Town Council met last Thursday, December 18th.
The Charleston County Community Services held a public hearing on the 2105 Allocation for the Urban Entitlement Fund. Joanna Murray, the Director, gave a short presentation. Town Administrator, Ashley Kellahan, has been appointed to serve on the Charleston County Community Services board.
Council approved an amendment to the Municipal State Highway Project Agreement for the Harbor View Road Improvement Project for the addition of a center turn lane at Mikell Drive. This lane will provide storage for traffic turning left on Mikell Dr.. This should help with congestion in the morning due to Stiles Point Elementary school on Mikell Dr.
Council approved a resolution naming the proposed park at 461 Fort Johnson Road "Pinckney Park."
Council approved replacing the existing sign at Town Hall. The estimated cost for the new sign is $5,100.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
More Park Progress
Charleston County Council approved the Town's application for Greenbelt funds to purchase the Pinkney property at 461 Fort Johnson Road for a new Town park. The Town plans to schedule the closing for early January.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Harborview Road Stakeholders Meeting
I went to the meeting last night to get information about construction on Harborview Road.
The biggest news is that the road will be repaved over the next few weeks.
This will be done at night.
They will be removing a good bit of pavement and replacing it.
The bike lanes will be going away for the next couple of years.
The travel lanes will be slightly narrower during the construction process too.
P.S. If you haven't noticed, the speed limit is now 35 mph and will remain lower during the construction process.
The biggest news is that the road will be repaved over the next few weeks.
This will be done at night.
They will be removing a good bit of pavement and replacing it.
The bike lanes will be going away for the next couple of years.
The travel lanes will be slightly narrower during the construction process too.
P.S. If you haven't noticed, the speed limit is now 35 mph and will remain lower during the construction process.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Friday, November 21, 2014
Town Council Meeting Highlights
Town Council met on Thursday, November 20th.
Council received the 2013-2014 Audit and heard a presentation from the Town's Auditor, Henry Wilson. On the advice of the Auditor, the Town has reassigned duties among the staff for payments and bank deposits. At the end of the Auditing period, the Town had slightly more than $3 million in net assets.
Council approved an $82,500 match for an application to the Transportation Sales Tax program for phase II of the Camp Road sidewalk project. This phase runs between Dills Bluff Road and Secessionville Road.
Council approved landscaping for the new Town sign on Folly Road.
Council approved holding a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony at Town Hall on Thursday, December 11th at 7:00 pm.
Council approved a resolution adopting South Carolina's Arbor Day for the Town. That is the first Friday in December. James Island Pride, in conjunction with Fort Johnson Middle School, will be holding an Arbor Day ceremony at Fort Johnson Middle School on Friday, December 5, at 1:00.
Council approved on second and final reading an amendement to the Town's tree regulations creating an exception for alien and invasive tree species. Property owners are now free to remove those trees without a permit.
The Town administrator reported that SCDOT reviewed the intersection at Secessionville and Fort Johnson Road and does not believe that a stop light would be appropriate at this time.
Council received the 2013-2014 Audit and heard a presentation from the Town's Auditor, Henry Wilson. On the advice of the Auditor, the Town has reassigned duties among the staff for payments and bank deposits. At the end of the Auditing period, the Town had slightly more than $3 million in net assets.
Council approved an $82,500 match for an application to the Transportation Sales Tax program for phase II of the Camp Road sidewalk project. This phase runs between Dills Bluff Road and Secessionville Road.
Council approved landscaping for the new Town sign on Folly Road.
Council approved holding a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony at Town Hall on Thursday, December 11th at 7:00 pm.
Council approved a resolution adopting South Carolina's Arbor Day for the Town. That is the first Friday in December. James Island Pride, in conjunction with Fort Johnson Middle School, will be holding an Arbor Day ceremony at Fort Johnson Middle School on Friday, December 5, at 1:00.
Council approved on second and final reading an amendement to the Town's tree regulations creating an exception for alien and invasive tree species. Property owners are now free to remove those trees without a permit.
The Town administrator reported that SCDOT reviewed the intersection at Secessionville and Fort Johnson Road and does not believe that a stop light would be appropriate at this time.
Monday, November 17, 2014
More Park Progress
Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously recommended the Town's Greenbelt application to County Council tonight. The application is for $890,000 to purchase seven acres of land at 461 Fort Johnson Road for a new Town Park.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Park Progress
The Charleston County Greenbelt Project Urban Grants Review Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Town's application for Greenbelt funds to purchase 7.37 acres at 461 Fort Johnson Road for a new Town park Monday afternoon. The next step in the process is a recommendation from the Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission. The final step is approval by County Council.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
JIPSD Election Results
Town/JIPSD Cooperation took a small step forward last night. Unfortunately, the Town still has an uphill battle.
Commissioner Inez Brown-Crouch won reelection by a landslide Inez has always favored communication and cooperation with the Town.
Former Town Councilman Bill "Cubby" Wilder also won by a wide margin. Congratulations.
Kay Kernodle was elected as well.
Chairman Donald Hollingsworth barely edged out former Town Councilwoman Mary Beth Berry for the fourth seat.
These are unofficial results.
According to the Charleston County Election Commission, the report in the Post and Courier Wednesday morning and on TV election night failed to take into account a large number of last minute absentee ballots.
While the preliminary results had former Councilwoman Berry with a slight edge over Chairman Hollingsworth, these last minute absentee ballots turned the tide in his favor and pushed him over the top by a small margin.
These unofficial results show a 29 vote margin for Hollinsworth.
One major question is whether the JIPSD should keep Commissioner-elect Kay Kernodle's husband Trent as JIPSD Attorney. I think many James Islanders will see this as a conflict of interest.
Special thanks to Mary Beth Berry, Lyndy Palmer, Marilyn Clifford, Ernie Duncan, and Hal Hanvey for running for JIPSD Commissioner.
Commissioner Inez Brown-Crouch won reelection by a landslide Inez has always favored communication and cooperation with the Town.
Former Town Councilman Bill "Cubby" Wilder also won by a wide margin. Congratulations.
Kay Kernodle was elected as well.
Chairman Donald Hollingsworth barely edged out former Town Councilwoman Mary Beth Berry for the fourth seat.
These are unofficial results.
According to the Charleston County Election Commission, the report in the Post and Courier Wednesday morning and on TV election night failed to take into account a large number of last minute absentee ballots.
While the preliminary results had former Councilwoman Berry with a slight edge over Chairman Hollingsworth, these last minute absentee ballots turned the tide in his favor and pushed him over the top by a small margin.
These unofficial results show a 29 vote margin for Hollinsworth.
One major question is whether the JIPSD should keep Commissioner-elect Kay Kernodle's husband Trent as JIPSD Attorney. I think many James Islanders will see this as a conflict of interest.
Special thanks to Mary Beth Berry, Lyndy Palmer, Marilyn Clifford, Ernie Duncan, and Hal Hanvey for running for JIPSD Commissioner.
1
|
Crouch
|
1912
|
16%
|
2
|
Wilder
|
1715
|
14%
|
3
|
Kernodle
|
1450
|
12%
|
4
|
Hollingsworth
|
1358
|
11%
|
5
|
Berry
|
1329
|
11%
|
6
|
Engelman
|
965
|
8%
|
7
|
Palmer
|
812
|
7%
|
8
|
Schurmieir
|
809
|
7%
|
9
|
Clifford
|
665
|
5%
|
10
|
Duncan
|
590
|
5%
|
11
|
Hanvey
|
588
|
5%
|
12
|
write in
|
92
|
1%
|
Total
|
12285
|
Vote for JIPSD Commissioner Today
Vote for JIPSD Commissioner
Four of the seven seats for James Island Public Service District Commissioner are up for election today, Tuesday, November 4.
The JIPSD collects approximately 1/2 of the typical homeowner's property tax and directs fire protection, solid waste collection and sewer services in the Town of James Island.
Town Council has no say in these property taxes, sewer rates or the provision of these services.
It is important that all Town citizens vote for JIPSD Commissioner and choose wisely.
I am voting for the following four candidates. Please join me. Vote today.
Inez Brown Crouch
Hal Hanvey
Lyndy Palmer
Mary Beth Berry
Saturday, November 1, 2014
Is it Illegal for the JIPSD to Cooperate with the Town on Tax Relief?
At the October 13 meeting of the JIPSD Commission, JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle gave his arguments as to why it would be illegal for the JIPSD to work with the Town to provide a tax credit on the tax bill.
There was no written analysis provided to the Commissioners. Kernodle scooted in on his motorcycle and the only written documentation he had was an email from me to Chairman Hollingsworth and an email from the County Auditor to me.
So, what were his arguments?
He argued that the Town admitted that using the LOST money to write rebate checks would be costly and burdensome. If the JIPSD took on that task, then it would be bearing a heavy administrative cost that would only benefit the taxpayers in the Town. Those taxpayers in the District that are not in the Town would share part of the heavy cost and receive no benefit. This would violate equal protection of the law.
This argument might apply if the Town was proposing that the JIPSD take the Town's LOST money and write rebate checks. However, the Town has never proposed that the JIPSD write rebate checks.
The Town has made three proposals to the JIPSD. All involve the County Auditor making changes in the tax bills going to the Town's tax district. While the Town has offered to compensate the County Auditor and County Treasurer for any additional costs, neither office has expressed any interest in such compensation because they realize that the cost is negligible and really nothing more than what they offer for "free" to other municipalities. The billing process is automated. The administrative costs are a one-time set up cost of a slight change in computer programming.
Interestingly, the Town's proposal from March 27 and repeated on August 11 involved absolutely no added administrative cost for the JIPSD. The JIPSD would set its property tax millage as usual and receive all of the funds from the Charleston County Treasurer exactly as before. As JIPSD Candidate Hal Hanvey pointed out, it appeared that the JIPSD Attorney had not even read the Town's proposal.
