Public Services Committee

TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE Monday, April 1, 2019 Municipal Complex, Committee Meeting Room, 3rd Floor 100 Ann Edwards Lane, Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Minutes Members Present: Jim Owens, Chair; Joe Bustos, Kathy Landing, Kevin Cunnane Staff: Eric DeMoura, Jody Peele, Marcy Cotov Mr. Owens called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m. 1. Approval of Minutes from the March 4, 2019 meeting Mr. Owens called for a motion to approve the minutes from the March 4, 2019 meeting. Mr. Bustos so moved; seconded by Mrs. Landing; motion carried unanimously. 2. Public Comments None 3. Budget Review Fiscal Year 2020 a. Public Services Department operating expenditures Mr. DeMoura thanked the Committee and asked all Committee members to open their budget books to page 75 where the Public Services Department budget begins.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 2 of 45 Mr. DeMoura stated that page 75 starts the general fund portion of the budget. He added that he will provide an overview and some highlights that tell the story of what is proposed to happen for next year. Mr. DeMoura stated that the overall budget is proposed to decrease $60,000.00 with zero percent of a change negligible from the prior year. He added that most of the decreases do not represent any decrease in service delivery but represent movement of money, meaning that overtime has been reduced. He added that overtime was inflated from where it started in the prior year budget because of the storm situation, which caused an increase in overtime that additional money was provided for during the midyear amendment. He added that it has now been brought back to where it was last year. Mr. DeMoura added that there are a number of different items that are more maintenance related which were moved into the capital fund which is the more appropriate place to house these items. He added that a few of the items are radios, other contractual services, and general supplies which are being put into the capital fund. Mr. DeMoura stated that there is one new position requested which would be a Facilities Technician for the new Town Hall Gymnasium which will be opening soon. He added that a couple of pages into the proposed budget you all will notice the contractual services. He added that Jody Peele, Director of Public Services, and his team do a lot of work, but there are a few things that are contracted out. He added that one of those items is the transfer yard for the Town’s vegetative waste which is located at our Six Mile Facility. He added that the contract amount for next year is in the budget as well as the right-of-way maintenance for rights-of-way throughout the town. He added that there are also smaller items which include maintenance contracts for Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems and the radio user fee for the Charleston County radio system.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 3 of 45 Mr. DeMoura stated that the salary and benefits line items include the four percent on average compensation recommendation as well as the one percent mandatory increase in the state retirement. b. Public Services Department capital and maintenance expenditures Mr. DeMoura stated that the capital portion of the budget is located on page 157. He added that he will discuss the highlights. Mr. DeMoura stated that the capital recommendations include the funding of the Stormwater Improvement Program which would total $21 million dollars. He added that it would include a $20 million dollar revenue loan. He added that this would require an increase to the Stormwater fee from $60.00 to $100.00 which would buy us the Stormwater Improvement Program which we have been working on and finishing designs for the two basins in the Old Village, and then hopefully on to the Hobcaw Drainage Project which will be reported on shortly. Mr. DeMoura stated that we are continuing with the Snee Farm Project. He added that regarding vehicles there is one small garbage truck, two fully- automated packers, as well as a bucket truck and twenty smaller trucks and other pieces of equipment that are up for replacements. Mr. DeMoura concluded the highlights and asked Committee if there were any questions. Mrs. Landing asked Mr. DeMoura, regarding the Stormwater Fee going from $60.00 to $100.00, why this would be the only way to do this. Mr. DeMoura stated that there are several different options as allowed for under the law. He added that one option would be an increase in property taxes. He stated that the benefit of the Stormwater fee is that it stays within  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 4 of 45 the Stormwater budget. He added that it could not be moved at a later time by a policy making body, such as Council. He added that it would stay with Stormwater and would have to be spent on Stormwater. Mr. DeMoura stated that those are really the only two options since we do not have sufficient money any longer in, for example, the general fund balance to be able to do it. He added that the money that is currently being brought in with the fee goes to the operational side and the general maintenance side of the Stormwater budget. He added that the biggest portion which would be about $1.5 million dollars goes every year into replacement, cleaning out, and maintenance of current Stormwater lines which is the Stormwater Program. He added that the only way left to reach any new construction or new program is with another revenue source, and if we choose to go ahead with this Stormwater Program, the best revenue source available is the fee. Mrs. Landing stated that she had a couple of comments regarding Mr. DeMoura’s information. She stated that when you raise a flat fee it is very regressive. She added that most of us know the difference between a regressive and progressive tax, but it hits people that make less money harder. She added that some people might say that from $60.00 to $100.00 is only $40.00 and that anybody can handle that, but the reality is that we went from $30.00 to $60.00 only a few years ago. She stated that her concern is that this just keeps increasing and believes we need to go back and find a different way to pay for this. She added that she is not sure when this would come up for a vote, perhaps when the whole budget is passed, but wants to find a way to find other money to do this. She added that she feels the Town each year, for quite a few years, has had a little bit of a surplus and would like to find another place to pay for this without adding a higher fee that will impact our less fortunate residents more than the residents that can easily handle it.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 5 of 45 Mr. Owens asked Mr. DeMoura if they have looked at other cities that are the size of Mount Pleasant in respective to their Stormwater fees. