TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Municipal Complex, Conference Room 103

Member Present: Paul Gawrych, Chair, Joe Bustos, Kruger Smith, Larry Carr
Also: Thomasena Stokes-Marshall
Staff: Mac Burdette, Colleen Jernigan, Christiane Farrell

Mr. Gawrych called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m.
1. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Bustos made a motion to approve the minutes from the previous meeting. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All were in favor.

2. Review of agreement for Mount Pleasant Waterworks Snowden project SRS Grant Application
Mr. Paul Trouche stated that this is a $2 million project, to address the needs of the Snowden community. Currently there are several hundred households on septic tanks. Funding will be done through the state revolving fund. The loan agreement is in process and the Mount Pleasant Waterworks hopes to have it available prior to the next Council meeting. He reiterated that this project was being done to get the homes off of septic tanks.

Mr. Carr made a motion to recommend to full Council that they adopt the proposed ordinance. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Mr. Smith stated that when Town Council had their joint meeting with Charleston County Council there was a lot of discussion about the Waterworks and afterwards a lady from the six mile area stated that she thought that she could hook into the line if it were by her home. He stated that he told the lady that she was correct and she indicated that Mount Pleasant Waterworks suggested that she had to buy a grinder pump. Mr. Smith stated that he was only suggesting that if Mount Pleasant Waterworks is doing this for Snowden then they need to take a look at other areas.

Mr. Burdette stated that it was an issue of gravity flow.

Mr. Pierce stated that it was based upon the geographical lay of the land.

Mr. Burdette added that the only other issue would be if it were a force main which it could not be tied directly into. He stated that is not the case for Snowden.

Mr. Bustos asked if after the grinder pumps are bought, does the Water Commission offer maintenance on those pumps.

Mr. Smith stated that he understood this to be a bigger grinder pump.
Mr. Bustos stated that if it would not flow by gravity the individual has to put a grinder pump in so it would force it down.

Mr. Pierce added that if the individual were to sign a maintenance agreement then Waterworks will maintain it for them.

Mr. Gawrych called for the vote. All were in favor.

3. Valuation for abandonment of right of way on Happyland Street and Debbie Street
Mr. Burdette stated that when there is an issue of an abandonment of right of way the procedure is to place some type of value on that right of way because it does belong to the public. He added that the Planning Department normally does that based on an assessed value per lot in the area and then they take a look at how many square feet are in the right of way and do the calculations. The Finance Committee normally looks at this and makes a recommendation to Council to set the value for Council to consider and that also is published as part of the public hearing that the Town holds for any consideration of abandonment. He stated that staff will also go to the Transportation Committee to ask the question, is there a known public interest in the right of way, so that will also be known at the time the public hearing is held. Mr. Burdette indicated that based on the value of the area, the value would be $13,172.00. He stated that this is not fair market value, obviously, an acre of land for residential could be anywhere from $40,000 to $180,000 depending on which piece of property it was.

Ms. Farrell stated that the value is based on the sales price. This property was purchased in 2004 and staff based the value on what the developer paid for the land and broke it down into a per acre value which is how staff arrived at the $13,172.00.

Mr. Burdette stated that if an appraisal of the property was done he was sure it would be worth more then $13,172 per acre.

Ms. Farrell stated that this was the MUSC property.

Mr. Smith asked if at some point roads would be put in.

Ms. Farrell responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Smith asked if this was more of a swap.

Ms. Farrell responded in the affirmative and added that the applicant was asking for abandonment of portions of two roads, one being Happyland Street and the other being Debbie Street. The portion of Debbie Street would be entirely incorporated into the development and be developed into lots. She added that Happyland Street was the right of way that the Whitehall Terrace residents had concerns as to the access. Interconnectivity will still be provided back to Happyland Street through the emergency access only but they have to work around the trees, and are going to have to curve the street.

Mr. Smith stated that he was surprised that there was not a requested swap of land as opposed to abandonment.

Ms. Farrell stated that from the time the applicant submitted the impact assessment they requested the abandonment.

Mr. Smith made a motion to recommend to Council that the abandonment value of the property would be $13,172. Mr. Bustos seconded the motion.

Mr. Bustos asked what was going to be done with the land on Debbie Street. He asked if it were going to be added to the lots.
Ms. Farrell responded in the affirmative. She stated that she had a sketch plan of Lieben Park and how it would be redeveloped. She added that Debbie Street will become portions of lots.

Mr. Bustos stated that if he understood correctly this is being added to those lots, therefore, the sales price would correspond to whatever the lot sales price is.

Mr. Burdette stated that he did not want anyone to think that staff said that the lots are going to be $13,000 per acre. That goes back to what the raw land was bought for per acre. Staff has always used a very low assessment method when looking at rights of way. He stated that probably the only true way of doing this is to hire an appraiser and go out and appraise the value of that right of way. Then it comes down to trying to determine what the value really is because it is not big enough to be a lot, it is being added to other lots.

Mr. Bustos stated that if the developer is selling that lot for some amount of money per square foot and if the Town is adding X number of square feet to the lot; which, the developer is going to sell, it is going to come up to some certain price and if the Town has added to at least a half dozen lots it seems that it would be more then $13,000.

Mr. Burdette stated that is why he wanted to address this because it always seems to become confusing as to how to place a value on the property.

Mr. Gawrych asked how many lots this would impact.

Ms. Farrell indicated that it was approximately 62 dwelling duplex units.

Mr. Gawrych stated that he was asking about the particular piece of property being discussed.

Ms. Farrell stated that on Debbie Street it runs over five different lots. She added that on Happyland it was more of a tree issue and instead of coming straight down they are moving Happyland Street over to the left.

