►
From YouTube: City of Charleston Committee on Real Estate 11/8/21
Description
City of Charleston Committee on Real Estate 11/8/21
A
A
I'm
just
I'm
returning
from
charleston
county
had
some
business
up
there
this
afternoon.
C
A
Did
you
go
to
the
football
game
on
saturday
rick
I
this
always
happens.
I
had
zone
tickets
in.
D
A
A
Here
watching
the
game,
but
this
always
happens
the
last
time
this
happened
was
2010
when
we
were
playing
alabama
at
home
and
I
got
the
opportunity
to
go
down
there
and
I
was
like
no
way
and
that
turned
out
to
be
one
of
the
best
wins
in
program
history.
So
when
I
stay
home
things,
pretty
good
things
happen
with
the
gamecocks.
So
it's.
A
B
A
C
B
A
A
I
was
just
trying
to
say
I'm
trying
to
look
classy
and
failing
miserably.
B
A
A
B
Amen.
Thank
you
so
much
next
item
on
our
agenda's.
Approval
of
the
october
25th
2021,
meeting
entertainment
motion.
B
F
B
F
B
Thank
you,
mr
mcqueeney.
Thank
you.
Item
b
is
requesting
the
city
to
authorize
the
man
to
execute
the
necessary
documents
regarding
the
subordination
and
assumption
of
the
city
mortgages
regarding
37
one-half,
hanover
and
81
columbus
street
owned
by
the
peninsula
economic
development
consortium
to
create
a
pastor's
inc.
F
Yes,
sir,
and
then
I
will
turn
it
over
to
chip
who's
done
the
more
complete
financial
analysis
and
we
do
have
the
development
director
for
that
organization
on
the
call
as
well
chair.
Should
he,
both
b
and
c,
a
request
to
council
to
authorize
the
mayor
to
execute
subordinations
that
the
city
of
charleston
now
holds
the
property.
The
first
item
number
or
letter
b,
is
for
37
and
a
half
81
columbus
street.
That
is
a
mixed-use
building
where
an
office
is
on
the
bottom
floor
and
apartments
are
on
the
top.
F
Basically,
the
organization
is
requesting
the
subordination
to
refinance
their
current
mortgage
on
the
property
for
a
lower
interest
rate,
to
also
then
be
able
to
take
funding
out
of
that
refinance
in
order
to
improve
the
property.
F
They
have
two
apartments
that
sit
on
top
of
that
office
space
and
they
have
not
rented
it
out
recently
because
they
had
some
difficult
tenants
that
they
had
to
evict
and
so
they're
wanting
to
go
back
and
get
this
refinance
done,
make
those
capital
improvements
so
that
they
can
then
have
those
apartments
rented
out
leased
out
appropriately
and
those
apartments
are
for
low
and
moderate
income
persons.
F
G
Yes,
ma'am
no
problem,
and
so
right
now
we
have
three
mortgages
that
are
subordinate
to
a
190
000.
First
lien,
the
the
owner
is
actually
selling
two
pastors
pastors
used
to
own
the
property
and
sold
it
to
the
current
owner.
But
they'll
sell
it
back
as
part
of
this
transaction,
so
they're
going
to
want
an
assumption
agreement
for
our
mortgages,
basically
allowing
pastors
to
assume
the
mortgages
and
then
the
subordination
agreement
that
we
will
still
be
subordinate
to
the
first
loan
on
the
property.
G
The
mortgages
or
our
loan
documents
essentially
say
that
written
consent
to
subordination
is
required,
but
that
it
won't
be
unreasonably
withheld.
You
know,
based
on
the
continued
security
of
the
city.
As
far
as
the
property
is
concerned,
the
first
priority
lien
will
go
from
190
thousand
dollars
to,
I
believe
it's
300
and
where's.
My
number.
C
G
C
F
G
G
They
provided
a
list
of
renovations
that
includes
renovations
to
the
roof
and,
in
other
things,
the
appraisal
that
they
provided
shows
that
the
property
is
currently
worth
640
000
and
with
the
improvements
the
property
will
be
worth:
930
000
the
loan
to
value
ratio,
which
is
typically
what
you
know
how
we
measure
whether
or
not
our
security
changes
our
priority
will
not.