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative. Mr. Owens asked where the Town stands compared to others. Mr. DeMoura stated that we are in the middle to bottom range. He added that it has been a few weeks since he looked at that information but believes that is correct. Mrs. Cotov confirmed this. Mr. DeMoura stated that we tend to be lower and by raising the fee we would still end up somewhere towards the middle. He added that he believes the citizens of Mount Pleasant would be receiving more value by raising it. He noted that we are not only maintaining and replacing, but we are going ahead with a full fledged program. Mr. Cunnane stated that he would like to address Mrs. Landing’s comments on different ways to fund this project. He added that he is not sure if this would be acceptable under State law, but there are places that have road taxes based on frontage. He asked if that was looked at for the Stormwater fee and stated that the bigger properties would pay more. Mr. DeMoura stated that commercially we charge based on the amount of land and the type of runoff they have. He explained that in a way that is how the Stormwater fee is calculated. He added that we are not allowed any specialized tax such as Mr. Cunnane mentioned that other states have. He added that the legislature has not given us that authority. Mr. Cunnane asked if the only options would be a flat fee or an increase in taxes.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 6 of 45 Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bustos asked Mr. DeMoura about Impact fees. Mr. DeMoura stated that they are only for new construction. Mr. Owens asked Mr. DeMoura what he needed from the Committee to approve this and move this to the Budget Committee. Mr. DeMoura stated that if Committee is comfortable with the budget overall, then a positive recommendation should be given to the Budget Committee of Council. Mr. DeMoura stated that he realized he did not answer Mrs. Landing’s question about when this gets decided. He added that it is not today but that likely the Budget Committee would address this particular item, as well as the Finance Committee later this morning. Mr. DeMoura stated that there is time to address this issue up until the final reading of the budget. Mrs. Landing stated that she does not want to be in a situation where it sounds as if she is for something and then against it. She added that she is not for doing it this way and believes we need to go back and look at other funding sources. She noted that we have used the general fund for a lot of things lately. She further added that she understands what Mr. DeMoura said regarding an ongoing funding source, but that we also have a tremendous amount of new businesses to Town and we are working very hard on a couple of major economic development projects which will bring a lot more jobs and a lot more revenue to this side of the river. She added that she believes this will give us more to work with so we would not have to raise millage or even Stormwater fees to have more excess funds to work  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 7 of 45 with. She explained that to her a deeper dive is needed rather than just saying, yes, let’s accept this because this will be the easy way. She noted that she does not believe the easy way is the right way in this case. Mrs. Landing added that by saying this she does not know where she would stand on voting today. She asked if she votes for this item, if it would be saying she is okay with this. Mr. DeMoura stated that she could caveat her vote. Mr. Owens added that it could be for further review in the Budget Committee. Mr. Owens stated that he appreciated Mrs. Landing’s comments. He asked in the event we were to pull from other revenue sources, if money would be specifically dedicated for the Stormwater Program. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative. He added that the money could be moved through all departments. Mr. Owens stated that this is the reason there is a need for a designated Stormwater Program. Mr. Bustos asked if the $21 million dollars was going to build the system. He also asked if we have any idea how much it will cost afterwards to maintain the system. Mr. DeMoura stated that he does not have the number on maintenance. He added that the cost will be included in the overall maintenance which we fund, not enough, but at a decent level. Mr. Bustos asked if the current $60.00 fee is maintaining what we currently have.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 8 of 45 Mr. DeMoura answered at a certain level. He added that if we had to give it a grade it would be a “C”. He added that we could always do more if we had more money for maintenance. Mr. Bustos inquired if it is $21 million dollars to build the system and we are currently maintaining what we have now at $60.00 a month, is the additional $40.00 going to be enough to maintain a $21 million dollar system after it is built. Mr. DeMoura stated that the increase will only get us the two basins in the Old Village and likely the Hobcaw Drainage Project. He added that we would not be able to stretch that amount of money for other systems that come up until we have paid down the debt for the three systems that we already discussed. He explained that the long answer to Mr. Bustos’s question is that it is not enough and what he has gleaned as Council’s desire for a serious Stormwater Program, where we go in and retool or build the infrastructure, increasing the fee to $100.00 will not be enough to attack and create the type of program that he believes Council envisions for the long term. He noted that it will allow us the two worst basins in the Old Village and Hobcaw which will be a big step forward for us. Mr. Bustos stated that this would not be the end all, be all for the Stormwater Program. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative. He added that it has been under funded for decades and we have a lot of catching up to do. He added that even the $100.00 a year will not be enough. Mr. Owens stated that it will allow us to maintain recurring assets for our Stormwater Program as we pay down the debt for the ensuing projects. He added that we will be able to do further projects if needed.