Mr. Burdette stated that it was Council’s interest in closing Happyland Street to emergency access only. He added that if someone were in the developers position they may ask why they should pay for a right of way as they do not care if it was closed or not.
Mr. Bustos stated that he does not have a problem with Happyland Street but it is Debbie Street that he is not sure about.

Mr. Burdette stated that the developer is definitely going to create value out of subdividing this tract. He added that by abandoning the right of way to the developer the lots will receive more value. He added that as to determining what the value of that property is, staff is not qualified to do that. Mr. Burdette stated that if the Committee wanted to find out what that value is they would need to hire an appraiser. The Town has never done that, they have always used this method, but staff can use any method which Council would like for them to. He reiterated that the Town is not selling a right of way, that can not be done. The Town is considering abandonment for a consideration that basically says the Town is giving up the public’s interest in this piece of property and in exchange for that public interest the developer is going to compensate the public with a consideration, which in this case is money. There could be several ways for this to be done.

Mr. Smith asked if the Town was required by law to offer the property to the two adjacent property owners.
Mr. Burdette stated that if the property did abut then the Town is required to do so.

Mr. Smith asked if that had been done.

Ms. Farrell indicated that the applicant was the only property owner.
Mr. Gawrych indicated that that was the normal procedure.
Mr. Carr stated to clarify, the vacant lots that abut the gray space on the map the Committee received are owned by the same applicant. He added that he agrees with the opinions that Mr. Bustos has expressed. But, he stated that he feels this land has value to this applicant that exceeds $13,000 per acre.

Mr. Gawrych asked if Mr. Carr would be interested in pursuing an appraisal.

Mr. Carr stated that the problem is that there is a certain point at which the price of the appraisal starts to out weigh the additional benefit to the public.

Mr. Burdette stated that there is nothing that stops the Town from negotiating with the developer.

Mr. Carr asked if it was possible to find a pocket park of a similar size that would benefit this area of Town and find that there is a better benefit to the public then collecting $13,000. He stated that he is not necessarily proposing that.

Ms. Farrell stated that part of the applicants open space does incorporate Debbie Street. She added that the applicant was required to have 1.5 acres in open space and he provided 2.25 acres of open space. She reiterated that there is a portion of Debbie Street that is incorporated in that.

Mr. Burdette stated that the only thing he feels can be done is to go to the applicant and find out what value he is going to place on those individual lots and then it becomes a matter of computing how many square feet are in the lots and what portion of that is Debbie Street. Then they could arrive at the figure by doing simple mathematics. Mr. Burdette indicated that that was one way of doing it and if the applicant accepted that then fine and if not then the Town does not have to abandon it.

Mr. Bustos stated that he felt that for an acre in Mount Pleasant $13,000 is not much.

Mr. Burdette stated that he felt Mr. Young would tell the Committee that the applicant would not receive the title to the land but he would receive a quick claim deed, which is not the same as owning the property.

Mr. Carr stated that his expectation would be that when the applicant sells the lot to the next person he is going to provide them a general warranty deed.

Mr. Burdette stated that there is value and staff did not want to argue that, the question is how does the Committee want staff to arrive at what that value is without going to an appraisal.
Mr. Gawrych stated that the applicant was in attendance and he felt the applicant could share some comments with the Committee.
Mr. James Streetman stated that he just had an appraisal of the property done and he would be pleased to share that with the Town. The appraisal was done a month and a half ago. He added that the appraisal came in at approximately $30,000 per acre.

Mr. Gawrych asked if Mr. Streetman could get that information to staff and the Committee could address this matter prior to the Council meeting on Tuesday night.

Mr. Smith withdrew his motion. Mr. Bustos withdrew his second.
Mr. Gawrych indicated that the motion was withdrawn and he asked the applicant to get the information to staff so that the Committee could review it and address this prior to the Council meeting Tuesday night.

Mr. Streetman asked if this was going to be deferred or would it be addressed at the Council meeting.

Mr. Gawrych stated that he would call a special Finance Committee meeting prior to the Council meeting so they could address it then and pass it on to Council that night.

Mr. Bustos stated that there were a couple of items that he would like to ask questions about for the next meeting.

Mr. Carr stated that prior to leaving the last item he wanted to asked staff to place a copy of the sketch plan in with Council’s information.

Mr. Burdette stated that if there was any opportunity to work with this developer to get a piece of property for Whitehall Terrace, because they do need a community center, that would be exceptional. If a piece of property could be donated that would go much further.
Mr. Carr stated that he feels as long as there is a public benefit it does not have to be cash.

Mr. Streetman stated that they were very open to that and they had discussed that with Whitehall Terrace. He added that currently they did not own any property that is not part of the preliminary sketch plan right now but they are willing to discuss that.

Mr. Bustos stated that he wanted to talk about some questions for review at the December Finance Committee meeting. He asked if it would be possible to review going into next year where the Town’s ability to bond is going to be after the first of the year.
Mr. Burdette stated that would probably be in several parts because there are general obligation bonds and then there are those that are paid off with impact fees and other special funds.

Mr. Bustos stated that the other item he would like to discuss was fuel cost. He stated that there has been a lot of talk about fuel cost. On the news the national average is $2.48 per gallon and around Mount Pleasant they see $2.69 and $2.77. He asked if the Town had any authority to look at that.

Mr. Burdette stated that if there was a state of emergency then they have a lot of authority to do certain things. He added that he was not sure of that answer; he would have to talk to Mr. Young about this matter.

4. Adjourn
With no further business to be discussed the meeting adjourned at 9:58 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Dionna L. Ebeling
110105