►
Description
City of Charleston Committee on Real Estate 1/11/2021 1/2
B
A
All
right
so
good
afternoon,
everybody
welcome
back
to
more
city
business.
As
we
start
off,
2021
appreciate
everybody's
patience.
I'm
gonna
call
to
order
the
january
20
of
january
11,
2021
meeting
at
the
real
estate
committee
and
I'm
going
to
ask
councilman
jackson.
If
she
wouldn't
mind
leading
us
either
into
a
notification
or
a
moment
of
silence,
councilmember
jackson.
C
Heads
with
me,
lord,
we
thank
you
that
this
is
a
day
that
you
have
given
us
help
us
to
live
into
it
to
honor
and
bring
glory
to
your
name,
to
do
the
citizens
of
charleston
the
public
service
that
we
are
elected
to
do
and
hired
to
do.
I
thank
you
for
those
who
are
representing
their
clientele
here
to
carry
out
the
business
of
this
committee,
and
we
ask
that
we
do
it
all
in
your
amen.
A
D
D
D
This
long
parcel
here
this
is
remount
road,
north
red
the
terminals
over
this
way.
But
this
is
this
property.
Here
is
it's
owned
by
the
sports
authority?
It's
consists
of
about
10
point.
I
think
it's
07
acres
that
the
spa
proposes
to
sell
to
the
owner
or
to
the
lessee
of
the
warehouse
cold
storage
warehouse
facility-
that's
been
built
in
the
last
few
years
on
it,
they're
gonna
sell
it.
I
think
they
asked
for
permission
from
the
state
accountability
office
for
16.5
million
dollars
the
city.
D
D
the
possibility
reverter
essentially
provides
that
if
the
ports
authority
stops
operating,
a
port
stops
operating
port
facilities
in
the
city
of
charleston,
this
property
and
all
the
other
property
conveyed
by
the
city
to
the
ports
authority
will
revert
to
the
city.
The
likelihood
of
that
happening
is
very
small.
I
I've
I've
done
research
on
it.
It's
a
remote
possibility
and
even
in
condemnation
actions
a
possibility
reverter
unless
it's
probable
that
that
it's
going
to
be
triggered
in
the
near
future
is
holds
very
little
value.
D
The
use
restriction
restricts
the
city's.
What
I'll
call
the
city's
portion
of
the
property,
the
4.5
to
5
acres,
to
use,
uses
related
to
port
facilities,
terminals
or
wars
according
to
the
ports
authority,
it
will
continue
to
be
used
for
such
I
will
you
know
there
is
a
cold
storage
warehouse
building
on
it.
The
the
purchaser
is
a
gold
storage
warehouse
business.
There's
just
so.
D
You
know
that
if
you
kind
of
zoom
in
here
these
are
both
railroads
the
the
owner,
the
new
purchaser
will
actually
get
an
easement
over
the
the
railway
on
this.
This
portion
of
the
property,
which
is
also
subject
to
the
city's
possibility
reverter
but
will
not
be
sold
under
this
transaction
or
triggered
by
the
transaction.
D
D
We
do
not
have
an
appraisal.
There
was
some
time
pressure
on
it
and
we
did
not.
We
would
not
have
gotten
an
appraisal
within
the
time
that
ports
authority
wants.
To
close,
I
I
mentioned
my
research
and
the
possibility
of
reverter.
I
think
the
normally
with
a
use,
restriction,
you'd
value
the
land
and
then
value
the
value
of
the
land
without
the
use
restriction,
value
the
land
with
use
restriction
and
subtract,
the
two
to
figure
out
the
value
of
the
use
restriction.
D
Here,
it's
really
more
of
a
time
value
of
money
situation
because
assuming
the
sale
were
to
go
through
and
the
lender,
they
found
another
lender.
They
don't
really
need
the
city
to
release
its
use
restriction,
at
least
not
in
the
near
future,
if
they're
going
to
use,
get
the
full
value
of
the
use
of
the
warehouse.
So
it's
really
not
about
the
value
of
the
user.
D
The
present
value
the
use
restriction
it's
more
about
what
the
city's
willing
to
give
for
to
allow
the
transaction
to
go
forward
now,
as
opposed
to
sitting
on
their
possibility
and
their
use
restriction
in
the
future.
I
I
think
I've
kind
of
gone
into
detail
about
it.
We
do
have.
