Carter McMillan was a member of the James Island Town Council in 2010 and 2011. As Chair of the Town's public works committee, he did an excellent job in helping reform the Town's approach to maintaining drainage and filling potholes.
In 2011, the Town was closed down by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Carter was central to the effort for a fourth incorporation, serving on the Free James Island committee. Because he lives in Riverland Terrace, he could not seek re-election in 2012 to our new Town Council.
Carter was appointed as a James Island Public Service District Commissioner and then elected in 2012. In my opinion, he has done an excellent job serving residents of the JIPSD and the Town,
His key goal has been working for transparent and ethical policies for the JIPSD Commission Unfortunately, entrenched incumbents, such as June Waring and Eugene Platt, have fought him at every turn.
I think it is very important that Carter be reelected to the JIPSD Commission.
I think he needs some new Commissioners to help him. I believe that Kathy Woolsey will work with Carter McMillan on the JIPSD to promote ethical and transparent policies.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Sunday, October 30, 2016
JIPSD Election and SCIWAY
SCIWAY bills itself as the South Carolina Information Highway. It was founded by Rod Welch and is owned by SCIWAY.net, which is a corporation for which Rod Welch is the registered agent. The editor of the website is Robin Welch.
Rod Welch was a JIPSD Commissioner for many years--he didn't seek reelection in 2014. Robin Welch is his daughter, was a member of James Island Town Council in 2010, and appears to be "Nix 526." Her most recent claim to fame was secretly recording conversations with County Council Eliott Sumney and sharing his remarks with the press.
It was brought to my attention late last week that SCIWAY listed the candidates for the JIPSD election and left off two candidates-- Carter McMillan and Kathy Woolsey.
This is of some significance because if you do a google search for James Island or Charleston election information, the first hit is SCIWAY's "complete" guide to the election.
There are nine candidates for three seats on the James Island PSD.
Why did SCIWAY just list seven?
Could it be that Robin Welch lets her personal political preferences influence what is placed on the website?
A website that claims to be a "complete guide" and only allows candidates that Robin Welch counts as acceptable is a fraud!
I wrote Rod Welch the Friday evening and he promised to correct the website Monday.
I appreciate that Rod Welch has committed to providing a "complete guide" and not a fraud. Thank you.
I wonder how many voters were already fooled by the false information. Hopefully, such abuses will no longer occur at SCIWAY.
Rod Welch was a JIPSD Commissioner for many years--he didn't seek reelection in 2014. Robin Welch is his daughter, was a member of James Island Town Council in 2010, and appears to be "Nix 526." Her most recent claim to fame was secretly recording conversations with County Council Eliott Sumney and sharing his remarks with the press.
It was brought to my attention late last week that SCIWAY listed the candidates for the JIPSD election and left off two candidates-- Carter McMillan and Kathy Woolsey.
This is of some significance because if you do a google search for James Island or Charleston election information, the first hit is SCIWAY's "complete" guide to the election.
There are nine candidates for three seats on the James Island PSD.
Why did SCIWAY just list seven?
Could it be that Robin Welch lets her personal political preferences influence what is placed on the website?
A website that claims to be a "complete guide" and only allows candidates that Robin Welch counts as acceptable is a fraud!
I wrote Rod Welch the Friday evening and he promised to correct the website Monday.
I appreciate that Rod Welch has committed to providing a "complete guide" and not a fraud. Thank you.
I wonder how many voters were already fooled by the false information. Hopefully, such abuses will no longer occur at SCIWAY.
Friday, October 28, 2016
James Island Public Service District Election on November 8th
The James Island Public Service District is governed by seven Commissioners. Three seats are up for election on November 8. There are nine candidates on the ballot for the three seats:
Sandi Engelman
Donna Jenkins
Oana Johnson
Alan Laughlin
Carter McMillan
Eugene Platt
Giovanni Richardson
June Waring
Kathy Woolsey
If you look at your tax bill, you will see that 49% of a homeowner's property tax bill goes to the JIPSD. The other half is divided among Charleston County Schools, Charleston County general government, Trident Tech, and Charleston County Parks and Recreation.