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 9 of 45 Mrs. Landing stated that the problems as she sees them are that if we raise the fee as we did several years ago from $30.00 to $60.00 and now, we raise the fee to $100.00 which will set us up for a couple of years and then we will need to raise it again down the road. She added that if anyone looks at their line items on their property tax bill this is something that hits residents squarely, and not something that is subject to the homestead or anything else. She added that this is a fee and will increase everyone’s tax the same, regardless of their income. She added that she does not believe this is the right way to do this and believes there has to be another way. She stated that she is not prepared this morning to make a vote. She added that it is also not acceptable that these problems not be fixed. Mrs. Landing asked why we cannot find money from the surpluses we have had. She asked why we could not allocate more funds towards this as a capital improvement in cash rather than always having it as a debt that we then service for many years. She stated that she knows that debt at a low rate is a good thing but, is there a way, if we have a lump sum. She added if we came up with $1 million to $2 million dollars and could pay this down up front, there would be less ongoing. Mr. DeMoura stated that there would be no way to reach $20 million, $25 million, $30 million dollars or more for this program. He added that we are already seeing because of other priorities that the budget is stretched out and we have spent down for worthy causes any real balance we had in our fund balance. He added that there is nothing left to find this kind of money. He explained that if the Stormwater Program implementation was $5 million dollars a year then we would not be talking about a fee but looking at reshaping other things and reprioritizing the order of the budget. He added that the only way to raise money for these kinds of projects, is to raise the fee. We are limited in our options for raising additional revenue. Mrs. Landing asked who would be paying the fee. She asked if it would be every single resident or businesses and residents.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 10 of 45 Mr. DeMoura stated that it would be businesses and residents. Mrs. Landing asked if all the new businesses have been calculated in. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative. He added that we would not be able to reach that number. Mrs. Landing asked how much we would be able to afford if we did not raise the fee $40.00 in terms of debt and inquired if that was calculated before we arrived at this number. Mr. DeMoura stated that it had all been calculated and has been about a year long conversation. He added that one thing we can do is after today we can go back and dust off the financial breakdown of all the numbers and send it back to Mrs. Landing and members of Council so that prior to Budget Committee we would have all of those numbers available. Mr. DeMoura stated that he cannot recall how much we could reach but we know that the price has gone up for both basins per the presentation at the last Public Services Committee meeting. He added that the project’s cost has increased a couple of million dollars. He added that we are already in the $15 to $16 million dollar price range for just two basins. He added that the Hobcaw Project will probably come in cheaper. He added that without collecting more of a Stormwater fee we may be able to fund the Hobcaw Project because it will be cheaper, but we will not be able to fund the others. Mr. Cunnane asked if it would be a viable option to send this to Council without a recommendation and more information could be presented. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 11 of 45 Mr. Cunnane made a motion to send this to Council without recommendation and that more information be provided concerning Stormwater funding. Seconded by Mrs. Landing. Mr. Owens stated that we have a motion and a second although this goes before the Budget Committee and not Council. He asked if that was correct. Mr. DeMoura answered in the affirmative. He added that if the Committee members are comfortable, they can approve the Public Services Department portion of the budget and single out the Stormwater fee for further discussion. Mr. Cunnane amended his first motion. Mr. Cunnane made a motion to pass the Public Services Department budget excluding the Stormwater fee. Mr. Owens asked Mr. Cunnane and Mrs. Landing if they withdrew their first and second motions. Mr. Owens asked if Mrs. Landing seconded the revised motion. Mrs. Landing answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Landing seconded the motion. Mr. Owens stated there is a motion and a second to approve the Public Services budget with the exception of the Stormwater fee which will be added for further discussion. Mr. Owens called for a vote.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 12 of 45 Motion carried unanimously. 4. Consideration of proclaiming May 1, 2019 as May Day in support of police, fire, and public services workers Mr. Owens stated that he put this on the agenda and is very proud to request that this resolution be adopted. Mr. Owens added the resolution states: WHEREAS, our law enforcement officers, fire fighters, emergency medical responders and public service workers have played an important role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this Town and protecting the lives and property of our citizens; and WHEREAS, it is important that our residents and visitors know and understand the problems, duties, and responsibilities each of the people in these departments face daily to ensure the well-being, comfort and safety of each of us; WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper that we express our gratitude for the dedicated service of law enforcement officers, fire fighters, emergency service workers and public service employees and for the contributions they have made to the Town we know and love NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Councilmembers of the Municipality of Mount Pleasant, in Council assembled, that it will declare May 1, 2019 as May Day, in appreciation and recognition of the service given by the men and women who, night and day, protect our citizens, safeguard our streets, waterways and facilitate our most basic needs. May Day is the day commemorating the people that we depend on during our call for help. THIS RESOLUTION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON ITS ADOPTION. Mr. Owens asked if there was a motion.