Hello, Jake.

Hello, I would like to call to order the special council meeting Tuesday, August twelve five PM.

Next item on the agenda is public comment.

If you are here for public comment, you have two and a half minutes.

Come to the podium.

Anyone else here for public comment?

All right, public comment is closed.

Item number three is executive session.

Um, to go into executive session for A legal and contractual items.

Um, two, and three legal advice relating to pending litigation, caption James and Dialine, legal advice and contractual matters related to the Harbor Entrepreneur Center, and legal advice and contractual matters related to phase on road property owned by the town of Mount Pleasant.

Item B is personnel, consideration of applications to serve on the Green Commission with four vacancies.

Do I have a motion to go into executive session?

Second.

Is there any discussion?

All is in favor?

Well we could do this.

Yeah, or something.

Yeah, for example, that's right.

And then we get the following clock.

I work out.

I would have to do it.

So that's where you're I feel when I was like maybe if they're using that key.

Okay, I don't know.

Yeah, but we really don't think I'm not sure what's going on.

Oh, yeah, okay.

Um we got one target.

Okay, that's all right.

That was that along that's the way that I've been the aircraft that's no one destroyed.

So small stuff.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um just problems like also.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, we're going to switch that you're going to see.

So it's one of the words.

It's almost like an icon.

I think that's the open.

And I don't want to watch it.

I don't think I think so.

I don't know if it's just when you put that in.

Yeah, I think that's what I'm going to do.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, I think that's a lot of people.

Oh, one track is a good idea.

I will probably go find it.

Yeah, we'll have to go right.

Oh, that's one of those numbers.

Maybe I think it's all like a flexibility for the cloud.

Yeah, but it's not a way to try one to one.

So you have a book.

Yeah, we're going to go to the side.

Yeah, yeah, sorry.

Yeah, it's one of the other things.

Yeah, well, I've got two.

Yeah, I'm gonna have somewhere on the world.

Oh good.

So we're going to go back to the work.

Yeah, so I don't know.

They see that we don't have to go to the world.

Yeah.

What am I going to decide about?

Yeah, we're sort of saying that's it.

So okay, we can't figure it out.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

I think so there's something there.

Yeah, I'll have to go off the value of the old useful.

Yeah, they're right.

Yeah, yeah, that's what I think.

Yeah, I thought it was a good thing.

I'll just shut off this.

All right, well, should we have that place?

Yeah.

Yeah, we do, we have our spots.

Oh my god, so I think the wrong thing.

And I tried to do this ball, and I don't think you're climbing over people again.

We could walk the call.

It shouldn't be much question.

I think we should have those.

Oh, you can't get some of the problems.

Oh yeah, I mean I've started going to that.

I was on the four months.

Yeah.

I think I'm special.

I can't so I don't know.

I could just do it.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, short.

I like some cross markets.

Right.

Oh, you see that's what we should have.

I just put it on.

Well, yeah, yeah.

Well, you can just put my list.

Yeah.

I don't want that.

Just do my private machine.

Right.

I didn't hit one.

Oh, I could say that's okay.

Well, this should come down with that.

So we have two weeks.

Hopefully, the replacement will be bad for that.

Yeah, we're just doing chapters.

I know I've got one.

You and I have to have much.

Okay.

Sounds like an order.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's for sure.

I don't want to show you.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, my biggest.

All right.

You guys ready?

We are um out of executive session.

No votes were taken.

But we may have some motions to come out of executive session.

Do we have any such motions?

Yes, madam chairwoman.

Uh I move that we allocate one hundred thousand dollars from our economic development budget to the harbor entrepreneurship center.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

All those in favor?

I motion carries.

Any other motions?

I move that we I move that we reappoint Rachel Hundred.

Jim Westhold, uh Olivia Flynn and Mary Conley to the Green Commission.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

All this is in favor?

Motion carries.

Any other motions?

As far as item three eighty three, I make a motion to direct legal counsel to take action as discussed in executive session.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor?

I aye.

All right, thank you so much.

And we are uh coming to the final item on the agenda, which is to adjourn.

So we stand and there's nothing further to come before us.

We stand adjourned.

So move.

Oh, yeah, so it was motion to adjust.

We are adjourned.

Um we will resume in at six o'clock.

I missed understood.

I didn't really have to go to the call.

Right, it's it's perfect.

Um, okay, yeah, so I should change something.

Yeah, uh, remember one of the back four comments to tell me how to go.

I think it was a volunteer chat on this also.

We're about two years.

I'm sending out hopefully up and covered.

That was all this.

That's kind of what I heard.

Yeah, and I'm kind of chat to send up the both there.

I do not think.

Yeah, I remember.

It's interesting.

It would work.

Yes.

I would like to call to order the town council meeting for Tuesday, August 12th at 6 PM.

I would like to acknowledge that I am not Mayor Haney.

I am the Mayor Pro Tem Whitley, and we uh would like to extend our condolences to Mayor Haney and his family.

His father passed away this morning, which is why he's unable to be here with us.

And so just sending um positive thoughts and prayers to his family.

The first item on our agenda is the prayer, and Rabbi Refson will be doing that, followed by the pledge, which will be led by Jake Rambo.

Almighty God, source of all blessings, source of all comfort, source of all justice, sourceable laws.

We beseech you in your abundant mercy to bestow your blessings upon all those who are gathered here.

We ask that you bless all of the citizens, all of the residents of this great town.

As we stand in these hollow chambers, we ask that you bless the men and women of law enforcement, the first responders, the department heads, and all the civil servants.

And we ask that you bless our town council men and women.

And tonight especially we have in mind how Mayor Haney as he mourns for his dear father.

Because we know that one of the some of the greatest unsung heroes are the families of those who serve.

Because they give of themselves and of their time without the recognition.

And we pray for them.

Amen.

Do I have a motion to approve?

Move to approve.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor?

Moving on to item number four, public hearings, awards, and presentations.

We have long some longevity awards.

Mr.

Damore.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor Protamin Council, it is my distinct honor to recognize Angie Mitchell for 25 years of service with the police department.

Angie started out with the police department as an animal control officer.

She had a passion, which still continues today, for rescuing and saving animals.

Her kindness is unparalleled in that respect.

So decided to transfer and become a sworn police officer.

And did so and for many many years served in patrol, doing an outstanding job.

Found her calling in the crime scene unit and has been there for how many years?

Almost 20 years.

She ran the unit successfully, very successfully for over a uh a month in his absence.

So and one of the things I'd like to point out too is, you know, she took it upon herself to become a firearms instructor late in her career, and she continues to give back.

She's part of the Chief's Council and just really is a tremendous asset for the police department.

So congratulations on 25 years.

I hope to see you many more.

25.

Members of council, it's my pleasure to recognize Edward Gilliard for 25 years of service with the town of Mount Pleasant.

In August of 2000, Eddie started his career with the town as a laborer in the facilities and grounds division.

In July 2002, he transferred to what was then the sanitation division and worked as a collector on the back of the garbage trucks.

In December of 2004, Eddie received his commercial driver's license and was promoted to a vehicle operator.

And in 2016, he earned another promotion to vehicle operator crew leader.

Eddie was one of our first drivers to get qualified on the fully automated garbage trucks and currently serves as a waste management operator too, driving the automated side loader.

In this capacity, he single-handedly collects over 5,000 containers a week.

Eddie is one of the few drivers we have that can operate all the division's equipment, which makes him one of our most versatile employees in the waste management division.

He is particularly proficient with the automated garbage truck and the grapple truck.

Eddie shows up for work every day and does his job without much fanfare or praise, and when his job is done, he heads home.

Most of the time we never hear about the great things he does, but on occasion, someone will take the time to reach out and tell us.

One resident was quoted as saying they appreciated Eddie in his pleasant demeanor, even in the worst weather conditions, and that he always collects their items in a very and is very pleasant.

You would also be amazed at how many times parents reach out to tell us how excited their kids are to see the garbage trucks each week, and how employees like Eddie bring such joy to their children's day.

Eddie, your commitment to excellence and your work ethic has been a true asset to the waste management division.

The outstanding service you provide is a testament to your dedication to the town of Mount Pleasant and a reflection of the consistent outstanding service of the entire public services department.

It's an honor working with you.

Thank you for everything you've done and will continue to do.

Congratulations on 25 years with the town.

If I could uh call up Chief Arnold.

He's devoted his entire law enforcement career, now reaching an impressive 30 years, to the town of Mount Pleasant.

He began in 1995 as a patrol officer with our department and steadily rose through the ranks.

A detective in 1997, a corporal in 2001, sergeant supervising both criminal investigations and the patrol division from 2003 to 2013.

A lieutenant overseeing professional standards in 2013, and captain leading both field operations and support services in 2014.

And then as deputy chief in July 2020.

In May 2021, following the retirement of Chief Carl Richie, Chief Arnold became the department's leader.

He holds a bachelor's degree in political science from the Citadel and a Master's of Science and Criminal Justice from Charleston Southern, and has completed leadership training at the Department of Homeland Securities Leadership Academy and the Southern Police Institute's Administrative Officers Course.

Known for his deep commitment to excellence, he served as the department's accreditation manager during Mount Pleasant's period as a nationally accredited law enforcement agency.

His leadership is focused on community-oriented policing, training innovation, and maintaining high standards of professionalism.

Chief Arnold has expressed that helping others, whether solving crime, mentoring officers, or building community relationships is the most important and most rewarding aspect of his career.

I would also add that under Chief Arnold's leadership, Mount Pleasant remains one of the safest communities in South Carolina.

That's especially uh important given the size of our community of nearly a hundred thousand people.

And the turnover rates among officers in the department has not been this low in many, many years, and he deserves tremendous credit for that.

One last thing I'll say about Chief Arnold, uh, because he doesn't speak about it much, but in 1996, Mark was on duty and was shot serving this community.

And that should never be forgotten that while on duty, um, he took a bullet for this community.

And so I ask you, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council, ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to help me support me in recognizing Mark Arnold for 30 years of service.

All right, so I tell us how you vote.

Right.

Domestic.

Item five is approval of the minutes from the July 8th, 2025 special and regular town council meetings and the June 2025 financial statement.

Move for approval, Madam Chairman.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

All those in favor?

Hi.

Motion carries.

Item number six is public comment.

Mr.

DeMora has the list of signups, and you will have two and a half minutes to speak.

The timer is over there.

Thank you.

Excuse me, Madam Mayor Pro Tem.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have many speakers.

I'll ask you to come up two at a time.

I'll call the first speaker and the second speaker to stand six to eight feet behind.

Uh first speaker tonight, Pam Ireland, and David Halsey is the second speaker.

Okay.

Hi.

First, let me say this is about town center.

When we first heard this proposal on the planning commission, phases one and two of the plan had no attached contingencies, and we had no knowledge of any tenant situations.

I voted no for concerns about the plan itself.

The owners are assuring you that they will fully honor Belk's leases and that nothing will commence while Belk is a tenant.

That's reassuring.

But Belk has 28 years left on its main lease and it wants to stay.

So theoretically, this plan could be on ice for up to 28 years.

So why is this before you now?

The owners say they need to be ready just in case.

No one has a crystal ball, so let's just say for argument's sake that Belk does leave before their leasehold estate expires.

In that case, the owners have this proposal already done and can simply dust it off and present it again if they want.

No delays, no problem.

But are we even sure this is the right concept for town center now, let alone in five years or 10 or 20 or 25 years?

I would say not.

Trends can also change dramatically over time, and so may the town's needs.

What will Mount Pleasant's own vision for the center be, and will it align for this with this proposal?

Does this proposal improve the experience for our residents?

You're being asked to guess too far into the future and give entitlements that you can never take back and may not be in our long-term interest.

What's worse, approving this now could give the owner leverage to pressure Belk to leave and remove what it considers to be a roadblock.

How would voters feel knowing that you paved the way for Belk's early exit only to get taller buildings, parking decks, and hundreds of apartments and hotel rooms?

I think you know the answer.

Please deny this now and just allow things to develop naturally over time instead of basing decisions on hypotheticals.

We all want town center to be a vibrant place for shopping, dining, and family entertainment.

How it can be improved deserves careful careful thought and must always put our existing residents front of mind.

Meanwhile, if circumstances change, whether it's a year from now or much later, the owners can return to make a proposal.

By that time, we all may have a better concept and vision for the center that will truly work for everyone.

Thanks for your time and for your service.

My name is David Halsey, I have a non-17 Tall Pond Road.

Um I came to comment specifically because of all the town center questions as far as the development.

I simply say that I agree with the comments that came before me, but one thing I realized while thinking about it was that I live right by Highway 17, so I I can see the traffic flow or a lack of shame.

Um Mount Pleasant has put a pretty tight control over it individual building, small building uh permitting, but big permit development development or big developments generally, whether they're at Patriot Point or whether they're a town center, have a uh huge impact on traffic daily, but more than traffic daily on the idea of evacuation, which we will be addressing more specifically between now and the end of September when hurricane season wands down.

Uh right now we do not as a state have the infrastructure to funnel the people that are come into this community and into the surrounding communities to anywhere else.

And there's nowhere, there is no anywhere else less than 350 miles away, too.

There are no no rural highways.

I think that the town should be very careful about allowing any major development to be permitted without connecting it with the idea of escape.

Because we are going to between now and what 28 years from now, uh, have at least a major hurricane, and at least one time we all need to get on that road.

And you can't get on that road now on a rainy afternoon and get anywhere.

Uh in a hurricane, we're gonna be in a really bad state.

I just I I hope that the the town will consider all the ramifications of of all these different things.

Not I don't like more neighbors, not um that house is too big, but but bigger logistic um overriding concerns like highways, which we don't have enough of or big enough ones of or the maintenance of um anyway.

That was my thought.

Thank you.

Denise Fugo, followed by Andy Lowe's.

Hello everyone.

Um Denise Fugo, executive director of Housing for All Mount Pleasant, and uh we were honoring employees of the town of Mount Pleasant with longevity awards.

Wouldn't it be great if those same employees could actually live in the town of Mount Pleasant?

That would be a great gift.

Did they all get a Rolox?

That's what I was wondering.

Um Housing for Mount Pleasant wants to say first that we totally support Belk.

But Belk is not our problem.

Belk is a triple C minus company that is owned by private equity, the same private equity firm that closed down toys are us.

So I pray Belk is here for a long term because I worked in department stores.