The other two proposals by the Town would have involved the JIPSD opening one or at most a few checks from the Town. There would be no significant administrative cost to the JIPSD for any of the plans. Still, the Town would have no problem compensating the JIPSD for whatever minimal administrative costs the programs would involve.
Trent Kernodle also argued that the Town is required to provide a specific percentage of the LOST funds as a tax credit and that the various percentages that the Town has proposed are too small.
The percentage that Kernodle apparently had in mind is 71%, which is the percent of the total LOST receipts from Charleston County that the South Carolina Department of Revenue must place in the Property Tax Credit Fund. Municipalities in Charleston County divide 33% of that money in proportion to their populations. The South Carolina Department of Revenue does all of the calculations and sends each municipality a check from the Property Tax Credit fund each month. The 71% percent impacts what municipalities receive, but it is not used by a municipality in calculating tax credits.
The various percentages proposed by the Town are the percent tax cut that property owners in the Town would enjoy. The percent tax cut possible has increased over the past three years, and the amount of the tax credit can be expressed relative to the tax paid to the JIPSD, the total amount of property tax, or the total amount of the tax bill, which includes fees. Also, the percent tax cut is different for homeowners than rental property, businesses and cars, and also different for boats and other personal and other business property. That is because of different assessment ratios on different types of property.
Most importantly, the LOST statute specifies that a municipality that provides too small of a credit in one year is required to provide a larger credit the following year. This happens all the time, and there is no fine or other punishment for getting the credit wrong.
Trent Kernodle is giving legal advice about a program that he does not understand.
Trent Kernodle then argued that public service districts cannot benefit from LOST funds. He also said that the reason why the Town needed to be formed is that public service districts are not eligible for LOST funds.
Kernodle's approach to legal "advice" can create embarrassing moments for the Commissioners who rely on him. Commissioner Welch sent me an email where he said that everyone knows that the LOST statute specifically bars PSDs from benefiting from LOST tax money. Surely, given the way Trent Kernodle always states that it is illegal for PSDs to receive LOST money, it must be right there in the statute?
But in reality, the LOST statute says nothing at all about PSDs. Clearly, it doesn't say anything specifically about them and, in particular, nothing about them being barred from "benefiting" from LOST funds.
If the James Island Public Service District were to contact the South Carolina Department of Revenue and request a distribution of LOST funds, it would be turned down. Nothing in the statute authorizes the South Carolina Department of Revenue to provide a share of LOST funds to any public service district. It instead distributes the funds to counties and municipalities according to a specific formula.
The only way for people who were in unincorporated Charleston County on James Island to receive a share of the municipal portion of LOST was to form a municipality. We did, and the Town gets two LOST checks each month. One is from the Municipal/County Revenue fund and the other is from the Property Tax Credit fund.
However, all municipalities spend all the money they receive from all portions of LOST for the provision of public services. Trent Kernodle just doesn't understand how the program works. For nearly all municipalities, tax credits are placed on tax bills. That means that the municipality receives less tax money from the County Treasurer. The money received from the South Carolina Department of Revenue from the LOST Property Tax Credit fund is spent on public services, along with the smaller amount of tax revenue received from the County Treasurer.
The Town's proposals put the JIPSD in the role of a vendor providing services to a municipality. If a building contractor visited the South Carolina Department of Revenue and asked for a distribution of LOST funds, he would be laughed out of the office. But that doesn't mean that the contractor cannot "benefit" from the LOST funds by doing work for the City of Folly Beach. Just because a portion of the funds the City of Folly Beach spends comes from LOST doesn't somehow make the receipt of those funds by the building contractor a violation of the LOST statute.
The JIPSD right now is providing fire services to the City of Folly Beach and the City of Folly Beach is paying for it partly with monies from the LOST Property Tax Credit fund. The Town pointed this out to the the JIPSD months ago. Has the JIPSD stopped taking money from Folly Beach? Why does the JIPSD's Attorney keep repeating long refuted arguments?
Trent Kernodle told the Commissioners that they may be criminally liable for cooperating with the Town on the tax credits.
First, there are no criminal sanctions in the LOST Statute.
In Trent Kernodle's opinion, the Towns of Ravenel, Megget, Kiawah, Seabrook, Hollywood, and Rockville, have been in violation of the law for more than twenty years. They all receive money from the Property Tax Credit Fund. They have no municipal property tax millage, provide no tax credits, and just spend the money on current operations. The Town Attorneys for those municipalities obviously disagree with Trent Kernodle's theory. Further, the Attorneys of the Municipal Association of South Carolina disagree with Trent Kernodle's theory. And at the request of the Town of James Island, we now have an opinion from the Attorney General's Office of South Carolina that disagrees with Trent Kernodle's theory.
However, Trent Kernodle's theory is not just that the municipal officials would be subject to criminal sanction for failing to mail checks or send the money back or whatever he has imagined the law might be. He is making the absurd claim that contractors to those municipalities would be subject to criminal sanctions for receiving funds spent by the municipality. For example, a contractor building a sidewalk in Hollywood would supposedly be subject to criminal sanctions because the money he received from the Town of Hollywood included some monies that the Town had received from the LOST Property Tax Credit fund.
Give me a break!
All of these bad arguments were just rattled off from the top of Trent Kernodle's head.
What about the emails he read? He read a portion of an email that I had written to Chairman Hollingsworth stating that the County had not rejected the Town's proposal. And then he read a portion of an email from the County Auditor that had been written to me to suggest that I had been told that the County had rejected the Town's proposal. While the email from the County Auditor did show that he had not been kept in the loop regarding discussions between the Town and the Chairman of County Council, it provided no evidence that the Town's proposal to the JIPSD was illegal.
It was a court room trick. The JIPSD Attorney, Trent Kernodle, was trying to discredit a witness for the opposing side--me.
Trent Kernodle's entire performance on October 13th looked like an effort to bamboozle an exceptionally inattentive and ignorant jury.
Who was he trying to fool? Was it the citizens attending the meeting? Or was it the Commissioners themselves?
The JIPSD Commissioners are in desperate need of a second opinion.
There was no written analysis provided to the Commissioners. Kernodle scooted in on his motorcycle and the only written documentation he had was an email from me to Chairman Hollingsworth and an email from the County Auditor to me.
So, what were his arguments?
He argued that the Town admitted that using the LOST money to write rebate checks would be costly and burdensome. If the JIPSD took on that task, then it would be bearing a heavy administrative cost that would only benefit the taxpayers in the Town. Those taxpayers in the District that are not in the Town would share part of the heavy cost and receive no benefit. This would violate equal protection of the law.
This argument might apply if the Town was proposing that the JIPSD take the Town's LOST money and write rebate checks. However, the Town has never proposed that the JIPSD write rebate checks.
The Town has made three proposals to the JIPSD. All involve the County Auditor making changes in the tax bills going to the Town's tax district. While the Town has offered to compensate the County Auditor and County Treasurer for any additional costs, neither office has expressed any interest in such compensation because they realize that the cost is negligible and really nothing more than what they offer for "free" to other municipalities. The billing process is automated. The administrative costs are a one-time set up cost of a slight change in computer programming.
Interestingly, the Town's proposal from March 27 and repeated on August 11 involved absolutely no added administrative cost for the JIPSD. The JIPSD would set its property tax millage as usual and receive all of the funds from the Charleston County Treasurer exactly as before. As JIPSD Candidate Hal Hanvey pointed out, it appeared that the JIPSD Attorney had not even read the Town's proposal.
The other two proposals by the Town would have involved the JIPSD opening one or at most a few checks from the Town. There would be no significant administrative cost to the JIPSD for any of the plans. Still, the Town would have no problem compensating the JIPSD for whatever minimal administrative costs the programs would involve.
Trent Kernodle also argued that the Town is required to provide a specific percentage of the LOST funds as a tax credit and that the various percentages that the Town has proposed are too small.
The percentage that Kernodle apparently had in mind is 71%, which is the percent of the total LOST receipts from Charleston County that the South Carolina Department of Revenue must place in the Property Tax Credit Fund. Municipalities in Charleston County divide 33% of that money in proportion to their populations. The South Carolina Department of Revenue does all of the calculations and sends each municipality a check from the Property Tax Credit fund each month. The 71% percent impacts what municipalities receive, but it is not used by a municipality in calculating tax credits.
The various percentages proposed by the Town are the percent tax cut that property owners in the Town would enjoy. The percent tax cut possible has increased over the past three years, and the amount of the tax credit can be expressed relative to the tax paid to the JIPSD, the total amount of property tax, or the total amount of the tax bill, which includes fees. Also, the percent tax cut is different for homeowners than rental property, businesses and cars, and also different for boats and other personal and other business property. That is because of different assessment ratios on different types of property.
Most importantly, the LOST statute specifies that a municipality that provides too small of a credit in one year is required to provide a larger credit the following year. This happens all the time, and there is no fine or other punishment for getting the credit wrong.
Trent Kernodle is giving legal advice about a program that he does not understand.
Trent Kernodle then argued that public service districts cannot benefit from LOST funds. He also said that the reason why the Town needed to be formed is that public service districts are not eligible for LOST funds.
Kernodle's approach to legal "advice" can create embarrassing moments for the Commissioners who rely on him. Commissioner Welch sent me an email where he said that everyone knows that the LOST statute specifically bars PSDs from benefiting from LOST tax money. Surely, given the way Trent Kernodle always states that it is illegal for PSDs to receive LOST money, it must be right there in the statute?
But in reality, the LOST statute says nothing at all about PSDs. Clearly, it doesn't say anything specifically about them and, in particular, nothing about them being barred from "benefiting" from LOST funds.