G
Change
will
still
be
second
priority,
but
our
loan
to
value
ratio,
assuming
the
improvements
are
made,
will
go
from
80
to
81,
so
we're
not
losing
very
much,
and
so
what
I've
asked
is
for
approval,
the
assumption
agreement
and
subordination
agreement
based
on
reasonable
assurances
that
the
improvements
will
be
made.
What
does
that
mean?
G
That
means
we'll
ask
them
for
a
copy
of
the
loan
documents
and
see
how
that
the
first
priority
loan
documents
and
see
how
that
loan
operates
as
far
as
ensuring
that
the
improvements
are
actually
done
with
the
loan
monies,
which
is
something
I
can
do
legally
internally,
so
that
that's
sort
of
the
be
all
and.
F
F
G
That
stuff
is
is
standard
and
it's
the
home
improvement
mortgages
have
all
the
loan
agreement
the
mortgage
and
the
note
have
all
that
stuff
covered
and
they
provide
it.
I
think
they
have
to
provide
proof
yearly.
G
They
also
have
to
provide
information
to
gianna's
department,
about
the
affordability
of
the
units,
continued
affordability
of
the
unit,
so
that
none
of
that
will
change
at
all.
B
B
C
E
Mr
chairman,
I
was
just
curious
to
ask
fa
about
mr
johnson
about
cairo,
fair
federal
credit
union.
I'm
I'm
not
familiar
with
them,
as
is
that
somebody
you've
been
working
with
where
are
they
out
of.
A
Mr
chairman,
formerly
carolina
federal
credit
union,
they
changed
their
name
and
logo
played
three
years
ago
to
cairo,
cairo
federal
credit
union.
I
know
their
main
office
is
in
downtown
columbia,
but
but
they
they're,
pretty,
I
don't
say
aggressive,
but
they
they
hold
their
own
in
terms
of
the
commercial
ending.
E
B
Got
to
that
one!
Yet!
Mr
mayor,
we
haven't
gotten
to
that
one.
Yet,
oh,
we
have
b
we're
just
on
b
right
now.
Oh
okay,
pardon
me.
B
Getting
ahead
of
us,
that's,
okay!
So
any
further
discussions
only
has
item
beef
right
now
I
was
going
to
suggest
we
took
that
b
and
c
together,
but
we
just
got
so
far
into
it.
I'll
just
leave
it
alone.
So
any
further
questions,
all
those
in
favor
of
approving
adam
d
say
aye
aye
any
opposed
nice.
Have
it
all
right
now.
A
good
item
see
mr
mayor
on
father
support
move
for
approval.
All
right
is
that
a
second.
B
Giona
anything
you
want
to
add
to
number
c
for
me.
Please.
F
I
would
just
say
chair
shaheed,
that
two
and
four
father
grant's
court
is
69
america
street,
so
there's
a
quadriplex
there.
So
it
is
it's
next
to
the
vacant
land
that
the
city
owns
at
67
america
street
mayor,
but
this
already
has
a
building
on
it.
That's
fully
operating
fully
leased
same
sort
of
scenario.
If
you
will
different
numbers.
B
Disability
that
answers
your
question
that
you
were
pleasing.
Yes,
sir,
that's
right
all
right,
we
have
a
motion.
Is
any
further
discussion
or
questions
asked
item
c
cnn,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
aye,
aye,
aye
any
oppose
the
eyes.
Have
it
all
right?
Item
d
was
an
item
that
we
had
on
our
previous
agenda.
They
got
deferred
because
I
believe
they
had
to
have
the
board
of
the
old
exchange
building.
B
Commission
approve
it
first,
so
matt
I
see
that
you're
on,
but
we
had
some
discussion
about
this
before
this
is
a
one.
It's
understand
a
one
year
lease
agreement,
and
this
comes
back
every
year
for
our
our
review
and
approval
on
this.
That
was
a
quick
synopsis
map.
But
what
can
you
add
about
this
agreement
with
the
city
and
the
old
exchange
building.
H
Yeah,
it's
just,
as
you
said,
council
member,
it's
a
continuation,
one-year
continuation
of
essentially
our
management
agreement
between
the
city
and
the
state
for
the
old
exchange
building.
I
know
one
question
that
gets
asked
pretty
frequently
is
financial
implications
for
the
city
under
the
original
agreement.
