Federal Flood Insurance

The Town is reapplying to participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program.   The Town already did this in 2008.   At that time, we adopted Charleston County's flood prevention and protection ordinance and signed an intergovernmental agreement for County Building Services to manage flood regulation in the Town.   In 2012, the Town again adopted the County flood prevention and protection ordinance and an intergovernmental agreement for County Building Services to manage flood regulation in the Town.

FEMA has created new flood maps, and there will be public hearings next spring.   FEMA mailed me a letter with draft maps.   The letter stated that according to their records, the Town does not participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program.  On the advice of Charleston County Building Services, we are submitting a new application.    As required by the application, I have requested that Council approve a resolution of intent to participate in the program.

My opinion is that the Town has never stopped participating in the program.   While I will make that argument, the last thing I want to see happen is for the Federal government to block renewals of existing flood insurance policies and prevent new ones from being written in the Town.   The Town benefits from having Charleston County Building Services manage our program, and I believe we need to follow their advice on this matter.

Town Hall News

The Town has made progress in putting together our site for the new Town Hall.  

The plan is to put together two parcels on Dills Bluff Road and a portion of a parcel on Camp Road.  

The parcel on Camp Road is under City of Charleston jurisdiction.   The two parcels on Dills Bluff are under Town jurisdiction.

The Town owns the .8 acre parcel on the corner of Dills Bluff and Hillman.    When everything is complete, the Town Hall site will be approximately 2 acres and will front on Dills Bluff.

Early in the planning process, I spoke to Mayor Tecklenburg and also City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson and they were very cooperative regarding a Town Hall that would be partially in City of Charleston jurisdiction.   It is currently zoned residential, which would need to change for us to construct a Town Hall there.   The City planning process involves many steps.  City staff has been supportive and cooperative.

I later asked Mayor Tecklenburg if he would agree to adjust the boundary between the Town and the City of Charleston so that the Town could handle any zoning change and the planning process.    He was agreeable.   This part of James Island is in City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson's district (who was chair of our James Island Intergovernmental Council last year.)   I asked her as well, and she was agreeable.  

The Town completed the purchase of the Camp Road property in late November.  

I thank Mayor Tecklenburg and Councilwoman Wilson and all the rest of Charleston City Council for their support for this boundary adjustment.   It passed first reading at Charleston City Council last Tuesday.   The Town must also agree to the boundary adjustment and our first reading will be at our regular Town Council meeting next Thursday.    Once both Councils complete their second reading, the boundary will be adjusted.

I anticipate that we will have the entire site assembled early next year and that it will all be under Town jurisdiction.  

 

 

There is no easy way to describe the boundary between the Town and the City of Charleston, and the County GIS used to generate this is not exactly correct according to our survey, but basically, the agreement is to move the boundary to the new dark line and the rose colored City jurisdiction above the line and between Dills Bluff and Camp will become Town jurisdiction.

November 7 Court Hearing on Kernodle Class Action Suit

We were back in court on November 7 fighting Kernodle's class action suit against the Town.  David and Sandi Engelman and Rod Welch signed onto Kernodle's suit as class representatives.    The case is called Engelman v Town of James Island.

The Town and Charleston County requested that Judge Nicholson reconsider his July 7 order.   In that order, the Judge denied Kernodle's motion for summary judgement against the Town and also denied the Town's motion to dismiss.   As a result, absent some reconsideration, the case will go to trial, probably next March.

The Judge's July 7 order also included two surprises.   The Judge added Charleston County as a plaintiff against the Town.   And the Judge imposed an injunction against the Town prohibiting us from spending or crediting any LOST funds that we have or will receive.

The addition of Charleston County as a plaintiff against the Town was a complete surprise to everyone, including Charleston County.   As for the injunction, Kernodle had sought an injunction against the Town on July 22, 2015.   Judge Dennis denied Kernodle's request on September 2, 2015.   Judge Nicholson, in effect, reversed Judge  Dennis' decision.  The only reason Judge Nicholson gave was that Charleston County was not a plaintiff when Judge Dennis denied the injunction sought by Kernodle.

The Town and Charleston County asked the Judge to reconsider.   The injunction appeared to prohibit the County Auditor from placing the Town's property tax credit on the tax bill.   This is because it said that the Town cannot credit any LOST funds that it will receive.  Failure to provide a credit against our own property tax at least equal to the amount of revenue the Town expects to receive this fiscal year from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund would put the Town in violation of the plain meaning of the LOST statute.  Worse, with no credit, property taxpayers in the Town would have faced a substantial increase in their 2016 property tax bill in October.

Thankfully, on August 17, Judge Nicholson lifted the injunction for the 2016 tax year.   As a result, the October property tax bills included the Town's property tax credit and Town taxpayers didn't have to pay any property taxes to the Town.

After Judge Nicholson added Charleston County as a plaintiff, County attorneys responded to Kernodle's class action suit.   The County agrees with the Town that the case should be dismissed because of provisions of the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act (RPA.)    That statute prohibits class actions on issues relating to property taxes.   It requires that taxpayers first request a property tax refund from County tax officials.   If there were a dispute (and the Town would dispute it) there is a procedure for adjudication that eventually goes to the South Carolina Supreme Court.   If the taxpayers are determined to be due a refund, the RPA describes how the local governments pay the refunds to the taxpayers.   The RPA expressly states that if a case is brought to circuit court, it must be dismissed.

Judge Nicholson made no decisions at the hearing.  He said he had a lot of studying to do. We must wait.

From the Judge's remarks, it appeared to me that he added Charleston County to the case so that Charleston County could ask to take the money the Town received from LOST and use it to provide a property tax credit to all the taxpayers in the County.   The result would be a one time 3% increase in the County property tax credit.   This would result in a one time decrease in property taxes for all homeowners in the County by 1/2 of one percent.  (The reduction would be proportionally even smaller for vehicles, businesses or rental property.)  From the point of view of those of us in the Town, approximately 98% of the benefit would go to people outside of the Town--for the most part in the City of Charleston, City of North Charleston, and the Town of Mount Pleasant.  

Fortunately, Charleston County's attorneys do not believe this is consistent with the LOST statute and instead argued that Judge Nicholson should dismiss Kernodle's class action suit because of provisions of the RPA.   The County attorneys also explained how the County uses excess revenue it receives from the Property Tax Credit Fund to carry forward credits to the next year.    This is what the Town has been doing with the revenue it received before the Town had a property tax.