If the James Island Public Service District were to contact the South Carolina Department of Revenue and request a distribution of LOST funds, it would be turned down. Nothing in the statute authorizes the South Carolina Department of Revenue to provide a share of LOST funds to any public service district. It instead distributes the funds to counties and municipalities according to a specific formula.
The only way for people who were in unincorporated Charleston County on James Island to receive a share of the municipal portion of LOST was to form a municipality. We did, and the Town gets two LOST checks each month. One is from the Municipal/County Revenue fund and the other is from the Property Tax Credit fund.
However, all municipalities spend all the money they receive from all portions of LOST for the provision of public services. Trent Kernodle just doesn't understand how the program works. For nearly all municipalities, tax credits are placed on tax bills. That means that the municipality receives less tax money from the County Treasurer. The money received from the South Carolina Department of Revenue from the LOST Property Tax Credit fund is spent on public services, along with the smaller amount of tax revenue received from the County Treasurer.
The Town's proposals put the JIPSD in the role of a vendor providing services to a municipality. If a building contractor visited the South Carolina Department of Revenue and asked for a distribution of LOST funds, he would be laughed out of the office. But that doesn't mean that the contractor cannot "benefit" from the LOST funds by doing work for the City of Folly Beach. Just because a portion of the funds the City of Folly Beach spends comes from LOST doesn't somehow make the receipt of those funds by the building contractor a violation of the LOST statute.
The JIPSD right now is providing fire services to the City of Folly Beach and the City of Folly Beach is paying for it partly with monies from the LOST Property Tax Credit fund. The Town pointed this out to the the JIPSD months ago. Has the JIPSD stopped taking money from Folly Beach? Why does the JIPSD's Attorney keep repeating long refuted arguments?
Trent Kernodle told the Commissioners that they may be criminally liable for cooperating with the Town on the tax credits.
First, there are no criminal sanctions in the LOST Statute.
In Trent Kernodle's opinion, the Towns of Ravenel, Megget, Kiawah, Seabrook, Hollywood, and Rockville, have been in violation of the law for more than twenty years. They all receive money from the Property Tax Credit Fund. They have no municipal property tax millage, provide no tax credits, and just spend the money on current operations. The Town Attorneys for those municipalities obviously disagree with Trent Kernodle's theory. Further, the Attorneys of the Municipal Association of South Carolina disagree with Trent Kernodle's theory. And at the request of the Town of James Island, we now have an opinion from the Attorney General's Office of South Carolina that disagrees with Trent Kernodle's theory.
However, Trent Kernodle's theory is not just that the municipal officials would be subject to criminal sanction for failing to mail checks or send the money back or whatever he has imagined the law might be. He is making the absurd claim that contractors to those municipalities would be subject to criminal sanctions for receiving funds spent by the municipality. For example, a contractor building a sidewalk in Hollywood would supposedly be subject to criminal sanctions because the money he received from the Town of Hollywood included some monies that the Town had received from the LOST Property Tax Credit fund.
Give me a break!
All of these bad arguments were just rattled off from the top of Trent Kernodle's head.
What about the emails he read? He read a portion of an email that I had written to Chairman Hollingsworth stating that the County had not rejected the Town's proposal. And then he read a portion of an email from the County Auditor that had been written to me to suggest that I had been told that the County had rejected the Town's proposal. While the email from the County Auditor did show that he had not been kept in the loop regarding discussions between the Town and the Chairman of County Council, it provided no evidence that the Town's proposal to the JIPSD was illegal.
It was a court room trick. The JIPSD Attorney, Trent Kernodle, was trying to discredit a witness for the opposing side--me.
Trent Kernodle's entire performance on October 13th looked like an effort to bamboozle an exceptionally inattentive and ignorant jury.
Who was he trying to fool? Was it the citizens attending the meeting? Or was it the Commissioners themselves?
The JIPSD Commissioners are in desperate need of a second opinion.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Just Mail the Checks?
When I was elected Mayor in 2010, the Town had just mailed property tax rebate checks. They came out right before the election, a check signed by Mayor Mary Clark and Councilman Parris Williams for every voter.
When I was finally sworn in as Mayor, there were bundles of returned checks. And bundles of returned checks from 2009 and 2008.
I found out that the Town had a special checking account for 2010, another for 2009, and a third from 2008, all with funds remaining. The Town had a special dedicated "Tax Credit" phone line, just for people to call in for complaints.
People came into the office every day. The check was made out to the wrong person. There was a divorce. The person named on the check is dead. Forms were filled out. Tax bills found and printed out. New checks written and signed. The Town's single finance clerk spent two days a week for several months sorting through all of the issues.
It was a mess.
I thought that there must be a better way. My goal was to follow the approach of the first Mayor of the Town of James Island, Joan Sooy. We should work with the Charleston County Auditor and the James Island Public Service District to put credits on the tax bills, reduce the amount the County Treasurer sends to the JIPSD, and have the Town make up the difference by paying the JIPSD for fire protection and solid waste collection services using the monies the Town receives from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund.
Unfortunately, while the County Auditor prepared tax bills including the Town's tax credit in 1995, the Town was ordered dissolved right before the bills were mailed. The order was stayed pending appeal, but the City of Charleston and the Town of Mount Pleasant sued to stop the County Auditor and CountyTreasurer from putting tax credits from a dissolved municipality on the tax bill.
Back in 2010, my view was that first the Town must wait until our date with the Supreme Court, and then once the Town was recognized as legally formed, we could return to the County Auditor and the James Island PSD and talk about tax credits. We should have been able to get the tax credits on the 2011 tax bills.
Sadly, Trent Kernodle's oral arguments did not go well with the Supreme Court. Being worried that the Town would be closed down yet again, I asked Town Council for permission to prepare a last set of checks. The Town hired a contractor to print and mail the checks . The problems started almost immediately, but soon the Town was closed. All the remaining money was taken and split up among Charleston County, the City of Charleston, the City of North Charleston, the Town of Mount Pleasant and every other municipality in Charleston County.
Before the Town was closed in 2011, we sent out a last newsletter. In that newsletter, I wrote that the checks just mailed were the last, that next time the credits would be on the tax bill. The feasibility study the Town submitted to the Secretary of State included the proposal that the Town put tax credits on the tax bill similar to Mayor Sooy's program from 1994. The Free James Island campaign literature also included the proposal to put tax credits on the tax bills.
This time, the Town was formed and there was no legal challenge. Nothing would stop the Town from having our tax credits on the tax bills. Except James Island Public Service District Commissioners who want the Town to mail the checks.
The Town's policy on tax relief is that the Town's program should as closely mirror the LOST statute as possible. The Clark check writing program is not an appropriate model.
Here are some principles that are important for the Town's tax relief program:
1. Tax relief should apply to all taxed property--houses, businesses, cars, boats and other personal and business property.
2. Tax relief should be in proportion to appraised property value.
3. All funds that the Town receives from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund should be used for tax relief.
4. If too little tax relief is provided in one year, extra funds plus interest should be moved forward and used to provide tax relief the following year.
5. Tax relief should take the form of a credit on the tax bill, reducing the amount the taxpayer must pay the County Treasurer
No municipality in South Carolina, other than the Town of James Island in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, has ever used LOST Property Tax Credit funds to mail tax rebate checks.
However, the Town's position implies that because a municipality with no property tax millage is free to use the funds for any public purpose, the Town of James Island can, if it chooses, institute a check writing program based upon whatever principles it likes. In particular, the Clark administration's check writing program was legal.
The paradox of Trent Kernodle's position regarding LOST is that he has argued that a municipality must distribute the funds back to taxpayers due to specific language in the LOST statute, but then the actual check writing program he approved for the Town of James Island was in clear and obvious violation of the statute in several significant ways.
However, while the Town's view is that it could "write the checks," or give the money back to the state or distribute it to other municipalities, or use it to provide additional public services, the Town's policy is to provide tax relief consistent with the provisions of the LOST statute to the degree possible.
The Town proposed an agreement with the James Island PSD to provide credits on the 2013 tax bill. The JIPSD turned the Town down. The Town kept those funds and is committed to use them for tax relief in the future. The Town made two different proposals to the JIPSD and one to Charleston County to provide credits on the 2014 tax bill. The Town was turned down. All the funds the Town has received, plus accumulated interest, has been retained and is ready to provide a tax credit on the 2015 tax bill. Consistent with the LOST statute, which the Town is choosing to follow, the Town is seeking to use these funds to provide a larger tax credit on the tax bill next year.
The size of the tax cut the Town could have provided in 2013 was quite small--approximately 6% reduction in the total tax bill. For 2014, a substantially larger tax credit would have been possible--closer to 20% Why? Because the tax credit in 2013 was "too small," that is, nonexistent, so that money could be applied to the tax credit the following year. Unfortunately, the tax credit in 2014 was again "to small," and so those funds can be applied to a credit in 2015. A much larger tax credit, something more than a 30% reduction in the tax bill, will be possible on the 2015 tax bill.
All that is necessary is for the voters of James Island to elect Commissioners who are willing to work with the Town on a tax credit. We need to steer clear of Commissioners who echo Trent Kernodle's campaign slogan--mail the checks.
When I was finally sworn in as Mayor, there were bundles of returned checks. And bundles of returned checks from 2009 and 2008.
 |
| Returned checks, statements, and forms |
People came into the office every day. The check was made out to the wrong person. There was a divorce. The person named on the check is dead. Forms were filled out. Tax bills found and printed out. New checks written and signed. The Town's single finance clerk spent two days a week for several months sorting through all of the issues.
It was a mess.
I thought that there must be a better way. My goal was to follow the approach of the first Mayor of the Town of James Island, Joan Sooy. We should work with the Charleston County Auditor and the James Island Public Service District to put credits on the tax bills, reduce the amount the County Treasurer sends to the JIPSD, and have the Town make up the difference by paying the JIPSD for fire protection and solid waste collection services using the monies the Town receives from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund.
