3911

03:40then item 10 and then adjournment.

03:43Second.

03:44>> All right. Uh, all in favor, please say

03:46I. I.

03:47>> I.

03:48>> Any opposed? The eyes have it. So, thank

03:51you, Mr. Mayor, for cleaning up there

03:53for us. I appreciate that. I'm sorry I

03:55skipped item number three, uh, citizens

03:58participation. Uh,

04:01Miss O'Neal, um, how many people do we

04:03have signed up to speak or do we have

04:05them signed up?

04:07>> There are four people signed up to

04:09speak. Okay, let's um

04:11let's give two minutes.

04:14>> Got you. Anthony G. Bryant.

04:19I want to commend, uh,

04:21Chairman Sheileley for this and, and the

04:23mayor in 20ome years, the first mayor to

04:26ever have a public safety committee

04:28meeting for the public, so we can get

04:31everybody out the middle and get and

04:33talk to you directly, which I think is

04:35really important for me because the

04:37people see you more than they see them.

04:40So therefore it's important that you

04:41hear from us directly instead of

04:43lobbyists and all kinds of folk you know

04:46who got agendas.

04:47My agenda simply is the fact that people

04:49should be engaged in the process.

04:52Period.

04:53And it shouldn't be for any other reason

04:54for engagement. If you want to get some

04:56money, you do something, be a lobbyist.

04:58But you're here just to engage for your

05:00neighborhood and your community for the

05:02small simple things that you deal with

05:04every day. This should be the place

05:05where we deal with that. And I commend

05:06you for that 110%.

05:09My concern in the fact that

05:12uh I have my mail and I'm doing some

05:14some pro litigation and publishing on my

05:17own for years. We got to the Supreme

05:18Court. We we're in state court. In the

05:21state court, you can't do any e-filing.

05:23So therefore, my mail is what I use in

05:25order to do my work from my physical

05:28address. Now the federal government,

05:30state government, you work with in terms

05:32of that. We're just trying to do our

05:34work to ensure that people have access

05:36to our court system. Period. We have

05:3811,000 lawyers, 3%are African-American,

05:41and we got 3 million people, many are

05:43poor, that have no access to the system

05:45at all. What my company's been doing for

05:47years is trying to make sure we get

05:48access to the system. And the documents

05:52you have reflect my commitment to that.

05:54I live in the city of Charleston and my

05:55commitment is to do the do it the right

05:57way and to be about the right things.

05:59Cheeto Walkers, my police chief. I can't

06:01control the sheriff. I can't control

06:03sled. I can't any of these people who

06:05would come into Charleston to bring

06:07forth the concern. At least Cheto will

06:09have the documents say he knows my

06:10intention and my couns.

06:14That's why I'm here and I again I

06:16applaud you for this to do more of this.

06:18People want to hear want to talk to you

06:20directly.

06:21No middleman, nobody in the middle

06:24and talk to you directly. So they don't

06:26have to come to city council meeting to

06:28then jam up the citizipation

06:31with interests that are interest time.

06:40>> Next citizen signed up is Bonnie

06:42Cleveland.

06:48>> Bonnie Cleveland, North Charleston.

06:50Thanks for hearing our comments and

06:52giving us two minutes today.

06:54Um, I commend Council Member Poke for

06:57his attempts to make Charleston's

06:58demonstration ordinance more reasonable.

07:01Council member Tankler has improved the

07:04special events process.

07:06Uh, Council Member Scarden and

07:08Dalisandro have met with organizers.

07:12We appreciate your efforts and we will

07:13make sure come election time that voters

07:15know you value our freedoms.

07:19We know you can't get the votes for

07:20reasonable ordinance because most of the

07:22council doesn't understand or maybe

07:24doesn't care about our fundamental

07:26liberties. The police chief continues to

07:28have unrestrained discretion. We have

07:31the data.

07:32Most permits are altered beyond

07:35recognition so that organizers just

07:37withdraw their plans.

07:39You're putting lipstick on a pig.

07:42The appeal process is likely to be

07:44faster. You deleted the cause that the

07:47clause that prevents protesters from

07:49passing any place more than once,

07:52but you're painting over rust.

07:57The special events timeline is improved,

07:59but still could take 35 days. The car is

08:02totaled and you're fixing a dent. Any

08:05one person now violating any one of the

08:07city's ordinances now makes a whole

08:10gathering illegal. At least to an angry

08:13commander who doesn't understand the

08:14constitution.

08:16These minor changes

08:18polishing a turd.

08:20Repeal the ordinance.

08:28Next citizen is Danielle Sutton.

08:33Hello, my name is Danielle Sutton. I'm a

08:3520-year resident of Westside District 6,

08:37and I'm here again to demand a full

08:40repeal of the First Amendment

08:41Restoration Ordinance.

08:43Your token attempt at revision is deeply

08:46disappointing.

08:47It is clear that you have not listened

08:49to us,

08:50let alone done your due diligence in

08:52making this ordinance constitutionally

08:54compliant.

08:56Clearly, this coalition has invested far

08:58more time and care in the research of

09:00this ordinance. We are only here because

09:03you are suppressing Charleston's voice.

09:06Um, I know that you've gotten emails

09:09from your constituents, many of them.

09:12Have you responded to them?

09:15Um,

09:16our rights of free speech and assembly

09:18cannot be at the whim of the police. It

09:20will always be a conflict of interest.

09:24They can be consulted, but they cannot

09:25be in charge of permitting. If you

09:27haven't noticed, the ACLU has been

09:29attending these meetings.

09:31If you push this broken ordinance

09:33through, it will likely cost our city a

09:36lot of money in the long run, and every

09:38one of you will be responsible.

09:41Americans are ready for change. I need

09:44not remind you of the upset when Poke

09:46and Das Aleandro took those long-held

09:48seats.

09:50We know when each of you are up for

09:51reelection. We've canvased some of your

09:54districts and we'll continue to do so.

09:56We have the manpower and we'll tell your

09:58constituents of your failure to uphold

10:00our freedom of speech. It isn't too late

10:02to do the right thing.

10:04We aren't going anywhere and our

10:06coalition will continue to grow.

