Granite Countertops in Johns Island, SC

Charleston County has received a reduced cost estimate for the long-planned and controversial Mark Clark Extension project, but it’s a price tag that would still leave the county responsible for paying $1.78 billion.

That’s about five times the county’s yearly general fund budget.

Several council members who support finishing the Interstate 526 loop said the most likely path toward paying for it would be another half-percent sale tax increase that would require local voter approval.

“We just have to be willing to move forward and do it,” Councilwoman Jenny Honeycutt said. “Every day I get more and more calls.”

The project would create a 9½-mile, four-lane road from the current end of I-526 in West Ashley, to Johns Island and then onto James Island with a connection to the end of the James Island connector at Folly Road.

Most of the road would be elevated, with a proposed speed limit between 35 and 45 mph.

The marginally better cost estimate was delivered by S.C. Department of Transportation Secretary Christy Hall in a letter to the county. The previous price tag was estimated at $2.35 billion, while the new estimate that followed a consultant’s study came in at $2.2 billion.

“I think initially there was some thought that maybe we have overinflated the numbers,” Hall said.

When the higher cost estimate came out in May, Bradly Taggart, co-founder of Charlestonians for I-526, told County Council members that a temporary spike in commodity prices was likely to blame. He predicted that “we could be looking at a project that costs half as much in six months’ time as the market rebalances.”

Instead, the estimate dropped by less than 7 percent.

Hall said the estimated $150 million reduction came mainly from reducing the cost of potential “risk elements” — surprises during construction, such as unplanned conflicts with utilities or unexpected poor soil conditions — and partly from reducing expected cost inflation.

“This estimate has built into it every possible contingency for things that could go wrong,” said Honeycutt, who said she thinks the actual cost will be lower.

Hall asked the county to develop “a financial plan that is rational and realistic” for the entire road project, which would be required in order to get final approval for an environmental review from the federal government. She also asked the county to approve $150 million in preliminary work, with the county paying half that cost, to keep the plan moving forward.

Honeycutt and Council Chairman Teddie Pryor both said they favor a new half-percent sales tax referendum as the best way to pay the cost. County voters previously approved two such sales tax increases, mostly to fund road projects.

Pryor said if there were another referendum, it could be entirely dedicated to funding the Mark Clark Extension. The most recent sales tax increase, following a 2016 referendum, was expected to raise $1.89 billion for specified road projects in the county, over 25 years.

The county received the new cost estimate for the Mark Clark Extension on Dec. 2, a spokesperson said, and has not had time to discuss it. The earlier higher estimate was delivered to the county in May.

“I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry,” Councilman Henry Darby said at the time. “I would never, ever go with this.”

The Mark Clark Extension has lots of support, including the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce, the city of Charleston and the Charleston Trident Association of Realtors, but also lots of opposition. The Coastal Conservation League said in May that the multibillion-dollar price tag “is a perfect opportunity for Charleston County Council to walk away from this project.”

A community organization called Nix 526 has also been fighting the extension, and Charleston Waterkeeper and the S.C. Wildlife Federation have raised objections.

Supporters say it’s necessary for traffic relief and possible hurricane evacuations, while opponents say it will increase development on Johns Island and harm the environment while providing little traffic relief at great cost.

New roads tend to provide traffic relief for a time but also spur development. The existing portion of I-526 from North Charleston to Mount Pleasant initially provided traffic relief and a new hurricane evacuation option, but it also accelerated development in northern Mount Pleasant and on Daniel Island. The state is currently planning to spend about $4 billion to widen that part of the interstate.

Here are some numbers to put $1.78 billion in context:

The S.C. Department of Transportation assumes that if the Mark Clark Extension project goes forward, litigation could delay it by two or three years.

Pryor blamed opponents for the rising costs of the project, and said it could have been built for far less years or decades ago. In 2015, the cost estimate was $725 million.

Unlike the even-more-expensive plans to widen and improve the existing sections of I-526 — for about $7 billion — the state in 2019 limited its contribution to the Mark Clark Extension project to $420 million and the county agreed to finance the rest.