We
do
retain
our
possibility,
reverter
and
use
restriction
on
the
other
parcels
which
include
a
rail
parcel
and
then
there's
a
1.89
acre
parcel.
That's
part
of
this.
D
This
larger
tract
here
that
won't
be
part
of
the
purchase
and
we'll
we'll
still
own.
That
and
we're
spa
has
mentioned
jim
newsom
has
mentioned
you
know,
can
we
go
ahead
and
get
rid
of
that?
So
we'll
continue
discussions
with
them
about
that
one.
But
this
is
just
for
the
4.5
to
5
acres,
subject
or
inverter
here.
A
Thank
you
for
that
update
and
let
me
just
clarify
a
couple
points.
We
do
not
own
the
land,
we're
not
a
title
owner.
We
just
have
this
reverter
right
to
it
and
I
just
want
to
clarify,
because
I
was
writing
notes.
It
was
7.78
acres,
but
our
interest
is
only
us
to
the
four
point:
five,
five
acres
of
that
seven
point:
seven,
eight!
That's
correct!.
D
Yes,
yes,
sir,
and
it
the
if
the
the
newest
plat
is
this
plat
here
and
the
rail
parcel.
What
I'm
basically
doing
is
subtracting
to
get
the
five
point.
5.1
would
be
the
most
to
get
the
5.1.
I
would
subtract
the
2.77
from
the
7.78,
but
when
this
was
all
re-surveyed,
there's
a
little
bit
less
than
7.78
acres,
so
it's
somewhere
between
4.5
and
and
5.1
is
what
I
should
say
so.
Yeah.
A
E
D
D
It's
interesting
going.
You
know
it
was
a
part
of
it
was
seized
by
the
united
states
government.
You
know
both
in
world
war,
one
and
world
war
ii
and
then
reconveyed
back
to
the
city.
But
it's
also
very
you
know
for
from
a
history
perspective.
I
don't
know
how
many
people
know
this
when
the
old
charleston
terminal
company
that
that
operated,
the
port,
I
think
it
was
in
the
20s-
went
under
the
city
really
stepped
in
and
purchased
that
property.
D
I
believe
that
runs
from
essentially
union
pier-
it's
not
all
of
it
now,
but
up
to
the
north
charleston
area
properties
and
then
the
legislature
many
years
later
stepped
in
and
set
up
the
the
south
carolina
ports
authority
to
take
it
over
from
the
city.
The
port
utilities
commission
had
been
set
up
and
it
was
struggling,
it
was
bleeding
money
and
the
state
kind
of
come
in
came
in
and
said
thanks
for
saving
us
20
years
ago.
We're
going
to
do
it
now,
so
that's
kind
of
how
that's
why
the
that's?
A
A
F
G
H
I
bet
a
lot,
not
a
lot
of
money
on
that,
but
I
it
kind
of
makes
sense
to
me,
and
so
the
bottom
line,
though,
is
where
we
are
right
now
is,
admittedly,
a
a
an
obscure,
a
reverter
clause
that
would
likely
never
be
triggered.
We
we
have
negotiated
a
value
of
350
000
for
the
city's
benefit
and,
honestly,
I
think
it's
a
fair
number.
F
A
Any
other
comments
questions.
I
do
think
that
this
is
a
fair
resolution,
we're
relinquishing
any
kind
of
cloud
or
claim
we
may
have
on
this
property.
They
can
move
forward
with
the
sale,
and
this
was
a
discussion
we
had
in
our
budget
committee
meetings
about
getting
rid
of
excess
property.
That's
not
income
producing
services
with
a
public
use
for
the
city
and
we're
gonna
bank
350
000.
It's
a
pretty
good
deal
for
our
citizens,
so
I'll
call
the
vote.
A
Of
item
number
a
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
opposed
the
eyes.
Have
it
very
good.
Thank
you
chip.
Thank
you,
mr
mayor,
for
y'all's,
hard
work
on
putting
this
together
and
somebody
was
not
taking
too
much
of
a
christmas
break.
If
this
was
going
on
during
the
month
of
december
item
b
is
a
discussion
in
action
regarding
an
alternate
location
of
dominion.
Energy
utility
switch
gear
at
179,
nassau
who's,
taking
that
on
for
us
this
afternoon,.
I
H
A
H
J
No
sir,
I
don't
councilmember
shade
and
members
of
the
real
estate
committee.