10:13Charlotte Lewis

10:19Good afternoon. Thank you committee

10:21members and attendees. My name is

10:24Charlotte Lewis. I'm here to speak about

10:26the First Amendment ordinance. The

10:28proposed changes discussed today do not

10:30meet the moment. While there are some

10:32well-intentioned changes, the

10:33fundamental suppression of our shared

10:35constitutional rights remains. I implore

10:38you to reject these changes. The Chief

10:41of Police still has unrestrained

10:43discretion to deny and delay our freedom

10:45of speech. Police should not be in

10:47charge of expression of first amendment

10:49rights. The appeal process still goes to

10:52public safety. Yet, are you trained in

10:54first amendment law? Can you guarantee

10:56that our rights will not

10:59this ordinance? Let the people's voice

11:01again be heard in Marian Square. We

11:03should not fear arrest for speaking.

11:06This is our greatest American right. And

11:08make no mistake, as long as this

11:10ordinance stands, so will we stand here

11:14and speak. Thank you.

11:20There were three people that signed up

11:21to speak online.

11:23Michael Jones,

11:26Samuel Carroll,

11:30>> Tracy Tap.

11:34>> Okay.

11:36>> All right.

11:40>> Afternoon, council members. Um,

11:42I was talking uh

11:45last night actually to uh a buddy of

11:47mine who works uh as a firefighter uh

11:49for the county and uh speaking on the

11:52issue of um the chief police that has

11:55been so eloquently put forward uh

11:57earlier from previous speakers. And

12:00uh the allegory that kind of came to was

12:03uh this is the equivalent of giving your

12:05fire marshal cart blanch to

12:08um decide on what indoor fireplaces go

12:10in with any builder for anyone in the

12:12county. Um, you know if, we're if they

12:16have to spend the re the manpower,

12:18um, and you know potentially, or

12:21yeah, expend all those resources, then

12:24categorically they're going to be

12:25inclined to

12:27not want to expend those resources to

12:29deny that permit, right?

12:31Um

12:33that, that issue still stands with the

12:34Chief of Police. This is a fundamental

12:37I don't know how anyone can't see that.

12:39Um, I'm also surprised at the lack of

12:41ability for,

12:42uh, anyone to see what their

12:43constituents are asking for. Two or

12:45three people that come come here. I

12:46check the agendas want a zoning change

12:49that usually gets brought up. It's taken

12:51of emails and dozu

12:53reaching out to you

12:54right

12:56to speak and it's these minor changes.

12:59Um again, yeah, elections are coming up

13:01next year. We're not going away as long

13:03as these issues aren't addressed. And

13:06um yeah, please strike this down. Come

13:09back to the table. Come to your senses.

13:11Thank you.

13:14Thank you. Uh,

13:16anyone else wish to speak?

13:19Okay, seeing none, thank you for all for

13:21coming out. Um,

13:23so now we will move on to um item number

13:2611, consideration of amendments to the

13:29ordinance, the first amendment

13:30demonstrations and

13:32uh potential action.

13:34I think I'm

13:36Councilman Pul, would you like to speak

13:38first?

13:40>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um and uh thank

13:42you in particular for um

13:45uh facilitating this conversation um and

13:48helping us uh move the ball forward with

13:50the draft this uh in place.

13:52I want to take a moment to particularly

13:54thank the activists that have been

13:55showing up um to bring this to our

13:57attention um for quite some time. Uh our

14:00the engagement on this issue goes back

14:02to the campaign. Um, and I

14:06uh thought it was important uh to honor

14:09a promise that I made during the

14:10campaign, which was to take a good look

14:12at the ordinance. Um,

14:14we

14:14do not see eye to eye on the repeal

14:17question. Um, and I certainly understand

14:19and respect

14:20um your uh position uh for repeal um and

14:24against the revision as it is now. Uh

14:26but just please trust and know that from

14:28my perspective um I wanted to honor my

14:31commitment to do a good look at it. Um,

14:33and that's an ongoing commitment um,

14:36throughout my my service here on

14:38council. This is super important to me

14:40because Marian Square is in district 4.

14:42Um, and it's a challenging um,

14:45circumstance that has a lot of players

14:47and a lot of uh, questions that go back

14:49100 years. Uh but I think that we all uh

14:54would want to live in the world and

14:55should want to live in a world where

14:56people uh could safely gather um in the

15:00main square of our city

15:02um and petition government for redress

15:04grievances. Um

15:06I'm also grateful to you, Mr. Mayor, and

15:08Mr. Tinkler and other members of council

15:10chief um for engaging in this

15:12conversation in good faith. And I and I

15:14just want to say for the record that

15:16there was never once a circumstance in

15:19any conversation I've had since I've

15:21been on council and even before I got on

15:23council, but particularly before I got

15:25on council, where I detected any

15:27cintillaa of content bias.

15:29Um, that's not been a part of this

15:31conversation. And I

15:32know that perhaps people may feel that

15:35in some of the cracks of the of the

15:38circumstances here, but it's never come

15:40up. And I think it should be said um

15:42that I have no concern of the

15:44application of this ordinance to

15:46different parties based on their

15:47viewpoints.

15:49uh you know

15:51it's anyone who reads the first

15:53amendment

15:54uh

15:55would understand that on its face it

15:58should feel like we would be able to

16:00gather the way that we choose to gather

16:03at the time that we choose to gather

16:05um and petition government for redress

16:06or grievance or or broadly uh express

16:09ourselves.

16:11But then there's these little cracks

16:12that start to come into the scenario,

16:14such as, you know, that good

16:15oldfashioned law school example about,

16:17you know, yelling theater in a crowded

16:19yelling fire in a crowded theater, or

16:22whether or not it's okay to stand in

16:24front of somebody's house in the middle

16:25of the night, or whether or not, as an

16:27elected official, you should be able to

16:29follow me around 247 to petition for

16:31redress agreements. And those are

16:32hyperlicam hyperbolic examples. But the

16:35reason why I put them on the table is

16:38because the moment that we start talking

16:39about

16:40uh certain exceptions for certain

16:42circumstances, then the debate becomes

16:44all about the exceptions. And I know

16:46that those who are advocating for repeal

16:49um understand that point and have made

16:50it clear that they understand that

16:52point. So really what we're wrestling

16:55with are what are the nature of the

16:57rules, right? What are the nature of the

16:59time, place, and manner restrictions?