There was some discussion of the other municipalities in Charleston County that have no property tax and receive revenue from the Property Tax Credit Fund.   They all spend it on operations.   It seemed to me that the Judge was suggesting that the County add all of them to the suit as defendants so that it could take their money too.  Again, the County Attorneys showed no interest in such a proposal, which would bankrupt some of the small municipalities in the County.

Also, in oral arguments, Kernodle appeared to accept that the Town is now in compliance with the LOST statute regarding all the revenue the Town has received from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund since July of 2015.   That is, the Town is in compliance with the statute by providing the required credit against its own property tax millage.   At this point, he only appears to be trying to get his hands on the approximately $2.3 million of funds that the Town received in 2012, 2013 and 2014 before we levied a property tax.

I am hopeful that any injunction imposed by Judge Nicholson will only apply to spending the $2.3 million the Town received from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund some years ago, and not vaguely refer to "LOST Funds" that the Town has or will receive.   I also hope he does not interfere with the Town's policy of carrying forward credits.

Further, I believe that Judge Dennis was correct to deny the injunction last year.  I hope that Judge Nicholson will review the arguments the Town provided to Judge Dennis.   In my opinion, the Town has the legal right to manage its own funds and Kernodle has no right to compel us to sequester funds to pay a possible judgement.  

Finally, I hope that Charleston County's support for our position that the Revenue Procedures Act requires that Kernodle's class action suit be dismissed will be persuasive to the Judge.

No Delay on Traffic Signal at Mikell

James Island Town Council unanimously rejected a resolution to delay turning on the traffic signal on the corner of Mikell Drive and Harbor View Road.  The resolution, which had been put on the agenda by Councilman Mullinax, requested a delay until after the project was complete and a traffic study was done at that intersection by SCDOT.   The study would be based upon traffic patterns that would exist after all of the rest of the project was complete.   Any delay would have required similar resolutions to be passed by the City of Charleston and Charleston County and then approval by SCDOT.   I have been told that SCDOT would have allowed it if all three local governments requested it.    I do not believe the City of Charleston would have passed a similar resolution.   Because the traffic signal is in Councilman Qualey's district, I think that Charleston County Council would have agreed to the delay at his request.

At the meeting, Councilman Blank reported that a traffic study had already been done by Charleston County before this signal was included in the plan.    In my view, concerns about this traffic signal should have been brought to our Council meeting in July of 2013, when the Town approved the project.    Councilman Milliken strongly supported the signal.   Councilman Mullinax appeared open to supporting the delay if the traffic study would be completed promptly.   In the end, however, all members of Council voted against the resolution.

Whatever you say Councilman Qualey

Mayor and Council,

Thank you for placing this matter on the Agenda for this Thursday at 7 pm

I will be visiting our son out of town and will be unable to attend.

As you are all aware below is my position:

Further I have been in touch with the Charleston County School district and they said that students will not be allowed to cross at the light alone

and that even with a cross walk a crossing guard would likely be required. (That is a matter of safety for the Sheriff to determine)

So the light shouldn’t be seen as a benefit for school kids.

Please place this matter to an up or down vote on Thursday.

And Mayor please place this on the Towns site and also on your own Blog

Thanks

Joe

Dear fellow James Islander,

As you are aware I have been intimately involved in the design and redesign of the HV Road project.

My plan had no stoplights on HV and DOT,  Staff and the Town put 2 lights in the plan.

One at Ft Sumter and another at Mikell.

They were going to be put in only after the project was complete and the DOT determined the traffic counts warranted such.

I was then informed that our Staff (without my knowledge) had a traffic count done and they decided to place the lights in the plan.

This was and is over my objection. (at least until the project is complete and we see whether the lights are truly needed)

My focus is now on the Mikell drive light and on Thursday (tomorrow) night at the Town Meeting at 7 pm I will ask the Town to vote to defer

the implementation of that light until a later date if and when it is determined that light is needed.

A few items of note:

The Church does NOT want the light

The Principal of Styles said he really has no opinion and that no teacher, parent, or student has ever expressed a desire to have a light there.

This light will function all the time and will cause cars to stop when there is no traffic (weekends and non-school hours)

This light (in my opinion) is going to and will cause morning traffic to back up to Ft Johnson road.(and beyond)

In fact if the lights create “spacing” to allow cars to enter HV Road, why did we spend 12,000,000 to undertake all of the improvements?

I am asking you to please attend the Meeting tomorrow night and ask Town Council to delay the implementation of this light .

Many thanks and PLEASE forward this to all interested and affected parties.

Joe Qualey

Conflict of Interest?

Kathy Woolsey is my wife.   She is one of seven members of the James Island Public Service District Commission.   I am Mayor of the Town of James Island.  Does this create a conflict of interest?

I have had a few people ask me about this, but most of them don't live on James Island.   I can certainly understand how those from off the Island would have little idea about how our Town government relates to the James Island Public Service District.

Still there have been a few Town voters who have asked.   Unfortunately, many James Island voters have little understanding of the James Island Public Service District and its relationship to Town government either.

The JIPSD Commissioners do not select or provide oversight for the Mayor or the Town.  They do not approve the Town's budget or any of its ordinances, regulations, or policies.

The Mayor of the Town of James Island is elected by the voters of the Town and directs the Town's staff.   Oversight is provided by Town Council, which includes the Mayor.   Like the Mayor, the members of Town Council are elected by and work for the voters of the Town.
 
The Mayor's salary is determined by vote of Town Council.  Any increase in salary for Mayor or Town Council that is approved by Town Council can only be paid commencing after the next election for Town Council.   The JIPSD Commissioners have no say regarding the Mayor's salary.

I will vote on any proposed increase in the Mayor's salary, but Kathy will not.   Any approved increase in salary for Mayor will only apply after the next election for Mayor and Council in November 2019.

The Mayor and Town Council provide no formal oversight for the JIPSD Commissioners.   We do not approve the JIPSD budget, taxes or fees.

The Commissioners are elected by and work for the voters of the District, which is larger than the Town.   It includes the entire Town plus the unincorporated areas of James Island.

The JIPSD Commissioners select and provide oversight to the District Manager, who directs the JIPSD staff.    The Mayor and Town Council have no authority over the JIPSD staff which include the fire fighters, sanitation workers, and sewer workers of the district--which, again, is the Town and unincorporated area of James Island.

The salary of the JIPSD Commissioners is set by vote of the Commissioners and  any approved increase can only be paid after the next election for Commissioner.   The Mayor and Town Council have no say in the pay of the JIPSD Commissioners.   Kathy will vote on any proposed increase in her salary as Commissioner, but I will not.   Any increase approved in the next two years would only apply to Commissioners after the November 2018 election.    (Kathy will be up for reelection in November 2020.)