The JIPSD provides fire services, garbage and trash collection, and sewer in the Town of James Island. It is these independently elected Commissioners that control almost half of your tax bill and your sewer bill and determine the quality of key local government services. Town government has no control or oversight regarding these taxes or services.
Please vote. Please choose carefully.
Sandi Engelman
Donna Jenkins
Oana Johnson
Alan Laughlin
Carter McMillan
Eugene Platt
Giovanni Richardson
June Waring
Kathy Woolsey
If you look at your tax bill, you will see that 49% of a homeowner's property tax bill goes to the JIPSD. The other half is divided among Charleston County Schools, Charleston County general government, Trident Tech, and Charleston County Parks and Recreation.
The JIPSD provides fire services, garbage and trash collection, and sewer in the Town of James Island. It is these independently elected Commissioners that control almost half of your tax bill and your sewer bill and determine the quality of key local government services. Town government has no control or oversight regarding these taxes or services.
Please vote. Please choose carefully.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Carter McMillan Elected Chair of James Island Intergovernmental Council
Carter McMillan was elected Chair of the James Island
Intergovernmental Council last Wednesday, having served as Vice-Chair for the
last two years. Carter McMillan is a James Island Public
Service District Commissioner who is seeking re-election in November.
Town of James Island Mayor Pro-Tem Leonard Blank was elected Vice-Chair. McMillan replaces Charleston City
Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson.
The James
Island Intergovermental Council is made up of local officials representing
James Island including the Town of James Island, the City of Charleston, the
James Island Public Service District, Charleston County and our State Senators
and Representatives. Its purpose is to
promote inter-governmental cooperation to solve problems and improve the quality
of life on James Island.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Hurricane Debris Removal
The debris from Hurricane Matthew will be picked up. The target for completion is 30 days, but I have also heard estimates of six weeks.
Most of debris will be removed by contractors. The Town signed an agreement to be included in Charleston County's emergency debris removal contract. So did the City of Charleston and the JIPSD.
The contract has been activated. The County's webpage shows where debris is being removed. The plan is for three or four large trucks to be assigned to James Island every day until the debris is cleared up. The contractors will pick up hurricane debris from the Town, City, and unincorporated area in an efficient manner.
The contractors will be starting in Riverland Terrace. That is JIPSD "zone 1."
The JIPSD solid waste department continues to pick up garbage as usual. Please put your garbage in the rolling bins as usual and put out on the usual days.
The JIPSD's usual yard debris crews are also out and picking up hurricane debris. They are picking up on the usual days, but they cannot begin to pick everything up as they usually do. They are picking up what they can in one area and then moving on to their next regular area the following day. Nothing has been picked up in my immediate area yet, but just up the road, the JIPSD got started on the hurricane debris last Wednesday.
The City of Charleston solid waste department is doing the same. They are picking up garbage as usual and their yard debris crews are picking up hurricane debris in on the days and areas where they usually pick up yard debris.
Please be patient.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Court Report
There has been some action regarding the Kernodle class action lawsuit against the Town. Rod Welch and David and Sandi Engelman are the plaintiffs. The case is Engleman v. Town of James Island.
The Judge gave an order in July that did five things:
1. Dismissed without prejudice Kernodle's request for a summary judgement that the Town is legally required to provide credits whether or not it has a property tax.
2. Dismissed without prejudice the Town's request for a summary judgement that this issue must be resolved according to the Revenue Procedures Act.
3. Dismissed without prejudice the Town's request for a summary judgement that it is not obligated to provide a refund of a property tax it did not collect.
4. Added Charleston County as a plaintiff against the Town.
5. Imposed an injunction against the Town spending or crediting any of the LOST revenue it has or will receive.
The first three items mean that these issues will have to be resolved at trial. That was scheduled to begin this summer. It had been postponed to wait on this order. Because of the addition of the County as an additional plaintiff, it is now scheduled for next spring.
The fourth item was a complete surprise. The Judge said that because Charleston County provided services to people in the Town when it had no property tax, the County must be added as a plaintiff so that it can protect its interests.
