Summerton won't annex Cantey Bay Plantation

By ROBERT BAKER
Item Staff Writer
bbaker@theitem.com

SUMMERTON — The Beach Company's new Cantey Bay Plantation development will not be annexed into the town.

That was the news given to Summerton Town Council during a regular meeting held last week. Summerton Mayor Jay Bruner said the company had withdrawn its petition to have the 3,800-acre area annexed into the town because of disputes about how to issue bonds for the project.

"The issue is really the method of financing the infrastructure for the property," Bruner said. "At this time, Summerton is not in the position to go forward with their proposed mechanism for financing."

Bruner said the Charleston-based development and building company wanted Summerton to enter into a Tax Increment Financing, or TIF, agreement, one of several ways municipalities and developers work together to fund development projects.

"With a TIF, the town would issue the revenue bonds for the infrastructure costs, and by infrastructure, we're meaning water and wastewater, roads, things like that," Bruner said. "Through the TIF, the town would also be obligated to those bonds should the developer default."

Under state law, a city or county, by creating a TIF district, must determine if the area is a "blighted area," a "conservation area" or an "agricultural area." By naming Summerton as a "blighted area," town officials would be able to freeze assessed property values, which are typically lower than any post-improvement values.

Property taxes would still be assessed at the actual value, but the taxing entity only receives taxes on the "frozen" value; the surplus finances the cost of redevelopment.

Bruner said that with the company looking at more than $31 million in infrastructure costs, including a $12 million interstate interchange near the site, the burden was too much for the town to shoulder.

"The numbers are just much more than the town could ever stand should something happen," Bruner said. "And that figure is probably very conservative."

Bruner said the town had suggested creating a Municipal Improvement District, which would allow town officials to create a special taxing district that would impose special assessments on properties in that area. The town would then use those assessments to pay infrastructure costs. Best of all, responsibility for the bonds would rest with the developer.

"The developer would be obligated to pay back the bonds if they defaulted," Bruner said.

Beach Company representatives could not be reached for comment, but Bruner said he believes the company is moving forward with the development, which it has been planning for more than five years.

"With all that being said, I believe the company is going to approach the county," Bruner said. "I don't know what the county's position would be on this if they are presented the same funding mechanism option that we were. These types of developments have to be a good fit for both parties. I think the development is good for Summerton and for Clarendon County, but it needs to be completed in a way that poses no risk to the citizens of this county."



Contact Staff Writer Robert Baker at bbaker@theitem.com or (803) 435-8511.