2026-10-26 - Special City Council

00:10All right, I think we're ready to go.

00:12>> All right.

00:14I will call this special meeting of city

00:16council

00:18to order and

00:21let's if everybody could join me in a

00:23moment of silence.

00:35Okay, thank you.

00:37So, there is only one agenda item on

00:42the agenda for today's meeting and that

00:45is discussion relating to

00:48the Dominion franchise agreement.

00:52>> [clears throat]

00:53>> Miss Copeland, is this something you

00:56plan on making an introductory on or do

00:59you want me to introduce Danny and go

01:02from there?

01:03>> Sure, Mayor. I I can table set if you'd

01:06like and just pull up the term sheet

01:08again and then we can introduce Danny

01:10and Bert who are both here to answer any

01:13follow-up questions.

01:18Okay. So, this is the slide that we put

01:21up at the last meeting

01:24laying out the terms for this new

01:27agreement with Dominion and with

01:29Berkeley Electric Co-op. Just some key

01:31points I want to

01:32throw out to you here is the original

01:34from '96 was 30 + 10.

01:37This new agreement is 20 + 10. We are

01:40also laying out a new agreement with

01:41Berkeley Electric which mirrors most of

01:44the Dominion franchise agreement

01:46including the 5% fee.

01:48And essentially um

01:49members of council, I don't know if I

01:51said this at the last meeting, but the

01:52whole purpose of this franchise

01:53agreement is to give them non-exclusive

01:54rights to maintain, install,

01:57repair their utility lines within our

02:01rights-of-way. And in exchange,

02:04we get this 5% fee annually

02:06gross gas and electric into the general

02:08fund. And then of that 5%, 0.5 of the

02:12electric goes into a separate fund for a

02:14match for this undergrounding program

02:16that we have in place.

02:18I

02:19I think last year we received a check

02:21for 14 million into the fund. Um 5.73

02:25toward the undergrounding. And then one

02:27of the big key changes that we put into

02:29this

02:30from the prior agreement is we broke it

02:32down into four classes of construction

02:34work within the rights-of-way.

02:36Um and within those it triggers

02:40coordination and notice requirements

02:42between the city and the Dominion staff

02:45prior to work.

02:47So this is laid out here. And then also

02:49with the NSSF

02:51uh portion of the agreement, this gives

02:53City Council the absolute right to

02:55create, set up the list uh

02:59in order of priority for Council at

03:02their discretion as far as NSSF or

03:04undergrounding projects. Um and then one

03:07key factor that's new in this is

03:10and you'll notice here in the second

03:11bullet point, within 6 months of

03:13receiving the draft easements after

03:15design work

03:17with Dominion,

03:18um if they cannot get the requisite

03:20easements in place, that project will

03:22drop to the bottom of the list and they

03:23must reapply. And so it will give us an

03:25opportunity to channel a lot of these

03:27projects through the program so they

03:29don't hold its place in the line for 20

03:32years like some of them have in the

03:33past.

03:35So with that, we've got Bert Walling

03:37with Berkeley Electric Co-op, he's on.

03:39And we also have a Danny Cassis with

03:42Dominion by phone here to answer any

03:44follow-up questions that Council might

03:45have.

03:48>> All right. With that, why don't we open

03:50it up for questions? Any Any council

03:53member

03:54uh uh have any specific questions

03:56related to the terms and conditions?

04:00And I can't see everybody, so Madam

04:01Clark, if I'm if I can't see a hand

04:03raised, would you just let me know?

04:06>> Yes, sir.

04:09>> Okay, let me ask I'll start with a

04:10question since nobody jumped up

04:13immediately. Uh

04:14go ahead and Councilman Seekings, go

04:15ahead.

04:16>> Sorry about that. I'm a little slow on

04:17the trigger, but

04:19if you want to make some

04:20introductory remarks, Mayor, that's

04:21fine. I think one of the reasons that I

04:23asked for this meeting and for us to get

04:25together to talk through this with um

04:28Dominion and Berkeley Electric is we're

04:30about to set up the next 20 to 30 years

04:33in the city for the delivery of

04:35electricity and gas to the city.

04:37And and one of the things that I think

04:39we can all agree on we're going to look

04:41for as efficient, affordable, and safe

04:43delivery of that. And along with that

04:46comes underground wiring, and I think

04:48that

04:49all of us being on the same page on the

04:51front end of this agreement and being

04:53able to hand off for the next 20 to 30

04:56years to likely others, not us, an

04:58agreement that allows for the efficient

05:01undergrounding and the affordable

05:02undergrounding of wiring is super

05:05important to me anyway, and I hope it's

05:07important everybody just so we all

05:09understand it. I'm not sure when I first

05:11came on the city council, I understood

05:12the process.

05:14I understand it now, and there's a few

05:15things that are in the revised new

05:18agreement that I think we should talk

05:19through, so at least we all know what

05:22we're about to do for the next 20 to 30

05:24years.

05:25So, that's kind of where I am. Um

05:28my first question, sort of the

05:30overarching question is

05:32in the new agreement, we put a certain

05:34percentage of the franchise fee towards

05:36underground wiring, which is a match

05:38that comes from both sides. Is there a

05:40magic number or reason why we put that

05:43number as 1/2 of of 1%?

05:46It seems to me that with the of

05:47undergrounding only going to be going

05:49up, the need to move sooner rather than

05:51later, the more money we can put to the

05:54NSSF

05:55on the front end, the better.

06:00>> Julia or

06:02>> [clears throat]

06:02>> any members of the Dominion team, do you

06:03have a

06:04short answer for that?

06:06Why the percentage is what it is?

06:08>> Yeah.

06:10I Mayor, I don't have a short answer for

06:12Councilman Steekings, but I'll try to

06:13contain this to I guess as tight as I

06:16can.

06:17So, the Councilman Steekings, the

06:19original agreement from 1996

06:22started with a number

06:25that was

06:27defined, it was $350,000

06:31of money that was set aside in a fund.

06:33That money only escalated at a It was

06:36capped, so it escalated at either the

06:39higher of the percentage growth or 3%.

06:42So, through escalation

06:45that money that went into the fund

06:48that the city set aside

06:50it only moved to a little over half a

06:53million dollars per year.

06:55The 50 basis points

06:57moves, of course, with growth, right?

07:00But, it's over

07:021.2 million dollars a year

07:05with just the the portion that the city

07:08would set aside.

07:10Dominion would match that. So,

07:13bottom line, superior program

07:16The The shorter answer on the on the 50

07:20basis points

07:21that's the same formulaic approach

07:24in

07:25every template for every non-standard

07:27service fund.

07:29So, Dominion pre-funded actually

07:32your

07:34the obligation. So, we're we're taking

07:37the 11 and a half million dollars that

07:39you guys have set aside.

07:42Um which could have been a much bigger

07:44number if you didn't have the cap, but

07:46we're setting that number aside, but

07:48we're also then

07:50pre-funding, if you will, our obligation

07:52based on the 50 basis points.