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 13 of 45 Mr. Cunnane so moved; seconded by Mr. Owens. (Discussion) Mr. Bustos stated that he believes the resolution is good and the reason is great. He added that he had a problem with May 1. He continued by stating that May 1 is International Workers Day which is a Communist holiday and celebrated by Socialists around the world. He added that rather than celebrating a Socialist holiday, we should pick another day. He added that the reason is fine but suggested to move it to June 1 or July 1, as May 1 or May Day is a Communist holiday and he believes it is not appropriate. Mrs. Landing stated that this proclamation is a wonderful idea. She added that when she thinks of May 1 culturally in the United States, it is a day you celebrate spring and have flower and strawberry festivals. Other events are celebrated such as May Queen with the May Pole through the Northern European cultural viewpoint. She added that from that viewpoint it might not be the right day because of the seriousness of it. She added that she also saw that it was International Workers Day which is a national holiday and celebrated in the Russian Federation and Asian countries such as: China, Thailand, and Vietnam. She added that Labor Day is the day celebrated in the United States but internationally May Day is our Labor Day. She added that it is an annual holiday to celebrate the achievements of workers which is great, but it clearly has strong connotations related to the concept of unions and labor workers per se as a party because labour means something very different in the United Kingdom and other places than it does here. She added that she also feels uncomfortable about the day and would rather it be on a different day. Mr. Cunnane stated that he was aware of May 1 being celebrated in other countries but looked at this agenda item as May Day, the radio transmission. He added that when someone is in a bind and you hear the words, “May Day”, it is a big deal and some of the people that come to help are the ones  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 14 of 45 that work for Mr. Peele. He added that these people really are first responders but are not looked at as first responders as much as they probably should be. He added that was how he looked at it when he saw this item on the agenda. He added that he did not care what other countries do, but a May Day transmission is the way he looked at this item. Mr. Owens replied to Mr. Cunnane’s comments stating that was the intent. He added that there was no inference to anything other than the radio transmission for May Day taking place on May 1. He added that a June date would defeat the purpose going forward. Mr. Owens stated that the radio transmission for an initial call for help to our first responders: Police, Fire, Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) and Public Services during times of trouble such as hurricanes and so forth is exactly the reason it was prescribed. Mr. Owens stated that there is a motion and a second to proclaim May 1, 2019 as May Day in support of Police, Fire, and Public Services workers. He asked if there was any further discussion. (Discussion) Mrs. Landing stated that it is important that we treat every day as a day that we celebrate the individuals who help keep us safe and believes we can do that in many different ways. She added that without getting into anything too controversial, there are lots of things that can be looked at in different ways. She further added that when looking this up and the first thing you see is something that she thinks would be against the value system of a number of employees that would be honored by this, that it does not make sense to her to do this. She noted that she cannot say that for sure and does not want to put words in other people’s mouths. She added that the Town is not crying out for us to make sure that we have a special day set aside because we are not showing enough respect for our hard working first  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 15 of 45 responders, but we can certainly do that without doing it on a day that has another meaning. She commented that we could talk about flags and other symbols and other things that stand for something. She added that those things are important and have meanings that might be seen differently by different people but, clearly mean something to some people. She stated that if we do this, she is unsure why we cannot do it on a different day. Mr. Cunnane asked if we could add that this is in recognition of the radio transmission and not anything else. He added that we could move it to another month and come up with a way to recognize them. He added that the intent behind this is that what the Public Services employees do is invaluable and under recognized. He added that if it is moved to another month to avoid the May Day issue, that is fine, but he does not want this to go away so we can recognize all these fine people for what they do. He added that when things get bad, they are the ones there and that is the issue; they are unsung heroes all the time but when things are really bad you cannot live without them. Mrs. Landing stated that this is not a motion and is just an example but added that everyone feels horrible on September 11, and still to this day she knows what she was doing when she saw what was happening and heard what was happening. She added that why not make it a day like that where first responders are honored for all time by our Town and we proclaim that as First Responder Day or something similar. She added that this may not be the right answer and stated that it does not have to be June 1 but could be a date that is significant in the world of the first responders’ job. Mr. Owens thanked Mrs. Landing. He added that the purpose for May 1 was more of a play on words. He added that May Day being in May and in response to the radio transmission. He added that this has been used since World War II. Mr. Owens stated that there is a motion on the floor.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 16 of 45 Motion failed by a 2 to 2 vote. Mr. Owens and Mr. Cunnane voted in favor. Mr. Bustos and Mrs. Landing were opposed. 5. Update on the Hobcaw drainage study Mr. Peele stated that Mr. Clayon McCathern with CDM Smith will be giving the update on the study for the Hobcaw Drainage Project. Mr. McCathern stated that this presentation is part review from the presentation given back in August 2018. He added that the presentation will also include some of the results from the pilot study and the status of the project. He added that they are now at a point where they are very close to finalizing the Hobcaw Drainage report. Mr. McCathern stated that he will present the slides for review and also include the cost estimates which are at the end of the presentation. Mr. McCathern stated that the Hobcaw study was based off the same methodology, as the Old Village study. He added that the reason for the study was to determine the capacity of the existing storm systems in Hobcaw as well as creating a prioritized list of the most critical basins within Hobcaw, and from there make a selection of two to three basins for a pilot study and to present the results of those studies here. Mr. McCathern added that due to the age of the systems and continuous development of the neighborhood, they projected what it would take for full buildout within the neighborhood to determine what type of system would be needed to accommodate future development. He noted that 43 percent of the roads and 20 percent of the pipes belong to South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and that the development dates back to the 1950’s as shown in the below slide.