17:01Um,

17:02do they serve as significant government

17:05interests? And in this case,

17:07uh, we are affirming um, and I, I'm sure

17:10that all would agree that the government

17:12interest here is to promote the safety

17:14of all parties and to best allocate

17:16resources that are available, right?

17:19Um, is there a content bias? Right is,

17:22this is there some relation to,

17:24uh, suppression of a particular message?

17:26And we know that that's not the case

17:27here

17:28uh. Is the regulation narrowly tailored

17:30to serve serve a government's interest?

17:32And I think that might be the bone of

17:33contention here. Uh case law says that

17:36that doesn't have to be the most

17:37narrowly tailored. Um but I think that

17:40we all um would have fair and reasonable

17:42disagreement on what does it mean to be

17:44narrowly tailored? And then finally,

17:47does the regulation leave ample

17:49alternative means for communicating

17:51messages? And what are the nature of

17:53those alternatives? When are they

17:54deployed? Those are the issues that

17:56we'll have challenges with in practice.

17:59Now, what we do know is that there's no

18:01way that this ordinance could ever

18:02resolve one of the fundamental questions

18:04of the matter, which is the ownership

18:07circumstances of Marian Square and who

18:10has to be involved with and consulted

18:12for the purposes of having certain

18:13events there. That can't be solved by

18:16this ordinance and that is something

18:17that I hope that this council um

18:19continues to consider in the weeks and

18:21months and years ahead. Another thing

18:23that this ordinance can't do is resolve

18:24the layout of the city of Charleston. We

18:27do have one main square. So I find it

18:31understandable why people might be

18:32irritated to be suggested that in

18:34certain circumstances it's better to go

18:36to Brittle Bank Park or better to go to

18:38Hampton Park. I get why that's

18:39irritating because everybody wants to be

18:41in Marian Square because that's our main

18:43square. That's where you get the most

18:44attention to your matter. And so that

18:47layout issue we we can't necessarily

18:50solve with this issue. Not to say that

18:51we should ignore it.

18:53This revision can't add to CPD's to

18:56Charleston Police Department's

18:57resources. Um, I've provided the example

19:00of my time in DC. Uh, much more resource

19:03for these purposes um than the

19:04Charleston Police Department has

19:06available uh for safe

19:08um uh the safety of all involved in in

19:10in a protest in any parts of the city.

19:13We

19:14can solve that, but we can't solve that

19:16with what we're doing here.

19:18uh

19:19with respect to the powers of the chief

19:21um which is a major bone of contention.

19:24I think that uh under the circumstances

19:26I think there's a

19:28an important question to ask

19:30well who else is going to have a lot of

19:32the information that's required with

19:33respect to resources with respect to

19:35safety with respect to intelligence and

19:37all that. So in the current absence of a

19:39better party,

19:41reasonable minds can disagree. Um, but

19:44uh we,

19:45uh, I believe that it is well seated in

19:48the ambit of the chief, but also

19:50understand that that can change when we

19:54have a different chief at the helm. And

19:55we've got someone that, uh, does good

19:57work that it has my confidence, and I've

19:59heard the, uh, folks at the microphone

20:01over there,

20:02um, indicate that: "What happens if we

20:04have somebody of a different ilk in

20:06those circumstances?" And that's, that's

20:08a valid concern. But here's what we can

20:10do with this revision, and this is what

20:12we seek to do. And I can see that it's a

20:13minor revision. Um, but it does make

20:15things better in some respects. And the

20:17first thing that this draft seeks to do

20:20is simply to reorganize in a better

20:22statutory framework, how we read through

20:25the ordinance, and how we understand it.

20:27Because if we have an appropriate

20:28definition section and if we have a flow

20:30of operations that finds its way through

20:33the ordering of a permit, I believe it's

20:35easier for individuals to use, but it's

20:37also easier for us to monitor and

20:39understand compliance with it. And it

20:40removes a lot of the gray area and

20:43interpretation. So although that might

20:45be a lawyerly um dorky uh uh

20:47achievement, I truly believe that a

20:50better ordered ordinance is an

20:51achievement. Um

20:53the uh as as you've referred to as as

20:56one of the speakers mentioned um council

20:58member Tinkler has contributed a

21:00significant section um that streamlines

21:02the relationship of the special events

21:04process uh with the permitting of first

21:06amendment um activity as when it needs

21:09to be permitted. And I think that's an

21:11important provision because we all are

21:13grounded in the

21:15um uh fundamental proposition that first

21:17amendment demonstrations are different

21:20special events. They aren't just any

21:22special event. They are a unique brand

21:24of whatever it is. And if there's to be

21:26a special events process implicated, it

21:29should have its own rules of engagement

21:31that takes into consideration the

21:33purview of how First Amendment activity

21:35should be constitutionally regulated.

21:37And then um there are uh a few

21:40uh

21:40uh minor but important items of

21:43potential misunderstandings such as uh

21:45adjustments in language that wouldn't

21:47criminalize uh the mere standing in

21:50front of a monument but allowing for

21:52there to be some unreasonable access

21:54some more clarification on the sidewalk

21:56rules and the like. So

21:59there is a a slides uh show that uh uh

22:03corporation council has presented or

22:05prepared that I was requested to review.

22:08Um it's not my product. Um if it is if

22:11folks interests for me to go through

22:13those three slides, I'm happy to do so.

22:15If people feel familiar with the

22:18changes, I I'll be happy to to

22:20um uh to stand down on that point. But

22:24they were provided. I don't know if they

22:25were given. Okay. They weren't given.

22:27So, I'll just review what I have just uh

22:30orally

22:31um what was on the slides. I have a

22:33print out here.

22:34So,

22:35there Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, sorry. Can

22:37Can the slides be put on the screen?

22:40Shared on the screen?

22:43>> I do not have the slides.

22:45>> You on the phone?

22:47>> Okay. Um, if we could make sure that the

22:50slides are made public

22:52uh post meeting so that

22:55for the record that they are public of

22:57public record. I just think that's

22:59important.

22:59>> Sure.

23:00>> Please send them to me or Jennifer Cook.

