Mayor's Letter to the Post and Courier

Mayor's Letter to the Post and Courier

 

This is the revised letter to the Post and Courier.  It was greatly shortened at the request of the paper. 

 

Mayor Woolsey

 

_____________________________________________________________

Two editorials have appeared on the Town of James Island’s tree regulation.   The Town defines grand trees as any oak species with a 24” or greater diameter.   Charleston County and the Cities of Charleston and North Charleston use the 24” limit.  Mount Pleasant defines "historic trees" using the same standard.

Your June 1 editorial compared the Town’s definition of grand trees with protected trees in other jurisdictions.   The JI Planning Commission recommended that protected trees be defined as any tree of 8” or greater, with regulations similar to those in the County and the City of Charleston.

Limiting the definition of grand trees to oaks is unusual.   To prepare for a workshop on tree regulation, Town staff is gathering information on rules of other jurisdictions, native trees of James Island, and the Town’s undeveloped parcels.

The day before the June 20 meeting, Council received an email from Councilman Kernodle proposing to define grand trees as all trees other than pines with 18” or greater diameter.    Earlier that day, I received an email from "Nix 526" asking their supporters to contact Council in support of this proposal.   I received 19 emails from Town residents and 20 from others.   The emails and 25 supporters at the meeting were less than 1% of the Town’s 8,954 voters.

Councilman Blank, Chair of the Land Use Committee and former Chair of the JI Planning Commission, joined me in voting against the amendment. Councilmen Kernodle and Mullinax and Councilwoman Berry voted in favor.

The vote to allow the Harbor View Road project cited in the June 22 editorial was also 3 to 2.   Kernodle and Berry voted to block the project.  Mullinax joined Blank and I to allow the project to go forward.

The grand tree definition is very serious because it applies to over 4000 homeowners, subjecting them to fines for cutting down trees in their yard.    Asking for permission requires paying a fee and appearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals.  A major change in Town policy should never occur by last minute amendment at the behest of a handful of Town voters.

Annexation Legislation

Senator Paul Thurmond and Representative Peter McCoy filed legislation to amend South Carolina's annexation laws so that the Town will be able to regain the citizens it lost in the 4th incorporation.    The legislation was filed very late in the session, which is now over.  The bill, or some improved version, can be prefiled in December for next year's session.

I prepared the earliest drafts of the bill.   Trent Kernodle, who had been retained by the Town for annexation work, recused himself, stating that he had a conflict of interest because he worked for the James Island Public Service District.   Soon after, Kernodle resigned from representing the Town, again citing a conflict because he worked for the JIPSD.   Danny Crowe, an attorney who had worked for the SC Municipal Association, was retained by the Town to review the bill.   Senator Thurmond directed the Senate Judiciary Committee staff to review the bill as well.   

Drafts passed between Town Hall, Crowe, and the Senate staff.   In the closing days of the session, I asked Senator Thurmond to file the bill, which he did--Senate Bill 723.   I then asked Representative McCoy to file a companion bill in the House, which he did--House Bill 4265.    Representative McCoy asked House Speaker Bobby Harrell and Representatives Merrill and Brown to co-sponsor, and they did.   Our elected representatives were very helpful, and all Town citizens should thank Senator Paul Thurmond and Representative Peter McCoy for their efforts to reunite our Town.

The key addition to existing law proposed by the amendment is:

(B)    In addition to the provisions of subsection (A), if a municipality annexes an area which includes the majority of the population or registered voters of a special purpose, special taxing district, then the district, at its sole discretion and after a public hearing, may petition the municipality by resolution to annex the remaining unincorporated portion of the district.  This method of annexation is in addition to any other provided by law.
(1)    Contiguity of the municipality with any part of the district, including any part already incorporated in the municipality, is sufficient to allow annexation of the entire remainder of the district regardless of any break in contiguity in the area where the district currently provides services.
(2)    After receiving a petition by resolution from the district, the municipality, at its sole discretion and after public hearing, may annex the remainder of the district by ordinance.

This amendment would apply to the Town and the James Island Public Service District.   There are 13,768 registered voters in the JIPSD, and 8,954 of them are residents of the Town of James Island.   Registered voters of the Town make up 65% of the registered voters of the JIPSD.
Of course, the bill needs to pass both the Senate and the House.   And then it would need to be signed by Governor Haley.

