Mount Pleasant Tourism Development Fee Controversy
On December 3, 2024, after returning to town following the Special Council Meeting, I began looking into concerns about a proposed 1% Tourism Development Fee – essentially a new local sales tax to support a massive tourism enhancement effort and convention center complex at Patriot’s Point – that appeared to be fast-tracked with little public notice. Questions arose about why a special council meeting and a special commission meeting had been called, bypassing normal protocols of commission and committee review. I promised the public that I would investigate to ensure transparency and accountability. As part of this effort, I immediately worked to notify residents about what appeared to be a forced tax that had been advanced with minimal public awareness or discussion.
Over four months later, my FOIA request for documents was returned, and the records revealed that Mayor Will Haynie had been actively involved in discussions related to this tax since early 2024. The rushed rollout provoked intense community backlash, an apologetic reversal by the mayor, and renewed calls for transparency and governance reform. Below is a timeline of key events and an analysis of how the process unfolded, highlighting accountability issues and the need for reforms.
Early 2024: Initial Discussions and Lack of Public Engagement
In January 2024, records show that Mayor Haynie and key stakeholders began discussions regarding the conceptual drawings and direction for Patriots Point Tourism Expansion and Convention Center. A meeting was held that included multiple stakeholders, laying the groundwork for the eventual proposal. Despite this early planning, there was no public engagement, and these discussions were not held before Town Council or reviewed in committees at this stage.
Email records from March 18, 2024,
”I have asked Eric to have 4 copies of a state law brought to you by first thing tomorrow. I need them for my lunch meeting. Will Haynie Mayor, Town of Mount Pleasant”
Town Staff Reply:
“The Local Option Tourism Development Fee?? I have it.”
Show that Mayor Haynie requested copies of the state law authorizing a local Tourism Development Fee and obtained a detailed overview of its provisions. This law (South Carolina’s Local Option Tourism Development Fee Act) allows eligible municipalities to impose a 1% sales tax for tourism promotion, either by a two-thirds supermajority vote of council or via referendum. Mount Pleasant met the statutory criteria to adopt this tax, and Haynie’s request in March indicates he was actively researching the idea months before it was made public.
During this period, the tax proposal was never brought to Town Council committees or community workshops. The planning was happening within a limited group, with no evidence that other council members or the public were aware that a new 1% sales tax was under consideration. This set the stage for a sudden introduction later in the year.
August 8, 2024: Meeting with Town Administrator
On August 8, 2024, Town Administrator requested a meeting with me to discuss a Patriots Point Tourism Enhancement and Convention Center. During this meeting, I was shown a conceptual drawing related to a possible project, but no details regarding the scope, funding, or implementation timeline were provided. This was my first exposure to any visual representation of the project. After that meeting, I received no follow-up communication or updates on the matter.
The next time I saw any type of proposal or concept other than me seeing a drawing on a wall on August 18th was when a binder was placed in my council mailbox during Thanksgiving week – while I was out of town with my family. I cannot speak for the rest of the council, but I believe many may have experienced the same lack of communication leading up to the special meeting.
October 2024: Internal Coordination and Expedited Timeline
By fall 2024, efforts to move forward with the tax accelerated. On October 22, 2024, internal emails obtained via FOIA show that the Mayor and top staff were coordinating a rapid timeline for the Tourism Development Fee rollout.
10/22/2024 Town Staff Email “Good morning Brett, I am reaching out to set up a meeting with you and other Commission members and to also discuss a special meeting date for the Planning Commission related to the meeting you had yesterday with the Mayor and Eric. Happy to hop on the phone and chat if it is easier to discuss.”
10/22/2024 Town Staff Email “Brett, Based on our conversation we will tentatively plan for a meeting with staff, yourself, vice chair and Ms. Ireland for either November 11 or 12. We will also start to target the week of December 2nd for the public hearing. The date of the public hearing must be determined and the ad sent to the paper by November 15th to run on November 18th, depending on the final determination of the hearing date. We will discuss these dates internally and I will be back in touch so that you can reach out to Garrett and Pam.”
The plan to move forward at a rapid pace with a select few was now evident.
November 8, 2024: Heads Up Email of Special Council Meeting
Mayor Haynie unilaterally called the Special Council Meeting, as only he or three council members could do so. Despite the project’s significance and tax implications, council members received minimal information, with no prior briefing or debate.