23:02>> All right. I'll ask the folks over at

23:04the

23:05corporations council to do that. They're

23:07not mine. Uh, but just to review them

23:09quickly. They do affirm the addition of

23:11a definition section and a purposes and

23:13intent section which is a key part of

23:15any

23:16um well-crafted um legislative process.

23:19It provides a definition section that

23:21makes sure that we're clear when we

23:22refer to large suh gatherings, small

23:25gatherings, and the spontaneous

23:26demonstrations. It, um, uh, consolidates

23:30all of the sections that refer to the

23:32chief of police's authority,

23:34um, and how that occurs not only with

23:36respect to the original permitting

23:38process, but if there's, uh, competing

23:40events that may drain resources, um, and

23:43then also if there is a spontaneous

23:45gathering to,

23:46uh, encourage, um, some manner of

23:48informal notice so that safety

23:51provisions can be, um, availed. It does

23:54update the appeal path. Um it allows for

23:57a quicker appeal directly to the public

23:58safety committee um subject to our

24:00capacity to convene a quorum. Um and

24:03then it does also

24:05um

24:06also allow for clarity on how and if

24:10certain permits might be revoked on the

24:12spot due to conduct that that that

24:14observed in the in the immediiacy of a

24:16protest. And then of course I

24:18explained um council member Tinkler's

24:20section with respect to the

24:23um uh special events permit trigger. Uh

24:26so one thing I'd say in closing

24:28>> Councilman Pulk

24:30I I did see I've got three slides that

24:33Julia Copelan sent me. I'm not sure that

24:35this is

24:37>> those are the same slides. If you could

24:39maybe put those up and if I may make a

24:41suggestion um Mr. chairman

24:44uh as well as Councilman Poke. Um, given

24:47that this is a proposed amendment to an

24:50existing ordinance,

24:52I think, um,

24:54that if there's any motion which I hope

24:56there is,

24:58uh to move this to council, that we will

25:00provide the public,

25:03uh, the redline copy of the ordinance,

25:07uh, before first reading at city council

25:10if a recommendation is to move forward

25:12on that. so that it is black and white

25:15on all the changes and all the hard

25:17work. That's just a housekeeping item.

25:19Um, want to make sure that we have that,

25:22not just these slides, which again are

25:24great and kind of cut to the chase, but

25:26having the actual red line I think is

25:29important for the public record.

25:31>> I concur. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so I

25:33just went through those five points and

25:34if we can go to the next slide, Mr.

25:36Chairman.

25:38uh

25:38the

25:39uh boxes here a little hard to read, but

25:41I'll um but hopefully folks online can

25:44see them better. It really spells out

25:46the elements of the the four major

25:48buckets of change. Um again, the

25:52addition of a definitions section that

25:55affirms the existing permit threshold.

25:57So, it's important to understand um that

25:59we have not made changes to

26:01what triggers the necessity of permit

26:03for a gathering that's greater than 25

26:06as well as the capacity to have a

26:08spontaneous gathering. We just defined

26:10those at the beginning of the ordinance

26:12so that they aren't interdispersed

26:13within and that adds to confusion. Uh

26:16you'll also see the privile the section

26:18provision that I referred to with

26:19respect to the consolidation of all of

26:21the pieces that reference the authority

26:23of the chief of police. So they could

26:25all be in one place. Um the third the

26:29appeal and revocation standard. I think

26:30I've already gone over this. So I think

26:32these four boxes are essentially a sum

26:34summation of the list that occurred in

26:36the first slide. And then the special

26:39events trigger um just to read off those

26:41those uh buckets. if a duration exceeds

26:44three hours. Um if the request is to

26:46reserve a particular public area or

26:48frequent request for the same area, if

26:50there's a need for city resources in

26:52standard beyond the police uh staffing

26:53beyond the police department or if the

26:55chief finds this in the public interest.

26:57And then the final slide there maybe uh

27:00if we go to the third slide, Mr.

27:01Chairman, um

27:03and we'll hopefully have this in the

27:05packet or maybe present this at council

27:07um because of the type size here might

27:09be a little bit easier to read. And if

27:11anybody in the audience wants to have my

27:13printed copy on the way out, I'll be

27:15happy to share it. But this digs deeply

27:17into the

27:19um the special events um provisions. And

27:22perhaps it might be better, more

27:23appropriate um council member Tinkler,

27:25if I yield to you for a moment if you

27:27have any um thing that you might want to

27:29sum

27:30uh summarize on that section pertaining

27:32to the uh waiver pathway under the uh

27:34special events process.

27:37>> Sure. Uh,

27:39well, um,

27:41I guess before I

27:42summarize

27:44the u, the waiver process, I, I want to

27:46point out, um,

27:49I, I'm not sure if, if,

27:51uh,

27:51you know, the, the folks here today are,

27:53are aware, I

27:55I, a lot of my practice is representing

27:57public school teachers,

27:59and as part of that practice, I actually

28:02deal with First Amendment issues.

28:05So

28:06I I

28:07understand the first amendment

28:09pretty well.

28:10Um

28:11[clears throat] to that point, you know,

28:13I have for quite some time had some

28:16concerns about the special events

28:19uh process knowing that it is a

28:22cumbersome process.

28:24Um

28:24even people who aren't trying to express

28:26their first amendment rights have

28:29trouble getting through the special

28:30events process. So

28:32that's noted. Um,

28:34and you know, certainly, you know, with

28:36my understanding of of the First

28:38Amendment and how how the courts have

28:41interpreted the First Amendment and

28:43Council Member Poke has provided a

28:45pretty good summary of of how it's,

28:47it's, it's,

28:48it is subject to,

28:50uh,

28:51narrowly tailored, uh,

28:54reasonable regulations like time, place,

28:56and manner. Um, you know, I know this

28:58has been addressed, and I just want to

29:00make this clear from a legal

29:01perspective. It has been addressed by a

29:03court.