The final item was a very serious problem for the Town. Kernodle requested that same injunction against the Town in the summer of 2015, and a different Judge denied it last fall. This Judge said that because Charleston County was not part of the case at that time, and that now it was, he was reversing what the other judge said and imposing the injunction.
The Town has included a 20 mill property tax for the 2016 year, and we have provided a sufficient credit to zero it out for all of our taxpayers. This order appeared to prohibit the Town from providing any tax credit, which would have meant a substantial property tax increase for residents of the Town this fall. Further, the LOST statute plainly states that the Town must provide a credit against its property tax liability, and so this Court order required that the Town violate the law!
I immediately called the Chairman of County Council to ask about them being added to the case. He was completely surprised. The County did not ask to join Kernodle's suit against the Town.
I also met with the County Auditor about the injunction, and he agreed that the Court order would require a violation of the law. Worse, the County had to start preparing the property tax bills soon.
The Town submitted a request to the Judge to reconsider the order explaining the burden it would impose on our property taxpayers and explaining that it would require the Town to violate the law. We carefully explained how the Town is clearly in compliance with the law now, and that the dispute is about the $2.2 million the Town received from the LOST property tax credit fund from 2012 to 2014 when it had no property tax and so provided no credits against the tax. The Town argues that it is not required to provide credits against a property tax it did not have and does not owe a refund to people who paid no tax to the Town.
The County submitted an answer to Kernodle's complaint against the Town. The County was not supportive of any Kernodle's positions on much of anything. Most importantly, it insisted that the Revenue Procedures Act apply, as the Town had argued in our request for Summary judgement. They cited some Supreme Court cases where the Charleston County had faced the exact same issue.
The County also asked the judge to lift the injunction regarding the 2016 property tax so that the tax bills could be prepared. The County argued that the Judge had no authority to use injunctions to interfere with the preparation of tax bills due to the Revenue Procedures Act.
The Judge amended his Order to lift the injunction for the 2016 tax year. The Town's credit will be applied against the Town property tax so no taxpayer in the Town will have to pay anything extra to the Town on the bills going out in October. Thank the Lord!
The Judge has scheduled a new hearing for November. He will consider the arguments that the County and the Town have made--presumably about the Revenue Procedure Act. I also hope for some clarification regarding the Town's current compliance with the law. The Town is providing the required credit against its property tax.
If the Revenue Procedure Act applies, that doesn't determine whether or not Town property owners are due refunds. It rather prohibits class action suits to obtain tax refunds and allows individual taxpayers to seek a refund from County officials. There is a procedure laid out if there is a dispute (as there is in this case,) that possibly ends up at the South Carolina Supreme Court. If it is determined refunds are due, then any taxpayer can make the request to the appropriate County official. In our case, the Town would have to come up with the money to pay for any required refunds.
I am not sure why we would have a trial, since there isn't really a dispute about the facts but rather about the law. I think it is likely that whatever the decision, there will be an appeal.
The Judge gave an order in July that did five things:
1. Dismissed without prejudice Kernodle's request for a summary judgement that the Town is legally required to provide credits whether or not it has a property tax.
2. Dismissed without prejudice the Town's request for a summary judgement that this issue must be resolved according to the Revenue Procedures Act.
3. Dismissed without prejudice the Town's request for a summary judgement that it is not obligated to provide a refund of a property tax it did not collect.
4. Added Charleston County as a plaintiff against the Town.
5. Imposed an injunction against the Town spending or crediting any of the LOST revenue it has or will receive.
The first three items mean that these issues will have to be resolved at trial. That was scheduled to begin this summer. It had been postponed to wait on this order. Because of the addition of the County as an additional plaintiff, it is now scheduled for next spring.
The fourth item was a complete surprise. The Judge said that because Charleston County provided services to people in the Town when it had no property tax, the County must be added as a plaintiff so that it can protect its interests.
The final item was a very serious problem for the Town. Kernodle requested that same injunction against the Town in the summer of 2015, and a different Judge denied it last fall. This Judge said that because Charleston County was not part of the case at that time, and that now it was, he was reversing what the other judge said and imposing the injunction.
