At Wednesday's Special Subcommittee hearing, Senate Bill 723 was reported out to the full Judiciary Committee. Special thanks to Senator Paul Thurmond for helping move the bill to the next step in the process. Thank you to Senator Massey and Senator Allen as well.
The bill was amended from its original form. However, none of the changes will prevent the Town from being reunited. The bill was amended to go into effect in January 2016. If it passes in the current form, there will be a three year window of opportunity for the Town to annex the remainder of the JIPSD--from 2016 to 2019.
The bill was also amended to require a municipality that annexes the remainder of a special purpose district using this method to hold a referendum before taking over provision of services or millage. Since I think this up to the voters of James Island anyway, I don't really see a referendum as a problem. While a special referendum would cost about $6,000 for the reunited Town, any such referendum could be held at the same time as a municipal election and so would cost nothing extra. We will have to pay the Charleston County election commission to run elections for Mayor and Council anyway. As I have explained before, I have no plans for the Town to take over the provision of fire protection, solid waste collection, or wastewater collection from the JIPSD. While I would like to have the Town collect the property tax millage to provide the local option sales tax, I am more than willing to put that before the voters of the Town.
The bill will not allow municipalities with their own power distribution system to use this method of annexation. Territory annexed by this method cannot be used to provide contiguity to annex additional territory. Some of the "Whereas" clauses that discussed potential conflict about the provision of services were cut out. Paula Benson, of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff, will write up the amended version of the bill, and I will provide a link or copy when it is available.
Former James Island Representative Anne Peterson Hutto, now a lobbyist for the Coastal Conservation League, said that her group still opposes the bill . She said that while they weren't opposed to reuniting the Town per se, they did oppose all piecemeal changes in annexation legislation and instead only favored comprehensive annexation reform. My interpretation is that they believe that solving limited problems, like reuniting our Town, should be held hostage to their greater agenda. (At least she didn't bring up the Town annexing onto Johns Island.)
Last week, Trent Kernodle sent an alternative bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. I want to commend Mr. Kernodle and the JIPSD for providing something specific. I liked the "Kernodle alternative." It kept what I think is the key element of the current bill, and that is the proposal for a municipality incorporated within a special purpose district to annex the entire remainder of the special purpose district. I thought the "Kernodle alternative" needed some modification and worked on it a bit, but our lawyer, Danny Crowe, suggested that we were too far along on the original bill to start over. That made sense to me, and after the hearing, I am confident that starting over would have been a mistake.
Trent Kernodle testified at the hearing. He was very supportive of the concept of annexing the entire remainder of the special purpose district, but insisted that there be an annexation referendum at the beginning of the process. In the current version of the bill, those opposed to the annexation (reuniting the Town) would need a petition with 5 percent of the registered voters in the area to be annexed. That would be about 200 signatures. If they did that, then there would be a referendum in those parts of the JIPSD that are not currently in the Town. If the majority opposed reuniting the Town, then it wouldn't happen.
The current bill is similar to an existing provision in annexation law, which applies to the current bill too. If 5 percent of the voters in the municipality sign a petition challenging the annexation, there would be a referendum within the current boundaries of the municipality. (Right now, we are in the period for such a petition regarding the result of the annexation election of February 25. I don't know that anyone is gathering signatures to block our annexation of "West Fort Johnson" or "East Lighthouse Point.")
Kernodle's view is that those in the area to be annexed should not need to show any level of opposition before requiring the referendum. The argument he made to me is that this would be more consistent with current annexation law and so would be more likely to survive a legal challenge. Every step of this process must consider a challenge that this is unconstitutional special legislation.
I testified at the hearing as well. (It is Spring Break at The Citadel.) There had been a proposal, coming from some of the special purpose districts, to limit the window of opportunity to 60 days. I thought that was much too tight. We proposed 5 years, which would provide two election cycles for the voters of James Island to have their say. I said that I could live with a year, and that is how 3 years came about. It was a compromise between 5 years and 60 days, more or less. The first I heard about 3 years was when Senator Massey proposed three years with January 2016 as the date the bill would begin to apply..
I also said that I have no problem with an annexation election at the beginning of the process. I am confident those most of our former citizens would like to return to the Town. Kernodle's argument that holding such an election upfront would help avoid legal challenges has value. I like it primarily because it is more consistent with the promises I made before the incorporation election in 2012--those who were left out of that election should have an opportunity to vote too and I would work for that
Paula Benson is working on language to make the referendum "automatic" at the beginning of the process. It will also require that the municipality pay for the referendum. That cost would be between $2,000 and $3,000. It would be well worth it to reunite our Town.
The bill will go on the Senate Judiciary Committee's agenda, but Paula Benson said that it would not likely be discussed at their next meeting on Tuesday. It might come up as soon as April 7.
It is getting late in the legislative year, so we may be back next January. As I have said before, we will be patient, but persistent. We have waited a long time. And we made another step forward on Wednesday. Thanks again Senator Thurmond.
No comments:
Post a Comment