“Our interstate program is focused on upgrading our existing interstates,” said Hall, and those plans are focused on moving freight and aiding commerce. The state is pursuing plans to widen all or portions of interstates 526, 26 and 95, and to redesign multiple interchanges.

County Council is expected to discuss options for the Mark Clark Extension at a future meeting. Hall did not put a deadline on her request for action.

After a decade of booming population growth, Johns Island may get its own representative on Charleston City Council.

But making that change could cost a sitting council member their seat.

The island is now in District 5, which also spans much of outer West Ashley. It is represented by Councilman Karl Brady, who lives in West Ashley.

Two newly proposed City Council district maps make Johns Island its own district without any extension into West Ashley. That means the City Council member to represent it would have to live on Johns Island.

“There is no one on council right now that drives our roads every day, sends their kids to school here, works here or lives here,” said John Zlogar, chairman of the Johns Island Task Force.

The group was established in 2013 to bring together residents and local officials to address Johns Island-specific issues.

While Zlogar said he has no issue with Brady, he said he would like to have a council member who can put their sole focus on the island.

“We will feel like we have someone that has our voice,” he said.

The island, which is partially within the city of Charleston and partially within unincorporated Charleston County, has deep roots in agriculture and the city’s Black history. Several Black family farms have run their businesses on the island since Reconstruction, when formerly enslaved laborers took over former plantations.

An “urban growth boundary,” established across the island limits where agricultural land must be protected and where development is allowed. Most of the city’s side of the island is located within the urban growth boundary and as a result has seen a massive influx of residents looking for a lower cost of living than the city’s core. Between 2010 and 2020, District 5, the district with Johns Island and West Ashley, grew a staggering 154 percent.

The redistricting process

Charleston Chief Innovation Officer Tracy McKee has led the city through the redistricting process three times in her career. Factoring in population growth between 2010 and 2020, McKee and city staff have been in the process of redrawing the council district boundaries for months.

“Four council members live on the peninsula, but we’ve had more growth in Berkeley County on Daniel Island and on Johns Island,” McKee said.

Every 10 years, the U.S. Census Bureau releases new population and demographic data that governments use to redraw voting districts. In 2020, it was delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

City Council voted last summer to delay redistricting until after the fall 2021 election.

Officials try to balance the population size of each district as well as their geographic spread. In Charleston, for example, it would be impractical to include Daniel Island and outer West Ashley in the same district.

Initially, city staff put out one proposal in July. That plan kept all sitting council members within their current districts. None of them were at risk of losing their seat or having to run against each other to keep their seat. But the proposal split Johns island into three districts that included other areas of the city as well.

The map was met with some criticism for the wide span of geography each district covered. Districts were stretched from the peninsula far into West Ashley and District 11, covered parts of West Ashley, James Island and Johns Island.

The League of Women Voters published a commentary in The Post and Courier calling for more compact districts.

“Drawing districts to protect incumbents means the maps defy logic in many places. James Island remains divided into three different districts, one with very dubious contiguity as it crosses briefly over West Ashley and onto the peninsula. Johns Island, now all in District 5, will be divided into three different districts, diluting the voices of those residents,” the league wrote.

The league now supports the new proposals, mainly because the districts don’t stretch as far across the city.

“They keep communities together. These really prioritize citizen interests,” said Leslie Skardon, the director of advocacy for the League of Women Voters.

Impact to incumbents

On Aug. 28, city staff unveiled two alternative maps that took some of that feedback into consideration. The two new maps, referred to as 1A and 1B, are almost identical except for their effects on two current peninsula districts.

Both maps make Johns Island its own district.

To create the Johns Island district, city staff proposed two options. They can move District 3 or District 6 off of the West Side of the peninsula to only cover West Ashley. If District 3 moves off, District 6 will absorb the portion of the West Side that is currently in District 3.