07:55So, kind of a superior economic

07:57solution, but it addresses, I think, the

07:59funding model.

08:01And then what happens is that

08:04every year

08:06you add an additional 50 basis points

08:09from the city, add an additional 50

08:11basis points of match from Dominion,

08:14and that rides really all the way

08:17through

08:19the first term of the agreement, 20

08:21years.

08:22So, overall,

08:24$60 million,

08:2630 million match,

08:2730 million match for 60 million total,

08:30plus you've got the 11 and 1/2 million

08:33set aside

08:35that comes out of the old franchise

08:36agreement, but now belongs to the city,

08:38and and they have the exclusive rights

08:40to it.

08:41>> And And that all makes sense to me on a

08:43formulaic, mathematic formula basis,

08:47but if we put it against the backdrop,

08:49and I'm not going to ask you to do this,

08:50but um

08:52it's going to be a much bigger number

08:53than we're just talking about. Over the

08:55course of the next 20 to 30 years, what

08:57is the cost to do even 30 major

09:01undergrounding projects, let alone do

09:03all the undergrounding projects that the

09:05city will require to get us to the point

09:06where we're getting efficient safe

09:08delivery of electricity? It's going to

09:10be well in excess of $60 million, I

09:12suspect.

09:13>> Okay. So,

09:13>> Given the cost of some of the projects

09:15that are on your list right now. So, I

09:17mean, my whole thought process here is

09:19simply to front end load and continue to

09:22load as much money as we can that's

09:24coming in to get these projects moving

09:27and be able to fund them and not run out

09:28of money while we're going along. And

09:30that that I think is a real concern. If

09:33we do our job on the city side, get the

09:36projects in line, work with you all to

09:38get them designed and in and in

09:40construction cuz one of my other

09:42questions is going to be on the number

09:43of projects, but we're going to run out

09:45of money before we collect it.

09:48>> And then the way I would respond to

09:49that, Councilman Sinking, is that if if

09:52the city never grew

09:54a single they they never sold one

09:56additional

09:57kilowatt hour

09:59and it stayed at the baseline number for

10:012026

10:04Dominion Energy South Carolina would be

10:06remitting

10:07$15 million a year at 5% collected from

10:11the customers within the municipal

10:13limits.

10:14That would yield

10:16$300 million.

10:19That's what the consent permit is worth

10:21to the city of Charleston. I would

10:23submit to you that $300 million is a lot

10:26of money.

10:27You could take that money instead of

10:28using it for the general fund.

10:30Uh you could run the money on steroids

10:32and it wouldn't end up being embedded in

10:35rates way. I I would I would also tell

10:38you that

10:39the previous agreement just just so you

10:42can look back to make sure you

10:43understand where how much money is

10:45generated from the franchise fee from

10:47the customers.

10:49Well, since '96

10:51that number is $260 million.

10:54That was a lot of money that could have

10:55gone to undergrounding.

10:57So, you have the capacity and actually

11:00the funding model

11:01um in place. It's a matter of actually

11:04doing it efficiently, which I think

11:06from all my discussions and

11:08detailed analysis with the mayor

11:11that's really been the emphasis is to

11:13create not only projects that can move

11:15forward quickly but efficiently. So, I

11:18think we have the common we we have the

11:20common goal. But I think you have to

11:22look at the funding source. There is a

11:24lot of money that gets generated from

11:26that franchise fee that is remitted to

11:28the municipality actually a year in

11:31advance. So, there is money in addition

11:33to the 11.5 that already exists.

11:37>> I get it. I think I'd say Danny, it's

11:3912.5, but

11:41when you start spending it.

11:42>> Yeah, no, I agree. That's what I mean. I

11:44think that's the whole Councilman

11:46Siggins. That's the the whole goal is

11:47that if you

11:48if you take these big ownerless projects

11:50where people aren't willing to give up

11:52property rights,

11:54the whole emphasis on the general

11:56permitting section of this agreement was

11:58to create a efficient process so you

12:02could get in, get out, the city could

12:04pick projects which were executable,

12:07which weren't going to clog up the queue

12:09for

12:09or well, the reality is that sometimes

12:12they clog the queue up for a decade.

12:14Those people disagree about the property

12:15rights piece

12:17and instead of like thinking about it in

12:19terms of the public interest,

12:21they think about a very narrow interest

12:23and then the project gets blocked. I

12:26mean, you can Councilmember Pal can tell

12:27you how long it takes to do a simple

12:29neighborhood project cuz she's seen two

12:31of them in her district.

12:32And even though those are amazing that

12:35like how how many people are will

12:40And then when it comes time to execute

12:42an agreement to basically allow your

12:45property to be used to protect the

12:47utilities equipment, they they're they

12:50are unwilling

12:52or very very very slow to sign, which

12:55then leaves people who really can sign

12:57and want to do a project kind of left in

13:00blocked in the queue.

13:02>> Oh, I I I'm well aware as you might

13:04recall forever I lived in and I

13:05currently represent Ansonborough, so I'm

13:07very aware of how that whole process can

13:09get slowed down.

13:11>> Yep.

13:13>> Danny, if I could ask one question, um

13:16in terms of just the overall rate for

13:18the franchise fee itself,

13:22there have been calls for

13:24is there any other is that that's a

13:26standard fee, correct? This is not

13:30something we could say, "Well, we want

13:327%." Or

13:34That's a standard fee that Dominion

13:36uses. Is that an accurate statement?

13:40>> Yes, so of the 130 some municipalities

13:45that have franchise agreements in South

13:46Carolina,

13:47right at 70%

13:50are at

13:515%.

13:53Then some are four, and there are a few

13:54that are remainder at three, but five

13:57would be the cap for for a consent

13:59permit of this type.

14:02>> Okay.

14:03So, just there's been some chatter among

14:05some of the advocacy groups that we want

14:07to

14:09push for higher. That was one of the

14:10first questions asked. I'm saying that

14:12let me just give you counsel this.

14:15Um

14:16and you know, we we we

14:19we're running up against the cap. So,

14:21>> [clears throat]

14:22>> again, just for for those that aren't

14:25aware, I mean, this is a franchise fee

14:27agreement. If we don't sign it,

14:31then technically we're foregoing the

14:34revenue that comes in to the city.

14:37Um

14:38Uh the the $15 plus million

14:40uh dollars.

14:41Uh

14:43and we wouldn't be getting that. So, I

14:46think it's just important to kind of

14:47level set with everybody on

14:51the agreement itself and what it's there

14:53for.

14:54Um

14:55because I think there's some mis-

14:56misunderstandings and misconceptions

14:58about

15:00uh about that. So,

15:02what other questions do we have?