I still love department stores, but I bet most of you shop through Amazon.

And unfortunately, I'm not for Amazon and I'm not I'm for local employment and I'm not for private equity.

Um private equity makes their money not by growing employees and stores, they make their money by arbitraging interest rates.

And they're usually short-term holders.

Okay.

So I do think strategic planning is important.

And as I am updating you monthly now with some of the social surf service work we're doing, helping town of Mount Pleasant employees as well as City of Charleston employees, as well as medical students now with trying to keep housing in the town of Mount Pleasant.

I did want you all, I know belt has been a big distraction, but again, we are here for local employment.

We want people to work, live and play in the town of Mount Pleasant, and that means live as well.

I did want you all to do the comparison with Bell Hall, based on the amount of apartments that Bell Hall has and their square footage, and if you compare that to the town uh town center, um we should be looking at 515 apartments, and we I'm sorry, we and I'm sorry, 530 apartments, and we should be looking at half of those being affordable.

Okay, so please do the math.

I did send it along and asking the planning department to double check my numbers.

Um, but it looks like we should be closer to 215, 225 affordable housing units, and if it's for nobody else, make it for the employees that take billets for us that protect us during floods and bad weather.

Let's put our employees first to protect the residents at the town of Mount Pleasant.

Thank you.

Hey, good evening.

My name's Andy Lowe.

I've been a resident of Mount Pleasant for the last 22 years and the general manager at Mount Pleasant Town Center for the last 16 years.

Over the last couple days, I've had the opportunity to speak with 17 of our local tenants from town center.

These were all local people who live and work in our communities.

I got the same basic feedback from the group.

Additional tenant mix that includes residential and office uses, upgrades to the buildings, additions of community gathering spaces, park areas, and entertainment venues.

Improved parking.

And they want the property to remain relevant to the community.

They also expressed concern with long-term vacancy and large tenant spaces and how it would affect the pedestrian traffic similar to what we have been experiencing over the last three years when back and beyond with.

I think it's important to know that Continental is the best ownership group that I've seen at this property in the last 16 years.

It's also a huge bonus to have uh beach company as a partner on the property.

Continental is a top-notch company that truly cares about their properties, their tenants, and the communities these properties are a part of.

These guys have successfully owned and managed commercial residential properties for 65 years.

I think it's also important to note that Continental is not a development company, but they realize the need to stay ahead of the game to ensure this property not only stays relevant and successful, but beneficial to our community.

Our community does not want to find ourselves in a situation where there's substantial vacancy under town center's central hub.

Thank you for your time thought.

John Darby followed by JC Darby.

Sorry.

Good evening.

I'm John Darby, CEO of the beach company owned by the Darby and Wade families.

All many of those live in Mount Pleasant and close to town center.

We've enjoyed doing business in Mount Pleasant for over 80 years.

I've lived in Mount Pleasant for 63 years and lived just a few minutes from town center.

The center serves as a core to this town.

It pulses with daily life, bring in residents, visitors together to shop, dine, recreate, celebrate with their friends and family.

My family's investment in town center in partnership with Continental Realty is significant.

In fact, since it was built in 1999, I think we're the first owners that view this property as a legacy asset.

So much so sweet grass corner was purchased for one reason to protect town center.

As you know, the bylaws space was vacant for over five years, and Trader Joe's just took awkward sea.

Bed Bath and Beyond has been vacant at Town Center for over a year.

And I say this and bring this to your attention because the longer it's vacant, the harder it is to overcome.

Retail experience has changed over over the last couple of decades.

The way we shop, dine, work, exercise, live, spend time with our families.

The project like town center can thrive long term.

Now well operated organizations typically have a strategic plan.

A five, ten, fifteen year plan.

I believe the town has a plan that expires this year.

Um we're asking for our goal is a long-term strategy for town center.

The team has been working with the town planners for over four years.

Four years.

Honestly, a deferral tonight will be viewed viewed as a no, no vote.

We have been open to all the town's requests.

Alan McMahon is going to speak after me and and go over those.

Um I heard a beep.

Is my two minutes out?

Can I?

Good evening.

I'm JC Darby.

I'd like to allocate my time to John.

You cannot do that.

We are not allowed to do that under our ordinance, so just you you have your time.

He's already had his time.

Well, we did it before.

Well, I think that's properly done.

Mr.

McMahon allocated his time to John last week in this same room.

Mr.

Pacorini, could you weigh in, please?

Town ordinance requires that two minutes and thirty seconds be allocated to each speaker and only one speaker, so it's a violation of town ordinance.

It's not permitted under town ordinance.

So, Mr.

So I think this project deserves to be heard.

Sir, I'm sorry.

Madam Chairman, why can't somebody speak after Mr.

Darby?

Someone can speak after he JC Darby can use his two and a half minutes.

But he's choosing not to.

Okay.

Uh next two speakers would be Alan McMahon and Dan Doyle.

Uh good evening, members of council, uh, Mayor Pro Tem, Alan McMahon with the Beach Company, 320 Broad Street, Charleston, 29401.

I'm here tonight to request your support for the agenda item about Mount Pleasant Town Center.

There's been a lot of social media posts about it.

There always is with this type of thing, but it's important to highlight the facts and the opportunity that you have before you tonight.

This is smart growth.

That sometimes gets talked about like an abstract idea, but this plan is an embodiment of smart, responsible growth.

It creates a walkable mixed-use environment and actually saves thousands of vehicle trips that would otherwise leave the site.

It doesn't require any new infrastructure, no grand trees will be cut down, and there's actually an increase in green space.

Attainable housing.

Ms.

Fugo did a good job on that.

You have the opportunity tonight to guarantee attainable housing for folks like teachers, police officers, firemen, and employees who are commuting in and out of town each day, adding to traffic.

We worked on this plan for four years.

If a space goes vacant, and then we start, that's four years, and we still won't have a decision.

We've been to the planning commission multiple times, planning committee multiple times, town council multiple times.

We've coordinated with all necessary agencies.

At your request, we participate participated in a special workshop.

As John mentioned, various asks have been made, and we've agreed to every single one of them.

We're ensuring 60,000 square feet of family entertainment space.

We're expensive, we're expanding the park space, and we're giving the town use of it 10 days a year for free.

For free.

Dan Doyle with the beach company, 320 Broad Street.

I'm also a property owner in the town, 1077 Mathis Ferry Road.

I'm here to speak in support of the town center amendment.

In January of 2023, I provided comments to this council regarding the density changes in the area wide business zoning.

As you all recall, there was a downzoning revising area wide business and approved residential densities.

At the time, I cautioned this council that this was not feasible, that it would not promote the development of new attainable housing in the town.

It's my understanding.

Planning staff can correct me.

I'm not aware of any new attainable housing that's been proposed under this new ordinance.

There's a reason for that.

And when I spoke before council, I extended an invitation to everyone.

Talk to me.

I'll walk you through the numbers.

I'll show you how the math works.

It doesn't come from a reduction, it comes from an increase.

No one reached out to me.

I really do question whether or not this is at the priority level it needs to be in the town.

And I say that because I work with community leaders throughout the Southeast, not just here in South Carolina, throughout the Southeast.

The number one critical factor, priority item with every city leader I talk to is housing affordability.

That is the critical need.

And it's not happening here.

But you have an opportunity tonight.

The proposal that's before you 25% attainable housing as part of this approved density is unfounded.

It doesn't exist.

Communities throughout this region would bend over backwards to have a proposal like this in front of them.

I can't urge you enough.

If you're for attainable housing, if you're for the essential workers in this community, if you're for those that protect us, if you're for those that teach our children, vote yes.

Vote yes.

If not, you're telling us where you stand on this issue.

So please, please vote yes.

Thank you.

JM Shapurel and Mike Ridgway.

I'm JC Dorry.

I'd like to finish John's comment.

If you do all.

I think if you want to wait until the end, because we we're going down the list now and if you've skipped your time.

So, but there'll be an opportunity for anyone who didn't sign up to speak to speak later.

Okay, thank you.

So much for your patience.

Good evening.

I'm JM Shapiro, CEO of Continental Realty.

First off, I want to send condolences to the mayor on the loss of his father.

And I want to congratulate Officer Mitchell, Eddie Gilliard, and Chief Arnold because what I recognize is we're talking about buildings today, and we're talking about development, but a town is about its people.

It really is.

And before I came down here from Baltimore this morning, I was signing up letters congratulating our team members who've been with us 15, 20, 25, 30 years.

Company was founded in 1960.

Um and we're proud of that reputation.

We're proud of our people.

So I just want to make sure I recognize those people who've done the work in this city and town and made it what it is today.

Um, and so David Donato, by the way, sorry he can't be here.

I know many of you know him.

Um I'm proud of our company's history.

I'm proud of the planning that we put into this for Mount Pleasant Town Center and for the community, it has been four years, and it has been a very, very long four years.

And while I wish that a tenant could leave and we could be back here and do something in 30 days, we've seen that it is four years to get to this point.

Um, and so um, in partnership with the Beach Company, this is an important property to us.

Um, we have people in Maryland, that's where our headquarters are.

We have a second headquarters in New York, and we've said that Charleston will be our third location where we will bring more of our people.

Um, and so what we got out of this plan is we worked very closely with I think all of you and all of the community in a way that it's supposed to be done.

Um, and what worries me is the reason there is not a lot of affordable housing around is because you get to this point and people get scared, right?

And so somebody said go talk to Belk.

We talked about you're gonna hear from them, right?

This should not be about Belk.

They have a lease in place, we value their lease just like we value all 79 other tenants that I did not get a chance to talk to, but you asked me to talk to Belk, and we had a conversation with them, and we believe that their lease protects them, and there's nothing that more that we could really do to that.

Um, and we don't disagree with whatever they're gonna say in terms of what their lease says, right?

So it's it is about doing what's right after four years of work.

We provide open space, we're providing affordable housing, we're providing incubator space, we run really great events for this town.

I get the emails, I get the pictures, I see the smiling faces, I see what we do in the puppy bowl, and I see what we do in autism and others.

So I'm proud of our reputation, I'm proud of it, and I hope that we get a chance to steward this development through for many, many years.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Mike Ridgeway, and I'm the traffic engineer for the project.

I'm from Columbia, South Carolina, and I just want to let you know I'm here tonight.

Should you have any specific questions about traffic?

Feel free to call on me at any time.

Thank you.

Dan Schaefer and Abigail Richardson.

Good evening, Dan Schaefer.

I'm a resident of Mount Pleasant 2424 Giles Lane.

I'm also the architect for the project here as well.

Uh, happy to answer any questions you may have during our agenda item.

Thank you.

Good evening, Abigail Richardson.

I work for Seaman Whiteside, civil engineer and landscape architect.

I'm helping Continental and Townsender with the PD and DIA before you tonight.

Just want to let you know I'm here to answer any questions you might have about either document or concept plan.

Merritt Abney, followed by Brenda Dye.

Good evening, Council.

I'm Mayor at Abney 151 Meeting Street, and I'm legal counsel to Continental.

I'm here to speak briefly about the Belk objection.

This application is about long-term flexibility.

It does not displace Belk in any way.

It does not alter Belk's lease or authorize construction on Belk's leased premises.

In fact, Belk has acknowledged to us that seeking these entitlements does not violate any provision of their lease.

The conceptual plan is just that conceptual.

It shows possible future development.

Actual construction would require additional approvals, and in some cases, tenant consent.

South Carolina planning laws have long recognized, however, that landlords may plan for the future by rezoning their property, even with active tenants in place.

We respect Belk's history at town center, but their objection stems primarily from private lease concerns and the alleged implication from the conceptual plan that Belk may not remain in its current location forever.

Such concerns are outside the scope of this council's legislative role.

Your task, of course, is to evaluate zoning based on planning criteria and what is best for the town, not private commercial agreements or speculation about potential harm to Belk's reputation.

We have met with Belk multiple times to try to address their concerns.

We have agreed to record a memorandum of lease to ensure their legal their lease rights are publicly recognized and formally recognized.

But neither we nor the town can agree to Belk's request that the ordinance permit only developments specifically authorized by their lease.

That would improperly mingle the public ordinance with a private agreement and require planning staff to interpret and apply a private lease agreement in making zoning determinations for good reason.

Private lease rights exist independent of local ordinances, and that should absolutely be the case here.

The requested amendment has been vetted by staff and recommended for approval by the planning commission 8 to 1.

It has the support of nearly all of the tenants at town center.

The request is reasonable, it advances the town's established land use goals, and we request that you approve it.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Brenda Dye.

I live at 1503 Walk and Dall Road here in Mount Pleasant.

I've been a resident for 44 years.

I'm here to publicly express my objections to the current town center proposal and its broad overreaching entitlements.

All of these apartments, office spaces, and second hotel rooms, increased building heights, inconvenient multi-level parking garages wrapped in retail, no set plans, and no inclusion of Belk.

Is just the sheer magnitude of it all is just overwhelming.

Because none of this benefits the citizens.

People are frustrated trying to get from A to B.

They're driving recklessly.

Our population has increased far beyond the infrastructure.

It has become quite unpleasant to be out there.

Resources have been strained.

We neither need nor want apartments in this area and the density they create.

We're not a tourist destination.

We don't want more hotels there.

The scope of this mixed use redesign will fundamentally alter the appearance and usage of town center.

It could actually damage the retail aspect.

Recent reports indicate that brick and mortar retail is actually on the rise, making a comeback.

A revitalization of town center would be welcome.

We need a thriving community hub of retail restaurants and family entertainment.

This, however, is not that.

More apartments, hotel rooms, and office spaces benefit the owners and the investors, while the citizens are left to deal with the downside.

They make money and we get density and more traffic.

Let them come up with a plan that is mutually beneficial and actually improves the experience of the area for everyone.

And so I'm a requesting that the approval of the proposal and the entitlements be denied.

Thank you.

Peter Dirks followed by Jenny Felsinger.

Okay.

Oh Teeny Felsinger, thank you so much, Council, for your work for our magnificent and wonderful city.

I want to see Town Center to be very successful.

The plan that I saw makes it a disaster of traffic and parking congestion.

Presently, there is little stress for the elderly to find parking.

I know the exact areas that in fact could be enhanced with a huge new building, an office building, a boutique hotel with parking underneath.

I know exactly where those spaces are.

But with increased crowding, the aging population will keep turning to Amazon.