On November 8, 2024, an email announced the Patriots Point project would be presented at the December 2 meeting, confirming the Mayor set the agenda without broader council input. Almost $100,000 was spent on design without full council oversight or public awareness. Critical binders were distributed just a week before the meeting—when many were out of town—underscoring the lack of transparency and the rushed decision-making process.
December 4, 2024: Continuing to Rush the Process
December 4, 2024, another email from town staff suggested urgency in finalizing decisions:
“Good morning, Mayor and Council. We are looking to have a special Council meeting on Friday, January 3, 2025, at noon for final reading of the ordinances that had first reading on Monday with respect to Patriots Point. Please let me know as soon as possible if you have a conflict with that date and time. Thank you!”
The records indicate that this process was directed by the Mayor rather than the Town Council as a whole. According to these internal communications, Mayor Haynie set deadlines and convened key meetings. The plan had not been vetted in any public forum. Several council members later indicated they had little knowledge of the details until just before the proposal became public. By bypassing the normal committee process and advancing directly to hearings and votes, the Mayor’s office exercised significant control over the timeline and information flow. This raised concerns about transparency and governance.
These emails further underscored the sense of urgency placed on the process, raising additional concerns about whether critical decisions were being pushed forward too quickly without thorough discussion or adequate time for public input.
Despite the significance of the project and the tax implications, the information provided to council members was minimal. No comprehensive briefing, discussion, or debate was held before the Special Council Meeting.
This email confirmed that the Special Council Meeting and its agenda items were set by the Mayor, reinforcing concerns that the process was controlled by a small group without broader council input. Additionally, upwards of $100,000 was spent on the design without full council oversight or public awareness. The fact that binders with critical information were only distributed a week before the meeting—when many were out of town—further highlighted the lack of transparency and the rushed nature of the decision-making process.
Investigating the Need for Governance Reforms
As I continued piecing together the timeline, it became evident that structural changes in how Mount Pleasant’s government operates are necessary to prevent rushed decisions like this from happening again. The following governance reforms should be implemented:
Does the Mayor Need the Authority to Call Special Council Meetings?
Under current rules, only the Mayor can call a Special Council Meeting unilaterally, while it would require at least three council members to do so otherwise. This raises important questions:
- Is this authority intended for emergency situations only, or has it been used to bypass standard processes?
- Should a single official have the ability to control the timing and urgency of council decisions without broader input?
- Does allowing the Mayor to call Special Council Meetings accelerate decision-making at the expense of transparency?
In the case of the Patriots Point project, the Special Council Meeting was scheduled with limited notice, with critical information only arriving to council members a week before the meeting. This significantly reduced the ability of the council and the public to properly review, discuss, and provide feedback. This situation demonstrates the need to evaluate whether Special Council Meetings should require more oversight, justification, or limitations on their use.
Committees of the Whole for Greater Transparency
Currently, Town Council relies on smaller committees to review and discuss policies before they are brought before the full council. However, major issues—such as tax proposals—should involve all council members from the start. Establishing Committees of the Whole for key areas that the council is elected to make decisions representing the people on: Finance, Planning, Transportation, and Police/Judicial/Legal (PJL) would ensure that all council members participate in policy discussions from the beginning, preventing any one group or individual from controlling the process.
First Reading with Amendments, Second Reading Finalized
A significant issue in the Tourism Development Fee process was how last-minute changes and rushed approvals were allowed to happen. To prevent this, Mount Pleasant should adopt a structured two-reading amendment process:
- First Reading: Council members may propose and debate amendments to fine-tune proposals before moving forward.
- Second Reading: No further amendments are allowed—only a straight up-or-down vote is taken.
Conclusion
The more I investigated, the clearer it became that this was not a transparent process. A year’s worth of private planning culminated in a rushed, eleventh-hour push that ignored the principles of open governance, and it backfired spectacularly. Mayor Haynie’s attempt to implement the tax without broad buy-in not only failed, but it also galvanized the community and reform-minded officials to insist on better governance.
Going forward, Mount Pleasant’s leaders must ensure that significant decisions are made with the people, not for them behind closed doors. The demand from the community is clear: no more surprises – transparency and good governance must come first.
Skip to PDF content Skip to PDF content Skip to PDF content Skip to PDF content Skip to PDF content Skip to PDF content