The Town provides no funding to the JIPSD.   The JIPSD provides no funding to the Town.  (The Town does pay a JIPSD sewer bill for Town Hall and  I believe the JIPSD pays the Town's storm water utility for the parcels it owns in the Town.)

The JIPSD collects property taxes in the Town's jurisdiction.  Those taxes make up approximately half of a homeowner's property tax bill.  The JIPSD sets its tax millage without any input from the Town.   The JIPSD also collects sewer bills in the area of the Town's jurisdiction.   They set their sewer charges without any input from the Town.

The Town collects a variety of taxes and fees in the area of its jurisdiction.   All of the Town is within the JIPSD, so we are collecting these taxes and fees within those parts of the  JIPSD that are in the Town.   The JIPSD Commissioners have no input on any of the Town's taxes and fees.

I have proposed that the JIPSD transfer service rights for solid waste to the Town and reduce the property tax millage it collects in the Town's jurisdiction.   I have proposed that the Town obtain solid waste services from the JIPSD by contract, paying them the amount they would have collected from their property taxes in the area of the Town.    (The Town has been collecting a property tax millage since 2015, though we have been providing a municipal property tax credit sufficient to reduce the amount taxpayers in the Town must pay to zero. )

If the JIPSD and Town were to come to this agreement, then the Town would be funding a portion of the JIPSD's budget for solid waste collection.   Superficially, there would be a conflict between the Town and the JIPSD regarding the amount to be paid--the Town seeking to pay less and the JIPSD seeking to receive more.

However, I am Mayor and not the owner of the Town and so receive no personal economic benefit by reducing the amount the Town pays for services from other government entities.   Therefore, Kathy receives no special benefit through me for having the JIPSD receive less money from the Town.  There would be no conflict of interest even if the Town was paying the JIPSD for services.

The only possible economic benefit she and I would receive would be shared by all residents of the Town.   This includes the majority of JIPSD Commissioners.   Starting in January, the only Commissioner that does not live in the Town will be Commissioner Cubby Wilder.   Commissioners McMillan and Waring, who both live in the unincorporated area of Riverland Terrace, lost their seats.  Sandi Engelman and Kathy, both of whom were challengers who won seats, live in the Town.   Commissioner Platt, who was reelected, also lives in the Town.   Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, and Brown-Crouch all live in the Town.  So it is changing from four residents of the Town and three residents of the unincorporated area to six residents of the Town and one resident of the unincorporated area.

However, my proposal would avoid any conflict because the JIPSD Commissioners would set the millage for solid waste services based upon the cost of providing the service in the whole district, including the Town.   The amount the Town would be charged would be equal to what would have been paid by our property owners based upon that common millage.   The JIPSD would be protected by the agreement since it would collect the same amount of funds in total.   The Town would be protected from excessive cost because Town voters would continue to vote for the Commissioners that set the millage.   This would in no way harm the interests of those residents of the district outside the Town.    Sadly, they would not benefit by having the Town cover the cost of solid waste for them but would continue to pay for their share by property tax.

Of course, the long run solution is to have the Town annex all of the unincorporated area of James Island so that everyone in the JIPSD is also in the Town.   Aside from a small number of residents in a portion of Laurel Park (near Central Park and Folly), this will return us to where we were in 2011.   If we can accomplish this, then my proposal would have the Town cover the cost of solid waste collection for everyone in the JIPSD.

Of course, reuniting the Town is not easy.  The problem is that the City of Charleston has annexed areas that cause breaks in contiguity between the existing area of the Town and the unincorporated areas of James Island.   Representative McCoy filed legislation last session that would allow the Town to annex areas that are in the same public service district as the Town.   But it must pass the SC House, SC Senate, and be signed by the Governor.  If it passes, then we can start petition drives and hold annexation elections in those areas of James Island that used to be in the Town.

Now, what about my secret plan to have the Town take over and close down the JIPSD?    Is Kathy going to side with the Town against the JIPSD?    Is that the conflict of interest?

Of course, that is just a paranoid fantasy.   I have no such plan.

As long as any portion of James Island remains unincorporated, the JIPSD will exist in at least that area.   While residents of the Town will continue to vote for JIPSD Commissioner as long as the Town remains within the JIPSD, residents of the JIPSD in any remaining unincorporated area will not be able to vote for Mayor or Town Council.   That is why I remain very skeptical of the value of any reorganization of tasks between the Town and the JIPSD at this time.

If and when there is no longer any unincorporated area on James Island, then we can have a conversation about a possible reorganization of tasks between two local governments that will have the same territory.   If there is to be any shift of responsibility for the administration of any service from the JIPSD to the Town, I believe candidates favoring such a shift will need to run for JIPSD Commissioner on a platform in favor of such a shift.   Because the JIPSD's charter limits the services it can provide, there is very little room for shifting governmental responsibility from the Town to the JIPSD.

I don't see any of this happening while I am Mayor, so I don't worry about it too much.   I believe that most James Island voters have little interest in shifting responsibilities from the JIPSD to the Town.  In my opinion, it is something that might happen one day.   (And even that is considered an unacceptable threat to some JIPSD Commissioners.)

Should Activation of the New Traffic Signal at Mikell and Harbor View be Delayed?

Town Council will vote on a resolution next Thursday, November 17 at 7:00 on whether to request a delay in the activation of the traffic signal on the corner of Mikell Drive and Harbor View Road.

The resolution was placed on the agenda by Councilman Troy Mullinax at the request of County Councilman Joe Qualey.   If it passes, then it must also be considered by the City of Charleston Council because the Harbor View Road project crosses both Town and City jurisdiction.   If both the Town and City Councils approve, the request will go to County Council.   These requests by local governments will go to SCDOT, which I have been told is likely to allow a delay if all the local governments agree.   The proposal is for SCDOT to do a traffic study after the project is otherwise completed before activating the light.    A traffic study was done by Charleston County before the signal was included in the plan.

The matter was discussed at the October Town Council meeting.   No vote was taken because no resolution or motion had been prepared and distributed to Council before that meeting.   There looked to be little support among Council for the delay.

The matter was discussed at a James Island integovernmental meeting much earlier and there was little support for this change other than by County Councilman Qualey.   Charleston City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson opposed it at that time.   Since it is in her district, I find it difficult to believe Charleston City Council will approve the change.