I personally think that is what happened to Bed Bath and Beyond, which I used to love.

I think you know the demographics of who is coming into this area.

You know that young people are working here and all the grandparents are people from up north are coming here for the good weather and the livability.

And so I know you want to think of the livability of it.

I know exactly where each of those spaces is there, where Atkin Park and other elderly people can.

I think if we do have a yes, we can get offered a tidbit, a little bit of affordable housing.

That's great.

But for every single affordable housing, you've got two more cars, and it is a family of two people.

They're not necessarily going to work there.

They're going to be in schools or working in the community.

We've got to think about the congestion that is there.

Um I just thank you so much for all of you work, your work.

Uh I've lived here 50 years, and I absolutely love it, but I want the livability and the ease with which all people use the area.

Thank you.

David Spedden, followed by Ellen Moore.

Good evening.

David Spedden, 3429 Tumor Kiln Circle.

I know I can't clutch, but I applaud you all.

Thank you for taking the right stance on the road to compromise.

As you know, the road to compromise is the worst possible option, and that's factually proven.

Worse for the environment.

Think about the Ourel Hill Park.

Worse for safety, worse for community impacts.

Worse for efficiency and effectiveness.

Someone mentioned uh hurricane evacuation.

Worse fiscally, and it's an unproven theory.

I'm sincerely trying to figure out how we got to this point.

Why does Charleston County turn a blind eye to the facts and keep using extremely weak talking points like this was agreed to?

We had many meetings.

We received thousands of uh comments.

We heard from many special groups.

We need to move forward or lose the funding.

A very weak position.

It keeps saying things like, oh, let me just change it.

I researched the town's uh website as well as newspaper articles, opinions, commentaries, and more.

And the closest thing I found to an agreement from the Roads of Compromise was an article that said special interest groups and the Phillips community favored that plan.

Nothing from the town of Mount Pleasant.

Nowhere did I find meeting notes, documented agreements, or even a vote by the town to adopt it.

What I found was our state representatives speaking out against it repeatedly.

The mayor and the town council speaking out against it.

Smart growth 41 speaking out against it, and many citizens speaking out against it.

So why is the county trying to gaslight the town of Mount Pleasant?

They keep saying it was agreed to when it wasn't.

Expanding a highway is serious and careful consideration, has to be given to it.

But what's not acceptable is an option that builds a second spur off a highway 41, barely two-tenths of a mile from the Joe Joe Raoul's Bessemer excerpt.

It just doesn't make sense.

And it's all in hope that it'll alleviate the uh traffic 141.

And let's remember, hope is not a strategy.

In my opinion, their entire decision is based on an emotional issue.

It could be cultural and historic.

I'm not sure.

I know that the Phillips community has historical um recognition, it's well deserved and should be celebrated, but it can't be the single driver in making this decision.

That recognition does not include special building codes, different zoning, stopping progress, or having veto power to alter this very important project.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem, Council members.

My name's Ellen Moore.

I'm here and I live at 1469 Gunison Street in Carolina Park.

I'm here today to talk about two topics.

Um the first one, I have to express my uh support for Ms.

Ireland and Ms.

Dye and the points that they made um about the town center.

I I believe the proposal as it stands today is speculative at best, and it's not what the residents of Mount Pleasant want or need today.

Um and I believe it will damage the retail environment today and for the our local businesses today.

So I would ask you to please not approve this proposal or the related zoning changes to the Wilson track.

And I want to make a point about affordable housing.

I live in Carolina Park, and there are a hundred affordable homes being built in Carolina Park on Park Avenue Boulevard.

And I believe affordable housing is not a Mount Pleasant problem.

It's not just a county problem.

It's not even a statewide problem.

It's a nationwide problem.

We have to come together and figure this out.

And it's not just it can't just be imposed on one town or even one area of town with the most real estate.

So I think we have to deal with this and do it collectively.

Um and and not just keep cramming it down the throats of everyone.

Um I I want to spend uh this last minute just saying uh I would really like you to pay attention to the plethora of lawsuits that you all know you're dealing with.

Um you came out in an executive session with a lot of suits and litigation that you're dealing with, and I can appreciate that.

And I appreciate that you're spending a lot of time and resources of our attorneys and staff um to help develop the or further move these things along.

But let's get these things settled.

The Shen Creek Development Group has sued the town of Mount Pleasant for 2.6 million dollars and won in two courts.

We're waiting for the South Carolina uh Supreme Court to weigh in.

Chances are they probably will not support it and overturn what previous courts have done.

We're spending almost $500,000 a year on litigation for this parking garage issue.

So what's holding us back?

Is it ego?

Is it leadership?

I don't know.

But let's resolve it and move this forward and and deal with these cases because we're excited about some of the opportunities that lie ahead.

Thank you so much for your time.

Ruth Daboe and Sarah Eck.

Hello, my name is Ruth DeBog.

Um, I've only been here for seven years, but I must say that when I first came to Mount Pleasant and I walked into the town center, actually drove in, and I just thought it was so picturesque, beautiful.

It was everything that I continue to hear from all the people who are coming in.

People have chosen Mount Pleasant for a reason it's beautiful.

I think the landscaping would be destroyed if any kind of development like what has been discussed.

I think maybe further dialogue, further development topics should be happening.

Um I can't imagine bulk not being there.

We don't have a lot of retail.

I don't want to have to go downtown all the time to shop.

Um, I am wearing a bulk dress right now.

Um, it's just it's great.

I I mean, there's so many if you walk around town center, you see families holding hands, walking, shopping.

I don't want to buy online, and I've had to do a lot of that, and to have retail is really important for community.

It just is.

My son went and saw at the theater a new movie called Weapons, and on Saturday, it just came out.

You know, just having retail, I think is imperative to the culture and allowing Mount Pleasant to stay just this like everybody calls it Mount Pleas, uh Mount Perfect because you know it just kind of is, and I would hate for that to go away.

So thank you.

That's funny.

Good evening.

I'm Sarah Egg, the store manager of our Belk Store in Mount Pleasant.

I'm a resident of Charleston, South Carolina 29403.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with the full council after last week's town planning committee meeting.

Belk is a 27-year legacy tenant in the town center and has contributed millions in the city, special district, and real property taxes to the Mount Pleasant community over this period.

Contributions that can continue to total hundreds of thousands annually.

It's the tenants and businesses operating in the town center who's who cover the cost of the operating, ensuring maintaining and even paying taxes on the common area amenities, such as green spaces and lighting.

These features have made the town center a sitter piece to the community, a de facto privately funded town center.

I believe this is a risk if the proposed rezoning and redevelopment go forward.

Last year alone, town center tenants contributed almost four million dollars to support the common facilities used by the community.

Belk's portion of that was almost one million dollars in addition to the traditional rent we pay under our leases in the center.

Given Belk's substantial investment to the community, we were shocked to learn that there had been public discussions and presentations related to an application and redevelopment plan.

This plan submitted by the town center's current ownership was made through the township planning and zoning process and appeared to be based on the proposition that Belk may not remain a tenant in the center.

We were equally disappointed that such a plan and application were introduced into a public forum without any discussion with Belk, especially considering taxpaying dollars along with staff, commission, and council members' time were spent administering and reviewing this plan that the town center owners knew if they then constructed by them would be in direct conflict with Belk's existing lease and agreements with others.

Finally, I want to express my concern about the attainable housing that some may expect from the proposed amendment and plan.

While I support the need for attainable housing, this proposal instead increases the number of market rate units currently allowed, and the developer has no requirement to include any attainable housing unless they choose to exceed the four market rate units per acre currently per permitted.

The zoning compliance calculations are hypothetical.

If approved, the owner could complete phase one and phase two without providing any attainable housing unless and until Belk vacates the site and the owner opts to build the housing plant for that area.

Thank you for your time.

Good evening.

I'm Janet Smith.

I'm the senior vice president of strategic initiatives for Belk, and my responsibilities include overseeing our real estate portfolio.

Some of you will recognize the information I'm going to share from last week's planning meeting, and I appreciate your continued engagement.

For the rest of you, I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you this evening.

I'll start by addressing some inaccurate statements that have been made previously.

First, Belk is not in receivership.

We've met all of our obligations in town center.

We're financially strong and we are not in bankruptcy.

Second, Belco's long-term leases for both our main store and our men's store.

We have options that allow us to stay in operation until 2053 and 2043.

We own the main store building and have heavily invested in both buildings.

Third, under those leases, the owners of town center do not have the right to move forward with most of the improvements shown in the conceptual plan they have submitted.

Here are a few specific lease terms that directly conflict with the plan.

First, in our lease, new construction is only allowed in the existing building areas or other specified permitted building areas.

Most building and most of the parking lot sidewalks, drive lanes, or green space is not permitted.

Also, the plan shows building heights around 55 feet.

However, our lease limits new building heights to 35 feet.

Next, the town center must maintain certain parking ratios, use exception of the existing parking deck used by the hotel.

Finally, some of the proposed uses in the plan simply aren't allowed under our lease.

These terms were carefully negotiated by Belk to support our investment in the stores and to align with Mount Pleasant's retail focused zoning goals.

Belk respectfully asks that any approved plan be realistic and feasible, and this one currently is not.

Does more harm by publicly outlining a speculative contingency that may never occur than it would if the owner simply returned to the town when the redevelopment is actually needed.

The township should also avoid setting a precedent of dedicating staff, volunteers, and council members' time to hypothetical scenarios.

Doing so restraining resources and inviting claims of selective targeting based on speculation.

Thank you very much for your time.

Good evening.

My name is Rob Nickel, Regional Vice President of Belk and a Mount Pleasant resident.

My address is 2077 Ash Burton, and I'm here to speak on Town Center.

You know, as we think of retail today, I want to highlight a recent published report from Capital One that shows as of last year, 84% of retail sales in the U.S.

occurred in physical stores.

And this shows the importance of it.

Our mental model should be that stores matter a lot.

As a local resident, I'm invested in the town center's success.

This proposed plan presents serious risks, and I want to highlight five critical points.

First, the loss of surface parking makes shopping less convenient.

The harder it is to access the store, the fewer customers will walk through the door.

Second, tall residential buildings in phases one and two would block visibility to retailers behind them.

And allowing the existing buildings directly in front of Belk to be increased up to 55 feet would be permitted if this is approved.

That's going to block visibility to Belk, risking an out-of-site, out of mind effect.

Third, the increased traffic and reduced circulation from added density, event activity, and parking decks are likely to clog in internal roads, have a spillover effect onto already congested Highway 17 and Hungry Neck Boulevard, a residential road, and disrupt both vehicle flow and pedestrian safety.

Fourth, the vacant former bed bath and beyond space represents only 6.8% of the total gross building area of town center.

That's within national averages and should not drive an entire redevelopment plan.

That's not strategic.

In my opinion, the space will lease easily if assurances are provided to prospective tenants that the surface parking in front of such space will remain and the space is priced appropriately.

And fifth, as an anchor, Belk's success as a retailer relies on a critical mass of peer retailers.

The proposed redevelopment risk changing the center into an essential goods strip mall, losing the unique non-essential retail mix that makes town center special.

In fact, we routinely hear from customers that they love this belt and they do not want to lose having such a terrific department store here in Mount Pleasant.

I respectfully urge you to vote no on the proposed amendment and ask you to consider three following points for any future decision making framework.

That any approved plan includes the bulk store buildings and surrounding parking areas only as they exist today in their current configuration.

That you do not permit the change in height limit above 35 foot level, and that no restricted areas under Belk's lease be included in zoning compliance calculations, unless and until those areas become legally unrestricted, and there's a responsible and reasonable expectation that they can be delivered.

Thank you for your time and opportunity to speak with you tonight.

Diane Miss Spagel, followed by Katie Zimmerman.

Good evening.

My name is Diane Mispegle, and I am here on as counsel for Belk with respect to their stores located at Mount Pleasant Town Center.

I have represented anchor retailers for over 27 years working in-house and currently as outside council.

I want to be clear that just because the Belk's lease does not permit construction of phase one or two as shown, that does not mean that Belk will have the ability to stop it if council approves this amendment.

Developers, unfortunately, for financial reasons often choose to violate the provisions of leases and promises.

Although Belk could file suit to try to stop such construction, there's no guarantee that a judge would halt construction.

The judge may instead award Belk damages for breach of contract.

Litigation itself can be risky, time consuming, and expensive, as well as an unnecessary burden on the court system.

Belk may not even have the right to stop some of the unwanted construction permitted with the amended zoning.

The height increases and permitted uses are site-wide and are not limited to the phases shown on the plan.

I believe that the owner may be able to, without violating Belk's lease, then raise the height of the existing retail buildings directly in front of Belk store to come to construct apartments.

Belk's protection from that today comes from current zoning.

A protection which would be lost if this amendment is approved.

What will stop the possible unwanted construction is if you vote no on the amendment.

The owner would then be not be able to pull permits to construct 55-foot tall apartment complexes at either the front of the retail center or their current retail is located in front of Belk.

The time to address Belk's concerns is now.

It is very disappointing that the owners did not discuss this with Belk prior to now.

It was Belk that reached out to ownership, but when ownership refused to delay the application and further decline Belk's request for business person to reach out directly to Belk business person, Belk promptly notified the town of its objections.

Although the owner may not have been legally required to notify Belk, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have anyway.

Belken owner did finally speak this Saturday morning, but again, only after Belk's request that owner the fact that owners will not put the put in their ordinance that they will not construct improvements and violations of Belk's lease when Belk is still here, should tell you something.

Although the applicant and council members, thank you very much time.

I do hope you vote no on this.

Hi, I'm gonna shift gears for a little bit, and I feel like I'm taking time that I shouldn't be.

Um my name's Katie Zimmerman, I'm executive director of Charleston Moves at 478 King Street, and I'm here tonight regarding the final reading of the e-bike ordinance amendments.

Um I uh one of my big concerns that I've had since the the overhaul of the bicycle ordinance um a year or so ago is the uh speed limit for bicycle use, whether e-bike or regular bike on sidewalks and paths.

Um just it's really hard to stick to 10 miles per hour.

It's just very difficult to do that.

Um, and I don't want to get anyone in a situation where if there is an incident that occurs and there's litigation or law enforcement digging into things, I don't want to have somebody who's on a regular bicycle on a sidewalk or a path, happen to be going 11 miles per hour, and get into an incident and then that's held against them.