Once the state annexation law is amended, then the JIPSD Commissioners would be authorized to petition to annex the remainder of the district to the Town.  When I prepared the early drafts, I had assumed that the JIPSD Commissioners would be unanimously in favor.  Of course, James Island Town Council would gladly accept the return of our former citizens.

The result would be exactly the situation in the first two incorporations.   The Town and the JIPSD would continue to exist as they do now, but they would have the same residents and voters.    It would be very similar to the third incorporation, since there were only a handful of residents in the JIPSD that were not included in the Town from 2006 to 2011.    However, none of the residents that have annexed to the City of Charleston or the City of Folly Beach would be included in the Town.

The amendment would not require that the JIPSD or any of the special service districts in South Carolina do anything.   It would only give the Commissioners the option of petitioning to bring the roughly 6,000 citizens who were left out of the current incorporation back into the Town.

Similarly, the amendment would not require the Town of James Island or any other municipality in South Carolina to do anything.    It would only authorize municipalities to annex the remainder of special service districts if petitioned by the district.   The municipality could always refuse.   Of course, the Town of James Island wants its citizens back.

Town Administrator Hal Mason and I met with JIPSD Chairman David Engelman and District Administrator Robert Wise in late February.   At that meeting, I outlined this proposed amendment.   Also at that meeting, I explained that the Town was seeking its own tax district and discussed plans to provide a property tax credit in cooperation with the County Auditor's Office and JIPSD.  I met separately with Commissioners Hollingsworth, Brown-Crouch, Waring, and McMillian to describe the proposed amendment.   I asked Commissioner Platt to meet with me, but he insisted on having Commissioner Welch join him.  I said fine.   I mentioned the proposed meeting to Commissioner Welch at a JIPSD meeting this spring.   He was willing to meet, but I never followed through.

Immediately after the bill was filed, I sent a letter to the Chairman of the JIPSD that included a copy of the bill.   This letter was copied to all of the Commissioners.   Commissioner Waring was worried that the bill could be used to destroy the JIPSD.    The portion of the bill that concerned her was:

(C)    If the remainder of the district is annexed by the municipality according to the provisions of subsection (B), any plan for the transfer of services from the district to the municipality described in Sections 5-3-311 through 5-3-315, shall be formulated after all areas of the district have had an opportunity to vote for the election of municipal officers.  Until such municipal elections have been held, the district must be allowed to continue to provide services in the entire area of the district incorporated in the district.

This section of the bill provides extra protection to a special service district that petitions to have the remainder of the district annexed to a municipality.    Sections 5-3-311 through 5-3-15 are already included in South Carolina's annexation law.   The first provision is:

 (1)    At the time of annexation or at any time thereafter the municipality may elect at its sole option to provide the service formerly provided by the district within the annexed area.  The transfer of service rights must be made pursuant to a plan formulated under the provisions of Sections 5-3-300 through 5-3-315.

The proposed amendment restricts a municipality by postponing any exercise of this already existing legal right to directly provide services in its jurisdiction.   For example, if the JIPSD petitioned the Town of James Island to include the remainder of the district into the Town, and the Town annexed the territory, then the Town would be required to postpone any effort to directly provide solid waste collection, fire services, or sewer services until after all of the newly annexed citizens had a chance to vote in Town elections.  I am not concerned with the restriction upon the Town due to this provision because I have no plan to have the Town directly provide solid waste collection, fire protection, or sewer services.

Councilwoman Waring expressed her worries that the amendment would allow the Town to take over the JIPSD at the District meeting on June 10th.    Commissioner Hollingsworth reported that Commissioner Waring had pointed this out to him and that he shared her views.   Commissioner Brown-Crouch said that some people have been saying that the Town is trying to destroy the JIPSD.  She also stated that she had asked Mayor Woolsey if that was true, and reported that he had said that the Town is not seeking to destroy the JIPSD.  Representative Peter McCoy, also at the June 10th meeting,  responded that no part of the amendment would allow the Town to take over the JIPSD and that he was in no way working against the JIPSD.