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 17 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the below slide shows the comparisons and differences between Hobcaw and the Old Village. He added that the Old Village is significantly larger and only has two sides that have water frontage whereas Hobcaw has three: Molasses Creek, Hobcaw Creek, and the Cooper River (Wando River). He added that the majority of the land use in Hobcaw is residential where the Old Village is more mixed use. He added that Hobcaw has significantly less parcels although the parcels are almost double in size compared to the ones in the Old Village. Mr. McCathern stated that a closed system is a system with no direct gravity outfall. He added that the Old Village has quite a bit of that whereas Hobcaw does not. He added that in Hobcaw all the basins positively drain to an outfall.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 18 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the scope of work included data collection, basin and sub-basin delineation, field survey, evaluation of the existing system, presentation of study findings and completion of proposed designs on three basins. Mr. McCathern stated that the below slide shows the study area for the Hobcaw Drainage study.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 19 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the pink roads represent SCDOT roads and the green dots represent the outfalls from basins as shown in the below slide.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 20 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that there are 34 primary basins as shown in the below slide. He added that the pink lines represent sub-basins. He added that the Isaw basin has a lot of roadway drainage structures. He added that the below slide shows how tight and small those sub-basins are. Mr. McCathern stated that the below slide is the basis of their analysis with the biggest takeaway being the time it takes to drain a basin. He noted that the longer it takes to drain the less the intensity is. He explained that when water runs off pavement it will run off faster creating a greater intensity versus a grass field runoff.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 21 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the runoff calculations were based on SCDOT data using the rational method as shown in the below slide.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 22 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the majority of the land use in Hobcaw is residential and the sources of impervious surfaces are buildings, sidewalks, and driveways as shown in the below slide. Mr. McCathern stated that the below slide shows the residential areas highlighted in green. He added the two red areas indicate the commercial areas which are the two marinas and one small cemetery highlighted in black.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 23 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated the below slide is a quick summary of how they conducted their analysis by using Manning’s Equation. He added that they had to make a few assumptions based on the information that was given.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 24 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the below slide is an image of the geographic information system (GIS) data that was given. He added that they supplemented based on field observation and survey.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 25 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that they were given Service Requests from the Town which were categorized into the categories as shown. He added that there is one change from the previous presentation which is located on the bottom row. He stated that they changed from unknown to information only because they were more question-based comments with no specific work to be done, just inquiries to be looked at. He added that it was nothing specific on any existing issues that could be addressed or maintained.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 26 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the below slide shows the areas the Town received service request color coded by category.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 27 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that Service Requests increased in 2016 because of the extreme events that happened in 2015. He added that the below slides are the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) claims for Hobcaw. He added that most of the claims pertain to either Hurricane Hugo or the 2015 floods. Mr. McCathern stated that the below slide shows that most of the FEMA claims occurred along the waterways, which was expected.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 28 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the below slide is the building permits that are on record for Hobcaw.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 29 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the Town has a design standard for a ten- year event. He added that after analysis, most of the pipes fell below a two-year event. He explained that by putting it in perspective, a heavy summer rainstorm that occurs once a summer would be a one-year event, so a ten- year event is much more infrequent than that. Mr. McCathern stated that the pipes highlighted in red in the below slide are pipes that have less than a two-year capacity. Mr. McCathern stated that based on their analysis they project full buildout to be in 2050. He added that the below slides are examples of current additions and developments. He added that the pictures to the left are older images and the pictures to the right are after development. Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 30 of 45  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 31 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the below slide is the level of service based on ten years from now in 2028 if no work was performed.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 32 of 45 Mr. McCathern added that the below slide is an image of full build out for 2050 if no work was started until then. Mr. McCathern stated that the below slide is a summary of how they ranked each basin. He added that they gave each basin these criteria and weighted them to get a final ranking of the most critical areas.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 33 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the below slides show the summary table of the findings. He added that this is how each basin scored and you can see where we received the most extreme numbers. Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 34 of 45  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 35 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that in the below slide the red areas were the highest rankings. He noted that one of the criteria was drainage area, and some of the areas along the water are large areas; however, they do not have direct outfalls or many pipes because a yard can drain over land to the water. He added that they negated some areas since there were not any stormwater drainage infrastructure issues. He added that they then took their priority list and selected the ones which had the greatest need for system work and they decided on East Molasses, Isaw, and West Molasses which are outlined in yellow. He added that those areas had the most closed pipe systems in the entire basin.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 36 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the below slide is a recap and summary with explanations for why certain areas were not quite as high on the priority list as others.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 37 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the below slide shows the total system expected cost. He added that this would include all 34 basins and would be approximately $4.2 million dollars if work started today. He added if we waited a few years it would be approximately $5.3 million dollars and if we waited until full buildout it would be over $7 million dollars.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 38 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that they have been focusing on three basins since their last Committee presentation given in August 2018: East Molasses, Isaw, and West Molasses. He added that East Molasses has roadway drainage with a cross line that has an outfall between a few houses and crosses Molasses Lane and into the marsh. He added that this system currently contains 15-inch to 18-inch pipes and based on their study they plan on adding pipes up to 36-inches for some areas. He added that all of the pipes will be increased in size as shown in the below slide.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 39 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the total cost for the East Molasses Basin if construction started today would be approximately $500,000 dollars and could go up over $900,000 dollars if we waited until full build out in 2050.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 40 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the Isaw Basin had the greatest number of pipes and structures. He added that a portion of the Isaw Basin drains into a pond before heading to the marsh. He added that the majority of this system has 15-inch pipes and a few 18-inch pipes which cross into a 24-inch pipe and into a 30-inch pipe at the outfall. He added that those few 30-inch pipes are the largest in the entire neighborhood. Mr. McCathern stated that they plan on upgrading to nothing smaller than an 18-inch pipe. He added that the 30-inch pipe at the outfall will be upgraded to a 36-inch pipe, but they would need to add more 24-inch pipe and 30-inch pipe in order for the system to work, as shown in the below slide.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 41 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the Isaw Basin would cost approximately $1.2 million dollars to $1.8 million dollars due to the number of pipes and structures. Mr. McCathern stated that the last basin is the West Molasses Basin. He said that most of the basin has 15-inch pipes with maybe one 18-inch pipe at the outfall. He added that there was one pipe that is adequate that they would not need to replace. He stated that all of the 15-inch and 18-inch pipes would get replaced with 24-inch pipes and a 30-inch pipe at the outfall as shown in the below slide.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 42 of 45 Mr. McCathern stated that the West Molasses Basin would cost approximately $600,000 dollars if construction started today.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 43 of 45 Mr. McCathern concluded his presentation and asked if there were any questions. Mr. Peele asked Mr. McCathern to refer to the slide that showed the grand total for the entire project if we were to do all the basins. Mr. Peele stated that the grand total would be approximately $4.2 million dollars if we started construction today. Mrs. Landing commented that regarding the three basins: East Molasses, Isaw, and West Molasses that the total for those three shows approximately $1,104,000 million dollars. Mr. McCathern stated that because they conducted a more detailed study, those three basins show a little higher cost than the number shown on the grand total cost. Mrs. Landing asked if it was because those basins had the most closed systems. Mr. McCathern answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Landing asked if those were the most urgent basins to do now. Mr. McCathern answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Landing stated that the reason she brings this up is after looking at the cost, in terms of a jump in numbers, noted that it is about 25 percent over the next nine years. She added that would be about 2.5 percent a year and by keeping that in perspective, maybe we should start with the ones that are most urgent because a 2.5 percent increase in cost per year is not as big.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 44 of 45 She added that we still have to make sure we take care of what needs to be taken care of. Mr. McCathern stated that there were three other locations that we talked about in the past which were the Muirhead Crossing, Sampa Circle, and a Service Request off SeeWee Circle. He added that those are one pipe systems that do not require a full pilot study or drainage study, but areas that would be a quick turnaround due to the upsize in just one pipe for those areas. Mrs. Landing stated that the Muirhead Basin was actually the most expensive at approximately $600,000 dollars. Mr. McCathern stated that Muirhead could be considered one of the most critical areas because it is the one-way-in and one-way-out of the neighborhood. Mr. Peele stated that he wanted Mrs. Landing to know that this is a study only and when we see these projects go into construction design, the cost usually goes up such as the two Old Village pilot studies. He added that both of those studies went up approximately $1 million to $2 million dollars each. He added that these prices are an opinion of probable cost meaning that they will probably go up. Mr. Owens asked if they based these findings on a ten-year storm event. Mr. McCathern answered in the affirmative. He added that they are trying to meet the capacity for a ten-year event. Mr. Owens asked if the presentation was for information only. Mr. Peele answered in the affirmative.  