• Senate Republicans direct Norfolk Southern to report in one week.
• Noisette Co. says rail line through its property constitutes ‘illegal taking.’
• State Ports Authority says missing e-mail in FOIA response was unintentional.

By Molly Parker
mparker@scbiznews.com

Leading Senate lawmakers directed Norfolk Southern to explore all possible options for creating a rail yard on the southern end of the former Navy base and report back to them within a week, state Sen. Larry Grooms said after emerging from a 2 1/2-hour meeting on the topic today in Columbia.

Grooms said that if Norfolk Southern cannot find a solution, he will continue to push the General Assembly to adopt a resolution preserving the state’s right to run a rail line through the base’s northern end — something North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said his city is preparing a legal fight against.

Related stories
SPECIAL REPORT: North Charleston, railroads, developers, state at odds
Developer shopping Promenade to maritime industry
Norfolk Southern: Charleston at risk of becoming ‘a port of second order’
Another Summey weighs in on North Charleston rail feud

"They are trying to balance, on the back of North Charleston, the entire economy of the state of South Carolina," said Summey, who also attended the meeting.

At issue is how to provide equal access for the Port of Charleston’s customers to both of the region’s Class 1 railroads, CSX and Norfolk Southern. The S.C. State Ports Authority is constructing a new terminal on the former Navy base to which CSX has near-dock access from the southern end.

Norfolk Southern and S.C. Public Railways, a division of the S.C. Department of Commerce, argue that the only way to give Norfolk Southern equitable access is through a rail line on the northern end of the property.

But that line cuts through the heart of the Noisette Co.’s planned residential and business district, and it runs contrary to a memorandum of understanding the SPA and city of North Charleston penned in 2002. In that memo, the SPA agreed that any rail access would come from the southern end.

Local developer Robert Clement is pitching a proposal to build separate intermodal facilities for CSX and Norfolk Southern on the Macalloy property in North Charleston and Promenade property in Charleston, respectively.

Summey thinks this is a workable plan, but S.C. Public Railways and Norfolk Southern executives have said the property doesn’t fit the bill.

"I don’t know that anything was accomplished (at today's meeting) other than that folks from Clement’s group were told to get with Norfolk Southern to tell them why Clement’s plan won’t work and see if they can come together and see if it could work," Summey said.

Grooms said the goal is to find a workable solution before May 21, the day the General Assembly is expected to adjourn.

Without a compromise, both Summey and Grooms indicated they would take their points to court.

Noisette CEO John Knott also is preparing for a potential lawsuit.

‘An illegal taking’
In a letter to Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell and House Speaker Bobby Harrell, both Charleston Republicans, Knott said Noisette will sue the state if legislative proposals are approved transferring ownership of the rail line on the base to S.C. Public Railways. Noisette argues it owns the deeds to its entire 340-acre property, including the railroad and its right of way.

If the state proceeds with plans to run rail through the property and build an intermodal facility nearby on the Clemson University Restoration Institute’s land, "the massive condemnation" necessary to carry out that plan would easily exceed $300 million, Knott wrote.

"This would destroy the entire Noisette area and the redevelopment the city of North Charleston has put so much effort into," Knott said this morning during an interview in his office with the Charleston Regional Business Journal. "It is an illegal taking."

The SPA has remained publicly silent on the debate. Interim CEO John Hassell said he was told by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that any action by the authority regarding this topic would reopen the environmental impact statement that allowed the new terminal's construction.

The permit does not include rail onto the terminal site, and it states, "The proposed project does not include the construction of any new rail facilities on the project site, nor does it include constructing improvements to any existing rail facilities located on the remainder of the Charleston Naval Complex property."

Missing e-mail
Meanwhile, the city of North Charleston released a copy of an e-mail Wednesday between an SPA official and U.S. Rep Henry Brown’s office that Summey says suggests the authority is involved in the discussions.

The e-mail from Barbara Melvin, the SPA’s government relations manager, to Ryan Bowley, the legislative director for Brown’s Washington office, references the recently released state rail plan that recommends a Norfolk Southern rail yard on the former Navy base and a CSX rail yard on the Macalloy property.

"We were thinking Public Railways, DOC, should apply for the funds so as to not cause the port any permit headaches and raise questions about MOU/A violations for the port with the city of North Charleston because the NS rail access to its yard on the base would be through the northern end per the State Rail Plan study," Melvin wrote in that e-mail.

Summey would not say who provided him the e-mail. The city of North Charleston recently sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the SPA seeking all e-mail correspondences to or from Melvin between April 5 and 9, among other things. The e-mail in question was dated April 8.

The SPA responded to that FOIA request this week and provided the Business Journal with a copy of its response, as requested by the newspaper. Although the SPA provided the city with numerous e-mails, this particular e-mail was missing.

SPA spokesman Byron Miller said it was not intentionally left out of the FOIA response.

"The response has not been completed," he said. "It remains open."

Still, he said, the e-mail is in line with the port’s record on the matter, because it "references the actions and plans of others, not the authority," Miller said.

But Summey said the fact that it was not included in the original response creates "a serious trust issue."

"This is one smoking gun, and they may be wearing two pistols," he said.

Reach Molly Parker at 843-849-3144.