The
purpose
of
this
is
such
that
we
can
get
the
james
lewis
junior
apartments
built.
There
is
a
switch
box
that
we
need
to
relocate,
and
so
the
proposal
was
to
have
this
located
to
a
property
that
the
city
owns
and
so
between
our
design
staff
and
dominion,
energy.
We
are
looking
at
the
best
location
for
that,
and
that
is
really
what
this
discussion
is
about.
We
know
we
have
to
locate
it
somewhere.
J
There
was
a
portion
of
the
property
where
the
buildings
will
go,
that
we
were
looking
at
initially
and
then
staff
thought
it
was
more
appropriate
to
locate
it
here.
So
we
wanted
you
all
to
be
aware
that
that
discussion
is
being
had
and
that
we
will
need
to
decide
very
soon
where
we
actually
locate
that
box.
J
Now
that
councilmember
shade,
I
cannot
answer
and
I'm
certainly
glad
to
get
that
information
back
to
you
before
the
council
meeting
tomorrow.
That's
more
of
an
allen,
davis
question,
and
hopefully
he
has
the
answer
to
that.
But
I
know
that
our
staff
has
been
working
very
closely
with
danny
casas
and
the
engineer
for
the
james
lewis,
jr
apartment
developers
to
make
sure
that
that
happens
fairly
quickly.
G
E
E
J
E
You
know
the
next
question
that
I
asked.
I
don't
want
you
all
to
assign
me
to
be
executed
for
this
question.
I'm
about
to
ask
next,
but
you
remember,
we
swapped.
Are
we
in
the
process
of
swapping
property
with
the
humanities
foundation,
to
help
create
that
affordable
housing,
so
the
property
that
we've
taken
on?
I'm
just
wondering
whether
I
know
it's
low,
but
maybe
it
could
be
built
up
to
accommodate
the
switching
station.
J
E
A
C
Thank
you
mayor.
Thank
you,
chairman
yeah.
Well,
I
mean
coming
was
basically
my
question:
is
it
okay
to
wait
for
the
next
meeting
or
do
you
want
us
to
do
some
sort
of
action
that
would
you
know,
trust
the
staff
and
the
client
or
the
partner
to
builder
to
to
figure
this
out?
Do
we
actually
need
to
hear
this
when
you
com.
J
I
think
we're
okay
in
waiting
until
the
next
meeting
councilwoman
jackson-
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
coming
back
to
you
all
in
the
form
of
an
easement
or
what
the
agreement
itself
will
look
like
between
the
city
and
dominion,
energy.
We
did
a
similar
deal
when
we
helped
to
facilitate
the
grace
homes
that
don
cameron's
office
built,
and
you
all
were
able
to
do
it
for
us
fairly
quickly,
and
so
I
will
reach
out
to
the
staff.
J
A
I
A
H
I
A
H
H
A
There
you
go
all
right
all
right,
so
item
b,
we'll
is
we
had
a
discussion
on
that
and
we'll
defer
further
discussion
and
any
action
until
our
next
real
estate
committee
meeting
later
this
month.
Action
item
number
c
deals
with
the
school
of
law
and
then
sale
of
431
meeting
street
susan.
You
go
take
this
on
you're,
not
in
your
head,
so.
I
I'm
going
to
take
this
one
on
I'm
not
going
to
share
my
screen
with
you,
because
I
think
everybody's
familiar
with
this
property.
It's
at
the
intersection
of
meeting
in
wolf
streets
and
there's
a
long
history
to
this.
This
transaction
actually
started
in
2005.
I
thought
I
would
give
a
quick
background
to
the
new
council
members
regarding
the
ins
and
outs
of
this
deal
and
how
we
got
to
this
point,
which
is,
I
think,
a
very
good
point
to
be
at.
I
I
noticed
on
the
on
the
call
we've
got
capers
bar,
I
think
adam
barr
may
also
be
on
here,
as
well
as
bill
craber
and
r.j
quinlan
for
the
charleston
school
of
law,
capers
and
adam,
I
believe,
represent
the
buyer
and
I'm
sure
they're
available
to
answer
any
questions
after
I'm
finished
just
real
briefly.
As
some
of
you
may
know,
this
is
the
charleston
school
of
law
property.