The Town has included a 20 mill property tax for the 2016 year, and we have provided a sufficient credit to zero it out for all of our taxpayers. This order appeared to prohibit the Town from providing any tax credit, which would have meant a substantial property tax increase for residents of the Town this fall. Further, the LOST statute plainly states that the Town must provide a credit against its property tax liability, and so this Court order required that the Town violate the law!
I immediately called the Chairman of County Council to ask about them being added to the case. He was completely surprised. The County did not ask to join Kernodle's suit against the Town.
I also met with the County Auditor about the injunction, and he agreed that the Court order would require a violation of the law. Worse, the County had to start preparing the property tax bills soon.
The Town submitted a request to the Judge to reconsider the order explaining the burden it would impose on our property taxpayers and explaining that it would require the Town to violate the law. We carefully explained how the Town is clearly in compliance with the law now, and that the dispute is about the $2.2 million the Town received from the LOST property tax credit fund from 2012 to 2014 when it had no property tax and so provided no credits against the tax. The Town argues that it is not required to provide credits against a property tax it did not have and does not owe a refund to people who paid no tax to the Town.
The County submitted an answer to Kernodle's complaint against the Town. The County was not supportive of any Kernodle's positions on much of anything. Most importantly, it insisted that the Revenue Procedures Act apply, as the Town had argued in our request for Summary judgement. They cited some Supreme Court cases where the Charleston County had faced the exact same issue.
The County also asked the judge to lift the injunction regarding the 2016 property tax so that the tax bills could be prepared. The County argued that the Judge had no authority to use injunctions to interfere with the preparation of tax bills due to the Revenue Procedures Act.
The Judge amended his Order to lift the injunction for the 2016 tax year. The Town's credit will be applied against the Town property tax so no taxpayer in the Town will have to pay anything extra to the Town on the bills going out in October. Thank the Lord!
The Judge has scheduled a new hearing for November. He will consider the arguments that the County and the Town have made--presumably about the Revenue Procedure Act. I also hope for some clarification regarding the Town's current compliance with the law. The Town is providing the required credit against its property tax.
If the Revenue Procedure Act applies, that doesn't determine whether or not Town property owners are due refunds. It rather prohibits class action suits to obtain tax refunds and allows individual taxpayers to seek a refund from County officials. There is a procedure laid out if there is a dispute (as there is in this case,) that possibly ends up at the South Carolina Supreme Court. If it is determined refunds are due, then any taxpayer can make the request to the appropriate County official. In our case, the Town would have to come up with the money to pay for any required refunds.
I am not sure why we would have a trial, since there isn't really a dispute about the facts but rather about the law. I think it is likely that whatever the decision, there will be an appeal.
Friday, August 19, 2016
Keeping Chickens in the Town of James Island
The Town of James Island's zoning ordinance allows chickens and other livestock to be raised in agricultural zones. But since there are no parcels zoned agricultural in the Town at this time, that is not particularly relevant.
Nearly all the Town is zoned residential. There are a few areas that are zoned community commercial, neighborhood commercial, general office, and office residential. In those zones, raising livestock is not permitted, and that means it is prohibited.
However, in residential areas, household pets may be kept.
What is the difference between raising livestock and keeping pets?
We have a definition of pets in our ordinance:
Plainly, chickens are an important type of livestock. They are raised for eggs and meat.
But chickens can also be kept as pets. For example, there are people that have chickens to compete in shows. There are many collectors of fancy chicken breeds..
I hadn't thought much about it before, but at the public hearing, Kay Kernodle, JIPSD Comimssioner, pointed out that "we" are the South Carolina gamecocks and so should be permitted to keep roosters in our yards. (Clemson fans, you might feel left out, but we are not talking about tigers now.) So, yes, some people keep roosters for cock fighting. It is a tradition where people have roosters fight one another, often to the death, with people betting on the outcome. Some people consider seeing all the chicken blood flying about quite exciting. And the money from the betting is an enticement as well.
I have reason to believe that there are some James Islanders who keep dogs--especially pit bulls--for dog fights too. I would point out that all of this has long been banned under state law. The Town does not have the authority to permit our residents to keep animals to enjoy and profit from blood sport--even game cocks.