Public comment will be at the beginning of next Thursday's meeting and you must sign up to speak.   If you would like to share your view on this matter, please come.

You may also email me at mayorwoolsey@gmail.com or members of Town Council:   http://www.jamesislandsc.us/town-council.   My phone number is (843) 697-7020.   The number at Town Hall is (843) 795-4141.

In my opinion, it is inappropriate for the Town to request a last minute change.   The plan presented to the Town in 2013 included this signal and Council approved it.   The project was modified to provide a turn lane to accommodate this signal a year later.   The signal is now installed.    It is much too late.

I would like to know what you think.

JIPSD Election Results--the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The results are in for the JIPSD election.

There were three seats up for election on the seven member James Island Public Service District Commission.   Incumbents June Waring, Carter McMillan and Eugene Platt all sought reelection.   There were six challengers--Kathy Woolsey, Sandy Engelman, Donna Jenkins, Giovanni Richardson, Alan Lauglin, and Oana Johnson.

Voters in the JIPSD, which includes the Town of James Island and unincorporated areas of James Island, could each choose up to three candidates.   The three candidates with the most votes win seats.  There is no runoff unless there is a tie for third place.

The results:

Sandy Engleman       2325

Donna Jenkins          1695

Oana Johnson             905

Alan Laughlin            975

Carter McMillan      1559

Eugene Platt             2322

Giovanni Richardon 1134

June Waring              2177

Kathy Woolsey         3183

Kathy came in first and we both greatly appreciate the confidence JIPSD voters have shown in her.   

She won her seat by a convincing margin--858 voters more than second place Sandi Engleman and 861 more than third place Eugene Platt.    Incumbent June Waring is out, being 145 votes behind Platt.

Kathy came in first in 16 of the 20 voting precincts on James Island.      Platt won Folly Beach 2, Jenkins won both JI 1B and JI 3 but was in fifth place overall.  Engelman beat Kathy by one vote in JI 13, that being her only first place finish.

I was very disappointed that incumbent Carter McMillan lost his seat, coming in sixth, needing 764 more votes to beat Platt for third place.    He had 1559, so he needed almost 50% more votes than he received.

One interesting fact about this election is that 37% of the votes were absentee.   The precinct results don't include these nearly 6,000 votes.  This includes both the traditional paper absentee ballots and the "early voting."   Kathy won the largest number of those votes, 1,106, making up 35% of her total.   Waring, Platt, and Jenkins received disproportionately more absentee votes--close to 42% of their totals.   Of course, that wasn't enough for 5th place Jenkins or 4th place Waring.    McMillan received 511 absentee or 33% of his total.   It was the absentee votes that pushed Jenkins past McMillan to 5th place, but both were well behind Waring.

  

Kathy worked very hard on this election and we spent a good bit of money.   Thank you to all of our contributors.    The biggest expense was signs.   Kathy spent a good bit on ads on facebook and instagram.  We distributed 2,000 flyers.   There are approximately 6,000 households in the JIPSD so this was about 1/3.   Kathy distributed most and I did a good many, but she had several volunteers who worked in their neighborhoods.  Thanks.   

So, hard work pays.  

On the other hand, Sandi Engleman did little more than put signs out in the right of way.   The signs were mostly paid for by former JIPSD Commissioner Rod Welch (who is joining her in the suit against the Town.)    

Most remarkably, Eugene Platt did approximately nothing and was reelected.

So, you can win doing next to nothing.   But I wouldn't bet on it.   

And Kathy didn't. 

Kathy Woolsey for James Island PSD Commissioner

I strongly support Kathy Woolsey for James Island PSD Commissioner.

She is bright and hardworking.

Most importantly, she is honest.  

I have known her for more than thirty years, and I can assure you, she always tells it like she sees it.

She has been an elected Commissioner for the Charleston County Soil and Water District for the last 16 years.   She has plenty of experience serving as an elected official and overseeing government activity.

Here in Charleston County, the Soil and Water Commission is especially interested in water quality.   They obtained a grant to help repair and provide septic systems to needy homeowners, resulting in reduced pollution of our local waters.     The aging James Island PSD infrastructure has resulted in problems with pollution of our local waters.   We need Kathy on the job protecting our local waters.

Kathy is committed to cooperation with other local governments--the Town, Charleston County, the City of Charleston, and the City of Folly Beach.   By working together, we can avoid wasteful duplication and save money.  

Please join me in voting for Kathy Woolsey.

Re-Elect Carter McMillan for James Island PSD

Carter McMillan was a member of the James Island Town Council in 2010 and 2011.  As Chair of the Town's public works committee, he did an excellent job in helping reform the Town's approach to maintaining drainage and filling potholes.

In 2011, the Town was closed down by the South Carolina Supreme Court.  Carter was central to the effort for a fourth incorporation, serving on the Free James Island committee.  Because he lives in Riverland Terrace, he could not seek re-election in 2012 to our new Town Council.

Carter was appointed as a James Island Public Service District Commissioner and then elected in 2012.   In my opinion, he has done an excellent job serving residents of the JIPSD and the Town,

His key goal has been working for transparent and ethical policies for the JIPSD Commission Unfortunately, entrenched incumbents, such as June Waring and Eugene Platt, have fought him at every turn.

I think it is very important that Carter be reelected to the JIPSD Commission.

I think he needs some new Commissioners to help him.   I believe that Kathy Woolsey will work with Carter McMillan on the JIPSD to promote ethical and transparent policies.

JIPSD Election and SCIWAY

SCIWAY bills itself as the South Carolina Information Highway.   It was founded by Rod Welch and is owned by SCIWAY.net, which is a corporation for which Rod Welch is the registered agent.   The editor of the website is Robin Welch.

Rod Welch was a JIPSD Commissioner for many years--he didn't seek reelection in 2014.   Robin Welch is his daughter, was a member of James Island Town Council in 2010, and appears to be "Nix 526."  Her most recent claim to fame was secretly recording conversations with County Council Eliott Sumney and sharing his remarks with the press.

It was brought to my attention late last week that SCIWAY listed the candidates for the JIPSD election and left off two candidates-- Carter McMillan and Kathy Woolsey.

This is of some significance because if you do a google search for James Island or Charleston election information, the first hit is SCIWAY's "complete" guide to the election.

There are nine candidates for three seats on the James Island PSD.

Why did SCIWAY just list seven?

Could it be that Robin Welch lets her personal political preferences influence what is placed on the website?

A website that claims to be a "complete guide" and only allows candidates that Robin Welch counts as acceptable is a fraud!