I
I
I
should
note
that
when
the
property
was
conveyed,
it
was
subject
to
the
possibility
of
a
reverter
that
would
trigger
be
triggered
if
the
property
was
not
used
for
law
school
purposes,
so
in
2017,
before
the
expiration
of
the
last
extension
on
the
note,
the
charleston
school
of
law-
and
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
them,
but
I
think
this
is
clear
on
the
record.
Charleston
school
of
law
realized
that
the
property
may
not
be
a
good
fit
for
them
for
their
law
school.
I
So
basically,
in
2017
city
council
entered
into
an
agreement
on
on
how
to
value
the
reverter,
and,
let
me
step
back,
I
mean
I
think
the
city
felt
that
they
did
not
want
to
impede
the
school
of
law
from
going
forward
with
its
plans.
The
intent
was
that
it
would
stay
on
the
peninsula,
but
understood
that
its
needs
had
changed
over
time.
So
the
question
was:
how
was
the
reverter
going
to
be
valued
in
the
event
that
the
property
was
sold
or
exchanged?
I
I
The
agreement
in
2017
also
provided
that
any
money
that
the
res
city
would
receive
by
releasing
the
reverter
would
go
to
affordable
housing,
and
that
was
a
provision
that
that
was
in
in
the
2017
agreement
that
2017
agreement
was
approved
by
city
council
but
was
not
incorporated
into
an
ordinance.
So
one
of
the
things
we're
doing
today
is
basically
having
city
council
bless
through
the
ordinance
that
2017
agreement
moving
forward
in
2019.
I
I
So
what
has
happened
since
then
is
there
is
now
a
buyer,
I'm
sure
who
is
ready
to
close
on
the
property,
and
so
that
takes
us
into
the
provision
in
the
2017
agreement
that
talks
about
how
we
calculate
what
the
city
receives.
As
of
consideration
for
releasing
the
possibility
of
reverter
and
and
basically
what
the
agreement
provides
is
that
it
is,
the
city
is
entitled
to
25
percent
of
the
net
proceeds
of
the
sale.
I
So
if
you
go
to
the
right,
you'll
see
the
city's
portion
and
25
of
this
sale.
The
city
share
would
be
three
million
three
thirty
four
thousand
four
hundred
ninety
nine
they've
already
paid
off
the
note
and
then
back
in
april
of
2020,
the
city
received
166
250
from
charleston
school
of
law
and
I'm
sure
which,
which
was
our
share
of
the
money
that
I'm
sure
paid
to
extend
the
inspection
period
on
the
the
property.
I
And
3242.09
cents.
So
we
think
that
this
is
obviously
a
fair
deal.
We
think
the
timing
of
it
is
wonderful
for
the
city,
given
our
financial
situation
and
therefore
requesting
approval
of
the
first
reading
of
the
ordinance
and
giving
the
mayor
the
authority
to
execute
the
necessary
documents
to
allow
this
closing
to
go
forward.
A
C
K
K
The
two
million
dollars
that
goes
to
affordable
housing
under
the
release
of
reverter,
I'm
sheriff
pledged
to
pay
five
dollars
and
ten
cents
a
square
foot
payable
to
affordable
housing
as
well.
That's
about
198
thousand
dollar
198
000
square
feet.
It's
a
roughly
another
million
dollars
that
will
be
paid
into
affordable
into
the
affordable
housing
fund
before
the
cfo
is
issued.
K
F
K
K
E
E
So
when
the
property
doesn't
come
back
and
obviously
goes
for
exponential
amount
more
again,
we
found
out
that
that
25
was
being
applied
to
a
12
million
dollar
fee.
In
the
newspaper
I
found
it
out
in
the
news
I
wasn't
alone
at
the
time,
so
it
appears
to
me
that
we
have
a
second
opportunity
and
we
have
a
second
crack
at
this.
So
I
second
this
motion.
I
don't
know
what
the
pleasure
is
going
to
be
for
the
entire
council,
because
I
hadn't
talked
to
anybody.
E
I
will
not
be
voted
for
this
because
I
feel
the
same
now
as
I
did
then
that
to
allow
this
property
number
one.
If
it
reverted
back
to
the
city,
we
could
use
the
whole
property
for
affordable
housing,
mr
barr,
so
the
the
additional
510
dollars
for
that.
I
don't
find
that
being
an
attractive
opportunity
for
the
city
or
it's
taxpayers.