Um, it's a concern I've had for a while now.

Um, and I so I'm hoping that y'all will consider as an amendment.

I I'm less concerned with the speed limit for the e-bikes, but it would be wonderful if you all would consider both e-bikes and regular bicycles when they're on sidewalks or Maltese paths, the speed limit being either 15 miles per hour or 12 miles per hour, something above 10.

And I just a personal experience, I was biking on the West Ashley Greenway to go out to pick up some cat medication, and now I'm oversharing.

And um on my bicycle, not pedaling, just sort of taking a break because it's a long ride, and just coasting, going slowly, paying attention.

I was going 11 or 12 miles per hour.

I have an awesome bicycle, so that could be related to that, but um I just I don't want to have anybody sort of I don't want anybody to get into any issues if we have to dig into data after an incident.

So if you could get it to 15 miles per hour or as a compromise 12 miles per hour, just to give people that that break, um, that would be wonderfully appreciated.

Thank you so much.

Myra Richardson, followed by Luca Acosta.

Good day, my name is Myers Knight Richardson.

My address is 2755, Earl Johnson Lane, Mont Pleasant, South Carolina.

I'm here to talk about the final reading for the 11.85 acres in the 10 Mile community.

The 10 Mile community, this property is actually zone, rural residential at this time, allowing one house per three acres.

If the Town Mount Pleasant annex this property in under community conservation, it will allow one house on well, three houses per acre.

Allowing three houses per acres will increase the housing on that lot to about 30, 33 homes.

Also would also allow ADUs, so you'll add another 33 homes.

This is totally out of the character and culture of that area.

We're asking that the town of Mount Pleasant before annexing in this property or any other property that's rural commercial rural residential to talk with the county, set the guidelines that the county have in place and allow the ham allow the Tamil community to continue to work on their overlay plan to address the issues in that community.

The settlement community, Gallaghe communities are working very hard to protect and preserve the rich history and culture of our areas.

And as the town of Mount Pleasant has worked with Towson County before in order to make something comparable to S3, which you did with CC.

We're asking you to do the same thing in the 10 mile community and allow the community to continue to work on their overlay plan.

They had um meetings and they've been working on this process for a very long time.

Please allow them the opportunity to finalize this process.

And once it's finalized or alone, the process of being finalized, we access the town of Mount Pleasant, work with Charleston County in the Tamil community to make sure you do not allow overdevelopment and out-of-scale housing development in that area or any areas in the Tamil community.

Thank you for your time good evening, Council members.

My name is Luca Acosta.

I'm 19 years old and I have lived in Mount Pleasant my entire life.

It's been very strange watching Mount Pleasant turn from a lively welcoming town into a place where people keep to themselves, glare at strangers and act like anything unfamiliar is a threat.

Town Center used to feel like the heart of the community.

Now it's a ghost town with overpriced shops and empty sidewalks.

We've been expanding for years, but somehow none of it has been beneficial.

Just more buildings, higher prices, and less of the community spirit that made this town worth living.

I'm here to talk about an opportunity.

Town center is a space with huge potential, but it's not living up to it.

And it's not because we need shops or bigger parking lots or living space or whatever.

The truth is town center needs more life.

We've seen it before.

Events like Art Fest, Live Under Oaks, and Pause on the Patio have proven that when the space is activated, people show up.

Families come, friends gather.

Our local businesses benefit and the energy is contagious.

But right now, the event calendar often sits empty, and that's a missed opportunity for both community engagement and economic growth.

I'm proposing a year-round consistent event schedule, one that's predictable enough to build habits, but diverse enough to keep people excited.

I could elaborate, but I don't want to spend any more time.

Thank you.

Zarya Ask you, followed by Josh Dix.

Good evening.

My name is Zarya Askew.

I live at 987 Gatsonville.

Um I'm part of the 10 Mile community.

I'm also a recent graduate from Hampton University in Virginia, so I'm coming home for the summer as a recent grad.

Um the reason I'm coming back here to speak on this ordinance to 5033 and 25034.

Um, although I have been away from home, I have not been familiar with the changes that are happening since I've been gone, but I understand the importance of the development that's been in my community since I've been gone, as I've seen the um acres of houses multiplying.

Um, I'm here to talk about and ask that the um community is working with Charleston County to create the overlay district so to allow more time over that so that they can create the overlay district and give more time.

Um if the residents want, we would allow to have one principal dwelling per one acre and continue to allow the 10 mile community to work with Charleston County to give more time.

The community is proceeding with keeping the zoning as it is to support the overlay and emitting the overlay if needed in the future to reflect on the necessary changes.

Um town council, we ask that you respect the desires of the community and deny the annexation request of the applicant and denial rezoning, please.

Thank you.

My name's Josh Chicks, 640 Routledge Avenue, and I'm here tonight to speak in favor of the town center amendment.

This is a great opportunity for the town of Mount Pleasant, not just for town center, but this could be a model for a lot of the redevelopment that there is an opportunity for without throughout the town.

Shopping behavior is changing, and that is something that we're seeing not just in the town of Mount Pleasant, but across the nation.

One of the speakers earlier made a comment about housing affordability and the housing issue, and it is a national issue.

We're way underserved across the country.

Our region is desperately in need of housing.

And one piece that I would like to say is that each municipality, each county, they have a role to play.

And this is a chance not just to provide housing, but to guarantee affordable housing.

And this is something that you don't see in towns across our region.

We do a lot of these redevelopment opportunities and these housing plans.

This developer is committing 25% affordable housing.

It's the same number of units that they're already entitled to.

So it's not an increase in density, it's not added traffic.

They are already entitled to these uh 421 units.

Redevelopment is an important part of how our region is going to grow.

We can't afford to continue sprawling and growing out and out and out.

In field development is how our region and how our state needs to think differently about what we're doing and how we're repurposing land.

We've heard a lot tonight about surface uh area ratios, uh, surface parking is an antiquated model.

We're seeing this change not just in our region but across the country.

We need to think differently about our land use.

We need to be wiser with what we're doing with our space, and in order to create more green space, we're gonna have to rip up some asphalt along the way.

Um I've attended a lot of these meetings with y'all, and we hear a lot about we've paved over paradise.

Well, in order to restore paradise, you're gonna have to tear up the pavement.

So I encourage you to uh vote in favor of the town center amendment.

Um we need to encourage more of this type of investment in our community and more redevelopment in our communities.

Thank you.

Lori Horn, followed by Tammy Carapo.

I'm Tammy Canopot at 1538 Barkantine Drive.

Um I've been here 40 years.

Uh the Canopy family was one of the first French Huguenots that established Charleston.

And they definitely wouldn't agree with what's going on.

We need to keep Charleston Mount Pleasant the way people saw it back then.

And it's a family thing.

It's your friends and family coming together.

And more multifamily homes.

Don't you remember when we had moratorium on multifamily homes?

I mean, it was in the early 2000s, and you can only build one or two homes.

And now it's catastrophic.

I mean, I used to live on Daniel Island, and it was like Mayberry then.

It's unrecognizable now.

Do you want Mount Pleasant to seriously be unrecognizable?

My kids can't live here.

They live in Somerville and John's Island, excuse me.

And but they love to come here and play and visit and go to the mall, go to the movie.

And you do all this stuff, it's going to take everything away.

I beg of you.

Think about how we used to be.

And I think the people who moved here don't either.

Thank you so much for your time.

And if uh we need a um, if you need me to get people to uh sign up, let me know how many I'll get as many as you want.

Just let me next.

Thank you.

Wendy Frost.

I exist.

I'm Wendy Frost.

I'm the uh vice president of real estate for the belt store located at 1200 Belt Court in Mount Pleasant.

First, I'd like to thank all the commissioners, council people, staff, committee members, for all you do.

The rabbi said it so elegantly.

Thank you very much.

Second, I'd like to provide a rebuttal of comment made by Mr.

Darby last week, and it was reiterated by many of the uh owners' agents tonight as well as himself, and that is that the premise that the council should favorably weigh any decision tonight based on the premise that they've been working with the township for and leadership for over four years.

On the contrary, I believe just the opposite.

There's a reason why this redevelopment plan has not been approved after four years of countless township resources working on it, and that's because it does not work for the community.

The interest of the town center's investors, owners, and this community simply do not align.

I'd like to ask you two questions.

What do you think you are getting from this proposed zoning amendment that the owners of the town center do not and have not already had?

It is housing.

Well, based on the staff's calculations, the owner has had the right to build over 400 apartments for the last 20 plus years and has yet to build fund.

If it's adding 750,000 square feet of additional retail shops, I don't understand how that can happen when the owner claims there's not enough retail options to backfill the space that they have in the center today, and is so concerned about the future that they're asking for non-retail space be entitled today.

So this leaves you with what being added with these new entitlements?

More hotels, offices, parking decks, and contrary to what was testified today, 50% less attainable housing.

Right now the the zoning is four per thousand, it will go to two with the attainable housing.

There is still a lot of runway left under the existing entitlements.

The township has already granted under the PD.

If you grant all these new entitlements on top of that, the town center owners and future owners can take the town center almost any direction the owners then feel is best for themselves and the investors, which includes private equity, which was also testified tonight.

Uh given that my second question to you is what are you getting for this?

Based on the statements tonight, you're getting traffic, diminished retail, loss of character, maybe less attainable housing per acre after the allotment of I'm done.

Thank you.

That's all I have, Mayor Pro Tem.

If there's anyone who is not signed up to speak and would like an opportunity to speak, please come forward.

Good evening, Council.

Mike Van Horn, Iron Bridge Drive.

Um, I preface my conversation with you this evening.

First of all, we have uh until next Monday for all of those candidates that want to run for Mount Pleasant Town Council and also mayor.

And on top of that, we're sure we're just 80 days away from or 80 some days away from the election.

And I preface that just by saying the fact that we should say no to this town center situation.

Um let's take a look at the history of where we've been since the beginning of the year.

We start off back in December.

We had a situation with Patriots Point, where the tax was almost imposed upon all the residents.

We pulled back from that.

We have Mr.

Bennett that's been here for numerous times trying to seek an improvement of Patriots Point.

We've continued to pull back from that to sit there and continue to study what needs to be done.

We have phase on road that's a nightmare in the making with all the industrial stuff.

So now we want to sit here and possibly allow town center to change things.

That's not smart growth.

So I'm asking you to say no to that.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wanted to come speak?

Uh good evening.

I'm JC Darby with the Beach Company.

In closing, I just want to leave you all with a few thoughts.

Um, our team has been working on this for over four years.

Um good deals do take time, despite what the individual said prior to me, and we believe that it's time for you all to make a decision.

A deferral tonight is considered a no vote.

And you know, a couple couple things just to reiterate what was predecessor precessed before me.

Um Continental polled 17 tenants from their center this week.

Sixteen of them were local, all of which were for this plan, all of which wanted this plan to move forward.

I don't need to tell you who the one that did not want the plan to move forward.

They flew their attorney in from St.

Louis to speak for two minutes tonight.

Although we disagree with Belks on a lot of things, we do agree with them on a few.

They are a great asset for the center.

They are welcome to stay, and they do help the center thrive as long as they abide by their lease.

However, the last several days, Belks has thrown a grenade on the last four years and all the work we've done to get here.

We've tried to reason with them, but we cannot.

There must be a hidden agenda.

They don't seem to appreciate the effort and all the work that we have put together the past four years to get to where we are to get to get to get to this decision.

Your decision tonight is very clear for us in the town of Mount Pleasant and our community.

Is town center to thrive, or do you turn your back on the crown jewel and let it fail?

It could possibly be the next Citadel Mall if we're not careful.

So I'll leave you with this.

Do we abandon the asset and let it fall short?

Or do we take it from good to great?

Thank you.

Tony Conley, 1415 Hamlin Park Circle.

I wasn't gonna speak.

I have no dog in this fight.

I love Mount Pleasant and I love town center as it is, but I also know change and I know change happens.

Uh retail.

If you own a business, you know that people want something new and exciting.

You can't stay the same forever.

Town center's been around for 20 years.

I love it.

But he just mentioned Citadel Mall.

Citadel Mall's been around what 60 years, and where has that come?

If you don't have change over time, some change, you're gonna have Citadel Mall.

It may take 40 years.

I don't know.

I don't know whether proposed changes.

I don't I feel for you guys, you got a tough decision to make.

I don't know if these either side makes big points.

All I know is I saw that there's a lot of points.

It's a very complicated situation, but like a big ship is very complicated.

It takes time to turn.

Whether you're gonna start that turn tonight or not, that's up to you.

But I do think change needs to happen at some point, and it needs to be thought through and planned ahead so that you know where that ship is going and you don't run ashore.

Thank you for your understanding and your work on this.

I'm Laurie Horn and I live at 74 Pondsbury and I moved here five years ago because places like Mount Pleasant Town Center were so charming that we just had to come.

And we came prior to moving here and used that as a destination.

And I was really struck by something that the gentleman said, 16 of the 17 tenants really would love to see a bunch of change.

Well, sure you would.

That would bring in a whole lot of extra people, and that's high density, and that is what I left.

I left high density.

I don't want it.

So if you think about the 16 tenants that really would love it, take a look around the room because there are more than 16 people here that don't want it, and I think that Tam is right.

If I carried a petition, I could probably come up with 6,000 people.

And I really hope that you honor the wishes of the citizens of this of this city.

Thank you.

My name is Craig Askew.

I live at 987 Gatsendale Road.

I live in 10 Mile.

Um I am here to echo the sentiments of the residents of Ten Mile.

We live in the Galladichi community, and ask that you respect the the overlay plan that we're working on with Charleston County, and um give us time as we develop and look at the gullah community and see what we want and how we want it.

Of course, we want to remain as rural as possible and um continue to live a nice clean gulla geachy life.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

My name is O'Larry Roberts.

I live an old electricity 917 Royal Abnant.

And I have a major flood problem.

I sent an email to the clerk, and I'm hoping that y'all get to take a look at it.

I'm hoping we can find some kind of resolution.

On my side of Royal Avenue.

And the water comes when it rains hard.

The water comes from both directions to that train.

When that drain stops up, guess where the water goes.

In my property.

My wife lost a brand new car.

Flood before last.

So I'm hopeful that someone will respond to the email that I sent to the clerk.

I don't want to take any more of your time.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Is there anyone else who did not sign up to speak who would like to speak?

Hello, my name is Kevin Riley.