Unfortunately, while the County Auditor prepared tax bills including the Town's tax credit in 1995, the Town was ordered dissolved right before the bills were mailed. The order was stayed pending appeal, but the City of Charleston and the Town of Mount Pleasant sued to stop the County Auditor and CountyTreasurer from putting tax credits from a dissolved municipality on the tax bill.
Back in 2010, my view was that first the Town must wait until our date with the Supreme Court, and then once the Town was recognized as legally formed, we could return to the County Auditor and the James Island PSD and talk about tax credits. We should have been able to get the tax credits on the 2011 tax bills.
Sadly, Trent Kernodle's oral arguments did not go well with the Supreme Court. Being worried that the Town would be closed down yet again, I asked Town Council for permission to prepare a last set of checks. The Town hired a contractor to print and mail the checks . The problems started almost immediately, but soon the Town was closed. All the remaining money was taken and split up among Charleston County, the City of Charleston, the City of North Charleston, the Town of Mount Pleasant and every other municipality in Charleston County.
Before the Town was closed in 2011, we sent out a last newsletter. In that newsletter, I wrote that the checks just mailed were the last, that next time the credits would be on the tax bill. The feasibility study the Town submitted to the Secretary of State included the proposal that the Town put tax credits on the tax bill similar to Mayor Sooy's program from 1994. The Free James Island campaign literature also included the proposal to put tax credits on the tax bills.
This time, the Town was formed and there was no legal challenge. Nothing would stop the Town from having our tax credits on the tax bills. Except James Island Public Service District Commissioners who want the Town to mail the checks.
The Town's policy on tax relief is that the Town's program should as closely mirror the LOST statute as possible. The Clark check writing program is not an appropriate model.
Here are some principles that are important for the Town's tax relief program:
1. Tax relief should apply to all taxed property--houses, businesses, cars, boats and other personal and business property.
The Clark check writing program only mailed checks for real property--houses, apartments, farms, and businesses. Nothing was provided for cars, boats and other personal and other business property.
Because of the number of cars, any new check writing program will be much more complicated and expensive than what the Clark administration began in 2008.
It is unclear why the lawyer reviewing the Clark program, JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle, approved a program that failed to provide tax relief consistent with the LOST statute. Why were all of the owners of cars, boats, and other personal and other business property cut out?
2. Tax relief should be in proportion to appraised property value.
The Clark check writing program provided checks in proportion to the taxes paid to the JIPSD. This resulted in larger tax credits to owners of businesses and rental properties and smaller credits to homeowners than specified by the LOST statute.
This would be easy to correct. It is unclear why the lawyer reviewing the Clark program, JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle, approved a program that failed to provide tax relief consistent with the LOST statute. Why was less tax relief provided to homeowners than specified by the LOST statute? Why did the Town's program provide extra relief to owners of commercial and rental property?
3. All funds that the Town receives from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund should be used for tax relief.
The Clark Administration kept monies received from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund segregated from other funds. Each year's tax credit was too small, but the final checks written in the Spring of 2011, used up all the funds.
It is not difficult to keep track of the monies received from the Property Tax Credit fund and to allocate the Town's interest income between funds.
4. If too little tax relief is provided in one year, extra funds plus interest should be moved forward and used to provide tax relief the following year.
The Clark Administration did not shift the funds over along with interest to the next year's credit. However, all of the funds that the Town had received by the spring of 2011 were paid out in the final set of checks.
It is important to note that it would be illegal for a municipality that had provided too small of a tax credit to mail out checks to property owners so that they received the "correct" amount of credit. What must happen is that a larger credit must be provided on the following year's tax bill. (As an aside, it would also be illegal for a municipality to "send the money back" to the South Carolina Department of Revenue rather than provide the required larger tax credit on the tax bill the following year.)
5. Tax relief should take the form of a credit on the tax bill, reducing the amount the taxpayer must pay the County Treasurer
The Town's position on the LOST statute is consistent with the long-standing position of the Municipal Association of South Carolina, and the practice of other municipalities in Charleston County such as Ravenel, Megget, Hollywood, Rockville, Kiawah and Seabrook. Municipalities with no property tax millage are not required to provide credits that reduce a tax that does not exist. Municipalities can spend the monies received from the LOST Property Tax Credit fund on any public purpose. At the request of the Town, the South Carolina Attorney General's Office provided an opinion that explicitly endorses this position. For more than twenty years, these municipalities have been spending the funds they received from the Property Tax Credit fund on municipal operations. None of them have been sent to jail for misappropriating funds.
The Clark check writing program is inconsistent with this element of the LOST statute. It is important to understand that a municipality that is subject to the LOST statute could not legally choose to write checks to property owners based upon taxes that had already been paid. Nor could a municipality subject to these rules choose to not participate and "send the money back" to the state.
No municipality in South Carolina, other than the Town of James Island in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, has ever used LOST Property Tax Credit funds to mail tax rebate checks.
However, the Town's position implies that because a municipality with no property tax millage is free to use the funds for any public purpose, the Town of James Island can, if it chooses, institute a check writing program based upon whatever principles it likes. In particular, the Clark administration's check writing program was legal.
The paradox of Trent Kernodle's position regarding LOST is that he has argued that a municipality must distribute the funds back to taxpayers due to specific language in the LOST statute, but then the actual check writing program he approved for the Town of James Island was in clear and obvious violation of the statute in several significant ways.
However, while the Town's view is that it could "write the checks," or give the money back to the state or distribute it to other municipalities, or use it to provide additional public services, the Town's policy is to provide tax relief consistent with the provisions of the LOST statute to the degree possible.
The Town proposed an agreement with the James Island PSD to provide credits on the 2013 tax bill. The JIPSD turned the Town down. The Town kept those funds and is committed to use them for tax relief in the future. The Town made two different proposals to the JIPSD and one to Charleston County to provide credits on the 2014 tax bill. The Town was turned down. All the funds the Town has received, plus accumulated interest, has been retained and is ready to provide a tax credit on the 2015 tax bill. Consistent with the LOST statute, which the Town is choosing to follow, the Town is seeking to use these funds to provide a larger tax credit on the tax bill next year.
The size of the tax cut the Town could have provided in 2013 was quite small--approximately 6% reduction in the total tax bill. For 2014, a substantially larger tax credit would have been possible--closer to 20% Why? Because the tax credit in 2013 was "too small," that is, nonexistent, so that money could be applied to the tax credit the following year. Unfortunately, the tax credit in 2014 was again "to small," and so those funds can be applied to a credit in 2015. A much larger tax credit, something more than a 30% reduction in the tax bill, will be possible on the 2015 tax bill.
All that is necessary is for the voters of James Island to elect Commissioners who are willing to work with the Town on a tax credit. We need to steer clear of Commissioners who echo Trent Kernodle's campaign slogan--mail the checks.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Tax Relief Principles
I am strongly committed to tax relief for the people of the Town of James Island. There is a majority of Town Council who support this policy.
My basic principle is that the Town's tax relief policy should follow the LOST statute to the degree possible.
1. Tax relief should apply to all taxed property--houses, businesses, cars, boats and other personal and business property.
2. Tax relief should be in proportion to appraised property value.
3. All funds that the Town receives from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund should be used for tax relief.
4. If too little tax relief is provided in one year, extra funds plus interest should be moved forward and used to provide tax relief the following year.
5. Tax relief should take the form of a credit on the tax bill, reducing the amount the taxpayer must pay the County Treasurer.
If the Town of James Island imposed a property tax millage sufficiently high that the amount each and every taxpayer owed the Town was at least as great as the required tax credit, then the Town would be legally obligated to follow these principles. They are all provisions of the LOST statute. The City of Folly Beach and the City of Charleston impose a millage sufficiently high that they must follow these rules.
If the Town of James Island imposed a tax millage just high enough that it must follow these rules, then homeowners and owners of agricultural land would have no additional tax liability. It would probably be legal to provide credits for all taxpayers so that no one actually paid any additional municipal tax. However, there would be no tax relief. A Town tax credit would appear on the tax bills, but it would be a credit against a newly-imposed tax increase. The only beneficial result would be to prevent any legal challenge to the Town spending all of the money it receives from the LOST Property Tax Fund on the provision of public services.
I remain committed to true tax relief for the people of the Town, not sham tax relief against a newly imposed tax.
The most legally certain approach to providing tax relief is for the Town to collect its own property tax millage in place of the James Island Public Service District. Because the millage charged by the JIPSD is sufficiently high, the Town would be legally obligated to follow the same rules as municipalities such as the City of Folly Beach and the City of Charleston. The rules above would apply to the Town.
The residents and property owners of the Town could continue to receive services from the JIPSD, but the Town would need to pay the JIPSD for the services. The authorization for a public service district to provide services to a municipality by contract is included in the statute governing annexations by a municipality in a public service district.
The Town of James Island can only follow this approach by an agreement with the James Island Public Service District. The Town proposed such an agreement in December of 2013, providing plenty of time to allow for tax relief on the 2014 tax bills that came out in October. The JIPSD rejected the Town's offer.
The problem is that there are only two Commissioners who are willing to work with the Town. The majority of Commissioners just echo Trent Kernodle's campaign slogan--mail the checks.
The Town has made two other proposals to the JIPSD to allow tax relief. In my view, both are legally sound.
The first proposal was made in May of 2013, in time for tax relief on the 2013 tax bill. This proposal was loosely modeled on the approach worked out by the Town's first Mayor, Joan Sooy, the James Island Public Service District and the County Auditor in 1994. A Town tax credit would appear on the tax bills. The credit would reduce the amount taxpayers pay to the County Treasurer, and the County Treasurer would send less to the James Island PSD by the total amount of the credits. The Town would pay that total amount to the JIPSD when the tax bills come due.