E
F
E
A
H
A
H
Don't
mind-
and
I
certainly
understand
councilmember
where
and
your
your
concerns
and
your
position,
I
I
do
want
to
just
point
out
two
things.
One
is
the
the
payments
thus
far,
including
when
the
note
was
paid
off
the
865
000.
We
did
dedicate
those
funds
as
well.
I'm
pretty
sure
gianna
could
verify
this
for
me
that
they
went
into
our
pool
of
funding
for
affordable
housing,
but
but,
more
importantly,
in
in
a
way
it
kind
of
reminds
me
of
what
we
just
approved
a
few
minutes
ago.
H
The
the
reverter
for
the
property
had
not
been
triggered
and-
and
mr
cravers
online
could
probably
assure
us
that
the
school
of
law
had
no
intention
of
letting
the
reverter
get
triggered,
that
they
would
have
just
held
the
property
and
used
it
for
some
other
purpose.
I
remember
at
the
time
a
claim
was
made.
H
If
we
prove
this
today
between
the
the
note
payment,
the
two
million
dollars
and
the
fee
garnering
about
four
million
dollars,
total
for
affordable
housing
and
the
alternative
frankly
would
have
been.
We
would
have
gotten
nothing.
So
it's
it's!
I
mean
I,
I
hear
your
point
when,
when
you
see
that
big
sales
price
number,
but
again,
that's
that's
money
that
I
I
don't
feel
like
we
ever
would
have
achieved
otherwise,
so
so
respectfully,
I
think
we
should
support
this.
C
I
I
There's
one
thousand
number
there's
one
other
thing
I
wanted
to
mention.
I
mean
some
people
in
the
past
have
said:
how
did
we
come
up
with
the
25
or
how
is
that
number
reached?
And-
and
I
went
back-
and
I
looked
at
the
minutes
from
the
past
on
that
and
and
what
how
that
was
reached
was
basically
again.
A
So
I
will
give
to
councilman
moray
in
a
second,
but
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
point,
mr
dina,
that
the
sales
price
to
the
school
at
the
time
we
reduced
the
price
by
25.
So
this
is,
I
hate
to
use
the
word
making
us
whole,
but
it
sounds
like
we're
getting
back
to
almost
where
we
would
have
been
at
the
time
of
the
sale,
not
the
value
of
the
property
right.
Now
that
a
fair
statement.
I
G
E
I
happened
to-
and
mr
mayor
was
a
realtor
at
the
time,
but
I
happened
to
be
chair
of
the
chamber
when
the
property
on
maple
mary
street
was
sold
to
the
law
school
to
enable
the
law
school
to
move
there.
Actually
I
sat
down
with
judge,
saunders
and
and
judge
costa
or
whatever.
I
think
that
was
his
name-
george,
that's
right
and
and
negotiated
the
sale
price
right.
So
it
was
me
and
they
had
a
gentleman
named.
What's
the
attorney
at
westbrook?
Yes,.
E
And
westbrook
one
of
the
smartest
persons
I've
ever
come
across
in
my
life
so
and
at
the
time
well,
even
or
not
at
the
time-
and
you
could
ask
mr
barr
asked
mayor
riley,
he
wasn't
in
favor
of
selling
that
mary
street
to
the
law
school
at
the
time.
But
anyway,
things
worked
out
and
law
school
has
been
a
good
partner
with
the
city
of
charleston
in
the
business
community.
E
So,
but
when
it
so
that
deal
that
the
law
school
got
on,
that
property
was
again
for
its
expansion
and
when
we
found
out
about
the
12
million,
I
still
say
it
was
salt.
It
created
salt
because
I
would
doubt
I
can
speak
for
myself.
You
can
speak
to
those
on
council.
At
the
time.
Have
we
known
the
price
was
12
million?
Would
we
have
agreed
to
25
percent
cut
for
the
taxpayers?
E
E
I
still
think
the
city
should
get
more
than
25
percent
of
this
transactional
amount.
So
I
understand
mr
mia.
We
have
a
difference
on
it,
so
that's
why
we
have
discussions
one
way
or
the
other
and
the
part
about
the
affordable
housing.
I
think
that's
a
noble
negotiations,
but
the
fact
is
this
probably
came
back
to
the
city.