I wrote Rod Welch the Friday evening and he promised to correct the website Monday.

I appreciate that Rod Welch has committed to providing a "complete guide" and not a fraud.   Thank you.

I wonder how many voters were already fooled by the false information.   Hopefully, such abuses will no longer occur at SCIWAY.

James Island Public Service District Election on November 8th

The James Island Public Service District is governed by seven Commissioners.    Three seats are up for election on November 8.    There are nine candidates on the ballot for the three seats:

Sandi Engelman
Donna Jenkins
Oana Johnson
Alan Laughlin
Carter McMillan
Eugene Platt
Giovanni Richardson
June Waring
Kathy Woolsey


If you look at your tax bill, you will see that 49% of a homeowner's property tax bill goes to the JIPSD.   The other half is divided among Charleston County Schools, Charleston County general government, Trident Tech, and Charleston County Parks and Recreation.

The JIPSD provides fire services, garbage and trash collection, and sewer in the Town of James Island.   It is these independently elected Commissioners that control almost half of your tax bill and your sewer bill and determine the quality of key local government services.   Town government has no control or oversight regarding these taxes or services.

Please vote.  Please choose carefully.

Carter McMillan Elected Chair of James Island Intergovernmental Council

Carter McMillan was elected Chair of the James Island Intergovernmental Council last Wednesday, having served as Vice-Chair for the last two years.    Carter McMillan is a James Island Public Service District Commissioner who is seeking re-election in November.

Town of James Island Mayor Pro-Tem  Leonard Blank was elected Vice-Chair.  McMillan replaces Charleston City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson.   

The James Island Intergovermental Council is made up of local officials representing James Island including the Town of James Island, the City of Charleston, the James Island Public Service District, Charleston County and our State Senators and Representatives.    Its purpose is to promote inter-governmental cooperation to solve problems and improve the quality of life on James Island.

Hurricane Debris Removal

The debris from Hurricane Matthew will be picked up.   The target for completion is 30 days, but I have also heard estimates of six weeks.

Most of debris will be removed by contractors.   The Town signed an agreement to be included in  Charleston County's emergency debris removal contract.    So did the City of Charleston and the JIPSD.    

The contract has been activated.   The County's webpage shows where debris is being removed.  The plan is for three or four large trucks to be assigned to James Island every day until the debris is cleared up.   The contractors will pick up hurricane debris from the Town, City, and unincorporated area in an efficient manner.   

The contractors will be starting in Riverland Terrace.   That is JIPSD "zone 1."

The JIPSD solid waste department continues to pick up garbage as usual.   Please put your garbage in the rolling bins as usual and put out on the usual days.

The JIPSD's  usual yard debris crews are also out and picking up hurricane debris.   They are picking up on the usual days, but they cannot begin to pick everything up as they usually do.   They are picking up what they can in one area and then moving on to their next regular area the following day.   Nothing has been picked up in my immediate area yet, but just up the road, the JIPSD got started on the hurricane debris last Wednesday.  

The City of Charleston solid waste department is doing the same.   They are picking up garbage as usual and their yard debris crews are picking up hurricane debris in on the days and areas where they usually pick up yard debris.

Please be patient.

Court Report

There has been some action regarding the Kernodle class action lawsuit against the Town.    Rod Welch and David and Sandi Engelman are the plaintiffs.   The case is Engleman v. Town of James Island.

The Judge gave an order in July that did five things:

1. Dismissed without prejudice Kernodle's request for a summary judgement that the Town is legally required to provide credits whether or not it has a property tax.

2. Dismissed without prejudice the Town's request for a summary judgement that this issue must be resolved according to the Revenue Procedures Act.

3. Dismissed without prejudice the Town's request for a summary judgement that it is not obligated to provide a refund of a property tax it did not collect.

4. Added Charleston County as a plaintiff against the Town.

5. Imposed an injunction against the Town spending or crediting any of the LOST revenue it has or will receive.

The first three items mean that these issues will have to be resolved at trial.   That was scheduled to begin this summer.   It had been postponed to wait on this order.  Because of the addition of the County as an additional plaintiff, it is now scheduled for next spring.

The fourth item was a complete surprise.   The Judge said that because Charleston County provided services to people in the Town when it had no property tax, the County must be added as a plaintiff so that it can protect its interests.

The final item was a very serious problem for the Town.   Kernodle requested that same injunction against the Town in the summer of 2015, and a different Judge denied it last fall.    This Judge said that because Charleston County was not part of the case at that time, and that now it was, he was reversing what the other judge said and imposing the injunction.

The Town has included a 20 mill property tax for the 2016 year, and we have provided a sufficient credit to zero it out for all of our taxpayers.   This order appeared to prohibit the Town from providing any tax credit, which would have meant a substantial property tax increase for residents of the Town this fall.   Further, the LOST statute plainly states that the Town must provide a credit against its property tax liability, and so this Court order required that the Town violate the law!

I immediately called the Chairman of County Council to ask about them being added to the case.  He was completely surprised.    The County did not ask to join Kernodle's suit against the Town.

I also met with the County Auditor about the injunction, and he agreed that the Court order would require a violation of the law.  Worse, the County had to start preparing the property tax bills soon.

The Town submitted a request to the Judge to reconsider the order explaining the burden it would impose on our property taxpayers and explaining that it would require the Town to violate the law.   We carefully explained how the Town is clearly in compliance with the law now, and that the dispute is about the $2.2 million the Town received from the LOST property tax credit fund from 2012 to 2014 when it had no property tax and so provided no credits against the tax.    The Town argues that it is not required to provide credits against a property tax it did not have and does not owe a refund to people who paid no tax to the Town.

The County submitted an answer to Kernodle's complaint against the Town.   The County was not supportive of any Kernodle's positions on much of anything.  Most importantly, it insisted that the Revenue Procedures Act apply, as the Town had argued in our request for Summary judgement.   They cited some Supreme Court cases where the Charleston County had faced the exact same issue.

The County also asked the judge to lift the injunction regarding the 2016 property tax so that the tax bills could be prepared.   The County argued that the Judge had no authority to use injunctions to interfere with the preparation of tax bills due to the Revenue Procedures Act.

The Judge amended his Order to lift the injunction for the 2016 tax year.  The Town's credit will be applied against the Town property tax so no taxpayer in the Town will have to pay anything extra to the Town on the bills going out in October.   Thank the Lord!

The Judge has scheduled a new hearing for November.   He will consider the arguments that the County and the Town have made--presumably about the Revenue Procedure Act.   I also hope for some clarification regarding the Town's current compliance with the law.    The Town is providing the required credit against its property tax.