29:04Uh there has been

29:07a case filed

29:09uh

29:10in the in the District of South Carolina

29:12and determined by

29:14a a federal judge here

29:17on on a preliminary injunction

29:20uh which has to

29:22the judge has to make a determination of

29:25of

29:26how the law is applied and whether it is

29:28likely to succeed on the merits. So that

29:31is what Judge Norton has done by

29:33applying the law

29:35uh and looking at the very standards

29:37that the chief has to apply and

29:40determining whether to

29:42deny or or you know offer some

29:44reasonable alternative to a

29:47an application for a special uh or for a

29:50first amendment demonstration. So,

29:52you know, when I when I came, I've I've

29:55been listening to people as they've as

29:57they've been coming to the council

29:59meetings and I've been seeing the

30:00emails. I I've not responded to them. Uh

30:04mainly because they're they're form

30:06emails. Uh and I I understand the points

30:09that y'all are making and a lot of

30:11emails are also to council as a whole

30:13and I as a practice I generally don't

30:15respond individually to those emails,

30:16but I'm listening. I hear the concerns

30:20and I've certainly I think tried to

30:22address I think some of the the issues

30:24that I've been concerned about and again

30:26that is the that's the special events

30:28process. So I I wanted to to lay that

30:30out. I think um

30:32to summarize kind of what what what

30:35is part of this proposed change is

30:38an an expedited review

30:42based on

30:43a a special or excuse me on a first

30:46amendment demonstration ordinance

30:48application.

30:50Uh,

30:51as the chief makes a determination that

30:54the special event is triggered,

30:56uh, it will go to the special events

31:00committee chair,

31:01who has a has a very short period of

31:04time to make a determination based on

31:06contentneutral criteria,

31:09uh,

31:10from,

31:11you know, whether this is going to,

31:14they're going to be selling items what

31:16you see at, you know, at a event or

31:18these things that are not traditionally

31:20part of a protest and certainly not

31:23guaranteed under the Constitution. So

31:25those are contentneutral uh items

31:29uh that once those those are met

31:33uh the chair of the special events

31:35committee makes the determination that

31:37all the things that have been

31:40problematic whether it's insurance or

31:42indemnification or the fees that that

31:45are that are required under the special

31:47events process are all waved.

31:50and all those burdens

31:52uh that we've been hearing over and over

31:54again about are

31:56gone.

31:57Um

31:58and you know that's fundamentally what

32:01the design of this is.

32:03Um,

32:04it it allows

32:05not only

32:07uh the special events chair, but also

32:10the members of the committee to weigh in

32:12if necessary, if they have to say, "Oh,

32:14we we need to we need to pay attention a

32:16little bit more to the traffic issues

32:18that this application's going to create,

32:19or we need to pay more attention to the

32:21sanitation issues that this is going to

32:22create." But

32:24fundamentally um it's designed to

32:27expedite the process so we can turn what

32:30is again a traditional traditionally a

32:32lengthy process into a very short

32:34process to try to

32:37uh accommodate as best we can

32:40the rights that are guaranteed under the

32:41first amendment. So that's that's

32:43fundamentally what what that process is.

32:47Um, and I think um,

32:50you know, I I think it addresses all the

32:51concerns I think that I've I've heard

32:53from from

32:54the community that's come out and talked

32:56about this. So, to that I'll I'll yield

32:59back to

32:59>> Yeah. Well, Mr. Chairman, with your

33:01continued indulgence, I'm kind of

33:02yielding. So, I I might want to take a

33:04step aside. I did have a couple of very

33:06short closing points and then I'll I'll

33:08be done, but I saw that Mr. Mayor would

33:10just speak. So,

33:11>> uh, yeah, Mr. Chairman, um, well, why

33:14don't you go ahead? I'll

33:15>> Sure. Okay, great. Um, so just in

33:18closing, I just wanted to mention now

33:20even with my involvement with their this

33:22draft, there's still a couple of things

33:23that that I'm not a fan of. Even some of

33:26the pieces that I uh took a good look

33:28at. When you look at something long

33:29enough, you start finding new things.

33:31Um, you know, there might be

33:33during a council process an opportunity

33:35for us to take a look at references to

33:37incitement in the ordinance. And I just

33:39want to put a pin on that. Uh this

33:41ordinance has an interesting

33:42relationship with parallel city

33:44ordinances that

33:46um may criminal some of the similar

33:48conduct that I think we might want to

33:49make sure that we are reconciling. And

33:51then I often also worry sometimes about

33:54the distinguishing between the acts of

33:55organizers and the acts of individuals

33:57and who's on the hook for what. But we

34:00have time for that. In closing, I just

34:02want to mention this to everyone

34:03involved. We have an opportunity right

34:05here to restart the clock. Uh, one of

34:07the biggest issues with the original um,

34:09uh, uh, passage of this ordinance is

34:11that it was a tough moment for the

34:12country, the city. Um, cooler heads are

34:15in the room now. We aren't in that

34:17challenging moment during the pandemic

34:18and all the stresses of that time. I

34:20hope that what we can do here together

34:23is take a good look at permits as they

34:26come in, keep very good records, be on

34:28top of how the process is working, um,

34:32and uh, allow us all as a, as folks

34:35operating in good faith, to really take

34:37a look at how these revisions work and

34:39have an open mind to, um, what we learn

34:41and what we,

34:42um, understand, um at, at that point of

34:44practice. So, I think this is also an

34:47opportunity for us to

34:48kind of sunset, um,

34:50uh, where we were the last time this was

34:53endeavored, to take these revisions in

34:56good faith, to restart the clock, um,

34:58and to see where we stand as we evolve

35:00together toward our common goal, which

35:02is for people to be able to express

35:04themselves in the manner that they wish,

35:07in the place that they wish, but also in

35:08the manner that respects, uh, safety and

35:10resource limitations so that everyone's

35:12safe.

35:13Um, and that...um, but, but they're

35:15safe, not at the expense of the capacity

35:18of groups and individuals to amplify,

35:21uh, their voices...um, and to do what is

35:24guaranteed...um, for 250 years...um, uh,

35:27under, uh, the Constitution of the

35:29United States actually, a little bit

35:30shorter than that, but we don't have to

35:31get into semantics, as we deal with

35:33semantics. So with that I'll um I thank

35:35you Mr. Chair.