Under this plan, the Town would have no millage of its own. The JIPSD would continue to set its own millage in the Town's tax district, and the Town would use money from the LOST Property Tax Credit fund to help pay its property owner's taxes to the JIPSD and thereby purchase public services from the JIPSD for their benefit. The JIPSD would receive most of their tax monies from the County Treasurer as today, but part would be received directly from the Town in one check, or perhaps a few checks.
The third proposal, made by the Town in March of 2014, still in plenty of time for tax relief on the 2014 tax bill, was similar to the first. However, the Town would deposit money with the County Treasurer. The Auditor would calculate the tax credit and reduce the amount on the JIPSD line by the amount of the credit. The Town's taxpayers would pay less to the County Treasurer. As the tax bills are processed, funds would be moved from the Town's deposit to the JIPSD's account with the County Treasurer.
The JIPSD would set its own millage in the Town's tax district. The Town would have no millage of its own. The County Treasurer would send payments to the JIPSD at the same times and in the same amounts as he would if there had been no Town tax credit.
Again, the Town would be using its funds from the LOST Property Tax Credit fund to help its property owners pay their taxes to the JIPSD and thereby pay for JIPSD services on their behalf. The proposal is very similar to the first proposal, except that there would be no change in how the JIPSD receives its funds--it would continue to receive all of its tax revenue funds from the County Treasurer exactly as it does today.
Because the majority of James Island Commissioners have refused to work with the Town, and instead have demanded that the Town "mail the checks," the Town turned to Charleston County. The Town proposed to Charleston County Council that the Town would deposit money with the County Treasurer as above, and the amount of the credit would be taken off the Charleston County general government operating line. The Town's taxpayers would pay the County Treasurer less and as the bills are paid and processed, the funds would be shifted from the Town's deposit to that of the general County government's account.
The majority of County Council has said they would like to work with the Town. However, they said that the County Attorney would have to determine if there is a legal risk to the County. The County Attorney presumably reviewed the Town's proposal and expressed worry that the County could be sued and that it would be costly to defend. We received that news in March of 2014. The Town sought, and after some months obtained, opinions from the Attorney General's Office that the Town's proposals were legal.
The Town's position has always been that it would be legal for the County or the JIPSD to come to an agreement with the Town. We have never argued that either must come to an agreement with the Town. Proving that it would be legal for the JIPSD to come to an agreement with the Town has not been a priority because there have not been enough JIPSD Commissioners who want to cooperate with the Town. (The Kernodle supporters on the Commission just repeat--mail the checks.)
After receiving the Attorney General Office's opinion, we shared it with the County Attorney and asked if he would now defer to that view. He said that he would only advise County Council to go forward if there was a declaratory judgement. The Town Attorney spoke with him on July 2 about arranging for a declaratory judgment. It became clear that rather than seeking a declaratory judgement tailored narrowly to the Town's proposal, he would instead challenge the eligibility of the Town of James Island to receive any funds from the LOST Property Tax Fund. He would argue that only municipalities with a property tax millage should receive funds and that the funds should be sent back and redistributed. Further, he would insist that this be ajudicated by an appeals court, if not the South Carolina Supreme Court. To me this seemed both excessive and expensive.
On July 17, I met with the County Attorney and County Council Chairman Teddie Pryor along with Senator Thurmond and Councilman Qualey on how to move forward. My goal was to discuss ways to reduce any legal risk to the County while limiting the scope or eliminating the need for a declaratory judgment. My key argument is that the County should not be expected to defend a program that benefits the taxpayers of the Town. It would be up to the Town to pay for any defense. Further, I believe that the Town should be willing to guarantee with its full faith and credit that the County will get to keep and spend the money necessary to provide services to the residents of the Town.
The Chairman told me that he was committed to helping the Town, if the legal obstacles could be met, but further meetings were postponed until after the election for Mayor on July 29. The reason was obvious. If Trent Kernodle won, the Town would be mailing the checks. There would be no agreement with the County.
While the Town has continued to pursue this approach, the post-election meeting has continued to be postponed. Right now, it looks like we will be meeting sometime after the November 4 election. I suppose that makes sense as well. If Commissioner Brown Crouch is reelected and two other new Commissioners are elected who will cooperate with the Town, then there will be no need to work with the County. If Commissioner Hollingsworth is reelected and just one of the three Commissioners committed to fighting the Town on this matter--Schurmieir, Engelman, or Kernodle-- are elected, then trying to work out an agreement with the County will be worth pursuing.
As the November election approached, Commissioners Hollingsworth and Welch both showed a new willingness to consider the Town's proposals. I was asked to prepare mock-ups regarding what the bills would look like. It wasn't too hard for me to do, and I think it was a useful exercise. That Hollingsworth almost immediately became involved in a conspiracy to use this in a personal attack against me suggests that the overtures were less than sincere. (In my opinion, Chairman Hollingsworth didn't plan any of this and just did whatever JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle told him to do, and read whatever was put in front of him. It really did seem that at the October 13 meeting, he failed to put two plus two together and see that he was calling me a liar!)
Further, Commissioner Welch wrote several emails in mid-October that showed a complete reversal of his past position. He said that if the Charleston County Attorney had no objection to the JIPSD working with the Town for a tax credit, then he and all the other Commissioners would support it. Incredibly, he claimed that the Commissioners always had supported working with the Town on the tax credits. It is as if I was supposed to forget the public meetings I attended where he and other Commissioners said the opposite!
Anyway, since March, the County Auditor has not been sure that he would be willing to implement the Town's proposal with the JIPSD, even if the JIPSD agreed. His explanation was that he thought that the County Attorney would advise against it. My view was that there was no need to worry about this until there was a majority of JIPSD Commissioners who would discuss anything other than "mail the checks."
I did ask the County Attorney about it at the July 17 meeting, and he said that he would have no objection if the Town and the JIPSD came to an agreement. He told Councilman Qualey the same thing on October 13 after we heard about Commissioner Welch's new willingness to cooperate. Apparently, he confirmed this on a conference call on October 14. The County Auditor was on that call, and so there is now no problem with the County Attorney, County Auditor, or County Treasurer if the JIPSD is willing to come to an agreement with the Town. The County Auditor is working on the appropriate wording for the resolution for the Town and the resolution for the JIPSD Commissioners. Tax credits are possible in 2015, if there is a majority of JIPSD Commissioners willing to vote for the resolution.
It is becoming clearer that it was all a dishonest campaign tactic. "The Commissioners" could say that the JIPSD has always wanted to work with the Town, but that the County Attorney and County Auditor wouldn't let them because it was illegal. When it turns out that the County Attorney and County Auditor will let them, the majority of JIPSD Commissioners no longer have any interest. I think it is obvious that there was never any real interest.
Please vote on November 4.
My basic principle is that the Town's tax relief policy should follow the LOST statute to the degree possible.
1. Tax relief should apply to all taxed property--houses, businesses, cars, boats and other personal and business property.
2. Tax relief should be in proportion to appraised property value.
3. All funds that the Town receives from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund should be used for tax relief.
4. If too little tax relief is provided in one year, extra funds plus interest should be moved forward and used to provide tax relief the following year.
5. Tax relief should take the form of a credit on the tax bill, reducing the amount the taxpayer must pay the County Treasurer.
If the Town of James Island imposed a property tax millage sufficiently high that the amount each and every taxpayer owed the Town was at least as great as the required tax credit, then the Town would be legally obligated to follow these principles. They are all provisions of the LOST statute. The City of Folly Beach and the City of Charleston impose a millage sufficiently high that they must follow these rules.
If the Town of James Island imposed a tax millage just high enough that it must follow these rules, then homeowners and owners of agricultural land would have no additional tax liability. It would probably be legal to provide credits for all taxpayers so that no one actually paid any additional municipal tax. However, there would be no tax relief. A Town tax credit would appear on the tax bills, but it would be a credit against a newly-imposed tax increase. The only beneficial result would be to prevent any legal challenge to the Town spending all of the money it receives from the LOST Property Tax Fund on the provision of public services.
I remain committed to true tax relief for the people of the Town, not sham tax relief against a newly imposed tax.
The most legally certain approach to providing tax relief is for the Town to collect its own property tax millage in place of the James Island Public Service District. Because the millage charged by the JIPSD is sufficiently high, the Town would be legally obligated to follow the same rules as municipalities such as the City of Folly Beach and the City of Charleston. The rules above would apply to the Town.
The residents and property owners of the Town could continue to receive services from the JIPSD, but the Town would need to pay the JIPSD for the services. The authorization for a public service district to provide services to a municipality by contract is included in the statute governing annexations by a municipality in a public service district.
The Town of James Island can only follow this approach by an agreement with the James Island Public Service District. The Town proposed such an agreement in December of 2013, providing plenty of time to allow for tax relief on the 2014 tax bills that came out in October. The JIPSD rejected the Town's offer.
The problem is that there are only two Commissioners who are willing to work with the Town. The majority of Commissioners just echo Trent Kernodle's campaign slogan--mail the checks.
The Town has made two other proposals to the JIPSD to allow tax relief. In my view, both are legally sound.
The first proposal was made in May of 2013, in time for tax relief on the 2013 tax bill. This proposal was loosely modeled on the approach worked out by the Town's first Mayor, Joan Sooy, the James Island Public Service District and the County Auditor in 1994. A Town tax credit would appear on the tax bills. The credit would reduce the amount taxpayers pay to the County Treasurer, and the County Treasurer would send less to the James Island PSD by the total amount of the credits. The Town would pay that total amount to the JIPSD when the tax bills come due.
Under this plan, the Town would have no millage of its own. The JIPSD would continue to set its own millage in the Town's tax district, and the Town would use money from the LOST Property Tax Credit fund to help pay its property owner's taxes to the JIPSD and thereby purchase public services from the JIPSD for their benefit. The JIPSD would receive most of their tax monies from the County Treasurer as today, but part would be received directly from the Town in one check, or perhaps a few checks.