If the Revenue Procedure Act applies, that doesn't determine whether or not Town property owners are due refunds.   It rather prohibits class action suits to obtain tax refunds and allows individual taxpayers to seek a refund from County officials.    There is a procedure laid out if there is a dispute (as there is in this case,) that possibly ends up at the South Carolina Supreme Court.    If it is determined refunds are due, then any taxpayer can make the request to the appropriate County official.   In our case, the Town would have to come up with the money to pay for any required refunds.

I am not sure why we would have a trial, since there isn't really a dispute about the facts but rather about the law.    I think it is likely that whatever the decision, there will be an appeal.

Keeping Chickens in the Town of James Island

    The Town of James Island's zoning ordinance allows chickens and other livestock to be raised in agricultural zones.   But since there are no parcels zoned agricultural in the Town at this time, that is not particularly relevant.

    Nearly all the Town is zoned residential.   There are a few areas that are zoned community commercial, neighborhood commercial, general office, and office residential.  In those zones, raising livestock is not permitted, and that means it is prohibited.

   However, in residential areas, household pets may be kept.

            § 153.211  ANIMALS.

   (A)   The keeping of household pets shall be allowed as an accessory use in all zoning districts in which residential dwelling units are permitted.
   (B)   The keeping of exotic or wild animals shall not be allowed as an accessory use and shall only be allowed if approved as a special exception in accordance with the procedures contained in §§ 153.040 through 153.055 of this code.
(Ord. 2012-06, § 6.5.12, passed 10-18-2012; Ord. 2013-02, passed 4-18-2013)

   What is the difference between raising livestock and keeping pets?

    We have a definition of pets in our ordinance:

 PET, HOUSEHOLD.  Domestic animals typically kept for company or enjoyment within the home. HOUSEHOLD PETS shall include, but not be limited to, domestic cats, domestic dogs, domestic ferrets, gerbils, guinea pigs, hamsters, domestic laboratory mice, domestic rabbits, goldfish, canaries, and parrots. 

     So, you can see that chickens are not expressly included as pets (neither are pigs, goats, sheep, cows, nor horses.)   But then, the definition of pets says that animals other than those listed can be pets.

     Plainly, chickens are an important type of livestock.   They are raised for eggs and meat.

     But chickens can also be kept as pets.  For example, there are people that have chickens to compete in shows.   There are many collectors of fancy chicken breeds..

     I hadn't thought much about it before, but at the public hearing, Kay Kernodle, JIPSD Comimssioner, pointed out that "we" are the South Carolina gamecocks and so should be permitted to keep roosters in our yards.  (Clemson fans, you might feel left out, but we are not talking about tigers now.)  So, yes, some people keep roosters for cock fighting.   It is a tradition where people have roosters fight one another, often to the death, with people betting on the outcome.   Some people consider seeing all the chicken blood flying about quite exciting.  And the money from the betting is an enticement as well.

     I have reason to believe that there are some James Islanders who keep dogs--especially pit bulls--for dog fights too.   I would point out that all of this has long been banned under state law.    The Town does not have the authority to permit our residents to keep animals to enjoy and profit from blood sport--even game cocks.

    Like most local governments in the lowcountry, the Town's code enforcement is complaint driven.   People call the Town regarding problems.  We look at the Town ordinances, and if there is a violation, we pursue compliance.   We always point out to a resident or property owner that there is a violation and insist on compliance.   Sometimes we are met with defiance.   Sometimes there is an agreement to correct the problem, but the delays begin to look like passive resistance.  The result is a ticket and a summons to County Magistrate's Court on Riverland Drive.  Then there is one fine and then another until we achieve compliance with our code.

    Personally, I don't necessarily agree with all of our codes, but it is the Mayor's job to see that they are enforced.   Any citizen of the Town may make complaints, but they also may ask Town Council to modify our codes.

    The sections of the Town's code regarding livestock and pets were adopted unchanged from what the Town had between 2006 and 2011.   It is no different from what the Town had from 2002 to 2004.  And it is no different from the County ordinance that applied in the area of the Town between incorporations.   (People who think their chickens are a nonconforming allowed use because they had them before 2012 are very much mistaken.)

     So, if we get a complaint about chickens, we start with the presumption that raising chickens is not permitted in any part of the Town at this time.  (Our ordinances are no different from those of Charleston County's current ordinance for residential areas.)  But, if there is a credible argument that these particular chickens are pets, then that is permitted.  In my view, one clear limitation on the "pets" defense is numbers.   One chicken could easily count as a pet.   Perhaps even a few.   When we get a complaint and someone has sixty chickens, the "pets" defense is a bit thin.   I have sworn to uphold our laws.

   Further, every time I hear arguments about how great it is to raise chickens in your own backyard as a source of food for your family--eggs and especially meat-- the pets "exception" is just not credible.   To me, when we have a complaint, claiming that the chickens in question are "pets" when they are pretty obviously livestock being raised for eggs and meat in a residential area, it is just is a big fat LIE.

     So, I asked our planning director to come up with some kind of modification of our ordinance that would expressly allow limited numbers of chickens in residential zones whether they are plausibly pets or not.   I didn't intend to change our complaint driven policy or to prohibit chickens as pets.

      I admit that I didn't micro-manage this process.   I think our planning director came up with a sensible proposal.   Part of this is driven by creating a policy that our single code officer can effectively enforce.

     Councilman Blank's proposed compromise that it be one chicken for every 2500 square feet of lot size, so that 6 applies to 1/3 acre sites (our legal minimum) and that larger lots allow more up to a total of 12, seemed reasonable.

     In my view, this is much improved over the status quo of no chickens other than pets.

     Councilman Milliken's proposal that any number of chickens be allowed by permit was not well-thought out.  We need some criterion for issuing permits.

     Still, I will ask the Town staff to develop a reasonable permitting system.   In my opinion, we should find some way to allow raising poultry on the remaining large parcels in the Town.   Perhaps a better solution is to rezone them to agricultural rather than introducing special chicken permits.  I am very skeptical about large poultry operations in our residential neighborhoods.   But, we will see.

     The Planning Commission will look at this in September.   It should be back to Town Council in September or October.

Storm Water Utility Fee Increase

Last night,  Town Council voted on first reading to increase the Storm Water utility from $38 to $48 per year.   Second and final reading will be at our July 21 meeting.   If it passes second reading, it will appear on your property tax bill this October.