Because District 3 Councilman Jason Sakran lives on the peninsula, he would be drawn out of his district. He would have to run for District 6 against fellow Councilman William Dudley Gregorie. But that seat is not up for election until 2025. In the meantime, depending on when council decides to make the maps effective, a special election would determine who represents the new West Ashley-only version of District 3.

The other scenario would be that District 6 would move off of its portion of the West Side of the peninsula. In that case, Gregorie, who lives also in the West Side, would be drawn into Councilman Sakran’s District 3. Because District 3 is up for election in 2023, the two would face off sooner.

Sakran said he would be OK with running against Gregorie in 2023, but he is most favorable of the original map that keeps all council members in their respective districts.

“You are overhauling peoples’ elected representatives to the tune of 40 percent of the city’s population,” Sakran said of the new proposals.

According to the city, if the original proposal is accepted, about 30 percent of the city’s population will end up in new council districts. If either of the alternatives are chosen, that number will move up to 39 percent.

Another factor in the process is the establishment of minority-majority districts. Districts 4 and 7 on the all three map proposals are majority-minority districts. They cover the upper peninsula and part of West Ashley, respectively. When the maps were last redrawn in 2010, the city went from having five majority-minority districts to three. Now the city is guaranteed to have two. As demographics shift, it’s difficult to group minority voters together and ensure their voice is in the majority in any part of the city, McKee said.

City Council will review the map proposals at its Sept. 13 meeting. No action will be taken. A public hearing will be held in the fall. Residents can view the maps and leave comments online the city’s redistricting “Open Town Hall” webpage at www.charleston-sc.gov/Redistricting2020. Email comments are accepted at redistricting@charleston-sc.gov.

Reach Emma Whalen at 843-708-5837. Follow her on Twitter @_emma_whalen.

A Johns Island-based company that makes a foldable, portable pocket dog bowl and matching carrying pouch will soon land on one of the nation’s largest e-commerce websites.

Lowcountry Pet Specialties was among the companies chosen through Walmart's “Open Call” initiative to promote locally made products on the retailer’s marketplace website. The goal is to get it on Walmart’s physical shelves.

According to a press release from Walmart, more than 1,100 businesses from across the country pitched their products at the annual “Open Call” last year and just more than 330 were chosen to be sold in stores and online.

Lowcountry Pet Specialties was one of four suppliers in South Carolina chosen for products made, grown or assembled in the state.

The Mobowl (named for “mobile bowl”) is a $12.99 patented BPA-free foldable travel pet bowl that fits two cups of food or two cups of water and measures just four inches in diameter when open.

Launched nearly four years ago, the Mobowl is now sold at 120 pet specialty retailers worldwide and available on the Lowcountry Pet Specialties website.

“We have sold somewhere in the neighborhood of 80,000-100,000 units. We have shipped 30,000 units to Europe,” said Lowcountry Pet Specialties founder John Hagerman, a retired engineer. “Europeans love this product; they are very active with their pets. (This WalMart partnership) is the project that really puts us on the map. By being in Walmart, it opens new doors for us to other retailers.”

Hagerman started Lowcountry Pet Specialties specifically to manufacture and sell the Mobowl. He came up with the idea after outings with his border collie at the beach and the park where he would forget to bring a water bowl.

“I would either cobble something up out of aluminum foil or I’d even pour water into my hand,” Hagerman said. “I looked online for a portable pet bowl, but nothing impressed me. I said,’ You know what? I'm going to make my own.’”

Hagerman’s friend had a 3-D printer and the first prototype of the Mobowl was created. Hagerman spent years testing different materials that was both safe for dogs and foldable into just inches. Hagerman has a trademark and patent for the Mobowl in multiple countries.

“The business was going great, and then the pandemic hit. And the problem was everybody was working remotely, so we didn’t have an opportunity to present our product or meet major retailers face to face and let them experience the product and feel it,” Hagerman said.

He discovered the Open Call initiative and applied last summer. Hagerman is currently in the process of supplying photos and a product description to Walmart's corporate marketing team and hopes to be online in the next few months.