Like most local governments in the lowcountry, the Town's code enforcement is complaint driven. People call the Town regarding problems. We look at the Town ordinances, and if there is a violation, we pursue compliance. We always point out to a resident or property owner that there is a violation and insist on compliance. Sometimes we are met with defiance. Sometimes there is an agreement to correct the problem, but the delays begin to look like passive resistance. The result is a ticket and a summons to County Magistrate's Court on Riverland Drive. Then there is one fine and then another until we achieve compliance with our code.
Personally, I don't necessarily agree with all of our codes, but it is the Mayor's job to see that they are enforced. Any citizen of the Town may make complaints, but they also may ask Town Council to modify our codes.
The sections of the Town's code regarding livestock and pets were adopted unchanged from what the Town had between 2006 and 2011. It is no different from what the Town had from 2002 to 2004. And it is no different from the County ordinance that applied in the area of the Town between incorporations. (People who think their chickens are a nonconforming allowed use because they had them before 2012 are very much mistaken.)
So, if we get a complaint about chickens, we start with the presumption that raising chickens is not permitted in any part of the Town at this time. (Our ordinances are no different from those of Charleston County's current ordinance for residential areas.) But, if there is a credible argument that these particular chickens are pets, then that is permitted. In my view, one clear limitation on the "pets" defense is numbers. One chicken could easily count as a pet. Perhaps even a few. When we get a complaint and someone has sixty chickens, the "pets" defense is a bit thin. I have sworn to uphold our laws.
Further, every time I hear arguments about how great it is to raise chickens in your own backyard as a source of food for your family--eggs and especially meat-- the pets "exception" is just not credible. To me, when we have a complaint, claiming that the chickens in question are "pets" when they are pretty obviously livestock being raised for eggs and meat in a residential area, it is just is a big fat LIE.
So, I asked our planning director to come up with some kind of modification of our ordinance that would expressly allow limited numbers of chickens in residential zones whether they are plausibly pets or not. I didn't intend to change our complaint driven policy or to prohibit chickens as pets.
I admit that I didn't micro-manage this process. I think our planning director came up with a sensible proposal. Part of this is driven by creating a policy that our single code officer can effectively enforce.
Councilman Blank's proposed compromise that it be one chicken for every 2500 square feet of lot size, so that 6 applies to 1/3 acre sites (our legal minimum) and that larger lots allow more up to a total of 12, seemed reasonable.
In my view, this is much improved over the status quo of no chickens other than pets.
Councilman Milliken's proposal that any number of chickens be allowed by permit was not well-thought out. We need some criterion for issuing permits.
Still, I will ask the Town staff to develop a reasonable permitting system. In my opinion, we should find some way to allow raising poultry on the remaining large parcels in the Town. Perhaps a better solution is to rezone them to agricultural rather than introducing special chicken permits. I am very skeptical about large poultry operations in our residential neighborhoods. But, we will see.
The Planning Commission will look at this in September. It should be back to Town Council in September or October.
Nearly all the Town is zoned residential. There are a few areas that are zoned community commercial, neighborhood commercial, general office, and office residential. In those zones, raising livestock is not permitted, and that means it is prohibited.
However, in residential areas, household pets may be kept.
§ 153.211 ANIMALS.
(A) The keeping of household pets shall be allowed as an accessory use in all zoning districts in which residential dwelling units are permitted.
(B) The keeping of exotic or wild animals shall not be allowed as an accessory use and shall only be allowed if approved as a special exception in accordance with the procedures contained in §§ 153.040 through 153.055 of this code.
(Ord. 2012-06, § 6.5.12, passed 10-18-2012; Ord. 2013-02, passed 4-18-2013)
What is the difference between raising livestock and keeping pets?
We have a definition of pets in our ordinance:
PET, HOUSEHOLD. Domestic animals typically kept for company or enjoyment within the home. HOUSEHOLD PETS shall include, but not be limited to, domestic cats, domestic dogs, domestic ferrets, gerbils, guinea pigs, hamsters, domestic laboratory mice, domestic rabbits, goldfish, canaries, and parrots.So, you can see that chickens are not expressly included as pets (neither are pigs, goats, sheep, cows, nor horses.) But then, the definition of pets says that animals other than those listed can be pets.