The Town participates in the Charleston County Stormwater Utility.   All local governments must have a stormwater program due to federal mandates.  Failure to comply would result in massive fines (millions.)   The purpose of these mandates is to control pollution in stormwater runoff and so protect our waterways--our marshes and creeks and also the rivers and the harbor.

We could have our own Stormwater program.  The City of Charleston and the Town of Mount Pleasant have their own.   The charge for homeowners in Mount Pleasant is $60 and the charge for homeowners in the City of Charleston is $72.   I think we have been getting a good price from Charleston County, even after the increase.

The reason for the increase is a mandate for increased monitoring of local waters, especially problem areas.  We have plenty of water on and around our Island that needs monitoring and we have some trouble areas too.  

I believe that this proposed fee increase will be more than sufficient to cover these added costs.  Any extra money raised from the Town beyond what is required for the enforcement program will be available to the Town for any project related to drainage.   The Town could have adopted a higher fee that would result in more money available for drainage projects.

Those James Islanders who live in the unincorporated area will pay the fee set by Charleston County which will match that in the City of Charleston--$72 per year.   The extra money will be used by Charleston County for drainage maintenance in the unincorporated area of the County, including the unincorporated
portions of James Island.  

It seems that Charleston County is moving towards funding basic drainage maintenance using the stormwater fee rather than general funds.   Over the years, I have had people ask me why their drainage ditches were not cleaned when they pay this stormwater utility.   I  had responded that the stormwater utility is used to fund regulation of stormwater pollution and not stormwater maintenance.   That will be less true in the future for unincorporated Charleston County.

Rather than increase the fee in the Town by more than  the $48 minimum required by Charleston County to continue in their regulatory program, I believe we should see how much of the $48 is available for drainage projects.   Of course, the Town uses other funds for drainage projects as well.  We will continue to look at our drainage needs and funding sources in the future.   Drainage maintenance is a major priority of the Town.

Last night, Council voted unanimously to stay with the County program and charge the minimum amount possible--$48.  Second and final reading will be in July.

Half-Cent Sales Tax Meeting Wed. June 22 at 6:30 James Island Middle

Charleston County Transportation will be holding a public meeting on James Island to obtain input about projects to fund with the proposed additional 1/2 cent sales tax. It will be on Wednesday, June 22 at 6:30 PM at James Island Middle School. Projects currently listed for James Island are $15 million worth of pedestrian and intersection improvements. Included are pedestrian improvements on Camp Road and Folly Road along with intersection improvements at Secessionville and Fort Johnson and Camp and Fort Johnson.

Who Will Represent the Town of James Island in the SC Senate?

I have spoken with three candidates for South Carolina Senate District 41 about changes I believe the Town needs in Columbia.     I emailed Tim Mallard several days ago and he has not gotten back in touch.

My first priority is legislation necessary to unite the Town.  That is, legislation that will allow those residents who were in the Town in 2011 and were left out of our incorporation election in 2012 to vote on whether they want to be back in the Town.

I think our best opportunity is House Bill 4203 .

Culver Kidd, who is the only candidate who lives on James Island, knew about the bill and promised to work to get it passed.   He has a good working relationship with Representative Peter McCoy.  As for fixing the millage cap as it applies to new municipalities, clarifying the refundability of tax credits, and the treatment of municipalities that annex versus incorporate in special purpose districts--he was open to proposals I have made, but would not say yes without further study.  He didn't want to tell me later that he has changed his mind.   That seemed sensible enough.

The other three candidates live in West Ashley.    Perhaps it should be no surprise that they were not as familiar with the issues facing the Town of James Island.

Sandy Senn explained to me that she would be representing people both within the Town and within the James Island Public Service District so she would need to do her homework to understand the implications for all sides and for all similarly situated entities in the state. That sounded sensible enough.   She seemed most open to fixing the absurd implications of the millage cap for new municipalities.

Of course, most of the voters in the JIPSD are in the Town.   My goal is to reunite the Town so that everyone in the JIPSD will also be in the Town.   I told her this.  There is at least some hope that James Islanders could persuade her to help us.

Roy Maybank asked many questions and explained that he would need to carefully study all of these issues.  That sounded sensible enough.  When I followed up with him later, he was more confident that he would work with Representative McCoy to help the Town much as has Senator Thurmond.

There are many issues facing South Carolina and the Lowcountry.   I certainly will consider all issues when I cast my vote.   But for the issue closest to my heart--reuniting our Town-- I think Culver Kidd is the best choice.

Another Half Cent for Transportation?

Some time ago, Charleston County Council Chairman Elliot Summey held a meeting with area Mayors.   I came right after my 11:00 class finished, so I was late for the noon meeting.   The turnout was light.   It was just Folly Beach, Isle of Palms and James Island.    The County Administrator and Assistant Administrator was there.   The fried chicken was good.   I appreciated it.   With a small group, I learned a good bit.   I hope the Chairman does it again.  Maybe we will get a better turnout.

One item the Chairman discussed was the need for another half-cent sales tax.   His argument was that if we are going to improve the roads in Charleston County, we are going to have to pay for it ourselves.   Our ability to get money out of Columbia has dropped off tremendously with the loss of Senator Glenn McConnell and Representative Bobby Harrell.

If there is going to be a sales tax on the ballot, I certainly would like there to be some money earmarked for James Island projects.   I had begun discussions with Town staff about what we should propose.

Then I read in the paper that a list of projects had already been developed!   We quickly checked to make sure we didn't make some mistake and miss the request for our input.   No, it turns out that the only municipalities that were asked were Charleston, North Charleston, and Mount Pleasant.   The rest of us?  Well....

As for the COG (the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of governments,) the Town has not had any input into their project list either.   Now, the Town of James Island has representation on the policy committee.   I attended the last CHATS meeting where COG approved the Rethink Folly Road Project.  (The Town, the City of Charleston, Charleston County, and Folly Beach all had already approved it.)   Lately, Mayor Pro-Tem Leonard Blank has been representing the Town.   Before that, Town Administrator Ashley Kellahan represented us.  (I like going, but the meetings are usually Monday morning when I am teaching class.   Now that The Citadel is on summer break, I can make the COG meetings.)

But never have we had an opportunity to have projects in the Town added to their list.   That is because they only update their lists every few years, and last time the Town had been closed down.   Charleston County had jurisdiction in the Town parts of James Island then.   (The Harbor View Improvement project is on the COG list.)  However, COG staff is supposed to meet with us this summer and talk about transportation projects in the Town--the time to update the list is rolling around again.   