35:36>> Yeah thank you Councilman Poke

35:38um and

35:40M Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I'll be brief. Uh, I

35:43do want to um

35:45say thank you to you, Mr. Chairman, for

35:48having this meeting, uh, having public

35:50participation. I certainly want to thank

35:52Councilman Poke and Councilman Tinkler,

35:56uh, and the legal staff for all of their

35:58work on this. I think

36:00um

36:01from from everything I've seen, there's

36:03been a very sincere effort to address

36:06the concerns, but also balance it with

36:09uh the public safety needs, which is

36:12something that, you know, we're elected

36:13to do. And not everybody agrees and um

36:16with with the outcome. It can still be

36:18potentially tweaked. That's the process.

36:21Um, and it's okay from my perspective to

36:25occasionally not agree on every nuance,

36:27all the details, right? Um, and you

36:30certainly have, it was mentioned earlier

36:32in the public comment that you have the

36:34ultimate right and that is the right to

36:36vote and we respect that. We sincerely

36:38do.

36:39But we have to balance

36:42um, uh, a lot of different things as

36:44elected officials

36:45and

36:46uh, I think this is a good compromise.

36:48Is it perfect? No. But is it better than

36:51what we have? I would say absolutely.

36:54So,

36:55um, to me, I think this has been a very

36:59positive effort and I want to applaud

37:01those that have really rolled up their

37:03sleeves and thank them again, uh, for

37:05all the work that they've done. So

37:07again, with the understanding that we

37:10have language that has been tweaked

37:12specific to the ordinance, I'd like to

37:15recommend

37:17that this committee approve or recommend

37:20approval

37:22uh of that language as it may be

37:24modified by council between now and

37:27first reading or

37:29um uh potentially between first and

37:32second reading.

37:34um because I do think there perhaps are

37:36some

37:37tweaks that and definitions that might

37:39need to be worked out. But I think to

37:41move this forward so that we can take

37:43something that we know is flawed and

37:45make it better, we we should move this

37:48forward and recommend to council

37:51um that we we we we as a committee do

37:54approve this

37:55uh with the understanding that some

37:57amendments may and tweaks may be coming.

37:59So, Mr. Mr. Chairman, if you may, I'd

38:01like to make that motion uh that we as a

38:03committee push this forward for approval

38:05at uh city council

38:08um and and and go from there.

38:10>> Second.

38:11>> Okay, we have a motion on the floor and

38:12a second. Any further discussion

38:17hearing and seeing none,

38:19all in favor, please say I. I.

38:22>> Any opposed? The eyes have it. Thank you

38:25again, Councilman Poke, Councilman

38:27Tinkler, and Mayor Cogwell for all your

38:29work on this. Appreciate it. Thank you.

38:32>> And and before we go to the next item,

38:34because I, as I mentioned earlier, Mr.

38:36Chairman, I have to make my way out to

38:38Daniel Allen. Um, do we still have a

38:40quorum if I'm

38:41absent on this?

38:43>> Yes.

38:44>> Okay.

38:45If you will excuse me, apologies. Uh, I

38:47have covered fire station 20. uh it is

38:50in very capable hands on the

38:51presentation um and much needed on the

38:54Kane Hoy Peninsula. Uh so thank you, Mr.

38:56Chairman. Apologies I have to leave

38:57early.

38:58>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

39:00>> All right. So, next on the agenda is

39:02item number 10, a presentation regarding

39:04the evaluation and alternative location

39:07for fire station 20 on the Cane Hoy

39:10Peninsula.

39:22Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, uh members

39:24of the committee. I was uh before the

39:27council on March uh 11th last year to

39:31discuss uh the issue of fire station 20

39:34and the need to

39:35find a permanent home for that along

39:38Clemens Ferry Road. Uh during my

39:40presentation, some of you may recall

39:42that uh we've presented five different

39:44uh criteria that we evaluate properties

39:47for when we're considering where to

39:49locate a new fire station. Um, location

39:52and distance from other fire stations,

39:54the size,

39:56uh whether it's in a flood zone, um

39:58accessibility to not only main access

40:01roads, uh but also to the neighborhoods

40:03that uh the station is serving, as well

40:06as zoning and the ability to annex that

40:09property into the city and whether it's

40:11appropriately zoned, uh to use as a fire

40:14station. And as you might recall from

40:17that presentation, as we applied each

40:19criteria, the area became smaller and

40:22smaller and smaller. And you could see

40:25that the amount of suitable properties

40:27in this area just is extremely limited.

40:31Um what we did was we asked the council

40:33to consider four different properties

40:36that we found uh suitable to be uh as

40:39the fire station 20 site

40:42and council unanimously approved to

40:45begin negotiations to acquire the uh

40:48Barisford run site

40:50um including an up to

40:52um eminent domain if necessary.

40:55Um, as part of the city's due diligence,

40:58uh, we do have to consider reasonable

41:00alternate sites that may be brought to

41:02our attention. Um, and we have had one

41:05brought to our attention for us to look

41:07at.

41:08Staff has reviewed this site, our

41:10engineers, our legal team. Uh, we've all

41:12looked at it very intently. Um, and we

41:15have Beth Brownley with our capital

41:17projects team here today to talk about

41:20that alternate site so that ultimately

41:22this committee and council can decide

41:24how we should proceed. Thank you very

41:26much.

41:40Poweroint queued up.

41:44gave it to

41:46Jennifer.

41:47>> Beth, I'm gonna screen share it right

41:49now.

41:50>> Okay,

41:53I knew I sent it.

42:48All right. And let me know if you can

42:50see that screen.

42:53>> We see it with the Yes, we've got it.

42:55>> All right. And just let let me know when

42:57you're ready to advance.

42:59>> Okay.

43:00Uh we can go ahead and advance to the

43:01next one.

43:06So, as Molina alluded to, we've

43:08evaluated several sites. Uh we are now

43:11narrowing down what we are looking at.

43:13Uh we had uh several potential sites. We

43:16are now looking at two of those. Again

43:19uh what we are asking right now is for

43:21uh once this presentation is completed

43:23for

43:24uh the committee to review and

43:26uh give authorization for acquisition.

43:29Uh at a glance we have

43:31uh really nine uh outside of the the

43:34other items that you see. We have nine

43:36criteria that we applied to each site

43:38and we did that based off of uh a case

43:41study that was provided to us

43:43uh regarding acquisition and

43:45condemnation. So we wanted to make sure

43:47that uh we

43:49thoroughly evaluated each site approp

43:52appropriately. Next slide please.