Plainly, chickens are an important type of livestock. They are raised for eggs and meat.
But chickens can also be kept as pets. For example, there are people that have chickens to compete in shows. There are many collectors of fancy chicken breeds..
I hadn't thought much about it before, but at the public hearing, Kay Kernodle, JIPSD Comimssioner, pointed out that "we" are the South Carolina gamecocks and so should be permitted to keep roosters in our yards. (Clemson fans, you might feel left out, but we are not talking about tigers now.) So, yes, some people keep roosters for cock fighting. It is a tradition where people have roosters fight one another, often to the death, with people betting on the outcome. Some people consider seeing all the chicken blood flying about quite exciting. And the money from the betting is an enticement as well.
I have reason to believe that there are some James Islanders who keep dogs--especially pit bulls--for dog fights too. I would point out that all of this has long been banned under state law. The Town does not have the authority to permit our residents to keep animals to enjoy and profit from blood sport--even game cocks.
Like most local governments in the lowcountry, the Town's code enforcement is complaint driven. People call the Town regarding problems. We look at the Town ordinances, and if there is a violation, we pursue compliance. We always point out to a resident or property owner that there is a violation and insist on compliance. Sometimes we are met with defiance. Sometimes there is an agreement to correct the problem, but the delays begin to look like passive resistance. The result is a ticket and a summons to County Magistrate's Court on Riverland Drive. Then there is one fine and then another until we achieve compliance with our code.
Personally, I don't necessarily agree with all of our codes, but it is the Mayor's job to see that they are enforced. Any citizen of the Town may make complaints, but they also may ask Town Council to modify our codes.
The sections of the Town's code regarding livestock and pets were adopted unchanged from what the Town had between 2006 and 2011. It is no different from what the Town had from 2002 to 2004. And it is no different from the County ordinance that applied in the area of the Town between incorporations. (People who think their chickens are a nonconforming allowed use because they had them before 2012 are very much mistaken.)
So, if we get a complaint about chickens, we start with the presumption that raising chickens is not permitted in any part of the Town at this time. (Our ordinances are no different from those of Charleston County's current ordinance for residential areas.) But, if there is a credible argument that these particular chickens are pets, then that is permitted. In my view, one clear limitation on the "pets" defense is numbers. One chicken could easily count as a pet. Perhaps even a few. When we get a complaint and someone has sixty chickens, the "pets" defense is a bit thin. I have sworn to uphold our laws.
Further, every time I hear arguments about how great it is to raise chickens in your own backyard as a source of food for your family--eggs and especially meat-- the pets "exception" is just not credible. To me, when we have a complaint, claiming that the chickens in question are "pets" when they are pretty obviously livestock being raised for eggs and meat in a residential area, it is just is a big fat LIE.
So, I asked our planning director to come up with some kind of modification of our ordinance that would expressly allow limited numbers of chickens in residential zones whether they are plausibly pets or not. I didn't intend to change our complaint driven policy or to prohibit chickens as pets.
I admit that I didn't micro-manage this process. I think our planning director came up with a sensible proposal. Part of this is driven by creating a policy that our single code officer can effectively enforce.
Councilman Blank's proposed compromise that it be one chicken for every 2500 square feet of lot size, so that 6 applies to 1/3 acre sites (our legal minimum) and that larger lots allow more up to a total of 12, seemed reasonable.
In my view, this is much improved over the status quo of no chickens other than pets.
Councilman Milliken's proposal that any number of chickens be allowed by permit was not well-thought out. We need some criterion for issuing permits.
Still, I will ask the Town staff to develop a reasonable permitting system. In my opinion, we should find some way to allow raising poultry on the remaining large parcels in the Town. Perhaps a better solution is to rezone them to agricultural rather than introducing special chicken permits. I am very skeptical about large poultry operations in our residential neighborhoods. But, we will see.
The Planning Commission will look at this in September. It should be back to Town Council in September or October.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)