A
G
Councilman
shade
that
the
the
only
thing
that
I
would
add
was
in
2019
when
the
school
paid
off
the
note,
the
school
and
the
city
entered
into
a
modification
of
the
possibility
of
reverter
that
was
approved
by
the
real
estate
committee
and
then
went
to
council
and
was
also
approved
by
council,
and
we
slightly
adjusted
the
agreement.
But
at
that
time
the
city
I
mean,
the
the
school
of
law
had
a
a
potential
sale
of
over
10
million
dollars
on
the
property
and
and
the
real
estate
committee
knew
about
that.
I
mean.
E
G
K
I
don't,
I
don't
believe
that
that
was
done
by
ordinance
and
there
is
a
state
statute
which
requires
that
an
ordinance
can
only
be
amended
by
ordinance
and
in
the
original
sale
to
the
to
the
charleston
school
of
law,
which
was
ratified
by
ordinance.
So
this
gets
very
technical.
So,
whereas
council
approved
what
we're
talking
about
here
today,
it
did
not
actually
enact
an
ordinance
and
that
that
creates
a
title
issue
for
that
for
us
and,
and
so
the
the
I
think
somebody
council,
member
wearing,
you
might
have
asked
the
question.
K
K
The
the
modification
of
the
possibility
of
reverter,
which
was
ratified
in
2019,
was
actually
recorded
in
the
in
the
rmc
office,
but
it
just
it
had
not
been
enacted
by
ordinance
and
it
should
have
been
enacted
by
ordinance
and
so
the
answer.
The
question
why
we're
here
is
because
the
city
should
go
back
to
do
the
right
thing
and
confirm
by
ordinance
what
it
already
confirmed
by
written
agreement.
K
That's
correct:
it's
almost
like
a
nunc
pro
tank
adoption
of
what
you
did
before
and-
and
I
I
recall
the
conversation
now
that
that
that
councilmember
wearing
you're
recalling
from
back
then
I
recall
that
as
having
happened,
but
I
I
and
I
recognize
again
that
you're
here
looking
out
for
the
city's
business,
but
I
think
in
this
circumstance,
particularly
because
council
approved
this
in
19,
but
just
didn't
do
it
by
ordinance.
The
right
thing
to
do
is
to
do
what
should
have
been
done.
Then.
A
I
A
E
E
E
It's
bad
when
you
make
a
decision
when
you
don't
have
all
the
information
to
make
the
decision
on,
especially
when
you
represent
others
and
that's
what
we
are.
We
represent
others
on
this
on
this
council
and
I
know
what
it
is
to
represent
people
being
a
financial
advisor,
helping
people
to
manage
their
money.
F
J
E
F
Thank
you,
chairman
shead,
and
you
know,
councilmember
warings
brought
up
some
issues
that,
frankly,
I
was
completely
unaware
of
regarding
any
of
this.
Of
course,
I
wasn't
on
council
in
2019,
and
you
know
I
I
I'd
like
to
have
a
closer
look
at
this
I'd
like
to
look
at
the
2017
agreement.
I'd
like
to
look
at
the
2019
agreement,
I'd
like
to
know
for
sure
what
information
was
communicated
to
council
at
all
times
relevant.
F
F
I
would
feel
a
lot
more
comfortable
moving
forward
with
this.
If
I
had
the
benefit
of
looking
at
the
actual
documents
being
able
to
put
my
eyes
on
them
and
link
that
up
with
the
various
communications
relevant
to
price
offers
things
of
that
nature,
so
we
can
make
absolutely
sure
that
what
we're
doing
right
now
is
in
the
best
interests
of
of
the
taxpayers
and
that's
not
to
suggest
that
what
is
on
the
table
right
now
is
not
in
the
best
interest
of
of
of
us.
F
I
mean,
I
think,
the
way
mayor
teklenberg
lined
up.
You
know
the
money
that's
come
into
the
city.
That's
already
come
to
the
city
that
all
sounds
great,
but
but
I
I
just
would
certainly
be
a
lot
more
comfortable
if
we
were
able
to
take
a
closer
look
at
this,
and
perhaps
we
could
defer
this
and
you
know
use
that
intervening
time
to
get
some
more
information,
or
perhaps
we
can.
E
Okay,
I
I
do
have
some
additional
discussion.
Mr
chairman,
yes,
sir,
we,
you
know
if
you
move
this
forward,
we're
going
to
continue
to
have
this
discussion
in
the
public
square,
just
like
we're
having
it
today
correct.