While state law gives municipalities the legal right to provide services, it also provides protections to those remaining in the unincorporated portion of a special service district.  It states:

(4)    In any case in which the municipality annexes less than the total service area of the district, the district may, at its sole discretion, retain ownership and control of any asset, within or without the annexed area, used by or intended to be used by residents within the district's unannexed area or used or intended to be used to provide service to residents in the unannexed area of the district.

However, special service districts in South Carolina, including the JIPSD, depend more upon a Federal court decision that allows special service districts that have borrowed money from the Federal government to continue to collect taxes from municipalities that have annexed part of their territory.   The JIPSD collects 14% of its general fund revenue from the City of Charleston and 2% from the City of Folly Beach.   Incredibly, the City of Charleston pays nearly $800,000 per year to the JIPSD, but insists on collecting its own solid waste and providing its own fire protection in the annexed areas.

The Town is not about to pay for the same services twice.  If the Town is compelled to pay for services, then the Town will insist that the JIPSD provide the services to the residents of the Town.

State law also states:

(5)    Upon annexation of less than the total area of the district, the district's boundaries must be modified, if at all, by the plan formulated pursuant to the provisions of Sections 5-3-300 through 5-3-315.  The plan must specify the new boundaries of the district.

The Town will never accept drawing new boundaries of the JIPSD to exclude Town residents.   We will not permit any restriction of the right of our citizens to vote for JIPSD Commissioners as long as the JIPSD claims the legal right to force us to pay for their services.

Since the majority of the voters in the District are in the Town, in the long run, the voters in the JIPSD will choose Commissioners that cooperate with the Town.  I see the Town and PSD as two sister governments who work together as a team to represent and provide services to the people of James Island.

Nearly everyone currently in the JIPSD who is not in the Town was in the Town just two years ago.   The Town of James Island is seeking the return of all of its former citizens.  It is absurd to think that the Town of James Island would do anything to hurt the interests of our past and future citizens. 

It is my view that any conflict between the Town and the JIPSD should be resolved by appeal to the voters of James Island.   The Town seeks the return of all of our citizens, which will mean that every JIPSD voter can also vote for Mayor and Town Council.    While I have no plans for the Town to directly provide any of the services currently provided by the JIPSD, any change in how the two sister governments provide these services should occur by mutual agreement by Town and JIPSD representatives elected by the same voters.   And that is why Senator Thurmond's and Representative McCoy's bill would greatly benefit the people of James Island as well as the citizens of any other special service district and municipality that find themselves in a similar situation.

PSD Commissioners Nix Tax Credit

In a 5 to 1 vote, James Island Public Service District Commissioners voted against cooperating with the Town of James Island to provide a 7 mil tax credit on the 2014 property tax bills going out this fall.   The proposed tax credit would have reduced JIPSD property taxes for Town residents by approximately 14%.   

The JIPSD Commissioners voted for a letter prepared by Chairman Engleman with the help of Commissioner Welch rejecting the Town's proposal.   Commissioner Platt suggested softening the rejection a bit by adding "at this time."    Commissioner Welch proposed an amendment to that effect, which passed.

Chairman Engelman and Commissioners Welch, Hollingsworth, Platt and Waring all voted to notify the Town that they would not help.    Commissioner McMillian voted no, favoring cooperation with the Town.   Commissioner Brown-Crouch abstained. 

The Town received the letter today.  The reasons given for opposing cooperation with the Town were 1) It would not increase the amount of tax relief Town residents receive from the local option sales tax, 2) It would significantly increase the District's accounting and auditing costs, 3) It would cause confusion among our constituents and significantly increase the District's customer service costs, 4) It is legally complicated and questionable.

Engleman's letter concludes with the claim, "we believe that most Town residents like receiving their annual local option sales tax refund checks directly from the Town."

There was no explanation of or effort to quantify "accounting and auditing costs," or "customer service costs."   There was no explanation of the alleged legal complexities or complications.  

In the letter outlining the proposal sent on May 8th,  I asked for recommendations from the JIPSD to improve the proposal.     The JIPSD asked for no clarification or suggested no modifications to the Town.  It seems clear that the majority on the JIPSD were not interested in good faith discussions with the Town. 