H
Essentially,
there
are
no
financial
concerns,
the
the
finances
run
through
the
city,
but
the
revenue
generated
from
the
old
exchange
is
used
to
pay
all
their
bills
and
if,
for
any
reason
they
are
not
able
to
pay
or
they're
running
in
a
deficit,
the
city
has
the
right
to
go
back
essentially
to
the
state
and
the
old
exchange
commission
to
make
the
city
whole.
So
I
know
that
is
one
one
thing
that
comes
up
pretty
frequently
each
year
with
this
agreement
is
the
concern
financially
and
it
essentially
is
not
for
the
city.
B
Exactly
okay,
okay,
madam
council,
member.
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you
when
we
saw
the
document
two
weeks
ago,
whenever
several
of
the
I
guess,
suggestions
or
the
requests
that
the
build
exchange
board
were
asking
of
us,
we
had
we
had
struck
them.
So
is
that
is
that
the
version
that
we're
looking
at?
I
don't
really
see
how
it's
spelled
out
this
time.
C
B
B
Any
oppose
yeah,
I
just
have
it
all
right:
we've
got
some
several
annexations.
We
want
senator
sanders
sent
into
our
city.
I
guess
it's
question
number
one.
B
So
the
first
one
is
property
on
clements
ferry
road,
there's,
67,
plus
or
minus
acres
in
canehoy.
The
second
is
1820
alice
drive,
which
is
in
district
five.
The
third
is
on
fort
lamar
extension,
road,
two
acres,
district,
12
and
then
also
1112
for
fort
lamar,
road,
1.37
acres.
That's
also
in
district
12.
I'll,
entertain
a
motion
to
approve
e
one,
two,
three
and
four.
So
you
know.
B
Second,
all
right,
yes,
ma'am,
this
jacket.
C
I
I
was
going
to
suggest
that
we
take
the
last
two
separately.
I
do
think
that
they
have
some.
You
know
I
I
planned
about
yes,
but
I
do
think
that
we
might
want
to
discuss.
You
know
some
of
the
constraints
of
that
property
as
we're
thinking
about
annexing
it.
So.
B
D
No,
mr
chairman,
obviously
e1
is
a
fairly
large
piece
of
property.
62
acres.
It
is
surrounded
essentially
on
all
sides
by
other
parcels
that
are
already
in
the
city,
so
it
is
almost
like
a
de
facto
doughnut
hole
annexation
and
it
is
in
one
of
our
areas.
That's
designated
in
our
new
city
plan,
for
you
know
denser
development
right
up
along
plymouth
area,
because
the
elevations
are
very
good.
I
think
it's
like
18
feet
to
36
foot
elevations.
There
are
some
wetlands
on
the
site:
they're,
not
tidal.
D
Wetlands
they're,
you
know
isolated
wetlands
things
like
that,
but
in
general
it's
it's
a
really
good
parcel
to
get
in
the
city
and
have
our
standards
at
play
when
the
development
happens,
and
then
the
other
parcel
that
you
mentioned
the
sec
be
is
a
annexation
and
west
ashley
residential
annexation.
B
D
And
these
are
parcels
that
would
that
are
coming
to
us
from
folks
that
are
at
the
end
of
fort
lamar,
that
there's
hoa
property
there,
that
they
are
kind
of
recombining
and
adding
to
their
residential
properties
and
they're,
also
creating
a
lot
that
would
have
access
to
a
dock.
They
have.
They
do
not
have
the
interest
in
other
development
there.
They
are
just
adding
to
their
lots
and
creating
the
the
doc
lot.
D
As
we
understand
it,
and
I
believe
mr
overcash
had
some
discussions
with
you-
miss
jackson,
but
happy
to
go
further
into
those.
If,
if
that's
helpful,.
B
Cash
anything
you
want
to
add
to
what
mr
morgan
has
shared
with
us.
B
Okay,
all
right,
I
don't
know
if
we've
moved
yet
to
approve
three
and
four.
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve
three
and
four
there?
A
second
second,
okay,
councilmember
jackson,
you
have
some
questions.