Public Services Committee Minutes April 1, 2019 Page 45 of 45 Mr. Owens thanked Mr. McCathern for the presentation. 6. Adjourn There being no further business, Chairman Owens adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted by, Andrew Dolan April 4, 2019 Hobcaw Drainage Study Clayon McCathern, PE Presentation to Town Council Committee April 1, 2019  OUTLINE  Hobcaw Drainage Study  Scope / Study Area  Basins / Sub-basins  Rainfall / Return Frequency  Hydrology  Land Use / Percent Impervious  Hydraulics / Pipe Systems  Service Requests / FEMA Claims / Building Permits  Levels of Service  Future Conditions Analysis  Findings / Prioritization  Recommendations  Opinions of Probable Cost 2  Project Background – How did we get here?  The second study of this type by the Town of Mount Pleasant  First Study – Old Village  Reason for Study  To determine the current capacity of the existing system compared to current design standards  To identify and prioritize potential drainage projects within the Hobcaw Neighborhood  Increases in Impervious Area  New Construction  Residential Additions  Swimming Pools  Facts  43% of roads and approximately 20% of pipes are SCDOT owned  Development in Hobcaw dates back to the 1950s 3  Comparisons of Hobcaw with Old Village Hobcaw Old Village 265 Ac Area 960 Ac Includes a Portion of ION Neighborhood for modeling purposes Adjacent Water 3 Sides 2 Sides Land Use Majority Residential Mixed Use Number of Parcels 515 3,596 Average Parcel Size 0.48 Ac 0.27 Ac Area of Closed System 0 Ac 87.7 Ac Roadside Swales changed to additional Roadside Drainage Ditches and Swales residential parking 4  Scope  Data Collection  Basin / Sub-basin Delineations  Field Reconnaissance  Stormwater System Evaluation  Hydrology & Hydraulics  Future Conditions  Study Findings & Report  Basin Prioritization  Recommendations  Pilot Study 5 Study Study Area Area 6 SCDOT SCDOT Roads Roads 7 Basins Basins 8 Sub Basins 9  Rainfall / Return Frequency  Based on SCDOT Data  Design Storm = 10 year (10% probability of occurrence in any given year) 10  Hydrology  Runoff  Calculations using Rational Method since Sub-basins are less than 100 Acres  Drainage Area  Land Use / Land Cover  Time of Concentration – Intensity (in/hr) SCDOT IDF Charleston Frequency a b c i(tc=5) i(tc=10) i(tc=15) 2 252.0 33.8 1.0 6.0 5.3 4.7 5 262.9 32.1 1.0 6.8 5.9 5.3 10 270.9 30.9 1.0 7.4 6.5 5.8 25 282.0 29.3 1.0 8.4 7.3 6.5 50 289.9 28.1 1.0 9.2 8.0 7.1 100 297.1 27.0 1.0 9.9 8.6 7.6 11  Land Use / Percent Impervious  Land Use  Percent Impervious  Residential  Building Footprints  Commercial  Additional Areas  Road Right-of-way  Sidewalks  Cemetery  Driveways  Ponds  Patios  Pools 12 Land Use 13  Hydraulics  Pipe Capacity  Analysis based on Manning’s Equation  Assumptions  Time of Concentration based on basin size  Slope = Minimum Slope of 0.3%  100-percent Operational  Analysis of Existing pipe was based on pipe full conditions to determine the max flow capacity  Level of Service based on Intensity (in/hr) from the calculated max flow 14 Pipe Systems 15  Service Requests 2003-2018  1 Town Database  84 Total Requests Category Description Weighted Score Tally Structural Anything that would impact a building 4 0 Severe Anything that could result in the lost of infrastructure 3 9 Typically on Private property not related to Town Nuisance 2 21 Maintenance Maintenance Infrastructure Item requiring repair or cleanout 1 49 Request Information Requests for additional information from the Town 1 5 Only* Total 84 * Information Only requests: are service requests related to inquiries regarding existing drainage infrastructure, plat information, assistance in locating easements, or meeting with the town to discuss existing drainage infrastructure, or the potential need for future drainage infrastructure in and around one’s property. 16 Service Requests 17  Service Requests 18  FEMA Claims  1989 - 2016  17 Total  14 from Hurricane Hugo  Others  3 Claims  2 from October 2015  1 from October 2016 19 20  FEMA Claims Number of FEMA Claims By Year 16 14 12 Number of FEMA Claims 10 8 6 4 2 0 1989 2015 2016 Year of Loss 21  Building Permits  2011-2016  Commercial / Residential – 126  Residential – 109  New – 14  Addition – 52  Accessory Dwelling Unit – 8  Accessory – 16  Swimming Pool – 19  Commercial – 1  Demolition – 16 22 Permits Building Permits 23  Building Permits Construction Permits 35 30 Number of Permits By Type 25 20 15 10 5 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Commercial 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition 0 2 2 2 3 1 5 1 Swimming Pools 0 1 3 2 0 5 5 3 Residential Accessories 1 1 1 2 3 3 5 0 Auxilliary Dewlling Units 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 0 Residential Additions 3 6 8 7 3 14 7 4 New Residential 1 1 2 0 4 5 1 0 Year 24  Level of Service (LOS)  Level of Service  Comparison of Capacity / Runoff Return Frequency  Return Frequency / LOS  < 2-year  2-year  5-year  10-year  25-year  50-year  100-year  Equivalent to Design Storm 25 Existing Conditions Level of Service (LOS) 26  Future Conditions Analysis  Redevelopment Trend → Future Predictions  Current Average % Impervious = 15 %  Expected Average of 25% increase in Impervious Area per Parcel over next 32 years  Maximum Redevelopment in 2050 27  Redevelopment Scenarios  New Development, photos include development of neighboring ION subdivision. 28  Redevelopment Scenarios  Addition of large driveway and pool/patio 29  Redevelopment Scenarios  Redevelopment of existing parcel 30  Future Conditions Predictions Rate of Development 45% 40% 35% 30% Percent Impervious 2050 25% Max Development 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Year 31 Future Conditions (2028) Level of Service (LOS) 32 Future Conditions (2050) Level of Service (LOS) 33  Findings / Basin Prioritization Factor Weight Drainage Area 15% Parcels 15% Level of Service (LOS) 20% Service Requests 10% FEMA Claims 12.5% Re-Development 10% Closed Basins (see note below) 10% System Coverage (see note below) 7.5%  Basins Ranked for 1 to 34, and assigned a Score based on Ranking  Closed Basins – Basin does not have a positive outfall or connection to a formal drainage system  0 Acres of Closed Basins in Hobcaw  System Coverage – Relative Density of the pipe system in a drainage basin  Area (ft2) / Pipe Length (LF)  Lower Value = More infrastructure the basin.  