I went to the JIPSD meeting on June 10th and explained the problems with the check writing program in the third incorporation.   The County Auditor's Office has reported that there are more than 12,000 different tax accounts in the Town.   In the spring of 2011, the Town paid an outside contractor $14,000 to write and mail a similar number of checks.   Hundreds were returned because of bad addresses.   The Town maintained checking accounts from three different years with tens of thousands of dollars sitting idle.   (All of that money is part of the $1.5 million from the third incorporation that will be going to the City of Charleston and other area municipalities.)   The Town had a special "tax credit" hotline, because problems with the program tied up the Town's regular lines.   The Town's single Finance Clerk spent about half of his time for several months correcting errors and writing new checks.   I think that the check writing program was an administrative nightmare.

The June 2011 Town Newsletter, mailed to all residents, included an article explaining that in the future the Town would seek to work with the Charleston County Auditor's Office and the JIPSD so that tax credits would appear on the tax bills, reducing the amount paid by each taxpayer.   The proposal was included in the feasibility study for the fourth incorporation turned in to the Secretary of State in November 2011 and discussed before the Joint Legislative Committee on Incorporation in Columbia in February 2012.   It was also included in an article in the Free James Island newsletter titled "Vote Yes on April 24" and circulated starting in March of 2012.  

The Charleston County Auditor, Peggy Mosely, has been very helpful.   The Town now has its own tax district.   Officials at the Auditor's Office can program their computer to make the proper reduction for every property tax bill going to Town residents.   

The Auditor's Office is willing to make this adjustment.   While the JIPSD would receive less money directly from the County Treasurer, who receives all of the property tax monies, the Town would write a single check to the JIPSD to offset that reduction, covering the cost of the tax credit.   Legally, the Town would be directly paying for 14% of the cost of fire protection and solid waste collection for the residents of the Town, with the residents of the Town continuing to pay for 86% of the cost through property taxes. 

While the concept of the tax credit was made public in 2011, the actual proposal had to wait until the County Auditor's office provided an estimate of how much money the JIPSD is collecting from taxpayers in the Town."   The estimate is approximately $2.7 million per year.   The Town has $450,000 budgeted for a tax credit, and so the Town's proposed a 14% credit.

It is getting too late to provide a tax credit on the 2014 tax bills going out this fall.   I am looking into the cost of a check writing program to report to Council, but after experiencing the disaster in 2011, my view has always been, 'never again'."    I am hopeful that since the JIPSD said that it was only rejecting cooperation "at this time," there may be hope for good faith discussions leading to an agreement for the 2015 tax year.    What we need is for the voters of the Town to demand that their representatives on the JIPSD cooperate with the Town rather than treat us as another enemy.

I am also looking at a third alternative--have Town Council set the property tax millage for the Town, have the local option sales tax applied to tax bills as it is in other municipalities, have the Town receive the property tax revenues from the County Treasurer, and then have the Town pay the JIPSD for solid waste collection and fire protection.   Most municipalities are responsible for these property taxes and state law provides protection to municipal voters and taxpayers that don't appear to apply to the JIPSD.

I strongly opposes any effort to redraw the boundaries of the JIPSD to exclude the Town.  I will always demand the right of Town voters to have representation on the James Island PSD.

JIPSD Property Tax Increase

Charleston County Council approved the James Island Public Service District 2% property tax hike last night.    Councilman Joe Qualey opposed the tax increase, asking that the JIPSD provide public notice and receive public comment before raising taxes.   He questioned the PSD's procedure of adding in the tax hike as an amendment to a second reading of a budget that had included no tax hike before.  Councilmen Dickie Schweers and Herb Sass supported Qualey's position, but the majority of County Council voted to allow the JIPSD to raise taxes.

The purpose of the tax hike is to fund a 3% across-the-board pay increase for all JIPSD employees.   Commissioners who opposed the tax hike argued that the salary increase could be funded out of the District's $3 million surplus for many years.