43:56Uh these are uh nine programming needs

43:58that we have for fire station 20.

44:01Uh we've based a lot of what we have.

44:03We've done a lot of fire stations

44:05recently. Uh so we are looking at

44:07something between 20 and I'm sorry

44:0912,000 and 14,500

44:12square foot. Uh we need several parking

44:14spots to include those that are not only

44:17housed at the station but also shift

44:19turnover. Uh we have a preferred 80oot

44:21apparatus drive. That is to allow the

44:24apparatus bay to exit fully onto

44:27uh the parking space before it goes into

44:29the ride ofway. That's for safety for

44:31pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Uh we

44:34have other items. I won't hit all of

44:35them. Drive-through bays though are very

44:37important. That's for safety of the

44:38apparatus bay for the the tracks

44:40themselves.

44:42Uh we're looking for two and a half to

44:44five apparatus bays. They need to have

44:46an E120

44:48and a high water vehicle. So we do have

44:50some depth that we're looking for here.

44:52Uh number of bunks. We have a lot of

44:54crew that are going to be here. 7 to

44:56nine. Um all of this is to say is that

44:58we need an appropriate site that fits

45:00the fire department and the station. Uh

45:02next site slide.

45:04Thank you. These are the nine criteria

45:06that we're evaluating. Uh it is

45:08environmental impact, land use impact

45:11individual land owners, cost, visual

45:13impact, safety, aesthetics, reliability,

45:16and other factors such as long uh range

45:19area planning.

45:21Next slide.

45:24Property one is to the east of Clemens

45:27Ferry. Uh this was one of the original

45:29parcels that we looked at. It is 2637

45:32Clemens Fairy Road. Uh currently has uh

45:35it's about 22 acre site. Uh we are

45:37looking for somewhere between 3 and 4

45:39acres total.

45:41Next slide please.

45:45This is the current site as it stands

45:48right now. Uh it is an impervious site.

45:51Uh we have leased trucking on here right

45:53now. So it's a large parking lot. It is

45:56paved as well as gravel. Uh the area

45:58that we would be looking at would be

46:00uh like the first 2/3 of the parcel

46:03facing Clemens.

46:05Um it is also immediately adjacent to

46:07Beersford Run.

46:09Next slide please.

46:12Uh this is what we have put together.

46:14The uh layout is very similar to fire

46:16station 23

46:18that is currently under construction on

46:20John's Island. Uh it is a three bay

46:23uh 14,500t

46:24facility. Uh this one is slightly

46:26smaller because we do not anticipate the

46:28need to have training. So it's about

46:3012,000 square foot. Uh the improvements

46:33that you see at the top are the

46:34improvements that are associated with

46:37uh the existing project across the

46:39street, the

46:41uh town of Cooper River development. So,

46:43all of those are part of

46:45that development for the rideway

46:47improvements. The only thing you will

46:49see for our rideway improvements would

46:51be the markings to prohibit people from

46:54parking and blocking the apparatus bay

46:56drive.

46:58Uh we would have a full pullin and

47:00drive-thru uh coming off of a new

47:03uh rideaway or an easement. Uh right

47:06now, I believe we're contemplating this

47:07as an easement. Uh that would be a right

47:10in right out but we would have a

47:12signalized intersection off of Beerford

47:14Grun. Uh we are showing about 28

47:17parking spaces which is our standard for

47:20being able to get the turn turnover for

47:22the shifts coming in and out. Uh in

47:24addition to that the

47:26uh site itself we have about 2.4 acres

47:29that's needed for the fire station. The

47:32pond is an additional.7.

47:34Uh the other accessible either the the

47:37access or the easement is about one acre

47:39as well.

47:41Next slide.

47:43The second property that we're

47:44evaluating was brought to us by the

47:46leasey of the first property.

47:49Um it is across the street. So that was

47:51part of the Cooper Town development um

47:54that I mentioned earlier. Next slide.

47:58Um it is cleared now, but the aerials

48:01that we have show that it was a fully

48:03wooded site. Uh there's also an adjacent

48:06uh parking lot that is down below that

48:08is very similar to what's across the

48:10street. Um this is going to have a lot

48:13of multi-purpose uh I'm sorry, multif

48:15family uh residential

48:17uh we have retail, we have commercial in

48:19here. And so we are uh looking at this

48:22to see if a fire station would fit in

48:23this property as well. Next slide.

48:27Uh the lease brought to us a design that

48:30was prepared by their uh engineer. Uh

48:33what it shows is that the original

48:36property that we were looking at

48:37acquiring with this development um did

48:40not fit. And that was one of our

48:41original evaluations in 2018.

48:44Uh so we have worked very hard to try to

48:46figure out how to get a station uh to

48:49meet the needs that we have for the fire

48:51department um as well as the drive-thru

48:54that we needed. So, they brought this to

48:56us uh for evaluation. It is a a little

48:59bit more complicated and difficult as

49:01we're evaluating it because there's

49:03multiple properties that we're needing

49:04to contend with. So, the other site was

49:07one property. This one has

49:09uh three property owners and six

49:11properties in total. Uh they are showing

49:13uh the same improvements that we would

49:15have

49:16uh that would be across the street which

49:18would be signalized. There are some

49:20improvements that are south that go

49:22south. That is one of their roadways. we

49:24would need to complete uh the roadway as

49:28a right of way to go out to Clemensberry

49:30Road.

49:31Um

49:32some of the concerns that we have also

49:34is that it's not immediately on Clemens

49:36Fairy Road. So uh unlike the other sites

49:39where we have

49:40uh access right onto Clemens Fairy in

49:42visibility, this does not.

49:45Next slide.

49:48So, we took all of those nine evaluation

49:51criteria that I mentioned at the

49:52beginning um and we

49:55we put them to the test. So, we we

49:56evaluated each property uh the purchase

49:59price as you'll see for both is neutral

50:01because we don't know what the purchase

50:02price is. So, we're trying to compare

50:03apples to apples as opposed to that

50:06price. Uh for the environmental impact,

50:08uh property number one,

50:10uh which is

50:12uh

50:12the one that that we first looked at,

50:15uh we have a lot of imperous material.