C
C
I
just
I
just
wanted
a
real
estate
committee,
because
it's
our
only
opportunity
to
think
about
annexing
property
that
you
know
is
is
now
more
in
the
in
the
limelight
spotlight
than
in
earlier
years
before
we
had
our
our
city
plan,
comprehensive
plan,
land
and
water
analysis
is
a
huge
part
of
the
new
master
plan
that
will
be
informing
changes
to
zoning
density
and
pipe,
and
things
like
that,
and
so
this
property.
C
If
you
look
at
the
map
of
the
two
properties,
basically
it
it's
it's
on
the
harbor,
the
it's
surrounded
by
water,
and
if
you
look
at
the
chart,
they
are
now
under
the
city
plan.
Future
land
use
map
considered
to
be
low
impact,
conserved
locations
and
the
elevation
range
is
two
feet
to
nine
feet
on
one
of
them
and
I
think
two
feet
to
seven
feet
on
the
other
one.
C
So
I
I
do
appreciate
that
the
change
of
use
as
they
would
annex
in
is
really
not
to
be
any
any
new
density
there,
but
they,
but
they
would
have
the
opportunity
to
add
more
units
under
the
zoning
that
that
will
be
recommended
to
us
at
a
public
hearing.
I
think,
after
the
planning
commission
deliberates
on
this,
so
I
I
do
just
think
that
we
need
to
be
more
cognizant
of
yes.
These
are
small
properties
but
they're
in
places
that
we
have
to
learn.
C
E
So
so,
mr
morgan-
and
maybe
you
mentioned
this-
and
I
was
looking
at
my
map
to
pull
these
properties
up.
The
039
owned
by
the
property
owners
association,
looks
like
they
got
a
dock
that
runs
out
to
the
creek
and
are:
are
they
intending
to
build
on
the
property
or
they're
just
bringing
it
into
the
city
and
have
a
homeowner's
access
to
the
creek?
Is
that
what
what
that's.
D
Recombining
the
lot
lines
for
both
of
these
properties,
and
there
would
be
a
lot
that
would
be
dedicated
to
the
dock.
That's
there
and
then
the
homeowners
themselves
would
add
a
little
bit
more
area
to
their
parcels
as
well,
and
we're
kind
of
constrained
with
what
we
can
put
on
it.
Zoning
wise
to
you
know
not
penalize
them,
because
their
house
is
already
built
their
setbacks
already.
What
they
are,
that
kind
of
thing
we're
going
to
try
to
zone
them
as
best
we
can
in
a
way
that
allows
them
to
be.
D
You
know
as
low
density
as
possible,
but
also
you
know,
does
not
constrain
their
ability
to.
You
know
have
their
houses
there
as
they
are
now.
E
Right
because
it
looks
like
there's
a
house
on
o38
already
and
it
looks,
looks
like
there's
a
house
on
every
lot
now,
except
for
o39
right
right.
D
Correct
these
are
individual
homeowners
who
are
working
on
this
absolutely
and
also
it
is
at
the
end
of
a
street.
So
you
know,
even
if
they
wanted
to
have
additional
lots.
For
you
know,
housing
construction
they'd
have
to
have
a
certain
amount
of
frontage.
That
would
you
know
even
out
with
the
front
edges
of
other
lots
in
the
street.
We
have
that
lot
from
each
averaging
criteria.
So
that's
going
to
further
con
curtail
anything
that
might
happen
there.
Let's
just
say
one
of
them
sold
the
property,
their
own
property.
D
You
know
that
that
is
going
to
help
curtail
other
things
that
can
happen
there
as
well.
It's
it's
a
very
unusual
circumstance
here,
and
you
know
the
reality
is
you
know.
Certainly,
this
is
not
something
we
went
and
pursued,
but
because
part
of
the
property
was
in
the
city
already
and
the
other
lots
were
not.
They
had
to
do
this
so
that
they
could
recombine
the
lots
and
all
in
one
jurisdiction.
That's
what
brought
down.
E
E
B
All
right
any
further
questions
by
any
of
members
of
the
committee
cnn,
all
those
in
favor
of
approving
items,
three
and
four
of
e
signify.
By
saying
I
I
I
opposed
the
eyes,
haven't,
I
don't
see
any
further
business.
We
need
to
take
out
we're
gonna
jump
real
quickly
into
our
next
meeting,
so
nobody
go
anywhere.