15:05>> I Mayor, I might just add just for the

15:07record, just that so that so the city of

15:09Charleston's been at 5% since

15:12uh 2009,

15:15which is why

15:17when you look at the ledger from '09,

15:20the 20 26, why that number that I quoted

15:24$260

15:26million, that's why it got to the amount

15:28it did. Again, that number that's

15:31collected from the residents in the

15:33city.

15:34But, it's been 5% since since '09.

15:38>> Right.

15:41Um

15:43All right, any other questions from

15:46council members?

15:48>> Mr. Mayor, council member McBride has

15:51his hand up followed by council member

15:53Polkey.

15:54>> All right, well we'll go with McBride

15:56and then Polkey.

15:57>> Uh Mr. Mayor, um

15:59yeah, just

16:01to kind of level set, I guess should

16:03have done this at the very outset at the

16:04very beginning is just so the public

16:07understands

16:08what Dominion covers and what Berkeley

16:10Electric covers.

16:12And that Berkeley Electric is

16:13exclusively for Johns Island and

16:15Berkeley Electric is from Wando, and I

16:16think a little bit of a little bit of

16:17West Ashley, is that right?

16:20Mr. Wando

16:21>> We have some, I think, in Cainhoy. Um I

16:24think y'all are

16:25you we've got somewhere around

16:28basically 7,000 is around Maybank, Main

16:32Road,

16:33Brownswood, Fairwick, or Fin- or

16:35Finwick, I think, Brickyard, and there

16:38is a small portion in West Ashley.

16:40And there's a very small portion. I can

16:42show y'all the maps.

16:44Um there's a very slim little small

16:47piece in Cainhoy area, which is in the

16:50Berkeley County.

16:51But, yeah, that that's that's about it.

16:55>> Yeah, I think just I think just for in

16:57my opinion, like if we

16:59if maybe the city was able to just kind

17:01of send us all a map to show everybody

17:03what who owns what, and then

17:05and then Dominion Power and Berkeley

17:07Electric are two different types of

17:10or uh structure. Berkeley Electric you

17:12you own or a co-op.

17:15And Dominion, I think I think you're a

17:17for-profit if I'm not mistaken.

17:19And I'm just pointing pointing this out

17:21because there's different two different

17:22two totally different companies covering

17:24Charleston.

17:26And like I know

17:28you know, a lot of attention in in

17:30recently has been about the the burying

17:31lines for Dominion.

17:34And

17:35I haven't brought this up to the to the

17:37city myself, but there's been a lot of

17:39pressure out out here on Johns Island

17:41for

17:42Berkeley Electric to do to do the same

17:43thing and and again different different

17:45cost structures, but I just didn't want

17:47to not mention that because the public

17:49uh on my end of Johns Island asked for

17:51that a lot as well and just hasn't been

17:54getting the same media coverage, but I

17:57know that

17:58I've been talking to Berkeley Electric

17:59quite a bit and uh they have been

18:01burying some lines where there's been a

18:03lot of outages based on car accidents,

18:06things like that.

18:07Um

18:08but I I just wanted to kind of level set

18:10everybody as to who covers what, the

18:12different types of uh

18:14cost structures and organization for

18:15each of the two companies.

18:18>> Thank you for that clarification. It's

18:20important. Um

18:21sometimes [clears throat] we're in the

18:22bubble and uh

18:24>> [laughter]

18:24>> it's good to just let the public know

18:27just some of the basics. So,

18:29I appreciate that, Councilman McBride.

18:31Councilman Pogue, you had your hand up.

18:33>> Uh yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um

18:35I've got two questions. Uh the first is

18:38and I may have missed this. I'm sorry, I

18:39was a little bit late at the start of

18:40the meeting. Um but uh the longevity of

18:44this agreement is consistent with the

18:46agreement upon which it will renew. So,

18:48it's as long as the

18:50um agreement that we're uh replacing it

18:53with, same same length?

18:56>> Can you share?

18:57>> This is a proposed Yeah, this is a

18:58proposed 20

19:00with the idea that perhaps there's

19:04technology,

19:05there's changes to various

19:09geographical locations in the city.

19:11So, we wanted to be durable.

19:1320, which gives term, which allows us to

19:16create the the all-important

19:18non-standard service funding model.

19:21But, then it also has um

19:25an option for

19:27a renewal

19:28for the additional 20 years, but it's an

19:30option.

19:31So, there can also be a termination, and

19:33then you can start the process over

19:34again.

19:35But,

19:35>> No.

19:36>> 20 seemed to be the right uh term for

19:38us.

19:38>> Got you. And I heard someone saying that

19:40the the previous agreement was longer,

19:42actually.

19:42>> 30. Yeah, it was 30, actually.

19:44>> Yeah, it was 30.

19:45>> Yep.

19:46>> Okay. And these uh these durations are

19:49um industry standard,

19:51consistent with other municipalities?

19:55>> Yeah, I would say the larger the

19:56municipality in South Carolina, the

19:58typically the longer.

20:00Cuz folks want to go ahead and get it

20:01done, and they want I mean, effectively,

20:03they're thinking about like

20:05memorializing the service rights,

20:07clearing up any use of the streets and

20:09rights-of-ways and public places, so the

20:11consent permit.

20:13And

20:14they usually do a little more term.

20:16But, in this case,

20:19I mean, the example, Columbia is a

20:2030-year, North Charleston is a 30-year.

20:23This is a 20, but that's fine. I think

20:25we have the Both parties can come back

20:27to the table,

20:28you know, near the end of the agreement,

20:30and then either re-up and it works good

20:32and we have a good model for

20:34undergrounding or and other things that

20:36we use, you know, streets and

20:37rights-of-ways, or we need some we need

20:40some changes.

20:41>> Right. Thank you. Um and my second

20:43question is um

20:45along the lines of uh something that the

20:46mayor alluded to, but uh individuals who

20:49have uh reached out to me about the city

20:51council's relationship with this

20:52franchise agreement are very much

20:55grounded in uh broader concerns about

20:58the affordability of power, um relief

21:00for uh lower-income uh consumers, uh you

21:04know, uh shutoffs,

21:06um things that are just associated with

21:08the challenges that we all have um when

21:10it comes to um increasing power costs

21:12and how that particularly affects

21:15uh folks of moderate means, lower income

21:16folks, older folks, fixed incomes, etc.

21:19Can you all Can you all talk through

21:22um for the purposes of the benefit of

21:24those who are listening,

21:26the ins and outs, if any, of how a

21:29franchise agreement with the

21:30municipality has applicability

21:33to uh

21:34uh

21:35with respect to those types of concerns,

21:37um affordability, income circumstances,

21:40shut offs, and things of that effect. Um

21:42and then to the extent that it does or

21:44does not, um

21:47what are other

21:49uh

21:49levers, other resources, other places

21:52that people who come to the table with

21:55those concerns

21:57um that they should consult or we can

21:59help connect them with uh

22:01Well, cuz when we are, you know, uh

22:04being asked to consider the franchise

22:05agreement with with Dominion, and people

22:07are looking at the different levels

22:09levers of government at, you know,

22:10local, state, county, etc., federal, all

22:13the people that have something to say

22:14with this sort of issue with respect to

22:16energy affordability, you know, people

22:18that are really hurting out there are

22:20are looking for and actually

22:21understandably expect um that us as

22:24elected officials would stand up for

22:26them um at at the times in which we're

22:29able.