Actually,
councilman
appel
brings
up
a
good
point.
I
think,
if
you
deferred
this,
these
discussions
could
be
held.
E
E
A
Gonna
put
it
all
back
on
you,
okay,
all
right,
so
what
I
would
suggest
that
we
do
with
the
mayor
requests
we.
This
is
just
a
first
reading,
let's
let's
vote
on
it
and
we
can
delay
if
we
need
to
the
second
or
third
reading
until
we
get
the
information
that
councilman
rappel
and
I
think
that's
a
prudent
thing
to
do,
let's
make
sure
we
get
all
our
ducks
lined
up.
So,
unless
there's
a
motion
to
defer,
I
I'd
not
hear
a
motion
to
defer.
A
A
A
I
A
I
A
All
right,
thank
you
all
for
your
cooperation.
Thank
you
for
your
patience
and,
let's
see
it,
would
we
get
us
back
on
the
agenda
for
our
mid-january
meeting.
Thank
you
all
very
much
all
right.
We're
gonna
move
on
to
item
number
d,
and
this
is
mrs
arbor
on
our
call,
or
is
mr
cronsberg
going
to
take
this
one.
I'm.
A
A
A
L
L
L
So
what
would
happen
is
we're
currently
negotiating
with
the
property
owner
and
their
and
their
realtor
on
a
price.
We
have
a
an
appraisal
that
we
received
from
the
county
and
if,
once
we
get
those
the
purchase
price
nailed
down,
we'll
fill
that
into
the
the
green
belt
application,
which
is
complete
other
than
that
dollar
amount.
L
So
the
goal
of
this
green
belt
purchase
would
be
with
the
three-party
agreement
would
be
that
the
county
would
then
make
some
wetland
created
wetland
and
drainage
improvements
on
this
parcel
of
land,
perhaps
a
two
and
a
half
acre
pond
with
a
created
wetland
around
it.
That
would
improve
drainage
issues.
In
this
watershed,
the
applications
are
due
on
the
29th.
So
that's
why
this
resolution
is
coming
for
you
today
and
again
the
as
the
negotiations
continue.
H
Mr
mayor,
so
just
a
couple
of
points.
I'd
like
to
add
to
jason's
remarks
is
that
it's
clear
the
negotia
of
first
of
all,
of
course,
approval
of
this
resolution
is
by
no
means
an
approval
by
the
city
to
buy
anything.
As
of
this
point,
it
really
just
authorizes
us
to
proceed,
but
I
will
share
that
the
projected
purchase
price
will
be
less
than
the
appraised
value.
F
H
A
C
I
just
have
a
couple
questions.
I
I
appreciate
having
been
on
the
discussion
when
councilmember
honeycutt
from
the
county
council
brought
this
to
a
few
of
us
who
represent
constituents
on
james
island
and
at
that
point
it
wasn't
clear
about
the
town's
involvement
so
mayor.
Could
you
shine
a
light
on
that?
Why
is
the
town
of
james
island
in
on
this,
when
it's
not
really
part
of
their
territory.
H
Well,
they
that
part
of
their
territory,
I
think,
is
in
the
watershed,
and
maybe
it
would
just
be-
they
haven't
approved
it
by
the
way.
I've
just
asked
the
mayor
and
he's
got
to
chat
with
his
city
council.
So
we
we,
we
don't
know
what
the
what
action
they're
going
to
take
or
what
level
they'll
participate
at
yet.
C
Just
to
remind
ourselves
this,
this
is
in
the
north
quadrant
of
the
central
park
basin
near
the
city
is:
has
con
the
city
in
the
county
contracted
with
aecom.
To
do
that
original
study
of
the
variety
of
improvements
that
could
happen
in
the
basin.
I
think
in
full
disclosure-
I'm
not
opposed
to
this.
I
I
do
continue
to
wonder
you
know
how
much
of
a
of
an
advance
or,
however,
we're
talking
about
the
funds
that
haven't
haven't
been.
C
You
know
accumulated
yet
in
the
sales
tax
revenue,
but
I
I
guess
that's
for
a
more
discussion
of
green
belt
opportunities
down
the
road,
but
I
I
think
in
in
light
of
full
disclosure,
this
property
was
not
a
key
ingredient
to
the
improvements
of
this
part
of
the
central
park
basin.