The third proposal, made by the Town in March of 2014, still in plenty of time for tax relief on the 2014 tax bill, was similar to the first. However, the Town would deposit money with the County Treasurer. The Auditor would calculate the tax credit and reduce the amount on the JIPSD line by the amount of the credit. The Town's taxpayers would pay less to the County Treasurer. As the tax bills are processed, funds would be moved from the Town's deposit to the JIPSD's account with the County Treasurer.
The JIPSD would set its own millage in the Town's tax district. The Town would have no millage of its own. The County Treasurer would send payments to the JIPSD at the same times and in the same amounts as he would if there had been no Town tax credit.
Again, the Town would be using its funds from the LOST Property Tax Credit fund to help its property owners pay their taxes to the JIPSD and thereby pay for JIPSD services on their behalf. The proposal is very similar to the first proposal, except that there would be no change in how the JIPSD receives its funds--it would continue to receive all of its tax revenue funds from the County Treasurer exactly as it does today.
Because the majority of James Island Commissioners have refused to work with the Town, and instead have demanded that the Town "mail the checks," the Town turned to Charleston County. The Town proposed to Charleston County Council that the Town would deposit money with the County Treasurer as above, and the amount of the credit would be taken off the Charleston County general government operating line. The Town's taxpayers would pay the County Treasurer less and as the bills are paid and processed, the funds would be shifted from the Town's deposit to that of the general County government's account.
The majority of County Council has said they would like to work with the Town. However, they said that the County Attorney would have to determine if there is a legal risk to the County. The County Attorney presumably reviewed the Town's proposal and expressed worry that the County could be sued and that it would be costly to defend. We received that news in March of 2014. The Town sought, and after some months obtained, opinions from the Attorney General's Office that the Town's proposals were legal.
The Town's position has always been that it would be legal for the County or the JIPSD to come to an agreement with the Town. We have never argued that either must come to an agreement with the Town. Proving that it would be legal for the JIPSD to come to an agreement with the Town has not been a priority because there have not been enough JIPSD Commissioners who want to cooperate with the Town. (The Kernodle supporters on the Commission just repeat--mail the checks.)
After receiving the Attorney General Office's opinion, we shared it with the County Attorney and asked if he would now defer to that view. He said that he would only advise County Council to go forward if there was a declaratory judgement. The Town Attorney spoke with him on July 2 about arranging for a declaratory judgment. It became clear that rather than seeking a declaratory judgement tailored narrowly to the Town's proposal, he would instead challenge the eligibility of the Town of James Island to receive any funds from the LOST Property Tax Fund. He would argue that only municipalities with a property tax millage should receive funds and that the funds should be sent back and redistributed. Further, he would insist that this be ajudicated by an appeals court, if not the South Carolina Supreme Court. To me this seemed both excessive and expensive.
On July 17, I met with the County Attorney and County Council Chairman Teddie Pryor along with Senator Thurmond and Councilman Qualey on how to move forward. My goal was to discuss ways to reduce any legal risk to the County while limiting the scope or eliminating the need for a declaratory judgment. My key argument is that the County should not be expected to defend a program that benefits the taxpayers of the Town. It would be up to the Town to pay for any defense. Further, I believe that the Town should be willing to guarantee with its full faith and credit that the County will get to keep and spend the money necessary to provide services to the residents of the Town.
The Chairman told me that he was committed to helping the Town, if the legal obstacles could be met, but further meetings were postponed until after the election for Mayor on July 29. The reason was obvious. If Trent Kernodle won, the Town would be mailing the checks. There would be no agreement with the County.
While the Town has continued to pursue this approach, the post-election meeting has continued to be postponed. Right now, it looks like we will be meeting sometime after the November 4 election. I suppose that makes sense as well. If Commissioner Brown Crouch is reelected and two other new Commissioners are elected who will cooperate with the Town, then there will be no need to work with the County. If Commissioner Hollingsworth is reelected and just one of the three Commissioners committed to fighting the Town on this matter--Schurmieir, Engelman, or Kernodle-- are elected, then trying to work out an agreement with the County will be worth pursuing.
As the November election approached, Commissioners Hollingsworth and Welch both showed a new willingness to consider the Town's proposals. I was asked to prepare mock-ups regarding what the bills would look like. It wasn't too hard for me to do, and I think it was a useful exercise. That Hollingsworth almost immediately became involved in a conspiracy to use this in a personal attack against me suggests that the overtures were less than sincere. (In my opinion, Chairman Hollingsworth didn't plan any of this and just did whatever JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle told him to do, and read whatever was put in front of him. It really did seem that at the October 13 meeting, he failed to put two plus two together and see that he was calling me a liar!)
Further, Commissioner Welch wrote several emails in mid-October that showed a complete reversal of his past position. He said that if the Charleston County Attorney had no objection to the JIPSD working with the Town for a tax credit, then he and all the other Commissioners would support it. Incredibly, he claimed that the Commissioners always had supported working with the Town on the tax credits. It is as if I was supposed to forget the public meetings I attended where he and other Commissioners said the opposite!
Anyway, since March, the County Auditor has not been sure that he would be willing to implement the Town's proposal with the JIPSD, even if the JIPSD agreed. His explanation was that he thought that the County Attorney would advise against it. My view was that there was no need to worry about this until there was a majority of JIPSD Commissioners who would discuss anything other than "mail the checks."
I did ask the County Attorney about it at the July 17 meeting, and he said that he would have no objection if the Town and the JIPSD came to an agreement. He told Councilman Qualey the same thing on October 13 after we heard about Commissioner Welch's new willingness to cooperate. Apparently, he confirmed this on a conference call on October 14. The County Auditor was on that call, and so there is now no problem with the County Attorney, County Auditor, or County Treasurer if the JIPSD is willing to come to an agreement with the Town. The County Auditor is working on the appropriate wording for the resolution for the Town and the resolution for the JIPSD Commissioners. Tax credits are possible in 2015, if there is a majority of JIPSD Commissioners willing to vote for the resolution.
It is becoming clearer that it was all a dishonest campaign tactic. "The Commissioners" could say that the JIPSD has always wanted to work with the Town, but that the County Attorney and County Auditor wouldn't let them because it was illegal. When it turns out that the County Attorney and County Auditor will let them, the majority of JIPSD Commissioners no longer have any interest. I think it is obvious that there was never any real interest.
Please vote on November 4.
JIPSD Candidate Forum Part 2-- LOST Tax Credits
At the JIPSD Candidate forum, there was a question about the LOST tax credits.
Unfortunately, the question was muddled. Moderator Andy Savage asked if LOST funds should be used to provide a tax credit to people in the Town, or was that unfair because it would only go to those living in the Town and that instead the funds should be used for these needs. Presumably, "these needs" referred to the infrastructure needs that he had asked about before. He had asked whether roads or sewers were the more important infrastructure need on James Island.
I would say the biggest news is that Candidate Sandi Engelman, wife of past JIPSD Chairman David Engelman, said that the tax credits could be placed on the tax bills, but that the "wording" would have to be done very carefully. However, she insisted that the checks be sent out this year.
This is consistent with what she wrote in an email to me, but there she more explicitly offered a deal--if the Town would mail checks this year, then in the future, tax credits could be placed on the tax bills.
In the Spring of 2013, the Town proposed to the JIPSD that tax credits be placed on the tax bills. I asked the JIPSD to begin discussions on what we should do. I would have been more than willing to listen to proposals regarding careful wording.
The JIPSD Commissioners said no. They didn't say it was illegal. They said, mail the checks.
In the December of 2013 and then in March of 2014, the Town made two different proposals to the JIPSD to put tax credits on the tax bills for the fall of 2014. The JIPSD said no. Here we started getting some (bad) legal arguments. And also, we started getting the claim that the County Auditor said it would be illegal.
The Town held discussions with the JIPSD over the last two months about getting a tax credit on the 2015 tax bill. JIPSD Chairman Hollingsworth said no.
At the forum, Hollingsworth said that he called the County Auditor who said that it would be illegal.
I have been in discussion with the County Auditor regarding what exactly the Town and JIPSD resolutions must say in order for those tax credits to appear in the Fall of 2015. The County Attorney, County Treasurer, and County Auditor have no objection to a Town tax credit on the tax bill. All is that is necessary is that a majority of JIPSD Commissioners agree.
It can happen 2015. There is a majority on Town Council ready to go. (There has been a majority on Town Council ready to go since 2012.)
What is the hold up? Only Commissioners Brown Crouch and McMillan would vote for the resolution. The other five would vote no. That is why it is important to reelect Commissioner Brown-Crouch and also three new commissioners who will have an open mind and be willing to vote in favor of a resolution for a tax credit.
Why will the other five vote no? Because Trent Kernodle tells them to vote no. Why is he telling them to vote no? What they say is that Trent Kernodle says it is illegal.
Really? Will the law change if the Town mails checks before this Christmas? Or has it always been true that all that is needed is "careful wording."
I don't know what Chairman David Engelman and Trent Kernodle have told the other Commissioners, but I think we are getting to the bottom of what is going on.
If the Town had been providing these tax credits on the tax bills for the last two years, then when Trent Kernodle ran for Mayor against me, he would not have had the issue "mail the checks, it feels like Christmas."
At the forum, candidate Kay Kernodle echoed her husband's campaign slogan from last summer. We should send the people the checks for Christmas.
Candidate Robert Schurmieir repeated the same slogan as the rest of the Kernodle Team. Mail the checks for Christmas. As mentioned above, Sandi Engelman is demanding that the checks be sent this year..
Kay Kernodle said that the "other Towns" have mailed the checks. In emails, Sandi Engelman wrote that the "other mayors" have mailed checks.