22:30Um and I just want to make sure it's

22:31clear to us and it's clear to the public

22:34if that is even a possibility,

22:37um due to the nature, the intent, um the

22:40just the parameters of a franchise

22:42agreement like this. And then in

22:44addition to that, then where does

22:46Dominion and where where would

22:48government partnerships

22:50um be uh helpful to focus on to actually

22:54uh connect the people who need the help,

22:57um the relief that that they deserve

22:58considering their situation.

23:02>> Now Now, great question.

23:04Yeah, [clears throat] I do. Yeah. Yeah.

23:06So So

23:07Council So the So

23:09the franchise agreement always focuses

23:11on two two areas. It is that consent

23:14permit. It's the use of streets and

23:15rights-of-ways and public places and

23:17those rules.

23:18And then the second is the the

23:21territory.

23:22Who serves what? The you know the the

23:25connection though to affordability

23:28is really at the at the state level and

23:33in that rate-making process.

23:36So So when we

23:40pursue perhaps a rate increase,

23:43we are first and foremost focused on

23:47probably two things at the highest

23:49level. One is affordability, the second

23:52is reliability, and they're probably

23:54equal.

23:55So at any of those proceedings,

23:58we're always

24:00having our customer service team who

24:03works through customer assistance issues

24:06at those meetings. And that the the

24:08folks that do that type of work for us

24:11to help folks with, for example, energy

24:14efficiency

24:15or

24:16you know, matters where they can make

24:18their house more efficient and use less

24:21energy.

24:22We have a We have an entire team,

24:25um, an energy efficiency team, what we

24:27call a demand side management team,

24:29as well as a customer assistance team

24:31for those who might, you know, have

24:33hardship and might not be able to pay

24:35their bill in a timely manner. So it's

24:37not It's not embedded in what we're

24:39doing in the franchise thing, but it is

24:41an integral part of our business. Um,

24:43and we have those local resources and

24:46really resources across the state

24:49that that essentially

24:51create the relationships and provide the

24:54assistance where we can to make one

24:57homes more efficient, using less energy,

25:00therefore you less cost, making energy

25:03more affordable, but also helping in the

25:06in the case where someone's got a

25:08hardship.

25:09And they're challenged and they're

25:12perhaps not paying their bill on time.

25:14And part of it could be because where

25:16they live isn't energy efficient. So, we

25:18have robust programs which get approved

25:20by the regulator

25:22and they actually pass cost-benefit

25:24analysis. If they don't, we don't run

25:26the programs. But there is a mechanism.

25:28Now, it is separate, granted, for from

25:31what we're trying to do here, but we

25:33have folks that are available and I'm

25:35glad to

25:37engage with you offline to give you

25:39those contacts to make sure you can

25:41share that with the people that are in

25:42need.

25:48>> Okay.

25:49>> [clears throat]

25:49>> Looks like we've got

25:50>> I appreciate you. I just wanted to

25:52mention if I could quickly, Mr. Mayor,

25:54>> I think it might be helpful as we

25:56navigate

25:58consideration of this and as we

25:59communicate about the action that we

26:02will take here, that we accompany that

26:05with perhaps reference to some of the

26:07resources that were just

26:10mentioned so that the folks who may

26:12necessarily

26:14um

26:15uh make a connection between our action

26:17and um affordability are immediately um

26:22granted uh the information um that would

26:25help direct them to um the appropriate

26:28channels. So, I just wanted to put a

26:29plug in for that and I appreciate it.

26:32>> Yep.

26:33That that

26:34that should be easily done.

26:36>> [clears throat]

26:37>> All right. Uh Councilman D'Alessandro,

26:38you had your hand up and then Councilman

26:40Napolitano.

26:41>> Thanks.

26:43Uh regarding undergrounding,

26:46um

26:48I guess

26:51how how

26:53What percentage of funding or however we

26:56pay for undergrounding comes from these

26:58franchise agreements?

27:02>> So

27:03>> So for the mayor

27:06>> Well

27:06>> Go ahead, mayor.

27:08>> Yeah, so the non-standard service fund

27:10is the smaller percentage that

27:13um is

27:15uh uh

27:16used exclusively for undergrounding

27:20and it is matched by Dominion.

27:23And then um

27:25as Danny pointed out, I mean

27:28we currently use the fran- the larger

27:30franchise fee, the

27:32the uh uh the 15 million approximately,

27:35that goes to our general fund and has

27:38historically, but there's nothing

27:41restricting us from using that

27:43uh to

27:45help with additional uh undergrounding.

27:48However, that component wouldn't be

27:50matched by Dominion.

27:53Does that make sense?

27:59>> I

28:00I think so. I think so.

28:03Uh and regarding

28:05labor for undergrounding, does is that

28:07is that exclusively who who does who

28:11provides the labor for undergrounding?

28:13>> The work is done by Dominion.

28:18>> And

28:18>> Councilman, it's Dominion

28:19[clears throat] or our contractors.

28:22And then

28:24we we want control of that process

28:26because we're ultimately responsible for

28:29the operation

28:31and the maintenance of those assets once

28:33they're installed.

28:35So I mean the event that it

28:37the cable that went underground was

28:40perhaps

28:41inundated by salt water by rising tide,

28:44we're ultimately responsible in the

28:46perpetuity for the maintenance of that

28:49asset. Hence, we want the install done

28:51right. We want it as tight as it can be.

28:54We want it protected.

28:56And we're the We are the end of the day

28:59we're the owner and the operator of the

29:00asset.

29:03>> Uh do we have any idea how much say

29:07one block of undergrounding costs these

29:10days?

29:12>> Uh

29:13we do, rep. So, because actually the

29:17city's

29:18become

29:19really, really

29:21focused

29:22on advancing projects.

29:24Um

29:26you're get right now you're generally

29:27all-in costs

29:29I've seen it as high as

29:31$2,500

29:33a linear foot.

29:34Um

29:35competitively bid. Um

29:38you asked the question about the labor.

29:41It's a competitive market

29:43where a lot of the labor that does this

29:44type of work

29:47moves to places where they're installing

29:49perhaps cable for data centers.

29:51So, there are We have skilled

29:53contractors who do what we call the duct

29:55bank work that's primarily done on the

29:57peninsula.

29:59And um it is expensive work. Hence, to

30:02Councilman Siggins' point, it's

30:04expensive.

30:05And so, you got to do it efficiently.

30:08You got to do it where you can get in

30:09the street, do the work,

30:12complete it, and get out of the way. If

30:14you do it piece by piece by piece by

30:16piece, it can be really expensive

30:19because you'll tie up the labor. Hence,

30:21the desire in the general permit section

30:24to try to create more

30:26efficiency for what we would describe as

30:28longer duration projects.