I live at 3825 Maidstone Drive in Carolina Park.

The reason I came up, I've had some long conversations with my fellow residents in Carolina Park.

My wife insisted that I come here and say it's gonna kill what makes Mount Pleasant and what makes the town center one of the most beautiful places that uh we have to offer here.

Uh there's an awful lot of negative opinion about this.

I don't know about 435 new apartments.

I know I spoke before about the affordable housing that we're seeing on uh in Carolina Park.

A lot of concern has been raised with regard to density of traffic, etc.

I think it's a very important consideration because we don't have the infrastructure at this point, I think, to support an additional 435 uh apartment complexes or apartments, pardon me, in a complex.

A secondary concern is that while we have said that uh Belks has a long-term lease, and some folks have said that uh even mentioned the fact that it's owned by a consortium.

Uh the likelihood that um as a business uh concern people who are threatened by uh negative results in terms of infrastructure and community involvement and community reaction are going to more than likely uh eventually decide that they're going to want to move out.

Uh I think we're gonna accelerate the movement of belks.

I think it would be a very negative thing for the community, and I would ask you to be very careful in making this decision.

I would also remind you, as a gentleman uh earlier said, and I think it's very important consideration to bear in mind, that uh there is an election coming up, and there is strong community opposition, a really strong sentiment against this, and I think that uh that's something that you as our representative should be bearing in mind when you make this decision.

So I hope you'll do that.

I thank you so much for all the work you do.

You're an amazing group of people.

This is a great town.

My wife and I are thrilled to be here, and we look forward to you guys making the right decision.

Thank you so much.

Right.

Final opportunity.

If there's anyone else who is not signed up who would like to speak.

Speak now or forever, hold your peace.

Um, going once, going twice, and public comment.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, we got one, we got one.

Come on.

Sorry, guys.

Oh my gosh.

When you guys are up for re-election, you'll probably be like, don't pick me, please.

No.

I'm not running again.

All the stuff you guys gotta deal with.

I'm so sorry.

Anyways, my name's Jeremy Manchester, 3133 Pingatelli Crescent, um, Dunes West Mount Pleasant.

Um, I I wrote a letter to y'all.

I didn't know if you got it or not.

Some of you may have read it or not.

Um, it's just talking about the 10 mile property, you know, community.

Um I was asking, you know, I just said, hey, why I chose the zoning that I did right across from us.

Uh the the county went to um the equivalent to community conservation last spring, 2024, where they can build three three homes per acre.

Um so on my side of the road, directly right across.

It's been one one home for three acres for many years.

Um I don't know if you guys got an update.

We had a meeting uh July 12th, and the county is proposing to go to one to one, and then they lifted the accessory dwelling from 1,500 square feet to unlimited.

the the county went to um the equivalent to community conservation last spring 2024 where they can build three three homes per acre um so on my side of the road directly right across it's been one one home for three acres for many years um I don't know if you guys have got an update we had a a meeting uh July 12th and the county is proposing to go to one to one and then they lifted the accessory dwelling from 1500 square feet to unlimited so um I don't know if you guys have gotten that memo yet um from from Charleston County but anyways so that's why I tried to choose the community conservation because it it just seemed like it fit a lot more everybody's saying hey you know 60 homes 80 homes whatever man it's just a field I I haven't tried to do anything with it for the last since I've owned it I haven't tried to ask how many homes I can build on it it's got wetlands on it I've got a 1.25 acre pond you know there's setbacks there's a million different things um so I just tried to do what the county um has been doing like in my you know I've got a property in the Phillips community that's us three well not for multiple years I've never tried to divide that into three lots so I mean I'm just trying to do the the reasonable thing um it's just been for my family or for my friends and anyways I hope you guys approve it um appreciate your your considering it comment is now closed moving on to item number seven which is the consent agenda there's items A through F.

Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda items move to approve second we have a motion to approve and a second is there any discuss any discussion on the consent agenda items all those in favor say aye motion carries final readings of consent agenda items A through F moving on to item number eight planning new business this is first re oh this item was requested to be removed from the agenda is that correct yes ma'am okay so no action no action is needed okay item A1 is removed from the agenda item A2 is the ordinance um pertaining to town center move to deny second we have a motion to deny and a second and we are in discussion is there uh Mr.

Rambo did you made the motion would you like to make a statement?

Yes so um you know I can say a lot of things um but I really it boils down to the fact that I was I was not elected to add hundreds of new apartments to this town it's not what I said I would do from the beginning and I haven't voted to do that since um it furthermore I know this process has been long and I understand that probably a lot of money was spent um by the applicant going back and forth with the town um but I do know I mean back in 2020 um the applicant reached out to all of us I know I've met with him individually and my message to him at that time was the exact same is that I don't believe I was elected to do this um and for me it's pretty simple I'm not gonna get in that belt continental back and forth but uh I don't don't believe that's what our town envisions okay any other yes ma'am Mr.

Chapman First of all we've taken up a lot of time on this particular project I would like to ask Ms.

Reed under the current ordinance what number of units could they build without coming to town council so that's a tricky question uh councilman chapman I we we've heard the term entitlements thrown around a lot uh I'll try and explain it um and then if you if you have follow-up questions I'm I'm happy to try and do that so within the plan development this property is designated for A B uses um area wide business it allows any other use that an A B would allow um which includes residential density which is four units an acre uh with an additional four um if those second four are dedicated to attainable housing um so if you look at it just a large piece of property zoned A B yes they have certain entitlements uh based on that zoning and they have certain rights that any other A B property would have now where it gets tricky is when you talk about what triggers an impact assessment so you may be able to do something under the base zoning the PD with the A B uses but where it where it gets more complicated is when our our ordinances say if I have 75 for for development like this if I have 75 peak hour trips and 4000 square foot of commercial I'm gonna trigger an impact assessment.

An impact assessment must come to town council for approval.

So entitlements does not necessarily translate to being able to pull a building permit and do that.

You also have to look at the restrictions on the property that limit those things.

You do so while under the A B zoning, you may be able may be able to do by right 210 units.

So that would be four units an acre, right?

They can't be ground floor.

You have to have ground floor retail, so you have to have enough height to get that.

Now maybe you can do it with 35 feet.

I don't know.

So there are different things that are that make it more complicated than just what they're entitled to.

They're entitled to a lot of things under the AB.

It's whether it triggers an impact assessment, it's where it's whether they can accomplish it, whether they can park it, uh, whether they um can meet their open space still, whether they can accomplish it with their height requirements.

So it's a complicated question.

I I don't know if if that helps.

Um, but but by right, without an impact assessment, you could do 40,000 square foot of commercial, and um for residential 75 peak hour trips.

I just talked to our transportation director, that translates into about a hundred and thirty residential units.

So if that gives you an idea of 130 residential units, correct.

Under the current zone without having to come back to town council.

With 40,000 square foot of non-residential and whatever they can do within 35 feet, correct?

Correct.

With potential business or commercial underneath the housing, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

That's number one.

Number two, um, if anybody has been at the bottom of the Ravenel Bridge and see all of the cars coming into town every morning, every weekday morning, most of them are coming in here to work.

There are less people leaving to go somewhere else to work than there are people coming in here to work.

That equates to substantial traffic.

That's part of the difficulty we have today on Highway 17.

They're coming in here to work.

We need to have a place where people can live within their means and work in the town.

But I think we need to have some residential.

So some of those people, I'm not saying all of them, some of those people could work within town center and not be driving here every work day to come in.

Having said that, this council has been sort of whiplashed into deciding between belks and the owners of town center, and I don't think that's fair.

Town center um has a you know good relationship here, and so does Belk's.

The opposition from Belks we got was after members of the planning committee and the planning commission have wrestled with what we felt was appropriate for the future for town center.

Unfortunately, apparently it's not what should have come out of it.

But we spent a lot of time coming up with height with location of green space with what should happen if there was an event that caused the theater to shut down and what we should have.

And we signed off on that with Continental.

Having said all that, we're still at a quandary where we're in the middle, and we were accused, we town council were accused of shutting belts down and shutting down the movie theater, which couldn't be further from the truth.

But tonight we again have a opportunity to make an effort to do the right thing.

Doesn't make sense to go above the height right now.

But if there's a need to, you can always come back.

The issue of affordable housing is critical, is critical to me because again, every day we have so many cars on our roads coming into town to work and have no place to live in Mount Pleasant because they can't afford it.

And I think there is a way to put some affordable housing.

Having said that, I think I would like to see us figure out a way to have this resource town center, which is a jewel and has already been mentioned several times.

Get the only business in town center that is objected to come to terms with what eventually can be done, but most of all, what can be done right now.

And do they not have a um impact statement already on file?

The this application?

Yes.

Yeah, they did complete an impact assessment.

Yes.

And uh which shows proof of coordination with the school district, all of the utilities.

Um yeah, that has been completed.

And they they do have an impact statement already on file.

Not with what they can do today, but what they would like to do in the future.

So that's substantially more than what they can do today.

But they still, you say they still would have to do another impact statement, is that correct?

Uh they would if they they met the threshold for doing an impact assessment, which would be the 75 peak hour trips for residential plus uh 40,000 square feet.

Okay.

That would be the trigger for an impact assessment for any future development.

Okay.

Um I'm going through all this, Madam Chairman, because just to say let's vote it down and go on, I think is a disservice to both parties.

It's a disservice to belts to know what might be approved or not in the future, and it's a disservice to Continental and the Beach Company.

One of the reasons I was glad to hear that we had a local company involved is they know what the town expects.

And I would ask that we consider deferring this to have the two sides work together quickly to settle this issue.

Thank you, Mr.

Chapman.

Are you are you done?

I'm done.

All right.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue?

Mr.

Aquano.

I happen to be one of those people that may or may not be up for election this year, so my deal is you either vote for me or you don't.

I mean, you know what I mean?

You like what what I say or you don't like what I say.

So the thing is is that this has been a really, really long discussion.

Like I thought it was, I thought a lot of things were decided on this.

I mean, I really do.

And then I'm not a fan of being put in the middle of what seems to be some kind of lease dispute or something like that.

I I don't know that they're signing a lease right now, but I I don't know, I respect Belk.

I don't understand with this going on for four years, how this is being brought how you're just coming in now, I guess.

Um I I don't know how you were kept in the dark.

Everybody in the town of Mount Pleasant knew this was happening.

So I don't really, and and David, I don't think we want to be in the middle of a lease dispute.

Is that correct?

I mean, correct.

Okay, thank you.

So I do think that something is going to need to be done with town center.

I understand many on this council don't like a lot of the things that were shown because they were very vague.

So I think they're looking for a little bit more concrete.

And I know that was mentioned a bunch of times.

Um I'm not gonna speak for all of those on council, but I do have some head nods here.

They were conceptual designs.

And it depends it depends what side you're looking at it.

If you're looking at something for 20 years from now, of course it's gonna be a conceptual design.

If it looks like you're something that you're building within the next five years, then it needs to be a little bit more concrete.

Um I don't I don't think I don't think we're there yet.

I would agree with that statement.

We're not there yet, but I don't looking at other municipalities, other centers, other cities that I've been to, there are shopping centers that are a little bit more vibrant, a little bit more exciting.

Um I I do think that what needs to be brought back is a bit more concrete.

I do not want to get in the middle of a of a lease dispute, that is for sure.

So I'm not gonna do that.

Um I ask that uh something gets figured out in the next few years because um we could have some empty spaces here.

I mean, we could.

So but for now, um I I don't are we at 35 feet right now?

What was agreed upon on on planning commission, just so I understand.

Yes, sir.

Our planning committee.

So planning commission recommended approval with some conditions.

Um and these are those conditions.

So that the height be limited to 55 feet on that exterior, uh, a minimum of the so if the regal were to go out of business, there would be 60,000 square feet dedicated to a family entertainment.

Uh that it should have 14% uh green space.

They originally showed 10.

Um the 62 split, so six market rate to attainable, and the the thing would be with this is if you do a four and four split, uh the additional four is optional.

This would be if you do the six, you have to do the two.

So you would have those two attainable housing units for every six.

And then last, there was mention of a uh incubator program, and that if that were to exist, there would be two designated uh uh locations for that type of use.

So this is what came from the planning commission.

Um the planning committee did not make a recommendation.

We did we didn't have a quorum, right?

And so um it was placed before you without a recommendation from planning committee.

Th throughout this four-year process, I know I've sat in on on many of the meetings.

Um how many of the how many things that were asked for by either council members or or commission members continue to be added to this?

I mean, if that makes sense.

Uh their 2024 proposal had uh 75 foot height.

Um they lowered the height based on feedback from commission, committee and council.

The 60,000 square feet dedicated space, I think that came from a commission or committee um conversations.

Um the green space and then the incubator, I think those were all part of that working through that process.

Um that they lowered those or increase them, whatever it may be from their 2024 proposal to what they've proposed today.

I think there's still work to be done here for sure.

I do I do feel for them as um a lot of the things that were asked for by commission and council members were met.

A lot, I mean it it just was, and I think that that has to be has to be recognized.

Um so you know it's tough, it could be tough to do business sometimes when you're asked to make a change, you make the change, you come back, yes, make a change, you make the change, ask make change, make change, and then here we are four years later.

So they definitely have some some more things to do, but I will commend them on making a lot of the changes that were asked.

So that's I realize that that seems a little wishy-washy on my end, but it's it's been it's it's been a long roller coaster ride.

So okay, thank you.

Anyone else high?

Um I was just gonna make that point that this is here before us today without even a committee recommendation because the applicant requested that it come on to our agenda tonight and due to unforeseen circumstances today uh from the committee.

But I've had an issue from the beginning that this is just a request for entitlements without a plan.

And that to me is not something that I can vote for.

Um I need to see exactly what it's gonna be.

And um I also think it's too much that when the citizens are um showing up and letting us know that this is more than they'd be happy with, and that's what I'm here to represent.

But I know this is if we vote this down today, it won't be the end of the plan.

I know we hope for improvements there, but um many of these ideas could be acceptable, but we just want to see a concrete plan and not just handing out entitlements because once we do that, it doesn't come back to us.

It's out of our hands.

So we're signing away any any control over what we end up with if you ask us to just vote for entitlements.

I mean, that is not something I'm ever gonna do.

Thanks.

Mr.

Brown.

Thank you, madam chair.

I have a lot of um thoughts about this as well.