Higher Value = Higher Rank = Higher Priority 34  Findings / Basin Prioritization (1 of 2) 35  Findings / Basin Prioritization (2 of 2) 36  Recommendations Basin Basin Priority 35 Basin Name Basin ID Total Score Rank 1 Wandolea 1 14.70 30 30 2 Hobcaw Drive 2 11.58 33 3 West Molasses 3 22.53 13 4 South Molasses 4 25.85 8 25 5 Copahee 5 27.25 7 Basin Priority Total Score 6 Coinbow Circle 6 25.73 10 7 North Hobcaw Dr 7 22.08 16 20 8 West Bampfield 8 28.13 5 9 West Seewee 9 13.33 32 10 Molasses-Coinbow 10 27.78 6 11 SeeWee Circle 11 23.73 12 15 12 North Coinbow 12 10.60 34 13 Isaw 13 24.55 11 14 Sehoy 14 18.30 24 10 15 Sehoy East Hobcaw 15 19.10 22 16 East Molasses 16 29.40 2 17 Upper East Hobcaw 17 17.20 25 5 18 Duany 18 14.35 31 19 Hobcaw Drive East 19 19.83 21 20 Robert Mills Duany 20 15.20 29 0 21 Muirhead 21 25.85 8 22 Edenton 22 19.88 20 23 East Hobcaw Molasses 23 16.53 27 24 East Bampfield 24 20.60 17 25 Isaw Bampfield 25 22.18 15 26 Sehoy pond 26 16.43 28 27 Molasses Creek 27 30.23 1 Basin Name 28 Wando 28 22.48 14 29 Sampa Road 29 28.68 3 Drainage Area Parcels Pipe LOS 30 Hobcaw Creek North 30 20.33 19 31 Hobcaw Creek East 31 17.03 26 Service Requests FEMA Flood Claims Redevelopment Permits 32 Hobcaw Creek 32 28.23 4 Closed Basin Ac System Coverage 33 Hobcaw Creek South 33 19.10 22 34 Duany Hobcaw Creek 34 20.38 18 37 Basin Prioritization Summary 38  Recommendations  Top 5 1. Molasses Creek  For both Molasses Creek and Hobcaw Creek:  Large drainage areas with many parcels located on the outside of the study area, and therefore, drain primarily by overland flow.  the system coverage score of the matrix is skewed as these areas do not require much pipe to drain.  more prone to service and FEMA requests due to their proximity to sea level and the shore line. 2. East Molasses  One of the larger basins that is almost completely landlocked. Ranks high in number of parcels and redevelopment permits, expected to require upgrades to the drainage system  Great system coverage statistically, however much of that coverage is partially buried driveway pipes that link ditches and swales.  Concern is how the drainage system for this basin converges into a series of in-line 15” pipes, significantly impacting the level of service for this basin, causing an average level of service below the 2-year storm. 3. Sampa Road  Leading factors contributing to the basin’s rank are FEMA requests (2nd), service request (8th), redevelopment permits (4th), and system coverage (4th).  The pinnacle of the priority is that the capacity and condition for the entire basin is directly related one inlet, pipe, and outfall. 4. Hobcaw Creek 5. West Bampfield  Pond that occupies nearly 25% of its drainage area.  Most of the rainfall occurring within this basin can flow overland into the pond.  The pond outlet is the only pipe system currently in this basin leading to a high rank in level of service and system coverage.  However, a pond routing analysis of the pond and outlet pipe would be more accurate than Manning’s Equation.  Recommended Basins for Pilot Study:  East Molasses  Isaw  West Molasses  Replacement of Storm Drain Systems  Target LOS of 10-year for Maximum Buildout  Routine Inspection/Maintenance 39  Opinions of Probable Cost Basin ID Basin Name Basin Total Cost Total Cost 2028 Total Cost 2050 1 Wandolea $ - $ - $ - 2 Hobcaw Drive $ - $ - $ - 3 West Molasses $ 252,242 $ 315,302 $ 454,035 4 South Molasses $ 170,963 $ 213,704 $ 307,733 5 Copahee $ 225,817 $ 282,271 $ 406,470 6 Coinbow Circle $ 141,983 $ 177,479 $ 255,570 7 North Hobcaw Dr $ 239,107 $ 298,884 $ 430,393 8 West Bampfield $ - $ - $ - 9 West Seewee $ - $ - $ - 10 Molasses-Coinbow $ 420,469 $ 525,586 $ 756,844 11 SeeWee Circle $ 156,561 $ 195,701 $ 281,809 12 North Coinbow $ - $ - $ - 13 Isaw $ 541,787 $ 677,234 $ 975,216 14 Sehoy $ 126,389 $ 157,987 $ 227,501 15 Sehoy East Hobcaw $ 101,133 $ 126,416 $ 182,039 16 East Molasses $ 310,961 $ 388,702 $ 559,730 17 Upper East Hobcaw $ 47,613 $ 59,516 $ 85,703 18 Duany $ 55,467 $ 69,334 $ 99,841 19 Hobcaw Drive East $ 107,420 $ 134,275 $ 193,356 20 Robert Mills Duany $ 112,574 $ 140,717 $ 202,633 21 Muirhead $ 593,887 $ 742,359 $ 1,068,997 22 Edenton $ - $ - $ - 23 East Hobcaw Molasses $ 84,925 $ 106,156 $ 152,864 24 East Bampfield $ 100,227 $ 125,283 $ 180,408 25 Isaw Bampfield $ - $ - $ - 26 Sehoy pond $ 78,257 $ 97,822 $ 140,863 27 Molasses Creek $ - $ - $ - 28 Wando $ - $ - $ - 29 Sampa Road $ 116,130 $ 145,163 $ 209,035 30 Hobcaw Creek North $ - $ - $ - 31 Hobcaw Creek East $ - $ - $ - 32 Hobcaw Creek $ 232,751 $ 290,939 $ 418,953 33 Hobcaw Creek South $ - $ - $ - 34 Duany Hobcaw Creek $ - $ - $ - Muirhead Road Culvert $ 56,330 $ 70,413 $ 101,394 Totals $ 4,272,993 $ 5,341,241 $ 7,691,387 40  Pilot Study Summary 41  East Molasses 42  East Molasses OPC East Molasses Item Quantity Unit Cost Cost 24" Pipe 41 $ 185.00 $ 7,585.00 30" Pipe 325 $ 205.00 $ 66,625.00 36" Pipe 102 $ 230.00 $ 23,460.00 Structures 5$ 6,950.00 $ 34,750.00 Ditches 0$ 68.00 $ - Utility Relocation 468 $ 100.00 $ 46,800.00 Driveway Restoration 1$ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 Subtotal $ 182,720.00 Incidentals $ 100,000.00 Construction Costs $ 465,440.00 Engineering Costs (10%) $ 46,544.00 Total Cost (Current) $ 511,984.00 Total Cost (2028) $ 639,980.00 Total Cost (2050) $ 921,571.20 *Incidentals include mobilization, bonding and insurance, erosion control, traffic control, clearing and grubbing, staking/lines and grades, check valves, and asbuilt plans. 43  Isaw 44  Isaw OPC Isaw Item Quantity Unit Cost Cost 18" Pipe 10.3 $ 164.00 $ 1,689.20 24" Pipe 136 $ 185.00 $ 25,252.32 30" Pipe 438 $ 205.00 $ 89,820.55 36" Pipe 152 $ 230.00 $ 34,960.00 Structures 14 $ 6,950.00 $ 97,300.00 Ditches 376 $ 68.00 $ 25,568.00 Utility Relocation 737 $ 100.00 $ 73,694.80 Driveway Restoration 13 $ 3,500.00 $ 45,500.00 Subtotal $ 393,784.86 Incidentals $ 125,000.00 Construction Costs $ 912,569.72 Engineering Costs (10%) $ 91,256.97 Total Cost (Current) $ 1,003,826.69 Total Cost (2028) $ 1,254,783.37 Total Cost (2050) $ 1,806,888.05 *Incidentals include mobilization, bonding and insurance, erosion control, traffic control, clearing and grubbing, staking/lines and grades, and asbuilt plans (and tide gates for East Molasses and West Molasses). 45  West Molasses 46  West Molasses OPC West Molasses Item Quantity Unit Cost Cost 24" Pipe 354 $ 185.00 $ 65,490.00 30" Pipe 240 $ 205.00 $ 49,200.00 Structures 7$ 6,950.00 $ 48,650.00 Ditches 0$ 68.00 $ - Utility Relocation 594 $ 100.00 $ 59,400.00 Driveway Restoration 4$ 3,500.00 $ 14,000.00 Subtotal $ 236,740.00 Incidentals $ 115,000.00 Construction Costs $ 588,480.00 Engineering Costs (10%) $ 58,848.00 Total Cost (Current) $ 647,328.00 Total Cost (2028) $ 809,160.00 Total Cost (2050) $ 1,165,190.40 *Incidentals include mobilization, bonding and insurance, erosion control, traffic control, clearing and grubbing, staking/lines and grades, and asbuilt plans (and tide gates for East Molasses and West Molasses). 47  Questions?  Clayon H. McCathern, PE  Water Resources Engineer  mccathernc@cdmsmith.com  Ken Rhye, PE  Town Engineer, PSD  KRhye@tompsc.com 48