30:35>> Uh I I guess uh I

30:37I would also like to say uh thank you

30:39for the hard work everyone has put into

30:41this agreement. Um

30:44so is is it it's it's basically it

30:49maybe I'm not understanding correctly,

30:50but it's it's $5 million a year

30:53allocated to undergrounding.

30:57>> Um it so it's it's actually so you start

31:00out with a

31:02I'll use really just broad numbers and

31:04but and I'll just we'll just assume for

31:06now that the electric rate or the

31:08electric consumption stays the same.

31:12So at 50 basis points

31:14probably 1.2 million

31:16goes into the fund from the city.

31:19Dominion matches that at about 1.2 so

31:22about 2.4 per year, but we start out

31:25with 5 years on the ledger.

31:29And then every year

31:3150 basis points from both sides gets

31:34added to the ledger. And then if money

31:36doesn't get spent

31:38year one would drop off. So the idea is

31:41to use all the money that's in the fund

31:44um consistently with how how it enters

31:48into the fund on both sides of the

31:49ledger. If you did that in a perfect

31:52world with no

31:53um

31:55with with no

31:58uh you know in

31:59um

32:01fee with that 15 million flat with no

32:03additional electric consumption or no

32:05additional rate increase, you would have

32:07$60 million to spend over the 20 20

32:10years.

32:16>> All right, thank you everyone.

32:19>> And Mr. Mayor

32:20>> bell.

32:23>> Uh um thank you, Mr. Mayor. And um just

32:25want to start off by

32:27giving a shout-out to your team and um

32:30the folks at Dominion for negotiating

32:32this new agreement and rolling in so

32:34many um

32:36improvements to the way that we fund the

32:38non-standard service fund and do these

32:41um undergrounding projects. They're very

32:43important. I mean, we all um you know,

32:46hear from folks uh about

32:49these

32:50periodic tree trimmings and and you

32:52know, all the angst and consternation

32:54that comes along with that.

32:56And this is how we address that. But, I

32:58want to also just sit stay for the

33:00record that, you know, this is just one

33:02piece of a um

33:04very complex picture that gets these

33:06projects actually done. It's a very

33:08important piece. Franchise agreement

33:09sort of

33:10sets the framework, the funding, all

33:12that kind of good stuff, and that's

33:13being improved in this um agreement.

33:16But, um you know, we also have our

33:18non-standard service ordinance that we

33:20adopted. You know, when I first got onto

33:21council,

33:23uh we formed the underground utilities

33:25committee. I think Danny might remember

33:27that.

33:28Um we had some fun with that and and the

33:31that the output of that was

33:33sort of this idea that, you know, the

33:36city had had so much trouble over the

33:38many, many decades doing these sort of

33:39neighborhood-wide

33:41projects due to challenges around

33:43getting easements and things of that

33:44nature. We're going to try to uh focus

33:47on sort of a street-by-street uh

33:49approach. And and that's what came out

33:51of that process, and we've got that on

33:53the books, and I think we're already

33:54starting to implement some of these

33:56smaller-scale projects around the city.

33:58Like, for example, um I believe that's

34:00the authority we're using to get the uh

34:03lines underground or along May bank

34:05along the golf course. And I think we've

34:06also got some neighborhoods in Old

34:08Windermere, uh streets in Old

34:10Windermere, rather, that are that are

34:12identified for this um

34:14you know, as well. So, I just want to

34:15make sure everybody knows that like

34:17it there's a lot of other moving parts

34:19outside the franchise agreement that

34:20ultimately ultimately um

34:22you know, gets these gets these projects

34:24um

34:25uh

34:26done.

34:27Um but, the one thing in this agreement

34:30that is relevant that that I want to

34:32just throw out for some discussion is

34:35the cap on the number of projects

34:38that can be

34:39in design and construction at the same

34:42time.

34:43Um I totally understand having

34:47you know, a a two uh project cap for

34:50design when we're talking about these

34:53neighborhood-wide projects cuz those are

34:55very large, they're very complicated.

34:58But when we're trying to shift this

34:59policy towards

35:01you know, knocking out these smaller

35:03projects street by street, would it make

35:05sense to maybe build into this franchise

35:07agreement some additional capacity to

35:09take on more projects in design

35:12simultaneously?

35:14Um

35:15and and just would like to hear Danny,

35:17your thoughts on that and throw that out

35:19there for discussion cuz I think we've

35:21we've we've got plenty of money for

35:22these projects. I don't see that being

35:25the constraint. I think the constraint

35:27is

35:28how many of these we can be designing

35:30and then of course the private easement

35:32side and I think we as a city have to

35:34have some very

35:35um you know, candid discussions about

35:38rolling up our sleeves and doing what

35:39we're we need to do to acquire these

35:42easements.

35:44You know, the way we acquire

35:46you know, rights of way and easements in

35:48public works projects where there isn't

35:50voluntary cooperation if you read

35:52between the lines. I mean, if we're

35:53really serious about getting these

35:54projects done, we can't have you know,

35:59you know,

36:00holdouts that are preventing projects

36:02from happening. Um we just we just can't

36:04allow that to happen if this issue is as

36:06important as as we say it is um which we

36:10all agree it is. So, um Danny, what are

36:12your what are your thoughts on sort of

36:13this um

36:14you know, uh cap on the number of

36:16projects in design and in construction?

36:21>> Now, Greg, this is a really good

36:22question and I'm glad you asked it cuz I

36:24think this is this is important. So,

36:26when we designed the the framework in

36:29this franchise,

36:31we were thinking two projects in design,

36:34but I want to like point this out,

36:36there's nothing

36:38that stops

36:40the city or a private developer

36:44from

36:45paying for

36:47the design and moving it all the way to

36:50the top on the execution list. And

36:52that's already being done and I'll give

36:54you the the example um there multiple

36:57projects, but there's a project on State

36:59Street, for example, where a developer

37:01paid for the entire design.

37:03And then they're leveraging

37:06the additionality that comes with not

37:08only undergrounding in front of their

37:10project, but

37:13beyond their project.

37:14So, the

37:16So, if you think about it, if there are

37:17short and by the way, I'm a I'm an

37:19advocate of the shorter linear projects,

37:22but those projects in terms of design

37:26take so little costs

37:28that I would just pay for that out of

37:30the 11.5,

37:32get the design done, cuz that's what

37:34every other private developer is doing

37:36and they're getting a what I call a a

37:38sustainable design, a design that works

37:41with the control of all the easements

37:43and then you move it right to the front

37:45in terms of execution. So, the only

37:47thing that limits you on execution is

37:49the amount of money.