Fortunately, the Town of James Island has proposed to the James Island PSD a 14 percent property tax credit (7 mils).   This proposal is now being considered by the PSD Commissioners.   If the JIPSD cooperates, then residents of the Town will end up with a 12 percent tax decrease (1 mil tax hike minus the 7 mil tax credit.)    The Town has offered to pay the JIPSD $400,000 to cover the lost tax revenue.
Unfortunately, those residents who were in the Town before but could not be included this time will be forced to pay the higher taxes imposed by the JIPSD without any tax credit.   The Town is working to return all of those residents to the Town.   In the future, the Town plans to provide even larger tax credits for all of our citizens.

The funds for the tax credit comes from the Local Option Sales Tax.   All James Island residents pay this tax, but the Town only receives credit for residents and businesses in the Town.   Because we only received funds for part of this year, the tax credits will be smaller than what we expect in the future.   As the Town regains our lost citizens, revenues will expand so that they too can share in the tax credits.

This is one reason I argued that a property tax increase for the James Island Public Service District is inappropriate at this time.   However, only Commissioners Inez Brown Crouch, Carter McMillian and June
Waring voted against the 2 percent tax hike.    I strongly encourage all of the Commissioners to help the residents of the Town by cooperating with a property tax credit this year.   I am sorry that we cannot help those James Islanders who are not yet in the Town.

Annexations

The Town of James Island remains committed to the return of the approximately 6,000 former residents who were left out of the current and final incorporation of the Town.     For this reason, the Town annexed six properties.  All of the annexed properties were included in the three previous incorporations of the Town and none have ever been in the City of Charleston.   Before they were annexed, they were in unincorporated Charleston County.  Further, none of the properties were in parts of the previous incorporations of the Town that the Supreme Court ruled were noncontiguous in 2011.

On April 1, 2013, South Carolina Secretary of State Mark Hammond wrote the Town that he had received notification of the six annexations.     Sixty days have passed, which is the period during which annexations may be contested.  South Carolina law gives standing to contest annexations to the property owners being annexed and the State.   No property owner contested an annexation, because each had asked to join the Town. 

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson contested five of the six annexations on the grounds that they are not contiguous to the remainder of the Town.   The Attorney General has 90 days to file suit.   The Town has already contacted the Attorney General explaining that no lawsuit will be necessary and that we will come to an accommodation.

The Town annexed these properties only after receiving legal counsel.   We will explain our legal theory to the Attorney General, and ask whether it is in the public interest and the spirit of justice to bring suit against the Town.   However, we will defer to the Attorney General’s judgment.   The Town of James Island has never intended to fight the State of South Carolina.

The Town was surprised to receive notification that the City of Charleston intends to contest all of the annexations.   Some members of Town Council had hoped that since the properties were in areas that the City had not challenged in the past, that it would remain silent now.   Others were skeptical, expecting the City of Charleston to request that the Attorney General contest the annexations.

The City of Charleston did contact the Attorney General, but also threatened suit on its own.   James Islanders are very aware of the law regarding standing on annexations.   The Saint Andrews Public Service District challenged illegal annexations by the City of Charleston, and the Supreme Court ruled that only the property owner or the State could bring suit.    Does the City of Charleston really intend to ask the Supreme Court to reverse the law on standing to suit its interests? 

It is important for all James Islanders to understand that the Town is here to stay and the City of Charleston is not challenging the existence of the Town as it did three times before.   Further, the Town will seek an accommodation with Charleston’s Mayor and City Council.   We certainly do not want to waste money on legal wrangling.   However, we cannot simply accept the City’s novel position on standing.  

Based upon the annexation that the Attorney General reviewed but chose not to contest, the Town will be organizing a petition drive in the “West Fort Johnson Area,” which includes the Quail Run subdivision as well as Landsdowne, Hepburn, and Ronald Roads.    After the drive is complete, we intend to hold off on an annexation election until the legal situation is more settled.   We will be very happy to see the roughly 300 former citizens in that area returned to the Town.

The Town thanks Senator Paul Thurmond and Representative Peter McCoy for introducing legislation that will allow the Town to annex the remainder of the James Island Public Service District.    We request that Governor Haley and the South Carolina legislature promptly approve that amendment to the annexation laws of South Carolina.

We will be patient and we will be flexible.   But we will be persistent.  We will continue to work through a variety of means to bring back all of our former citizens.