50:17With this improvement, we'd actually be

50:18decreasing the impervious material, so

50:20actually bettering that property. Uh we

50:23have a little bit of limited wetland

50:25impact, but

50:26uh it is just like portion a portion of

50:28the driveway. Um which we do not foresee

50:30an issue with any of those permits for

50:32that.

50:34uh for the environmental impact for

50:36property too. Uh it is potentially under

50:38a shipo

50:40uh area and that there's significant uh

50:43ecological impacts with all of the tree

50:45clearing that we've had.

50:46Uh the uh land use

50:49uh we prefer uh the alternate one based

50:52off of the alignment. Um it gets you

50:55access right onto

50:56uh the property. you have

50:59uh a small buffer, a 50-ft buffer, but

51:01overall the land use for this, we feel

51:03that this meets the needs of being able

51:04to turn

51:06uh right onto Clemens Fairy to get quick

51:08access onto

51:09uh the areas that we are trying to

51:12um to service. Uh impact to individual

51:15land owners, as I mentioned, uh there is

51:17one property owner for

51:19uh the eastern side. The western side

51:21has

51:22uh three property owners and six

51:24properties, one of them being a church.

51:26Um so that is a concern for us as well.

51:29Uh visual impact

51:31uh

51:32yep costers up above. So visual impact

51:35uh

51:38we have uh the site that's visible uh

51:40visible from Cooper River uh sorry from

51:42Clemens Ferry Road. Cooper River

51:46development has a one parcel that's set

51:48back and so we are concerned about

51:50stacking. We are concerned about uh

51:52being

51:53um stacked at the light and trying to

51:55turn left where the majority of the

51:57calls are coming from.

51:59Um

52:00it would be visible so one of the

52:01criteria it would be visible from

52:04uh residents of multi-purpose um and uh

52:07multif family where the uh visual impact

52:10to

52:11the eastern site would be far less.

52:13uh aesthetics and safety. Um

52:16we've kind of touched on previously, but

52:17the right turn

52:19uh going out for property one is

52:21preferred as opposed to stacking in the

52:23left turn.

52:24Uh aesthetics again the visibility uh

52:26the concern we have for property 2 is

52:28that there is a cell tower that is also

52:30in the middle of the property. So that

52:31would be uh parcled off and we would be

52:33working around that.

52:35uh reliability uh is the second to the

52:37last and we are 300 foot from uh Clemens

52:42Ferry Road for property one, we are a

52:44little over 400

52:45feet for property 2. So

52:48um even though it's 100 foot quicker,

52:50the 100 feet means quicker response time

52:52and quicker access. Uh and last but not

52:55least is the uh long range planning. So

52:58both of them would allow us for

53:00uh cross connectivity to other parcels.

53:02However, property one will allow us to

53:04be able to expand if needed where

53:06property 2 would not allow any expansion

53:09for the future.

53:10Uh, next slide.

53:13Uh, overall staff recommendation. We are

53:16recommending property one

53:17uh based off the long list of items that

53:20uh we gave you previously. Um, and there

53:22should be a very thick packet with y'all

53:24and if not we can provide that. That is

53:26the full presentation that is about 30

53:28pages. Um, and that includes more detail

53:31about each recommendation and each

53:33criteria.

53:36>> Questions, comments?

53:38>> Um, Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

53:40>> Yes, sir. Go ahead.

53:41>> Um, curious about the, uh, acreage in

53:44the pond. Um, can you talk a little bit

53:46more about that? And, um,

53:49is the pond, uh, part of the,

53:51uh, you know, the project that's

53:53contemplated the maintenance of it, the,

53:55um I just, I'm curious about that piece

53:57of. And then after that, I have one more

53:59question.

53:59>> Yes. Um so the uh the pond is part of

54:02the landed acquisition that we would

54:04need for technically both of them it

54:06would be uh so the graphic for both of

54:08them shows a pond uh without uh a lot of

54:11detail and going into storm water

54:12analysis. We are estimating the size of

54:15that pond right now but we feel

54:16comfortable with that size.

54:18But both of them would would require a

54:20pond for shore model and runoff.

54:22>> Okay.

54:23Um and then my second question was you

54:25mentioned in your um introductory

54:26remarks the possibilities of uh imminent

54:29domain. Um can you talk a little bit

54:31more about why that's in the uh in the

54:34works?

54:35>> So we just wanted to evaluate and use

54:37that as as the criteria for for

54:40evaluation. Um there's not a lot out

54:42there for land acquisition but we did

54:44find some case study on

54:46uh

54:47acquisition through imminent domain. We

54:50use that as as our

54:51>> Okay. So that was part of the big

54:53picture but not necessarily contemplated

54:54with your recommendation here.

54:56>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank

54:58you.

54:58>> Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other

55:00questions?

55:05>> All right. Um

55:09we had um

55:10on here action may be taken. Uh is there

55:13a motion on the

55:15on the floor?

55:22I I would just what kind of

55:24action I guess does staff need

55:27at this point

55:28um

55:30to go forward? I don't you're you're

55:33sitting down so

55:35>> yeah

55:38walking around

55:40um essentially what you received is the

55:43authorization to proceed to proceed with

55:45required for run up to

55:48do

55:49um we don't have that authorization on

55:52the alternate site. So what we're asking

55:54from the committee today is whether or

55:56not to proceed with the original

55:58authorization or whether or not this

56:01alternative site is something that you

56:03want to proceed with.

56:11Well, then I I'll move to I guess I'll

56:14I'll just make the motion to

56:16um

56:19to

56:23because we've already we've already got

56:25the authorization to proceed with Their

56:28so

56:28um

56:29[clears throat] so I, I don't know how

56:31to

56:32word it precisely, but

56:34I guess to take take away from staff's

56:36consideration the the alternative site

56:40second.

56:42>> Okay, we have a motion on the floor to

56:44take away the alternative site

56:46and a second.

56:48Any further discussion?

56:51>> All in favor, please say I. I.

56:53>> I.

56:54>> I.

56:54>> Any opposed?

56:56The eyes have it.

56:59All right. Is there anything else to

57:01come before this committee this

57:02afternoon?

57:04If not, thank you very much everyone.

57:06Appreciate it. And uh we stand

57:09adjourned.

57:10>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

57:12Andor

```*