37:51But, the design in that is you don't you

37:53know, the design

37:55if you want to take three, four, five,

37:56what's happening is those same

37:58designers, they're the ones doing the

38:01every every development, every

38:04residential, every commercial, they're

38:06doing the same design. There just isn't

38:08enough capacity, but if you want to move

38:09it up the list, you just pay pay for the

38:12design. So, it's a relatively small

38:15um

38:16cost, but it does give you, I think, the

38:19efficiency so that you you're not you're

38:21not handicapped at all by this

38:25you know, cap of two if you will. So, I

38:28think I mean that should make sense. I

38:29mean there's a bunch of projects that

38:31have actually been done um in that

38:34manner.

38:35And I'm looking at a list, but you're

38:36right. When you get into the

38:37neighborhood it it turns to be if you're

38:39doing more um even a 50

38:43lot neighborhood.

38:45Like old established neighborhood,

38:47that as you and I both would describe

38:49it, it's pretty much hand-to-hand

38:50combat. It takes time. And that probably

38:52consumes a spot on the list. But, I

38:55think like a remarkably good project

38:57that's on the list that's going to flow

38:59really easy is going to be that um

39:01Maybank Highway project. I mean that's

39:04approved, that's on the list, that's

39:05going to be a quick one. And although

39:07there's no upfront outlay, I believe on

39:09that one, it's going to move through the

39:10list pretty quickly. Cuz we have control

39:12of all the city has control basically of

39:15all the land rights that are necessary

39:16to put the lines in the ground.

39:18So, that would be one that would be a

39:20That That's one that's currently in

39:22process. The other is like the the lines

39:25at the mini golf course directly to

39:27serve. The Those were designed, they're

39:30moving straight to construction. So,

39:32they're actually getting completed.

39:33They'll be completed, you know, perhaps

39:35by the end of the year. Or or maybe Q1.

39:38So, that's a way to do it. That That way

39:40you don't have to to modify. If you

39:42start clogging the list up, I think it

39:44starts to create some inefficiency. And

39:46then people get impatient because their

39:47projects aren't moving. But, emphasis on

39:50smaller linear, but move quick and pay

39:52upfront if it's necessary.

39:55>> So, at the risk of jumping the queue

39:56with other people's hands up cuz this is

39:58a question I was going to ask, too. So,

39:59if you all don't mind, just really

40:00quickly. Danny, that's a good answer for

40:02sort of new development new start

40:04projects. But, if you look at the city's

40:06current underground project area um

40:09priority list, most of those are

40:11retrofit old established neighborhoods.

40:14Some of them are long and some of them

40:15are short projects. And I'll give you

40:16the the two examples I'm looking at. Our

40:18number one and number two on our

40:20priority list are South Battery and

40:22Clifford Street. Those couldn't be more

40:24different projects. South Battery needs

40:25about eight transformers. It goes along

40:28almost a mile and a half long. It's

40:29going to be expensive and super

40:31complicated, and it's going to take a

40:32lot of design work. Clifford Street's

40:34the exact opposite, right? But both of

40:36those are old neighborhood streets

40:39retrofitted that if we didn't go through

40:42the NSSF pro pro process and have it

40:45designed by Dominion, and we're limited

40:47at two, we would eat up a bunch of our

40:50NSSF NNS money on design and not have as

40:53much left over for construction. So, it

40:56seems to me that the cap on two works to

40:59our disadvantage, and if we've got a

41:01number of small linear projects, I don't

41:03understand why it would be that much of

41:05a burden on Dominion to expand the list,

41:08have a large projects list, and a small

41:11projects list, and go more than two at a

41:13time. Cuz I I think we're putting

41:15ourselves behind the eight ball by

41:16capping it two, having our teams or

41:19developers, or whoever it is, go out

41:21there and hire design team and get it to

41:23the top of the list. Really, the reality

41:25is over the course of the next 30 years,

41:27most of those projects are existing

41:29neighborhoods that need undergrounding

41:31that would come straight out of the

41:32city's pocket, period.

41:35>> Well

41:36>> Well, I'm not

41:37Yeah, I'm not talking about the projects

41:38that are um I'm talking about

41:40established projects. So, the projects

41:43that are Councilman Franklin, the

41:45projects that are

41:47um new

41:48or

41:50new residential, they generally pay for

41:52their underground service to be right

41:54out the back right out the gate. So,

41:55they're not they're just they're getting

41:56designed, but they're but the relatively

42:00speaking

42:01the cost of design

42:04is is pales in comparison to the cost of

42:07construction, but it's a necessary

42:09component. And if you pay for it, at

42:11least you've got it. Yeah.

42:13>> I I totally get it, but as you know,

42:14especially with the retrofit projects,

42:17and I know my desert better than others,

42:18but where all accounts members on this

42:20call live with established

42:22neighborhoods,

42:23um designing the bigger, longer projects

42:25is expensive. South Battery is a perfect

42:27example. That's going to be super

42:29expensive just to design it.

42:31And you know, we're starting off with

42:32the $12.5 million. The reason we have

42:34that much money coming into a new

42:36franchise agreement is we haven't spent

42:38it on design and construction. It's

42:39money that we probably should have spent

42:41spent beforehand. And you know, now

42:43we're into a new era that's going to be

42:45more expensive to do the projects. I

42:46just think there's there's got to be a

42:48way where we through the franchise

42:51agreement can have more than two

42:52projects in design that Dominion is

42:54overseeing and approving without having

42:57to get our ratepayers to pay it.

43:00>> One other thing, too, just for whatever

43:02it's worth, uh Councilman Seekings, and

43:03I do want to jump to the other council

43:05members that have had their hands up,

43:06but um

43:08And and certainly can look at that, but

43:09that's one of the reasons why we put the

43:12limit on there. That if you can't

43:16And I understand you can design it, but

43:18we're not going to do full construction

43:19drawings on, say, uh South Battery until

43:23we know uh from a schematic standpoint

43:26that we're going to be able to get the

43:28easements for the transformers.

43:31And so, that's the reason for the uh

43:35the 6 months.

43:36>> [clears throat]

43:37>> Danny, anything you want to add to that?

43:40>> No, that's exactly right. I mean, we're

43:41trying to create efficiency. So, if we

43:43spend a limited amount of money on

43:45design

43:46and it was on the list, and then there

43:48was the inability to execute on the

43:50easements, which we found historically

43:52that's been, no matter what anybody

43:54tells me, there's nothing in our history

43:56on this for 30 years that says that

43:58people are willing to sign it. But if

44:00they do, they have a path. If they

44:02don't,

44:03they don't necessarily

44:05never get done. They just move down the

44:07list. And maybe there's a willingness

44:08later for them to come back and say yes,

44:10we can get it done.

44:12But, I think you've got to move the

44:13dollars efficiently, it does nothing to

44:16sit as you said, it doesn't do any good

44:18to sit 11 5 in in a pool and not do

44:21something with it.