I I live uh very close to town center and and spend a lot of time there.

Um I do think that there are cracks in the the foundation of town center um and that it could be made more vibrant.

Um, you know, you've got the bed bath and beyond, which is a quite a large space that's been uh vacant for a couple of years.

Um if you drive through in the evening, um there's there's not a lot of traffic, not a lot of foot traffic, and and so I do feel for um the owners of the town center as well as the the businesses there.

I think that we need to some extent provide them the tools to evolve um that property over time.

However, I think that there is a big disconnect between what they're uh proposing now and what the public uh expects to see at that at that property.

And so I think that there is a an opportunity for um the owners of town center to um get with Belk as as Mr.

Chapman suggested, um, but also to get with members of the public, uh the customers of town center, the retailers, um, other interested parties.

And really what I think that they need to do is more like a a charrette, um, like you saw with the union pier in Charleston and try to incorporate that community feedback into the plan um that that comes to us.

Um it's just it's it's such an important property for the town.

It really in some ways operates as our de facto um downtown or or town center.

Um and so I I don't think that we need to rush um to a decision.

And I kind of take issue with some of the ultimatums um that have been made on on both sides tonight.

Um that if we deny this, we're turning our back on on town center.

Um or if we deny this, we're against um attainable housing.

I think the that can be further from the truth.

Um, but I do think that that some of the folks here um who spoke against the proposal do need to realize that that things um do change over time.

Uh they may not need to change this dramatically, but um to coat the whole town center in amber and say you cannot touch this, you can't um it's gotta remain exactly as it is today.

Um I think is unrealistic, and I think that that would be setting us up for um for failure for for having a dead uh mall, which nobody on this council um wants.

Um and I also wanted to to highlight what Mr.

Chapman said about attainable housing.

Um, you know, I couldn't move to Mount Pleasant today, and maybe some of you will would be happy about that, but I I couldn't afford to live here.

Um, there's there's uh we're missing that housing segment that appeals to young professionals that appeals to senior citizens, um it appeals to the the workers that that make our um our daily lives go.

Um those people don't live here.

They they commute in from Monks Corner, Somerville, North Charleston, uh West Ashley, and that contributes tremendously to our regional traffic problems.

Um I think philosophically, I I believe you know, the police officer that's on our street deserves to live here.

And that the guy who collects our trash pins deserves to live here.

And so we do need to take a serious look at attainable housing.

Um, you know, I want my kids who grew up in Mount Pleasant to be able to live here.

I'm sure you want your kids to be able to live here.

Well, today that's not possible.

And and so I'm not saying that that we need to cram you know 500 homes into town center, but that needs to be a a conscious, deliberate effort by our town to make sure that um the people who live here can continue to live here and to make sure that the the workers um who we rely on uh can continue to work here as well.

Um I I will be voting to deny this um tonight as well.

Um but I don't want that to be misconstrued that I don't think things need to change um at town center.

I think that there's a big opportunity to add some vibrancy.

Um and I think that we can achieve that um by getting people together and to incorporate the public's input into this at a much earlier stage um than you know that this proposal was was pretty much crafted and then sent to the public um to react to, and I think that's uh the fatal flaw in it.

And I think the public needs to be brought in at a much earlier stage and that their feedback feedback um should be incorporated um before it comes back to this council.

So um thank you for your indul indulgence.

Um you know, we we have a an opportunity.

I don't think we have a firm deadline that we need to approve something in haste.

We need to make sure that um it fits with the town of Mount Pleasant.

So thank you.

Mr.

Tinky.

Thank you.

Um one of my granddaughters has a saying, she said she was really young when she said it.

She said, you know, this is serious business.

And you know, this is serious business.

It's really important to us, and it's serious business from the property owners, the developers, the residents, all parties, it's serious business.

It's it's real.

And so we have to take it as serious business as town council members.

I reject that it's an either-or uh argument.

I think the very fact that we have so many people on both sides says there's more work that needs to be done.

When I ran, I said I don't want to have a situation with five-core vote.

I'd like to see us work with civility and harmony, and I'd like to see us work together to get closer to a consensus on key issues that are in the town.

We do need the deliberation and care.

We do need the appropriate mix, and it would be irresponsible not to have a strategic plan.

But I must say that when I was on planning commission and the first presentation came to me, and I knew the buildings were 35 feet throughout, and there was one building that was at 65 feet and a garage, and the initial proposal was for 75 feet throughout the entire program, and that was persisted by the developer over and over again until finally they relented.

That said it to me, this is serious business, and they weren't taking in a serious way and listening to what we were saying, unfortunately.

Do I think there could be better things done?

Absolutely.

And I and I would welcome working with the developer on that.

You know, the uh when the town was approached, and not only was the 75 feet, but as you have seen on the slide, it was dramatically more retail, more commercial, more hosp hospitality, a hotel market rate residential that was beyond what was granted and planned development.

I agree with Howard.

We need to have attainable housing, affordable housing.

It is critical.

I agree with you, Daniel.

I have three sons, they make good living, but they can't live here because we're get the same house for it.

So we have to work together for the entire community to solve it.

So but nothing has been built in the residential in the 20-something years that we've been here.

So uh it's time to start if that's where we want to do it.

The primary reason um that it was given from the beginning was that we would have another Siddle Mall.

It was mentioned tonight.

Well, I've been here long enough in 43 years that I don't want another Carolina Park on my watch.

And we get really talked about on about that that Carolina Park because we gave entitlements to people that today, every meeting somebody comes and complains about it, and they should.

Yeah, whether it's clear cutting different areas or whatever, and and I don't want that to be on my watch with with another one.

Uh we had meetings, many, many meetings, but some were fruitless at the first because of the 75 fee.

And I'm also mindful that if we give entitlements to other developers in town, many of which are locals, that we it must be in kind.

If what whatever we give, we need to see how we're receiving back something for the community.

That means something like green space.

That means something like community gathering places that I mentioned, some more.

That doesn't that means more trees, not less trees.

And so we have to be careful with the increased height density addition of the other hotels and the rest.

So I think we're all aware of the balancing of the impacts that we have here.

We need to balance them.

We're not fully balanced yet.

I think everybody on the council wants to find that balance.

We're just not we're just not there right now.

And uh it appears we need to have more deliberation.

I know it feels frustrating to people, it's frustrating to us too, but I think we need more because it if you think about it, there's not that many opportunities for us.

We got we have got a Carolina Park, we got a Patriots annex, we've got you know Mount Pleasant Way, let's say, we've got town center, which is dead center in the middle.

I think we all want to be so proud about it.

We say it's world class.

We all want that.

We just don't feel like it's there right this minute.

So for that reason I'll be voting to uh no.

Mr.

Is it women would anyone else like to speak?

You're good?

Okay, I have I have something to say as well.

Um be uh before we have a vote.

So to me the belt dispute is irrelevant.

Um I don't think that that that that does not impact my vote whatsoever.

What impacts my vote is what will be 7,000 square feet of office, 170,000 square foot of retail, 188 hotel units, and 300 more market rate apartment complexes, I mean apartment units.

In my mind, giving these entitlements with where there was a lot of if then could go here, could go here.

Could if this happens, then that happens.

It's so unclear as to what's actually gonna happen, what's actually going to get built, which parts of this are gonna happen.

But what I do know is that if all this is entitled into this property, this the valuation of this property goes up significantly.

Millions upon millions of dollars the valuation of this property, and what can you do with that?

You can leverage it, you can borrow it and you can buy your next property, right?

And that's what developers and investors do.

And so I am not comfortable giving the gift of hundreds of uh millions upon millions of dollars to a developer in exchange for a hundred affordable housing units.

When we have developers in our community who are building affordable housing, they're not trying to 10x their dollars here.

They're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, and they're still making a profit, and they're doing it without any government funding whatsoever.

And they're building affordable housing units in our community.

So I'm a no vote on this, and uh unless anyone else and we've all spoken.

So I think oh, Mr.

Rambo, sorry.

I just have to defend it.

Am I the only one that likes town center the way it is?

I mean we're talking about like there's cracks in it.

I it's not vibrant, it's vibrant every time I go here.

And I will say order, order, order, no clapping.

And I will say, um I town center staff does an amazing job.

It looks beautiful at Christmas time.

I love taking my kids to the shops and once again.

It's amazing.

I mean, I I don't see cracks and I'm good with the way it is.

All right.

So hi, we we've all spoken.

Do we want to keep going?

I just want to remind everybody the motion was to deny to deny.

So if you agree to deny, you're saying yes, yes.

I think we should um do roll just so everybody doesn't get confused.

Mr.

Brownstein.

Yes.

Mr.

Brownstein votes yes, Mr.

Chapman.

No.

Mr.

Chapman votes no.

Ms.

Hyatt, yes.

Ms.

Hyatt votes yes, Mr.

Ikafano.

Yes.

Mr.

Icofano votes yes, Mr.

Rambo, yes.

Mr.

Rambo votes yes, Mr.

Santos.

Yes.

Mr.

Santos votes yes.

Mr.

Tinky?

Yes.

Mr.

Tinky votes yes.

Miss Whitley.

Yes.

Miss Whitley votes yes.

So the seven to one motion pass.

Motion the motion to deny.

The motion to deny passes.

All right, moving and and so item number three, Mr.

Paglerini, since we denied the number two, do we still need to vote on item number three?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, move to deny.

We have a motion to deny.

We have a second.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All those in uh any further any discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

I item number three is denied.

Moving on to item number B one.

Uh move to defer.

We have a motion to defer.

Do we have a second?

We have a motion and a second to defer.

Is there any discussion?

All the oh, yes, Mr.

Chapman.

Um Mr.

Rambo, would you consider approval of the annexation?

But not approving the zoning.

And I say that because if we were to accept it as far as annexation goes and allow the owner to come back with the same zoning that's in the county, then it would be a part of the town.

With the same spacing of houses as the county is trying to work with, but we would be able to have our zoning issues, which I think are better than the counties.

Um as part of whatever changes are made.

So I so my understanding is if we annex it and don't make a zoning decision, it will automatically come in as community community conservation.

Um and currently it has like an agricultural uh type of zoning in the county.

Um and we do not have a matching agricultural RD.

So um you're correct, but we do have a have a comparable zoning.

So the applicant has requested community conservation.

Um outside of the urban growth boundary, our comp plan says that it should be RC2.

RC2 is uh very similar to the county's RR.

It's it's one unit per three acres.

So but what happens is because the future land use map for that whole area is settlement community.

And so if you if you approve the annexation and don't approve the zoning, they come in as CC anyway, which is what he is requ what what they are requesting.

Um they really it really needs to be RC, which is comparable to the county, but uh and I'll Mr.

Paglarini can clarify, but I don't I don't think you can uh you can uh uh assign a zoning that has not been requested.

Uh I think the applicant would have to request the RC in order to get the RC.

Does that make sense?

That's a correct statement.

So I well, I think if the applicant wants to come back with that, they can come back with that after we defer this.

Is that Mr.

Rambo?

It would have to go just for the record, it would have to go through public hearing and all that, and that's one of the reasons.

One of the reasons why council could not change the request as requested by the applicant at this go round.

But so thoughts on future may not apply to this one exactly, but can we not change our ordinance to where if a property is outside of the urban growth boundary that it automatically comes in as what is it RCT?

Yeah.

So how do we do that?

And can we do that?

That's a simple code change that we can do.

Like I think can it keep defer like defer this for several months, and then that would be in place, or that application occurred before that change.

We could do that.

Well, it's been submitted prior to the change.

Okay.

Um, however, it it could be resubmitted along, it could run parallel to any code changes that council would wish to make.

And that so the reality is it could all end up at the same place.

Correct me if I brought Mr.

Pregner.

I thought council could initiate rezonings of property without the owner's consent.

Council, why is this any different?

Because this one was this one was filed and requested by the applicant.

There has been no public hearing as to any zoning other than the proposed C C.

So pontificating.

We could essentially um annex the property and next month and not do a zoning.

And as soon as it's that's approved and it comes in as C C we could unilaterally at the very next month's meeting.

Zone it as a matter of procedure, yes, sir.

Yeah, I'm not saying we'll do that.

I'm just saying I'm trying to figure out the process.

Right.

That that is a correct statement as to the furry and get a plan together.

All right, we have a motion to defer.

Who is my second?

I was the second.

All right, we have Mr.

Iathathana seconded.

Is there any further discussion of this um annexation request?

Mr.

Tinkey?

Oh, yeah, I'll go.

Um, this one's a uh a quandary because you know, I think there is some sentiment that that um we would like some town control.

Oh, you want to call me over it.

Um and that our you know development standards may be in some ways superior to the county.

Um, but it's a massive what he's asking for is a massive upzoning.

Um we went to the um uh the 10 mile community meeting, Mr.

Tinky and I, and uh it's currently zoned as one unit per three acres, and and what this would be would be three units per one acre.

Um at the conclusion of that meeting, I spoke with some members of the the 10 mile community um as well as the the county planning staff, and they envision no scenario that those properties on the west side of 17 would be ever made any more dense than than one unit per acre.

Um and this is three times that.

And so, you know, I I think I think we need to to really clean up that future land use map for those properties outside of our urban growth boundary on the west side of of 17 and and um and and indicate that that those are um that's a rural um conservation area um because those coming in as C C would really disrupt um what the 10 mile community's vision is for for that area.

And I think there would also be some some big implications for Mount Pleasant residents because you're talking about potentially another um intersection there with 30 homes, if you had accessory structures, 60 homes, and and that's really not um in our best interest to to be growing um outside of our our urban boundary um with such density.

And I'm I'm not sure really without the the landowner's consent that there's much that we can do to change um what his application is.

Um and so you know, if if if left up to me, um, and the only choice is um annex and bring it in as as C C or not annex, I guess in this case I would fall on the on the side of not annexing and just leave it to, you know, he can build three or four houses on that property.

Um so that's kind of where my my head's at.

If you think that there are uh that there is a path forward to um to to give that an appropriate zoning, um I'm all for it.

Um but if if the choice is is uh kind of take it or leave it, I'm gonna say leave it.

Mayor Pro Tem.

Yes, maybe um I would offer that our next agenda item is final reading of our comp plan update, which includes a future land use map.

So it could be that final reading is made with an amendment to where the future land uses change for those properties outside of the urban growth boundary instead of coming back with a zoning ordinance change.