The Mobowl is currently manufactured in Indiana, but Hagerman said he has plans to move production closer to home, especially if orders increase from the Walmart partnership. Hagerman said he hopes to hire workers to fulfill orders for increased production.

“We are looking now for a manufacturing site here in Charleston County. We're also looking in Colleton County to be able to fulfill the orders — Colleton County is offering some great incentives — in being able to warehouse all the products and all the packaging,” Hagerman said. “The plan is to maintain (inventory) we have now. Right now, we have plenty of inventory, but we're hoping that we deplete this inventory and we get back into production and start increasing production.”

Hagerman said he is working on inventing new to-be-trademarked products through Lowcountry Pet Specialties. He hopes the Walmart connection will spur national retailers like PetSmart or Petco to carry the Mobowl on shelves.

“Now that Walmart has brought us on board, I hope it will happen that (national pet retailers) are going to look at us with a much more serious frame of mind,” Hagerman said. “Our goal is to get it on the shelf. Once it gets on the shelf, that's when we will really ramp up production.”

The latest threat to the integrity of the Ashley River historic corridor is a new residential development planned in the city of North Charleston that would put dozens of homes on the river side of S.C. Highway 61. Fortunately, Dorchester County Council has an opportunity to scale back the plan by declining a request to extend water service there, and we urge council members to do just that.

In September, North Charleston approved a preliminary plat subdividing about 34 acres of a larger area known as the Barry tract into 47 single-family lots directly across the street from the Watson Hill development, the quality and appearance of which already has drawn criticism from residents and advocates of the historic, rural area. But that plat is contingent on the availability of water from Dorchester County, as well as approval from the state Department of Health and Environmental Control regarding the location and layout of septic fields.

The proposed development is yet another disturbing example of developers increasingly finding a workaround to a long-time strategy local governments have used to keep rural areas rural: refuse to provide public sewer service. In this case, as we have seen on Johns Island and in Awendaw, the proposed development would be served by individual septic tanks. And the state’s process for reviewing and approving those applications is outdated and flawed.

That’s why we applauded Charleston Waterkeeper and the Coastal Conservation League’s decision to go to court to force DHEC to consider how cumulative septic tank permits can harm water quality and environmental habitats along our coast. Currently, the agency considers them on an individual basis and doesn’t ask whether new residential septic tank permits in our eight coastal counties are consistent with the state’s Coastal Management Program. Unfortunately, that legal question may not be settled in time to affect the Barry tract project. Fortunately, Dorchester County can make the point moot by declining to extend a water line there.

If the water line were extended and all those homes were built with their own septic tanks — and possibly more homes and more septic tanks in future phases — then no one should be surprised if the water quality of this section of the Ashley River starts degrading. No one should be surprised if the Ashley River sees fecal pollution similar to what has been found in James Island and Shem creeks, both of which suffer from aging septic tanks along their banks. (Another weak point in our state’s regulatory approach: Once a septic system is permitted, there are no requirements to inspect or maintain it.)

The Ashley River corridor can be considered as historically significant as Charleston’s downtown historic district. Both were settled in the Carolina colony’s earliest days, and they had a powerful symbiotic relationship, linked by the river itself. But while downtown is protected and preserved largely through the work of a single government, the city of Charleston, there are at least five governments whose decisions will determine how well protected and preserved this corridor’s history, scenery and environmental integrity will be in the years to come.

As Robby Maynor of the Coastal Conservation League notes, all those governments could and should be taking a more coherent, cohesive approach toward development in this sensitive area. “Now we have more competition than collaboration, and the only entity suffering is the integrity of the historic corridor,” he tells us.

That competition has shown itself most clearly in the ongoing legal wrangling over North Charleston’s attempts to annex more of this historic district, a move some fear will hasten its erosion. That concern unfortunately is underscored by the appearance of Watson Hill. We strongly encourage the city of Charleston to ask the S.C. Supreme Court to overturn lower court rulings upholding a controversial annexation by North Charleston almost five years ago.