The first Mayor of the Town, Joan Sooy, never mailed a check. She worked with the Charleston County Auditor to put credits on the tax bills. (The Sooy plan was more or less what the Town proposed to the JIPSD in the spring of 2013 for the 2013 tax bill.)
Unfortunately, the bills with the Town tax credit were never mailed back in 1995. The Town was ordered dissolved, and while the order was stayed pending appeal, the City of Charleston and Mount Pleasant went to court to block tax credits from a "dissolved" Town.
No checks were sent by the second Town. No tax credits were provided.
It was in the third Town, under Mayor Mary Clark, that the check writing program was instituted. It was reviewed for legality by JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle. (We have the legal bills, but Kernodle provided no written report.)
LOST tax credits are supposed to reduce the taxes paid on all taxed property. That includes houses, businesses, apartments, cars, and boats. The Clark check writing program, approved by JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle, provided no tax credit for cars or boats or any other taxed personal or business property.
LOST tax credits are supposed to be proportional to appraised property value. The Clark check writing program, approved by JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle, was in proportion to the taxes paid to the JIPSD. This makes a difference. The result was less tax relief for homeowners and more tax relief for owners of commercial and rental properties.
According to the LOST statute, if a Town provides credits that are too low in one year, it must take any extra money received plus interest on it and provide a larger credit the next year. Sending out checks to "rebate" the excess would be contrary to statute.
I am strongly opposed to any tax relief program that cuts out cars and personal property or short changes homeowners for the benefit of owners of commercial and rental property. The Town's current plan is to continue to save the money we receive, allow it to accrue interest, and work to provide a larger credit next year. The plan has been to provide tax credits in amount and to property owners in a way consistent with the LOST statute.
And, of course, the LOST tax credits are supposed to appear on tax bills and reduce the amount of tax paid. It is not supposed to be a program by which Towns mail out checks as Christmas presents.
No other municipality in South Carolina mails out checks. Nearly all municipalities reduce the amount of taxes paid on the tax bills.
A small number of municipalities just spend the money on current operations. In Charleston County, that includes Ravenal, Megget, Kiawah, Seabrook, Hollywood, and Rockville.
Personally, I remain committed to using the funds for tax relief rather than spend the money on Town operations.
I think that Engelman, Kernodle, Holliingsworth, and Schurmieir will continue to fight the Town on this. Perhaps the Kernodle team hopes that they can use "mail the checks" as a campaign slogan in four years.
Candidate Mary Beth Berry said she thought that providing the tax credits on tax bills would be efficient and sensible. Thanks! (When Mary Beth was on Council, she was always supportive of the Town's tax credit proposals to the JIPSD.)
While Commissioner Brown Crouch said that the Town should spend the money on operations, she told me that she would support the Town's effort for a credit on the tax bill. That is how she answered the questionnaire. She also said she discussed this with Commissioners from other Districts in the state, and that no one else was telling municipalities to write checks.
Lyndy Palmer sounded like she was answering the question asked by moderator Andy Savage. She said it was nice getting the checks and that it wasn't that much money. But she already responded to my questionnaire saying she supports providing credits on the tax bills.
Candidate Marilyn Clifford explained that LOST stands for Local Option Sales Tax, explained why it is only available to residents of the Town, and supported credits on the bill. She had also answered the questionnaire saying she supports providing credits on the tax bill.
Candidate Hal Hanvey said that the proposal to provide tax credits on the tax bill made sense but that he is an equipment guy and lacked the legal expertise to determine its legality. He did answer the questionnaire saying he trusted more in the Attorney General Office's opinion than in Trent Kernodle's opinion. We can count him having an open mind and supporting getting a second legal opinion rather than just taking Trent Kernodle's word for it.
Candidate Bill "Cubby" Wilder said that he liked getting the checks and that the check writing was a "proven model," and that as a commercial property owner, it was very beneficial to him. But that he wouldn't get anything now, because he is not in the Town. He did answer the questionnaire saying he supported tax credits on the tax bill.
Candidate Ernie Duncan was absent. He had a headache.
Unfortunately, the question was muddled. Moderator Andy Savage asked if LOST funds should be used to provide a tax credit to people in the Town, or was that unfair because it would only go to those living in the Town and that instead the funds should be used for these needs. Presumably, "these needs" referred to the infrastructure needs that he had asked about before. He had asked whether roads or sewers were the more important infrastructure need on James Island.
I would say the biggest news is that Candidate Sandi Engelman, wife of past JIPSD Chairman David Engelman, said that the tax credits could be placed on the tax bills, but that the "wording" would have to be done very carefully. However, she insisted that the checks be sent out this year.
This is consistent with what she wrote in an email to me, but there she more explicitly offered a deal--if the Town would mail checks this year, then in the future, tax credits could be placed on the tax bills.
In the Spring of 2013, the Town proposed to the JIPSD that tax credits be placed on the tax bills. I asked the JIPSD to begin discussions on what we should do. I would have been more than willing to listen to proposals regarding careful wording.
The JIPSD Commissioners said no. They didn't say it was illegal. They said, mail the checks.
In the December of 2013 and then in March of 2014, the Town made two different proposals to the JIPSD to put tax credits on the tax bills for the fall of 2014. The JIPSD said no. Here we started getting some (bad) legal arguments. And also, we started getting the claim that the County Auditor said it would be illegal.
The Town held discussions with the JIPSD over the last two months about getting a tax credit on the 2015 tax bill. JIPSD Chairman Hollingsworth said no.
At the forum, Hollingsworth said that he called the County Auditor who said that it would be illegal.
I have been in discussion with the County Auditor regarding what exactly the Town and JIPSD resolutions must say in order for those tax credits to appear in the Fall of 2015. The County Attorney, County Treasurer, and County Auditor have no objection to a Town tax credit on the tax bill. All is that is necessary is that a majority of JIPSD Commissioners agree.
It can happen 2015. There is a majority on Town Council ready to go. (There has been a majority on Town Council ready to go since 2012.)
What is the hold up? Only Commissioners Brown Crouch and McMillan would vote for the resolution. The other five would vote no. That is why it is important to reelect Commissioner Brown-Crouch and also three new commissioners who will have an open mind and be willing to vote in favor of a resolution for a tax credit.
Why will the other five vote no? Because Trent Kernodle tells them to vote no. Why is he telling them to vote no? What they say is that Trent Kernodle says it is illegal.
Really? Will the law change if the Town mails checks before this Christmas? Or has it always been true that all that is needed is "careful wording."
I don't know what Chairman David Engelman and Trent Kernodle have told the other Commissioners, but I think we are getting to the bottom of what is going on.
If the Town had been providing these tax credits on the tax bills for the last two years, then when Trent Kernodle ran for Mayor against me, he would not have had the issue "mail the checks, it feels like Christmas."
At the forum, candidate Kay Kernodle echoed her husband's campaign slogan from last summer. We should send the people the checks for Christmas.
Candidate Robert Schurmieir repeated the same slogan as the rest of the Kernodle Team. Mail the checks for Christmas. As mentioned above, Sandi Engelman is demanding that the checks be sent this year..
Kay Kernodle said that the "other Towns" have mailed the checks. In emails, Sandi Engelman wrote that the "other mayors" have mailed checks.
The first Mayor of the Town, Joan Sooy, never mailed a check. She worked with the Charleston County Auditor to put credits on the tax bills. (The Sooy plan was more or less what the Town proposed to the JIPSD in the spring of 2013 for the 2013 tax bill.)
Unfortunately, the bills with the Town tax credit were never mailed back in 1995. The Town was ordered dissolved, and while the order was stayed pending appeal, the City of Charleston and Mount Pleasant went to court to block tax credits from a "dissolved" Town.
No checks were sent by the second Town. No tax credits were provided.
It was in the third Town, under Mayor Mary Clark, that the check writing program was instituted. It was reviewed for legality by JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle. (We have the legal bills, but Kernodle provided no written report.)
LOST tax credits are supposed to reduce the taxes paid on all taxed property. That includes houses, businesses, apartments, cars, and boats. The Clark check writing program, approved by JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle, provided no tax credit for cars or boats or any other taxed personal or business property.
LOST tax credits are supposed to be proportional to appraised property value. The Clark check writing program, approved by JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle, was in proportion to the taxes paid to the JIPSD. This makes a difference. The result was less tax relief for homeowners and more tax relief for owners of commercial and rental properties.
According to the LOST statute, if a Town provides credits that are too low in one year, it must take any extra money received plus interest on it and provide a larger credit the next year. Sending out checks to "rebate" the excess would be contrary to statute.
I am strongly opposed to any tax relief program that cuts out cars and personal property or short changes homeowners for the benefit of owners of commercial and rental property. The Town's current plan is to continue to save the money we receive, allow it to accrue interest, and work to provide a larger credit next year. The plan has been to provide tax credits in amount and to property owners in a way consistent with the LOST statute.
And, of course, the LOST tax credits are supposed to appear on tax bills and reduce the amount of tax paid. It is not supposed to be a program by which Towns mail out checks as Christmas presents.
No other municipality in South Carolina mails out checks. Nearly all municipalities reduce the amount of taxes paid on the tax bills.
A small number of municipalities just spend the money on current operations. In Charleston County, that includes Ravenal, Megget, Kiawah, Seabrook, Hollywood, and Rockville.
Personally, I remain committed to using the funds for tax relief rather than spend the money on Town operations.
I think that Engelman, Kernodle, Holliingsworth, and Schurmieir will continue to fight the Town on this. Perhaps the Kernodle team hopes that they can use "mail the checks" as a campaign slogan in four years.
Candidate Mary Beth Berry said she thought that providing the tax credits on tax bills would be efficient and sensible. Thanks! (When Mary Beth was on Council, she was always supportive of the Town's tax credit proposals to the JIPSD.)