It's it's a roundabout way of accomplishing the same thing.

Um but it but that is a possibility um with the next agenda item.

Okay, but we could still defer defer this currently do that.

Okay, all right.

We have a motion.

Mr.

Tinkey.

No, I I attended the same meeting, and I I always have this saying, when in doubt, listen to the customer, and the customer are the people that live in the community.

The folks that have been living in the community a long time, whether they're residents of Mount Pleasant or the residents in the town we're talking about bringing them into the town, need to have their voices heard.

And they've been they've worked started working on this back with the first uh update of the comprehensive plan.

And we had a settlement community, uh settlement community commission.

And it then and then for the last three years I've learned I'm the new guy, so I'm learning all this.

But the uh for the last three years they've been working on this, and they're right at the cusp of working towards a final decision by July 2026.

Therefore, in my mind, it's important to listen to the customer, and the customer is asking us to honor their wishes to not step on what they're doing, but to honor their wishes that at least for now with the county wanting it to be one per three acres with the possibility it might go to no more than one per acre that we let that deliberation continue.

Uh and since we have a moratorium in place until 2026, I don't see any rush to work on it.

So I I would vote for a denial.

But I but that we're still got a motion on the table, so that would be my vote.

Mr.

Eggfana?

I I just think a lot was just thrown at us.

Um especially with changing talk about changing the um the comp plan or at this point.

Um I mean I would agree with Jake that that maybe this needs to be discussed.

I thought is this this is not part of the county um this this land is not in here with the with the uh moratorium.

It is it is in the uh the historic district.

That's okay.

Yes, and so it is subject to that moratorium.

Uh just not subject on the zoning part of things, right?

Right.

Once the moratorium were to expire, it would be zoned in a manner that's not consistent with the other properties in the county.

And a motion to deny gives them I mean I'm I'm I'm for mo I'm I'm for deferring this at this point to continue the conversation and I respect the community out there as well.

I I think we've gotta make sure that we make the right decision as well because the the county's gotta finish up what they're doing as w with this.

And we don't know which direction that really had it.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'd also like to note that uh I wouldn't be in favor of us voting to add on to the the the comprehensive plan without public input uh because that's such an important thing to do.

So I don't I would rather have us go through a parallel path of uh us adding this to the rezoning that hopefully would coincide with the June Jul July 2026 end of the moratorium and that maybe we'll be in the same place to be able to do it, and that could start next month to be able to do that instead of just um uh it it would be easy just to add add to it, but I would I'd rather not do that.

Okay, okay.

We have uh the the motion before us is to defer item B one, the annexation.

Is there any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I motion carries to defer and then item number what sorry.

I'm a guess.

Okay, so sorry, one no.

So to get item number two is also Mr.

Rambo, would you like to move to defer this one?

Oh yes, I'll move to defer item number two.

Item number two.

All those in favor?

Aye opposed.

All right, motion carries to defer.

Item number three, um, final reading and ordinance providing for a five-year update to the town of Mount Pleasant comprehensive plan.

Do I have a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

We have a motion to approve in a second.

Is there any discussion of this?

Yes, Mr.

Rambo.

I would like to make a motion to amend the five year update to the town of Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan uh to include that all properties outside of the urban growth boundary receive a future land use of RC RC2.

Second.

Uh can we see on the the map where that would apply?

Yeah, so the ur here we go.

The urban growth boundary runs along uh Darrell Creek Trail right here, and on the other side it's Theodore.

Yeah, Theodore.

So it comes down uh Darrell Creek Trail, and then it comes down Theodore.

So it so it would be the few properties outside of the urban growth boundary.

So that's the urban growth boundary.

And our previous zoning code, which you know we just adopted the new one, actually assigned properties outside of the urban growth boundary to be RC.

And somehow that didn't make it in.

And so that this is a very kind of an unusual situation.

We have new code, we have a new comp plan, and so but either way, we could we could look at it make a z making a zoning change and making this future land use change.

So okay.

And how many how many um property or how many houses per acre on that RC, I'm sorry?

So RC2 is the same as the R R in the county, so it's one per three.

One dwelling unit per three acres.

Okay.

Mr.

Dinky.

The only thing I would look at is undertened consequences.

I don't know enough about the unintended consequences of the how that would affect property owners in that area.

We certainly know how it would affect the uh ten mile Hamlin Beach uh, et cetera, but I don't know how it would affect the others.

And so uh conceptually I'm for it.

Conceptually I'm for it, but I'd rather uh have deliberation and know what the unintended consequences are.

Mr.

Amba.

Okay.

So correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll just gonna say what I think happens.

So if um first of all, if a property's already in the town of Mount Pleasant, it has a zoning.

So the future land use doesn't impact their current zoning, correct what they have currently.

It's lit it really just affects properties that are going to be annexed.

And are not requesting a specific and they're not requesting so if a property is outside the urban growth boundary currently and let's say they more line up with a CC type of zoning um with what they have in the county they can annex and request a C C and we can match that and say oh yeah you that's what's currently in the county so we'll give you CC as well it's just the it ends the loophole of um being able to annex and then we have to be in a position to deny because they get more density with us.

So so I don't I don't see a negative consequence so it protect so Michelle it protects them regardless is what Jake is saying.

Yeah and and he's correct so if somebody can come in and request a different zoning and it would be up to you all to approve it this would fix where it so tonight if you were to approve this annexation but deny the zoning based on the the the conditions we have right now it would still be CC so this would fix that sort of um default when there's a zoning denied or there's not a zoning requested outside of the urban growth boundary but anybody can come and request something other than and it does not change the current zoning outside of the urban growth boundary that's already in the town that's correct correct uh Mr.

Bagrini okay yes sir thank you for the clarification all right we have a motion to amend on the table and a second is there any further discussion on the amendment all those in favor opposed unanimously passes now we're on item number three the amended ordinance providing for a five year update do I have a motion to approval second we have a motion to approve and a second any discussion on this all those in favor aye aye any opposed motion carry two final reading ordinance number two five zero four two moving on to item nine a one Mr.

Rambo thank you I um Mr.

Rambo I could fill in some details if that's sir um we we participate in the Isle of Palms Connector run the organization that um is not for profit and donates the proceeds um uh to towards children typically donates to us or gives back to us $15,000 a year um and so they're asking for that money to be captured and not be given back to the town it was delivered as a favorable recommendation from finance committee for your consideration.

Yes so I'll um move to recommend to donate back the proceeds from that connector run for the child of them second we have a motion and a second we are in discussion I just have one question so historically we've the town has been given $15,000 is that just cover like police costs and like there's not a whole lot with law enforcement as far as costs it goes back towards our recreation program.

I see just a general revenue injection to support uh recreation but instead this would this in turn would be give it back to the organization to implement their purpose correct okay which is what you said give it to children but what children yeah so so this entire event is for the child the name of the not for profit is run for the children it's a child abuse yeah it's child abuse for yeah retention programs okay thank you all right um yeah just wanted to note this is money that we don't um budget for each year so it's not um you know it's not directly allocated to a specific um budget line item and also um the city of Iowa of Palms is um also giving back their their share of this um of these proceeds so for me to me it makes perfect sense uh let's you know push as much of that charitable money to to the actual charity um rather than um to the town okay and do we need a motion do we have for approval the motion of the motion okay we have a second okay all right we have a motion and a second apologies um uh any further discussion all those in favor aye any opposed motion carries unanimously moving on to item 10 a1 new business adoption of a resolution approving the card of fiscal year 2026 budget do I have a motion madam chairman I have to recuse myself okay move to approve second we have a motion to approve and a second we are in discussion is there any discussion yes madam chair just wanted to recognize um carta uh director Ron Mitchum is here in the audience tonight so if anybody has any questions about the Carta budget I'm sure he's willing to um answer your questions.

Thank you for being here and so patient as we get to this item um all right any further discussion Mr.

Tinke I was just wondering there's a significant item for proposed budget 2026 I'm not I'm new to this but it's for land and facilities construction of about eight and a half million dollars so just wondering what that was for and um sure Mr.

So I was just wondering what that was for.

And um Mr.

Mitch McCoy come answer the question.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir, councilman.

Uh we actually have a new transit center being constructed at Shipwatch Square, which is uh near the county's new human services facility uh next door to the library.

So that's part of that project.

We also have a uh parking ride facility being constructed at Mount Pleasant Street, interestingly enough, um, in downtown, which we expect to go to construction here shortly.

So those combined projects are what makes up that that number.

And uh it looks like you've uh have you switched the monies up the bus shelter construction charging stations.

Is that taking the place of that in your under capital revenues?

Yes, sir, a little bit.

Um you know, a lot of what shows up in the capital is what we are able to obtain through discretionary competitions, if you will, and right now some of those programs are on hold, so you see some adjustments there where we haven't been able to actually compete for dollars.

So our budget's a little bit complicated in the sense that we get federal funding that in many cases flows over multiple fiscal years.

So in the case of those facilities, we've actually been working on those.

We have to go through the environmental process, design process, etc.

Um, so it's uh it's always a little bit interesting um to try to explain why that number goes up and that number goes down, and sometimes what you'll see uh as Mr.

Brownstein can attest to is mid year we have to make budget adjustments because we've been able to obtain discretionary funds and now we can backfill our our shelter line item if you will, or sometimes it's it's other categories.

And the dramatic increase in revenues in 26 over 25 from 8.9 to 11.6.

That's for the county that's secure.

Well, it's yeah, there's a couple things going on there.

Um primarily uh increase in some federal funds, some discretionary funds that are starting to come into play.

Um so as you start to see those federal expenditures start to increase on the facilities, the actual revenues coming with it, and those facilities actually uh that construction period will run a little bit longer than the fiscal year, so it'll actually drag a little bit into next year's budget.

Sorry for the questions.

I'm new to this.

And the last two questions looks like you've got a million dollars coming into comprehensive operating analysis with a COA.

What what is that?

Yeah, so that's where we take a look at the entire system, and we do that from time to time, uh partly to look at how things have changed, and it's a lot of public engagement process, a lot of data analysis to figure out how we might need to adjust our routes and realign better with what the needs are.

Um the other aspect of it is unfortunately congestion increases out there, and so it makes it more and more difficult for us to keep a schedule and on time is important, on-time performance because people obviously, if they're looking at a schedule, trying to make it work, they need to know that if they get on the bus, they can get there in time to get to work.

So given that it's been about five years since we've done that, we've got to go in and adjust that so we can adjust those schedules so we can make those schedules more realistic and and get our on-time performance back where it needs to be.

And we typically shoot for 90% or above because there's always an accident out there any given day.

And so it's hard to be a hundred percent all day, but we we definitely need to be fairly close to that.

So we'll do be doing a lot of engagement in Mount Pleasant and across the the service area, talking to folks about what's working, what's not working.

I will tell you that while we've seen an upward trend post-COVID, going back to our our typical ridership, we're still not quite there.

So we do see that there have been some changes.

Um other aspect is we provide a lot of service related to MUSC.

Uh they have some parking rides, and some of those are being shifted.

So this gives us ability to figure out how we can better serve those and at the same time potentially serve some other customers along the way.

Well, thank you for your questions.

The last one we're very supportive of what you do, it's fantastic.

And uh it's one one of the solutions for affordable housing, uh, not necessarily affordable housing, but getting people back and forth to work is dependable routing.

And I know that's been difficult because the uh ridership has not been where you wanted it to be, but uh we're very supportive of it.

Hopefully, we can get more of that happening to get people back and forth to work dependably.

Absolutely, sir.

Thank you.

Appreciate y'all too much.

Appreciate your support.

Any other questions?

Nope.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to item number two, adoption of a resolution um regarding parts.

Do I have a motion?

Move to approve.

Second second.

We have a motion to approve and a second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Moving on to item number three, a resolution uh mutual aid agreement between town of Mount Pleasant and Anderson County Sheriff's Office.

Move to approve items three and four.

Second.

We have a motion to approve items three and four and a second.

Is there any discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion carry any opposed?

Motion carries unanimously.

Moving on to item number five.

Move to approve.

We have a motion to approve.

Second.

We have a second.

We are in discussion.

Is there any discussion on this motion?

I have some discussion.

That's that's a very large amount of money.

I was just curious what uh do we know how the rates have gone up over the over the years.

So we have any so I'll uh Mr.

Emmer, what didn't you?

I would like to invite uh Alan Clum, who's the general manager as our commissioner.

Mount Pleasant Waterworks to uh come up and answer any questions anybody has can you restate your question for some mayor pro Tim, thank you for having us, Council.

Appreciate it.

Alan Clum, General Manager of Mount Pleasant Waterworks.

I have Mark Coffin.

I thought he was right behind me.

Mark Coffin, my CFO as well to answer any questions.

Uh we'll open up with this statement.

We've heard quality of life mentioned several times tonight, and you're dealing with transportation issues, you are dealing with housing issues, those are real issues that impact quality of life.

To me, there is nothing more important than water.

Water equals quality of life of any community, and certainly uh I feel Mount Pleasant Waterworks has done excellent job managing our resources and providing that water quality that we all know is so critical uh for MPW and Mount Pleasant.

Mr.

Ikefano.

I I was I did sit in the audience um during the committee meeting.

I guess what are the big projects that are happening with this?

Excellent question.

So there are this uh sixty million dollars not to exceed a bond issuance.

Uh five major projects, one of them is a fleet maintenance facility uh that will internalize a lot of our fleet maintenance and operations.

We have roughly 150 uh vehicles rolling stock.

Uh two projects will be for force main replacement, very large uh wastewater transmission lines.

One goes through the midtown and one down Coleman.

So uh very important infrastructure that quite frankly is at the end of its life, so 30-year lifespan on Duckdale Iron Pike, and with this wastewater transmission line, um, it has exceeded its lifespan.

Uh council, probably the most important project to me, the one I am most excited about is a 20 million dollar uh project to replace a deep well.

Um, as you know, we receive water from groundwater, that is our major source in Mount Pleasant Waterworks.

We also purchase water, surface water.

Um, but the groundwater uh that we use um it has become stressed with additional users in our region.

Uh this new project, this 20 million dollar project, we will drill into an aquifer that no one in our region has drilled in before.

So we we will be the only users in that aquifer.

Um it is my hope that this will provide the future drinking water for Mount Pleasant Waterworks.

So a very historical time for our community.