When
the
aecoms
study
came
forward,
we
know
that
we
have
to
improve
drainage.
C
That
has
a
very
big
impact
on
hell
avenue.
The
flooding
that
happens
there
is
increasing
and
bad
and
needs
a
lot
of
improvement,
but
I
I
think
we
wouldn't
expect
matt
fountain
and
the
county
wes
linker,
who
was
on
the
discussion
meeting
with
all
of
us
to
to
to
you,
know,
make
it
a
huge
priority
if
they
were
pushed
on
if
they
had
to
pick
between
this
piece
of
property
and
some
other
costs
that
we
know
we're
going
to
have
to
have
in
the
basin.
A
H
So
if
you
add
that
to
the
fact
that
we
can
utilize
greenbelt
funds,
given
the
nature
of
the
property
and
the
county
has
actually
agreed
to
do
the
drainage
improvement,
so
they'll
be
paying
for
those
to
me
to
me,
it
seems
like
a
no-brainer
if
we
get
some
benefit
and
we're
able
to
use
these
other
programmatic
dollars
and
the
counties
doing
the
improvements.
I
say
why
not.
A
C
C
A
C
I
know
we're
way
over
time
and
I
apologize
that
I
was
late
to
the
meeting
and-
and
I
guess
it
was
mentioned-
that
this
item
is
going
to
be
deferred
and
I
don't
have
a
good
argument
for
why
it
can't
be
because
we
didn't
get
any
sample.
We
didn't
get
any
contract
or
other
background
documents
in
order
to
say
yes
to
this,
but
I
I
feel
like
this
could
potentially
be
the
last
public
opportunity
that
some
of
us
have
to
speak
to
this
item.
C
C
That
needs
it
desperately.
So
the
fact
that
we
are
still
here
this
this
contract
should
have
come
to
us.
I
think
back
in
october,
but
certainly
in
november,
and
then
we
expected
it
in
december,
and
here
we
are
in
january,
needing
to
defer
it
and
now
their
backs
are
to
the
wall
eating
to
beg
their
seller,
about
deferring
a
closing
that
we
have
a
countdown
toward
the
vcc.
That
we
know
is
required
that
the
city
is
responsible
to
do
according
to
this
agreement
and
we're
not
ready
to
pull
the
trigger
on
any
of
it.
C
C
We
have
led
a
private
partner
who
has
a
reputation
up
and
down
the
the
carolinas
and
virginia
for
doing
the
exact
kind
of
work
that
we
are
desirous
of
having
them
do
here
in
charleston,
and
we
haven't
been
able
to
make
it
work,
and
I
know
there's
moving
parts
and
everybody
can
claim
a
reason,
some
part
of
the
elephant,
for
what
needed
to
be
done.
But
honestly,
we
had
a
contract
that
we
could
have
authorized
the
mayor
to
sign
today
and
in
45
days
we
could
have
worked
out
all
the
details.
C
We
could
have
satisfied
our
outside
counsel
who's
been
brought
in
to
manage
the
real
estate.
Closing
of
this
on
our
behalf,
we
could
have
worked
through
some
of
the
concept
for
the
storm
water,
so
we
would
have
alleviated
some
of
the
most
unknown
concerns
about
how
how
we're
going
to
be
doing
that
on
the
first
property
to
be
developed.
C
But
yet
here
we
are,
it's
been
automatically
deferred.
We
don't
have
any
documents,
I'm
not
confident
that
the
humanities
foundation
is
going
to
stay
in
this
with
us.
This
is
giving
me
ptsd
from
my
work
as
a
non-profit
developer.
In
virginia,
you
know
you
get
so
far
with
the
public
entity
and
then
the
rug
is
pulled
out
from
under
you
and
I'm
not
accusing
anyone
of
not
wanting
this
to
go
forward.
I'm
just
saying
we
we
could
have
done
this.
If
we'd
worked
as
a
team,
I
know
the
holidays
came
into
play.
C
I
There
are
a
number
of
issues
and,
and
I'd
be
happy
to
reach
out
to
councilmember
jackson
privately.
Regarding
some
of
the
concerns
that
we
had,
I
mean
I
think
everybody
is
interested
and
I
know
it
intent
on
moving
forward.
There
just
have
been
some
moving
parts
which,
frankly,
were
not
necessarily
in
the
best
interest
of
the
city.