While Commissioner Brown Crouch said that the Town should spend the money on operations, she told me that she would support the Town's effort for a credit on the tax bill. That is how she answered the questionnaire. She also said she discussed this with Commissioners from other Districts in the state, and that no one else was telling municipalities to write checks.
Lyndy Palmer sounded like she was answering the question asked by moderator Andy Savage. She said it was nice getting the checks and that it wasn't that much money. But she already responded to my questionnaire saying she supports providing credits on the tax bills.
Candidate Marilyn Clifford explained that LOST stands for Local Option Sales Tax, explained why it is only available to residents of the Town, and supported credits on the bill. She had also answered the questionnaire saying she supports providing credits on the tax bill.
Candidate Hal Hanvey said that the proposal to provide tax credits on the tax bill made sense but that he is an equipment guy and lacked the legal expertise to determine its legality. He did answer the questionnaire saying he trusted more in the Attorney General Office's opinion than in Trent Kernodle's opinion. We can count him having an open mind and supporting getting a second legal opinion rather than just taking Trent Kernodle's word for it.
Candidate Bill "Cubby" Wilder said that he liked getting the checks and that the check writing was a "proven model," and that as a commercial property owner, it was very beneficial to him. But that he wouldn't get anything now, because he is not in the Town. He did answer the questionnaire saying he supported tax credits on the tax bill.
Candidate Ernie Duncan was absent. He had a headache.
JIPSD Candidate's Forum--Reuniting the Town
The Candidates forum was held last night at James Island Charter High School. One issue that was covered was the candidates' view on reuniting the Town.
On the bright side, all of the candidates said that they support reuniting the Town. Unfortunately, the question that was asked on this issue was muddled.
The moderator was Andy Savage. He asked if the JIPSD should support Thurmond's bill to combine the JIPSD and the Town of James Island.
Was this a trick question?
There is no "Thurmond bill" to combine the JIPSD and the Town. There is a Thurmond bill that would reunite the Town.
The Thurmond and McCoy bills would give the JIPSD Commissioners authority to request that the Town annex the unincorporated portion of the JIPSD territory. This would include all of the areas that were in the Town in 201l.
Nothing in these would involve the Town and JIPSD merging. If the bill passed, and the JIPSD Commissioners asked the Town to annex the unincorporated portion of the JIPSD's territory, and the Town accepted, then conditions would return to what existed in 2011.
The Town and JIPSD would both exist and be separate bodies. All of the territory of the District would be in the Town's jurisdiction. The JIPSD could continue to collect taxes and sewer bills and provide fire protection, solid waste collection and sewer services.
The Town would return to its borders of 2011 (with the addition of perhaps 20 houses that had been left out in the 2006 incorporation) and would provide code enforcement, planning and zoning, and building services. The Island Sheriff's Patrol would be extended into the newly annexed areas. The Town would begin working on sidewalk, road paving, and other public works projects in the newly returned areas.
Candidate Sandi Engelman said that the bill included a provision that once the Town had reached a certain percentage of the JIPSD, then it could take over the JIPSD's taxing authority. (In an email, she said that I had personally added that to the bill.)
There has never been any provision of the bill that said anything like that.
Engelman also mentioned her close personal friendship with moderator Andy Savage and his wife. Does Savage think he knows about the bill due to explanations from his friend and client Sandy Engelman?
Candidate Kay Kernodle said that she went to Columbia for the subcommittee hearing on the Thurmond bill last Spring. That is true.
She listed a various interest groups that attended the hearing. She said that they were there because the bill was complicated.
However, when the Town's Attorney, Danny Crowe called JIPSD Trent Kernodle to find out what he thought was wrong with the bill so that we could fix it, Kernodle said that the problem wasn't the bill, it was the Mayor. He then bragged about how he had rounded up a bunch of interest groups to go to the subcommittee hearing to fight the bill.
The Coastal Conservation League said that the reason they opposed the bill is that the Town was planning to annex Johns Island. Who told them that? It was pretty clear that many of the interest groups had been told the bill was to allow the Town to take over the JIPSD. Nothing in the bill said that!
Regardless of the challenges the Town will have in passing the legislation we need to reunite, there should be one place where we have support--the JIPSD.
Candidate Donald Hollingsworth said that the Commissioners supported the bill and just didn't like some of the verbiage. Well, they had plenty of opportunity to point out exactly what verbiage they didn't like. And read above. The Town's Attorney asked JIPSD Attorney Kernodle about his problems with the bill and he had no specific verbiage in the bill that concerned him. It was personal--it was the Mayor, not the bill.
Why was Trent Kernodle so opposed to the Thurmond and McCoy bills?
Well, he said at the hearing in Columbia that he opposed it because I was leading a conspiracy to take over the JIPSD. Supposedly I was recruiting candidates for JIPSD Commissioner even then to have the Town take over the JIPSD.
Well, all I can say is that I have never had any plan or goal to take over the provision of services from the JIPSD. Nothing in the Thurmond or McCoy plan is necessary or helpful to any such effort.
None of the candidates for JIPSD Commissioner that I support have expressed any interest in having the Town take over the provision of services from the JIPSD.
I am sure that if the legislation to reunite the Town had passed late last summer, Kernodle's run for Mayor would have had even less of a chance for victory.
On the bright side, all of the candidates said that they support reuniting the Town. Unfortunately, the question that was asked on this issue was muddled.
The moderator was Andy Savage. He asked if the JIPSD should support Thurmond's bill to combine the JIPSD and the Town of James Island.
Was this a trick question?
There is no "Thurmond bill" to combine the JIPSD and the Town. There is a Thurmond bill that would reunite the Town.
The Thurmond and McCoy bills would give the JIPSD Commissioners authority to request that the Town annex the unincorporated portion of the JIPSD territory. This would include all of the areas that were in the Town in 201l.
Nothing in these would involve the Town and JIPSD merging. If the bill passed, and the JIPSD Commissioners asked the Town to annex the unincorporated portion of the JIPSD's territory, and the Town accepted, then conditions would return to what existed in 2011.
The Town and JIPSD would both exist and be separate bodies. All of the territory of the District would be in the Town's jurisdiction. The JIPSD could continue to collect taxes and sewer bills and provide fire protection, solid waste collection and sewer services.
The Town would return to its borders of 2011 (with the addition of perhaps 20 houses that had been left out in the 2006 incorporation) and would provide code enforcement, planning and zoning, and building services. The Island Sheriff's Patrol would be extended into the newly annexed areas. The Town would begin working on sidewalk, road paving, and other public works projects in the newly returned areas.
Candidate Sandi Engelman said that the bill included a provision that once the Town had reached a certain percentage of the JIPSD, then it could take over the JIPSD's taxing authority. (In an email, she said that I had personally added that to the bill.)
There has never been any provision of the bill that said anything like that.
Engelman also mentioned her close personal friendship with moderator Andy Savage and his wife. Does Savage think he knows about the bill due to explanations from his friend and client Sandy Engelman?
Candidate Kay Kernodle said that she went to Columbia for the subcommittee hearing on the Thurmond bill last Spring. That is true.
She listed a various interest groups that attended the hearing. She said that they were there because the bill was complicated.
However, when the Town's Attorney, Danny Crowe called JIPSD Trent Kernodle to find out what he thought was wrong with the bill so that we could fix it, Kernodle said that the problem wasn't the bill, it was the Mayor. He then bragged about how he had rounded up a bunch of interest groups to go to the subcommittee hearing to fight the bill.
The Coastal Conservation League said that the reason they opposed the bill is that the Town was planning to annex Johns Island. Who told them that? It was pretty clear that many of the interest groups had been told the bill was to allow the Town to take over the JIPSD. Nothing in the bill said that!
Regardless of the challenges the Town will have in passing the legislation we need to reunite, there should be one place where we have support--the JIPSD.
Candidate Donald Hollingsworth said that the Commissioners supported the bill and just didn't like some of the verbiage. Well, they had plenty of opportunity to point out exactly what verbiage they didn't like. And read above. The Town's Attorney asked JIPSD Attorney Kernodle about his problems with the bill and he had no specific verbiage in the bill that concerned him. It was personal--it was the Mayor, not the bill.
Why was Trent Kernodle so opposed to the Thurmond and McCoy bills?
Well, he said at the hearing in Columbia that he opposed it because I was leading a conspiracy to take over the JIPSD. Supposedly I was recruiting candidates for JIPSD Commissioner even then to have the Town take over the JIPSD.
Well, all I can say is that I have never had any plan or goal to take over the provision of services from the JIPSD. Nothing in the Thurmond or McCoy plan is necessary or helpful to any such effort.
None of the candidates for JIPSD Commissioner that I support have expressed any interest in having the Town take over the provision of services from the JIPSD.
I am sure that if the legislation to reunite the Town had passed late last summer, Kernodle's run for Mayor would have had even less of a chance for victory.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Vote for JIPSD Commissioner
Vote for JIPSD Commissioner
Four of the seven seats for James Island Public Service District Commissioner are up for election next week, Tuesday, November 4. JIPSD collects approximately 1/2 of the typical homeowner's property tax and directs fire protection, solid waste collection and sewer services in the Town of James Island. Town Council has no say in these property taxes, sewer rates or the provision of these services. It is important that all Town citizens vote for JIPSD Commissioner and choose wisely.
There are seven candidates committed to working with the Town.
Inez Brown Crouch
Hal Hanvey
Lyndy Palmer
Mary Beth Berry
Marilyn Clifford
Ernie Duncan
Bill "Cubby" Wilder
There is a slate of four candidates who cannot be expected to cooperate with the Town.
Tom Meteraud, Coleen Littlejohn, and David Whitley will appear on the ballot, but they have withdrawn from this race and while it is possible to vote for them, the votes will not be counted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)