44:23And I think for the most part the list

44:25that I'm looking at in my office right

44:27now, that's the city's moved already in

44:29that direction. It's to get the smaller

44:31projects that want to move, move them

44:33forward. It's a bigger project that's

44:36more robust. It may take take more time,

44:38but it does reflect the difficulty in

44:40essentially assigning the easements and

44:42getting the property rights. Nobody

44:44wants us to do a project where we where

44:46the project ends up being

44:49the result ends up being service that's

44:50less reliable than they already have.

44:53And to do that, you've got to get the

44:54easements to protect the assets to make

44:56sure you can

44:58install in a way that's responsible to

45:00the customer.

45:02>> All right.

45:03Um

45:04Councilmember Pell, you want to just one

45:06quick add on that?

45:07>> Very quick add, Mayor, because I just

45:09think we're really starting to kind of

45:10hit on the key issue here with this

45:15whole undergrounding challenge that

45:16we're we're struggling with. It all

45:17comes back to these easements because

45:20designing this stuff is not rocket

45:21science and it's not that crazy

45:23expensive. The construction's really not

45:25even that crazy expensive. But when we

45:28have a system that's predicated on

45:30literally neighborhood

45:32advocates going door to door

45:35trying to get people to grant these

45:37easements voluntarily, it's where

45:40everything breaks down. It's why some of

45:42these projects, you know, in Mike's

45:43district have been hung up for over a

45:45decade. It's why

45:47>> Long enough.

45:48>> Or or or even longer. And it's why um

45:51you know, one of my neighborhoods, Waiau

45:53Heights, was actually at 100% of people

45:56signing off.

45:58And I think Danny, you know, we were

46:00chatting the other day, it looks like

46:01somebody sold their house, so we're now

46:03down one. I mean, it's just such a

46:06My my parting comment on this would be

46:09that I think the city needs to pivot

46:12from sort of this framework of

46:15voluntary easements

46:19to

46:20we're going to approach this like we do

46:22any other public infrastructure project.

46:24Like

46:26you know, we're we're getting the

46:27easements one way or the other to do

46:29this. This is not a voluntary process.

46:33Uh I mean, that's the only way we're

46:35going to fundamentally make meaningful

46:37change on this issue. Now, most people

46:40would glad- gladly give up these

46:43easements gratis because of all the

46:45benefits that come with it. Um we're

46:47dealing with a small amount of holdouts

46:49here, and we got to get serious, I

46:51think, about doing what's necessary to

46:54get these easements because that will

46:57then help unlock a lot of these other um

47:01cogs in the wheel, so to speak. And um

47:04maybe there's a way we can incentivize

47:06this so that, you know, the projects

47:07where there are the most

47:10voluntary easements actually get moved

47:13up to the top,

47:14you know, so we don't create sort of a

47:16moral hazard of people trying to stay on

47:18the sidelines and try to get paid for

47:19them. But I'm just saying that is the

47:22fundamental psychological shift, I

47:25think, we need to make in this whole um

47:28you know,

47:30>> Yes. I I

47:31agreed, and that's something that we

47:33need to do internally. Wouldn't really

47:35be reflected in this franchise

47:37agreement. But I like what you're

47:38saying, and

47:39uh I agree with you. All right,

47:41Councilman Balden, I want to get to you,

47:42and then uh

47:43Councilman McBride,

47:45we'll maybe wrap up with you unless

47:47there's any other additional comments,

47:49cuz we've got real estate starting in 6

47:52minutes.

47:55>> All right, um

47:56couple quick questions.

47:58The relating to the last one, why is it

48:01that AT&T can come dig up every yard in

48:03in my district and install their

48:07install their fiber optic cable without

48:10any discussion with anybody

48:13and

48:14we're you know stuck relying on

48:17you know people voluntarily granting

48:18easements to do power line work.

48:22>> I so I'll I'll answer that is and is

48:25so one is

48:27um

48:29the telecom companies, although I'm not

48:31an expert in their business model, um

48:34they're they're not operating under a

48:37consent permit. Perhaps

48:40they rely on something at the state

48:41level.

48:43But they do use your streets and rights

48:45of ways in public places. But but also

48:48the amount of plant or the amount of

48:50assets that we put in service that go in

48:52the rate base for them to be considered

48:54prudent and reasonable, they've got to

48:56be protected. So I'm not saying a

48:59communication cable is a is a benign

49:02asset that is makes minimal coverage,

49:05but taking electric cable at 23,000

49:08volts and a box that steps down the

49:10voltage and you're going to want to

49:12protect it every time and make sure you

49:13have the right for it to be there.

49:15Um and there's a big difference between

49:17those two those two models.

49:19Um

49:20they're they're telecom tends to operate

49:23at a lower cost um and it's speed to

49:26connection

49:28um while ours is considered to be

49:29essential service. It's you have to have

49:31it to basically to do to even run their

49:34business. They need us. So

49:37and that's why that's why we spend the

49:39amount of time on the consent permit

49:41piece and the and the and pay the fee

49:44because we want to be there and want to

49:45be reliable.

49:47Um that to me that's the distinguishing

49:49like characteristic between electric

49:51service

49:53and then communicate various

49:54communication services.

49:57>> Fair enough. Seems exactly backwards to

50:00me from a like asking for permission to

50:02do something perspective, but I

50:05I hear what you're saying.

50:07The The other thing is, you know, for

50:08for somebody like me where, you know,

50:11I'm increasingly going to be

50:12representing newer neighborhoods. Um

50:15most of this, you know, most of the

50:17utility

50:19connections are already underground.

50:21Um and so I guess I I

50:24just would love a little bit of clarity

50:26on

50:28um

50:28you know, what is it that

50:31you know, people in my district

50:34could expect to see out of this.

50:37Um

50:37and um

50:39you know, I I guess specifically with

50:41regard to, you know, is this is this

50:43money that really makes infrastructure

50:46projects more feasible because there's a

50:49a lot of money set aside for

50:52um

50:53utility

50:54work.

50:56>> I

50:58Yeah, so the way I answer that is I

50:59think if you're in an if you represent

51:02an area or a district that has

51:06primarily new residential development,

51:08you you actually the the the residential

51:12developer

51:13is typically the one that's responsible

51:15for those costs, placing those

51:16facilities underground. So they got

51:18those on behalf of the developer, who

51:22then generally embeds those costs into

51:24the cost of land and ultimately the

51:26house.

51:27All right. So but they do pay a

51:29franchise fee. And so what they should

51:31be thinking about is perhaps where does

51:34that fee that gets collected from me,

51:37where I've already got underground,

51:39where is it in the best public interest?

51:42And I'm not telling the city how to make

51:44their list or their priority list cuz

51:45you guys are really smart and you will,

51:48but to me that's where I would like I

51:50the one like the immediate thing that

51:52comes to my mind is places where people

51:54either they're either pedes- highly

51:56pedestrian in nature or they we travel

52:00along the roads and we want the view

52:02shed to be better. That Maybank Highway

52:04would be the example of the project that

52:06I would think of that the the mayor

52:08really pushed forward to to move forward

52:10cuz it's an executable project. So,

52:13there needs to be a blend of these kinds

52:15of projects. It's not an unlimited

52:17amount of money,

52:18but you probably should always remember

52:20the franchise fee is just collected by

52:22us.