Until local governments can get on the same page about how best to protect this important and uniquely beautiful place, we are left to root for the ones with the best track record of doing that on their own.

Click here for more opinion content from The Post and Courier.

Get a weekly recap of South Carolina opinion and analysis from The Post and Courier in your inbox on Monday evenings.

Cushman & Wakefield announced that the commercial real estate services firm arranged the $16.3 million sale of Forest at Fenwick, an 80-unit multifamily property located in Johns Island, South Carolina.

Cushman & Wakefield’s John Phoenix, Richard Gore, and Tyler Fish represented the seller, Southwood Realty/Triangle Real Estate, in the transaction. The multifamily property was acquired in a partnership managed by Rowin Capital and Penny Lane Associates.

“We are pleased to enter the Charleston market with the acquisition of Forest at Fenwick,” said Joe Scherban, Managing Director at Rowin Capital. “Forest at Fenwick is an extremely desirable place to live, located just minutes from downtown Charleston but in the quiet elegance of Johns Island.”

Built in 2005, Forest at Fenwick is located on Johns Island, an area that is walkable to restaurants and grocers on Maybank Highway. Residents enjoy state of the art amenities including a swimming pool with sundeck, poolside gas grill, fire-pit, 24-hour fitness center, coffee bar, and screened-in outdoor lounge.

“Forest at Fenwick provided the Buyer a proven value-add opportunity to capitalize on a well-maintained asset in a thriving Charleston submarket,” said Phoenix, Senior Director at Cushman & Wakefield.

Cushman & Wakefield’s Sunbelt Multifamily Advisory Group is a 109-person investment sales team covering 11 states with No. 1 multifamily market share in that region based on sales volume and transactions reported to CoStar. Per Cushman & Wakefield, in 2022, the group closed $11.1 billion in sales volume through 360 deals and over 60,300 units.

While the two main confidence indexes for multifamily housing increased slightly in the fourth quarter, they both remained in negative territory, according to results from the Multifamily Market Survey (MMS) released by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). The MMS produces two separate indices. The Multifamily Production Index (MPI) increased two points to 34 compared to the previous quarter and the Multifamily Occupancy Index (MOI) increased four points to 49.

The MPI measures builder and developer sentiment about current production conditions in the apartment and condo market on a scale of 0 to 100. The index and all of its components are scaled so that a number below 50 indicates that more respondents report conditions are getting worse than report conditions are improving.

The MPI is a weighted average of three key elements of the multifamily housing market: construction of low-rent units-apartments that are supported by low-income tax credits or other government subsidy programs; market-rate rental units-apartments that are built to be rented at the price the market will hold; and for-sale units—condominiums. The component measuring low-rent units increased five points to 41, the component measuring market rate apartments dropped one point to 38 and the component measuring for-sale units remained even at 23.

The MOI measures the multifamily housing industry’s perception of occupancies in existing apartments. It is a weighted average of current occupancy indexes for class A, B, and C multifamily units, and can vary from 0 to 100, with a break-even point at 50, where lower numbers indicate decreased occupancy. The MOI increased four points to 49, indicating that the market is close to being stable.

“Many developers continue to see strong demand for multifamily housing, but in some markets supply is catching up to demand,” said Lance Swank, president and co-owner of Sterling Group, Inc. in Mishawaka, Ind., and chairman of NAHB’s Multifamily Council. “In most markets, developers face challenges with regulatory costs and delays, and obtaining financing for new construction.”

“It is appropriate that multifamily developers are expressing some caution and that the MPI remains below 50, given the way starts have been outpacing completions,” said NAHB Chief Economist Robert Dietz. “This is also consistent with NAHB’s forecast that multifamily production will slow measurably from the very strong rates it sustained through most of 2022.”

For data tables on the MPI and MOI, visit www.nahb.org/mms.

For more information on the NAHB Multifamily program, please visit NAHB Multifamily.