Um, this well has an expected lifespan of a hundred years, so a very important investment for Mount Pleasant Waterworks as well as the town of Mount Pleasant.

Those are the five projects not to exceed 60 million dollars.

And the other Madam Chairman, yes, Mr.

I just like to add for Mr.

Akifa in particular.

I've sat on meetings at the council of government, and I've sat on meetings where the which used to be DH, it's now the um environmental services agency.

The fact that we are going to have an aquifer all to ourselves is huge.

If we did the 60 million dollars just for that, it'd be worth a hundred years of water for the town because if you look at some of the businesses that have come in here and pulled water from some of the aquifers within our region, it really to me makes no sense.

I mean, it's good to have more businesses come in, but when they're base basically stealing water from residents in the area, it's critical.

It's critical.

So um I just wanted to point that out, and I I didn't want to steal uh Mr.

Clum's um second, but it is so important to me, having seen what happens on the floor of the council of government and what what happens with environmental services, and where we don't have to talk to anybody once this comes to fruition is huge for the residents of Mount Pleasant.

Um I have a question.

Other than raising rates on users, how what is your revenue source to pay the 60 million dollars back?

So the only option for Mount Pleasant Waterworks to fund itself is through rates.

We was we receive very little, if any federal or state funding.

We do through grants occasionally, but we receive no yearly income uh from the federal government or through the state.

So it is strictly driven by rates of our users.

Okay.

So how many users are there in Mount Pleasant?

We roughly uh 35 to 40,000 meters, water meters.

Okay.

So 35 to 40,000 water meters and 60 million dollars.

What is that impact going to be on my I guess I'm just wondering my water bill is whatever it is, 100 dollars a month, 120 dollars a month.

What's it gonna become?

So so wonderful uh question.

Um our average rate player roughly pays uh around 107 to 115 dollars a month.

That is right in the middle when we look at our sister utilities in the Tri-County area, we fall right in the middle um for a fee, a monthly fee, which I'm very proud of, certainly considering uh that our mean family uh income along with housing does not fall right in the middle.

Um so I'm very happy that we're able to maintain rates, um, what I would consider very competitive rates.

Um so how does it impact my rates?

That's a question that I can tell you are struggling with.

Um, every year our commissioners set the rates.

So every year we look at expenses and we determine that.

So it is not determined um for 10 years at a row, right?

So we don't have I can't tell you what the rate will be next year.

I can tell you uh that we model and forecast those rates for 10 years in advance.

So we certainly have a model.

In the model we plug in, because obviously you have to have some numbers to fill the model.

Uh we use a five percent inflation rate.

Um that has held pretty true for the last several years.

We actually adjusted it down from eight recently.

Um so that is a tough question to ask.

What will the rates be in three years?

Um, because every year we look at it, we look at expenses, we look at the cost of doing business, and our commissioners set those rates yearly.

Um but again, I will tell you that we fall right in the middle of the tri-county area.

And then my second question is is every single one of these five projects absolutely vital to the future of water in Mount Pleasant?

In my opinion, absolutely.

All right, then it's and not only the future next year, but the future for the next hundred years.

Uh, these are monumental projects as uh Councilman Chapman referenced.

This is a big deal.

We've been working with USGS, we've been working with DES.

Um, we have a lot of partners that are supporting our efforts to move to the Grambling Aquifer.

Thank you.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to to thank you and the waterworks folks for taking care of the children's memorial outside of your business.

Um every time I go by there it just kind of wells wells up a little bit that these kids are are are not forgotten and that you guys uh you know honor them by putting their their names and all that little bricks.

So I've been meaning to tell you that for a while, but thank you very much.

Thank you.

It's been a good partnership with the town as well.

Yes.

Yeah.

All right.

I just have more questions.

We're the computer system is actually kicking us out.

But um we're past our time.

But the um I forget uh on that aquifer, just out of curiosity.

Uh is that ours for a hundred years, or what's the I mean so so different than uh you know, kind of entitled rights uh type discussion.

So DES will issue a permit for us.

We will be the only user in that aquifer, and through conversation um right now that will be unrestricted use for us as we need it for our town.

Um council in a hundred years, will there be other people in that aquifer uh with the pressures on the water?

I never thought I would say this in South Carolina, South Carolina resident all of my life.

Um we live in a very water rich environment, as you know.

If you would have asked me 20 years ago, would we ever have water quantity issues in our state?

My response would have been not likely.

Uh, we're seeing that today with the growth that our state has seen.

Um, in a hundred years, do I expect other users to be in that aquifer?

Absolutely.

I am hopeful that that by by that time we are looking at water reuse, water recycling, um, direct potable reuse.

Uh, all of these concepts that you and I today would think are futuristic uh will have to be employed to solve our water challenges.

Mr.

Pinky.

Last one.

Um when do you anticipate it coming online?

So we would like to start um with approval of the bond issuance.

We would like to start drilling uh first of the year.

And I suppose we buy water from Charleston County now, so there should be a difference between what we pay and and we receiving 100% of the revenue, so there would be some subsidy at other words money back to the town for the spread there.

So we currently have a long-term uh contract, 30-year contract to purchase six million gallons of surface water per day.

It would be my hope as general manager of Mount Pleasant Waterworks that we only purchase six million gallons a day going forward.

Um and that we can make up additional supplies uh from other resources.

It's a very good relationship we have uh with Charleston Water.

Um it allows for a lot of redundancy in our system and resiliency of our system.

It is a good partnership.

Um but moving forward, I hope that we only purchase six million gallons a day.

Only the last comment and uh 31 years ago when I was on Hilton Hood, they were having serious problems with their water, and I think they still are so uh it's good we get in front of this because uh you think that they would be in great shape too, but they're not and so this this is a wonderful thing to at least get a deep well and start to build some more resilience uh for us ourselves.

Thank you.

All right, we have um a motion and a second on the table.

Is there anyone else would like to comment?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries unanimously first reading ordinance number two five zero four five.

Moving to item B1, final reading, an ordinance to amend the riding e-bikes on sidewalks, and I believe the main change here is to increase this speed limit from ten to fifteen miles per hour.

Is that correct?

Move to approve approved.

Yes, second.

And that I think there's a second aspect, it also allows um the police department to ticket juveniles um for violating it.

Okay, so ticketing and the speed limit.

Yeah, we're in discussion.

I I think it's a prudent, very prudent uh um move to go to the 15.

Uh we don't want to in the very litigious uh society we have today.

Bikes can go fairly fairly quickly, and they they would they're being penalized as well if you had an accident and they could look at your meter.

I mean, it could be uh you could lose the lawsuit.

I think the 15 mile is a reasonable amount when I bike.

Um I probably are am about 15 miles an hour, and even with my advanced age.

So I think that uh it worked uh the 15 is a reasonable uh limit, and I I think it puts us out of the a little bit out of the range of uh litigation.

Ms.

Hyatt go ahead.

Sorry, go ahead.

Ladies first.

Well, when I was I thought the point of riding on the sidewalks was really for the for the kids' safety.

That anybody that's a professional bike rider, hobby adult bike rider would be riding in the street.

And any information I've looked at, kids ride at an average of like nine miles an hour.

So I thought the point of this was to protect the pedestrians but allow children to be safely on the sidewalk.

So I was comfortable with 10 miles an hour.

15 sounds a little high to me.

Um, if we want to protect pedestrians that are walking by.

So um I was comfortable with where we had our ordinance.

That's 15 miles an hour sounds a lot like a lot, and that's what people are complaining about that these e-bikes are zooming down the sidewalk too fast for people that are walking.

Yeah.

Mr.

Santos?

That's exactly right.

Uh, if you go down to town center, well, previously before I uh I notified our police department what was going on and and they they started um uh going around and catching these kids, but they're popping wheelies, they're going up on the sidewalks.

You got older people who are out walking and it scares them half to death.

So there has to be something, some way of uh of being able to control that.

And um and and we need to do it because if when if you go over there and watch them, they you know they they really just are are flying through there and and it's a lot of the older people are scared to death about it.

So um I'm I'm glad that we're doing something about it because it we need to make sure that it you know our police have an opportunity to be able to do something for these kids that did recklessly driving around like that.

Just real quick.

Yeah, thank you.

I I mean I agree with Mike.

I mean I go on a beach cruise, there's thirteen miles an hour just softly pedaling.

And that's that's not that fast.

I mean, it's it's just not.

And I do think we have it to add a uh an amendment to that that uh uh we would need to do the same thing for the bicycle portion of the ordinance because the bicycle portion of the ordinance, this is riding e-bikes on sidewalks.

The bicycle portion of the ordinance uh states at 10 too, and I think they should be equivalent.

They both should be 15.

Um I think it's interesting this is sidewalk or shared use path.

So shared use path would mean like the Mount Pleasant Way, is that correct?

Yeah, because I would think it I think it would actually should be different, like a sidewalk is different than a shared use path, a 10-foot path with bikes and people you should be able to go 15 miles per hour, but a sidewalk, I don't think you should.

I think there needs to be a little more nuance here to make a lot of people.

I'm the same way.

I like the e-bikes and all that, but not on the sidewalks, especially when you're doing it in a place where you have elderly people walking around.

I mean, I can jump out the way, but but they can't.

And so I uh that's you know, I'm okay with it as long as we have sidewalk in there.

Should we send this back to committee for more consideration?

Or do you want to just amend it and or just vote on it?

This is final reading, yes.

Um I'm willing to uh have a motion for an amendment that it's 10 miles an hour on the sidewalk and 15 miles an hour on the shared paths.

Okay.

We have a we have a motion to amend to be um second.

We have a motion second, we are in an amendment.

The amendment is to be 10 miles an hour for a sidewalk and 15 miles per hour for a shared use path.

And can I clarify?

Yes, Mr.

Ram.

Um is that amendment for e-bikes and bicycles?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, so the minute is for e-bikes and bikes.

Just real quick.

How is a sidewalk not a shared use path?

I mean, where's the argument?

That's sidewalk.

I mean they're the same width.

Shared use, right?

Sidewalk shared use.

Well, they're distinct in the ordinance.

So they must have different definitions.

This is gonna be a long side.

I'm not gonna I I have to defer to the chief as to how they enforce that.

But yes, obviously, sidewalks are uh I don't know if the width is different.

Um Brad.

Shared use and shared use shared use.

For the transportation industry, if you design a what you call a multi-use path or something like that.

It is specific for minimum, so it's like eight feet or ten feet.

So it's different on the sidewalk in that it's it's designed to have uh those different users.

Um you're gonna go put signs on all the sidewalks determining which one's shared use and which one isn't.

Well, it's kind of like maybe it's like bourbon and all right.

I mean I just sidewalks or walking the track.

There's a lot of parts of town that the roads are thin enough.

I don't I don't know.

I think this is I think that's part of the problem we have with doing this.

We have very different widths of sidewalks, very different widths of that, and one's running into another, and our goal, our big goal in is to have uh Mount Pleasant Way have connectivity all through the town and make it really easy, but it's just not that way right now.

So you have these different widths throughout, and um I think it it should be consistent.

Madam Chair.

Yes, I I agree with Mr.

Tinky.

I think it's it's overcomplicating it.

I in some in some areas there's you know paths or you know, asphalt paths that are the width of sidewalks, and so I'm I'm just not sure.

Um having a different speed limit for each width of or type of of path or sidewalk uh is gonna allow the police department to really do do anything.

So I I would just say keep it consistent uh for now.

And I I and I do I I do think that um juveniles on bikes or e-bikes ought to be able to to use sidewalks and bike paths.

Um otherwise you're pushing them into some dangerous situations in our town, um right or places like that where on the road.

Is that um well I could amend by amendment I uh to match the recommendation of our biking representative in the audience to 12 miles an hour if so 12 miles uniformly, yeah.

I was trying to differentiate, but there was a recommendation from the audience that that twelve miles an hour would be more reasonable than ten, and then that would be consistent if Mr.

If the second would also amend the second oh yeah, should make it consistently twelve.

So the amendment now on the table is just twelve miles an hour but uniform.

So we have a motion to amend to twelve.

Does that include the bike the bicycle portion of yeah?

E-bikes and okay.

We have a motion to amend to twelve miles an hour for e-bikes and bicycles on sidewalks and shared use paths.

So it's uniform for all forms of bicycles to twelve miles an hour.

Um is there any further discussion of this amendment?

Yeah, just one more thing.

Um is there any way that we can somehow take like like shopping centers and stuff out of that where people are walking and and so these kids that are riding up and down through the sidewalks, it's just dangerous for them.

And I so I don't I don't care if they ride on the street or or the sidewalk where there's where there's nobody around, but go to town center and watch them and flying down the sidewalks and you've got older people down there to scare the heck out of them.

So I I mean that that's all I want.

Just if we can do it in a place where there's people walking and all that, you know, let them let them be out in the street, you know, going, but not on the sidewalks.

This pertains to our public sidewalks whereas shopping center would be private property right so that wouldn't be what we would regulate.

So I think the I think the private property just like uh some places have no skateboarding signs, I think that would be up to town center to make the call like say no e-bikes in town center kind of situations.

I think that would be up to the private entity.

Okay so we have the motion on the table.

We have a second for the amendment to twelve miles an hour.

Is there any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Any opposed no's are Mr Brownstein, Mr Akafano and Mr Tinky.

So we have so the motion carries um five to three.

Um against 12 miles on that and so the so the amendment so now we have a final reading on the amended ordinance for riding e-bikes on sidewalks.

I have one thing sorry I was just gonna tell chief I'll be on Mathis Ferry tomorrow, right?

My beach cruiser if you want to write me a ticket for doing 13 miles an hour 2 p.m I will be on Mathis ferry doing 13 miles an hour.

Well you're a wrong man you can't be on the sidewalk just you're not with a child please riding the road no I can be because there's not a bike lane children under the age of 17 and any adults accompanying the children.

You've got to be and you have to have a bike lane available somewhere in here.

I'll be getting a ticket tomorrow.

I look forward to seeing you all right come on guys let's wrap this up.

Here we go we've got final reading an ordin of a of the amended ordinance to um entitled riding e-bikes on sidewalk so I have a motion to approve so moved I think we already was already a motion on the table.

Apologies so motion and second any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye any opposed no Mr Akafana votes no motion carries seven to one.

Final reading ordinance number two five zero three six and if there's nothing further to come before us I declare this meeting adjourned.

That's that's what hold it on last time I've got to get