52:23Um it's effectively, you know, the

52:25equivalency of a tax, if you will. That

52:28money should be put to good use. It

52:29should be used um directed um you know,

52:33by the city

52:35to be utilized in a way that's in the

52:36public interest.

52:39>> Got it. Thanks, guys. Appreciate

52:40everybody's time today.

52:42>> Yeah. All right, Councilman McBride then

52:44we're

52:45>> Uh and I'll go really quick cuz

52:47Councilman Waring hasn't had a chance to

52:48speak yet, but just I don't want to

52:50and I and I don't want to uh turn

52:52sausage in public, but I do want to just

52:55I I don't have a full grasp or

52:57understanding of um on the Berkeley

52:59Electric side again on the Johns Island

53:01side

53:03being a different cost structure and

53:04everything. Um

53:06and I'm not looking for an answer now,

53:07but just

53:08you know, for example, Mr. Mayor, like

53:10you know, we're working with the county

53:12for for

53:13do kind of a synchronized Maybank plan,

53:15things like that. And if

53:17in the future Maybank is expanded or

53:19widened or sidewalks added and there's

53:21an opportunity to

53:23uh address the the the electric lines

53:26and bury them, if that's our choice, cuz

53:28there's pros and cons for burying lines.

53:29It's not all it's not all all all pros.

53:33There's some cons with it.

53:34But

53:36I you know, with a with a 20 to 30-year

53:38agreement, I I know how much flexibility

53:41we have. Do we have some flexibility to

53:42work that out with them

53:44to help with the cost and that that kind

53:46of stuff.

53:48>> Yeah, I think we we could definitely get

53:49get in more detail with you on it and

53:53I mean I think in short this is we view

53:56it as a partnership. I mean you know if

53:58it's if it's beneficial for them and

54:00beneficial for us

54:02um for reliable power for

54:05you know beautification. I mean

54:08generally speaking this is not something

54:11we're on either side of the table on.

54:13This is something that we're working

54:14collectively on. So

54:16but can definitely get you that

54:17information. All right, Councilman

54:18Waring.

54:25You're there? You're on mute.

54:28>> Am I losing?

54:30>> You're on mute. Councilman Waring,

54:32you're on mute.

54:32>> mute as well.

54:34>> And y'all missed the best part and I

54:36forgotten it now.

54:37>> [laughter]

54:38>> I was thanking you for pulling this

54:40together um and Mr. Castus for availing

54:44themselves to like this and being so

54:46informative.

54:47But when it comes to certain situations

54:51uh

54:52SC&G and now Dominion has done work

54:54through for example the underground

54:56wiring in front of the um

54:59uh

55:00Charleston 9

55:01Memorial. That was

55:03something that was done pretty quick and

55:05and and

55:06at that time SC&G did a pivot on that.

55:09Um

55:11we uh

55:13the bridge site where the

55:15Cooper River Bridge came old Grace

55:17Memorial Cooper River Bridge has came

55:18down. That's a bastion of affordability.

55:21You've got Grace Homes there I think 55

55:24units uh James Lewis which is

55:2760-something units

55:29and more coming with

55:30Mandy's Foundation. The underground

55:33wiring that's in that area

55:36uh SC&G uh

55:39with Danny's help, of course, uh,

55:42uh, was was done at at I'm going to say

55:44minimal cost. Review that. Please call

55:47me out on it. It was done at

55:50under the ground That infrastructure was

55:51to re-knit the community. Uh, and then

55:54most recently, Councilman Seeking's, I'm

55:56sure he would agree, uh, there was a

55:58quick pivot in assisting, uh,

56:01with transformers at the, uh,

56:04uh,

56:05Gibbes Museum and American Garden for

56:07that to, uh, come together as quickly as

56:09it did.

56:11So, I know there are workarounds that

56:12you're doing. Thank you for that. But,

56:14um, the city, as we all know, has a big

56:17objective towards affordable housing,

56:19work workforce development, affordable

56:21housing, owner occ-

56:23occupy housing, that kind of thing.

56:25Does Dominion have a an established

56:28uh, is it isolated situation in some

56:31examples that I just called out? Does

56:33Dominion have, uh, being a regional

56:35company that it is, uh,

56:38uh, uh,

56:38an affordable housing program to help

56:40with major efforts like, uh,

56:43in this particular case, Project 3500?

56:48>> I Councilman Waring, so, we

56:51while we don't have a direct affordable

56:55housing component, I mean, we're we're

56:56obviously regulated. So, it's we're

57:00falling within the structure of the

57:02existing regulatory compact. Um, I would

57:05say we would look at,

57:07you know, like the redevelopment of

57:08projects where there's new housing stock

57:11to be for, you know, uh, affordability.

57:15Th- Those would all be looked at, um,

57:18could be looked at individually. I would

57:20The couple projects that you mentioned,

57:22um, were certainly, um, good examples of

57:27redevelopments or

57:29repurposing a property and it, you know,

57:32it it can be done. And if you can plan

57:34for that type of work, it doesn't

57:35necessarily have to go through the

57:37non-standard service fund. It could be

57:39separate. That's how that project on

57:40Savannah Highway got done. It was

57:42separate. It didn't go through the non-

57:44but it's a but it turned out

57:45aesthetically to be like a very I mean

57:48it's a it's a nice project.

57:49>> It is.

57:50>> So,

57:51yeah,

57:52don't you I don't think you're limited.

57:53The non-standard service fund is a tool,

57:56but it's not the only thing that you

57:57would use. But we we'd welcome the

57:59opportunity to work, you know, with the

58:01city on those goals. Those are Those are

58:03for us to provide those power and by the

58:05way, make sure when we build them,

58:07they're in they're highly energy

58:09efficient, right? So, they use less

58:11kilowatt hours and that to Councilman

58:13Pogue's comments, let's make sure

58:15they're affordable. Let's make sure like

58:17the energy bill

58:19is, you know, is is less than like the

58:22average, right? It should We should We

58:24should put things into the energy fish

58:26energy efficiency side when we build out

58:28of those assets on the front end, so

58:31they consume less energy and ultimately

58:33make the the life of those assets become

58:36more affordable.

58:37>> All right. Well, thank you. Thank you

58:38for all that you all do. Thank you.

58:44>> Uh okay. So,

58:47any further questions?

58:51All right. Well, listen, appreciate

58:54both Berkeley Electric and Danny

58:57Dominion

58:58uh um

58:59um being on and answering all these

59:02questions and appreciate council members

59:05just patient and uh this has been I

59:08think very helpful. So, if there's no

59:10other

59:11thing to come before

59:13this body, I'm going to call this

59:16meeting adjourned and see some of you on

59:19the real estate

```*