Speaking of COG, the James Island Intergovernmental Council voted to ask COG to put intersection improvements for Secessionville and Fort Johnson on their list.  SCDOT suggested we do that.  The intersection is under City of Charleston jurisdiction, but the whole point of the intergovernmental council is to get beyond that.   

Of course, Town staff talked to the County staff about whether we missed the memo to give our input for transportation projects.  They told us that they just asked the "big three," but that they would be having public meetings and we could give our input too.   Better late than never. 

Included in the City of Charleston's request for James Island was $15 million for pedestrian and intersection improvements.   Nothing specific was listed, but I have to admit that pedestrian and intersection improvements are exactly the sort of thing I would have proposed.     Good choice, Mayor Tecklenburg! 

I have asked Town Council to make suggestions, but I am now asking you.  Please let us know if there are transportation improvements that you think are important on James Island.   I expect that County Councilman Joe Qualey will insist that some of our projects be included.   I would hope that County Councilwoman Anna Johnson would want to help James Island too.   You can call Town Hall at 795-4141 or me at 697-7020.

Just this weekend, I read that County staff has arranged public meetings throughout the County but that the one on James Island has yet to be determined.  Of course, we would be happy to host any such meeting at Town Hall.   My preference, however, would be James Island Charter High School.

I am not saying that we should all vote for this tax increase.   What I am saying is that support it or not, we are better off with projects on James Island if it passes.   We will be paying the taxes regardless of where the money is spent.

The Republican Primary for Senate Seat 41 on June 14

Many of us on James Island are in South Carolina Senate District 41.  The boundary is Fort Johnson Road.  South of that boundary is Senator Chip Campsen's District 43.  North of that boundary is Senator Paul Thurmond's district 41.

Senator Thurmond is not running for reelection.   There are four candidates seeking to replace him--all Republicans.   No Democrat has filed, so whoever wins the Republican Primary on June 14 will be unopposed in November.

I am sorry to see Senator Thurmond go.   Like Representative Peter McCoy, he has always been very supportive of the Town's legislative goals in Columbia.   In particular, he supported our effort to amend the annexation laws so that the former residents of the Town would have an opportunity to join the Town.   He supported our effort to reunite the Town.

County Councilman Joe Qualey was running in the Republican primary.   I endorsed him.   He served on James Island Town Council from 2002 to 2004 and from 2006 to 2010.    In 2010, he was elected to County Council.  He strongly supported our effort at incorporation in 2012 and has supported the Town on County Council since.   I can't say that I always agree with him on every issue, but I was confident that he would support the Town's interests in the South Carolina Senate.  

Last week, County Councilman Qualey withdrew from the race, leaving four candidates--Charleston County Assistant Prosecutor Culver Kidd, Former Charleston City Councilman Tim Mallard, Roy Maybank, and Sandy Senn.

I have spoken with three of the four remaining candidates:    Kidd, Maybank, and Senn.   I also went to the candidate forum sponsored by the Charleston County Republican Party in West Ashley and saw all of them answer questions about the issues.

When I spoke to the candidates, I focused on legislative issues that I think are important to the Town.  Obviously, there are many issues that are important to South Carolina and the Lowcountry.   Like all voters, I will have to weigh those issues as well as issues important to the Town.

Still, I would like to share what I consider the key issues facing the Town of James Island in Columbia.

1.   Will our next Senator help pass the legislation needed to reunite the Town?

The Town is working with Representative McCoy to pass House Bill 4203 .   Once it passes in the House, it needs to pass the Senate and be signed by the Governor.

This bill will clarify the definition of contiguity so that if a municipality is within the same special purpose district as a parcel of property and would be contiguous with that property but for a break in the contiguity of the special purpose district, then it will be contiguous to the municipality for purposes of annexation.

The Town of James Island is entirely within the James Island Public Service District.   Those who were in the Town in 2011, assuming they didn't annex into the City of Charleston, remain within the James Island Public Service District.  Those who are not in the Town now, however, are separated from the rest of the Town by areas annexed by the City of Charleston.  These areas annexed to the City of Charleston have been removed from the James Island Public Service District, creating a break in the contiguity of the James Island Public Service District.  If it were not for this break in contiguity in the James Island Public Service District, some of the properties in those areas would be contiguous with the Town.

Once the legislation passes, we can organize a petition drive.   If 25% of the registered voters in those areas that were in the Town sign a petition to join the Town again, then there will be an election.  If the majority of voters in those areas favor returning to the Town, then the Town will be reunited.

This definition of contiguity would only apply if residents of the municipality are eligible to vote for the governing board of the special purpose district.   This is because a key rationale of allowing this rule for contiguity is to allow those within a special purpose district to vote for the municipal governing body (Mayor and Town Council) since the residents of the municipality can already vote for the governing board of the special purpose district.   There are few if any other places in South Carolina where a municipality is entirely within a special purpose district that has an elected governing board.   This makes passing the Legislation easier.

I believe that our new Senator should help.  This is my key priority.   I promised to give everyone who was in the Town of James Island a chance to vote to return to the Town.

2.   Will our next Senator help fix the crazy implication of the millage cap for new municipalities?

Local governments in South Carolina can only increase their operating property tax millage by a percentage amount equal to the population growth rate plus the inflation rate.   So, if the municipality had a millage of 20, and the population growth rate were 3% and the inflation rate were 2%, then it could increase its millage by 5%.  That would be from 20 to 21 mills.

This rule creates a puzzle for new municipalities.  If the operating millage rate is zero, then if the population growth were 3% and the inflation rate were 2%, then the millage could increase by 5%.  But 5% of zero is still zero.    The millage cap appears to imply that new municipalities can never have an operating property tax millage.

There are a number of exceptions in the law, but three of them are for a bond millage, a millage for lease-purchase payments for real property, and a millage for a reserve.    The Town of James Island has a millage for lease-purchase payments for real property and for a reserve.   We can use those funds for capital improvements, but not for operations.    For example, we can pay for our new Town Hall, but we could not pay to expand the Island Sheriff's Patrol or, more importantly, pay for solid waste collection services by contract.

It is possible that if the Town changed its millage to an operating millage, we could use the funds to pay for a contract for solid waste collection and no one would complain. (I wouldn't bet on that.) Or, it is possible that the Town would be sued (likely,) and that the Court would rule that the Legislature did not intend to never allow new municipalities to collect an operating millage (Quite possible.)  Or, the Court could rule that the letter of the law prohibits an operating millage and the Town must give all the money back.   Since the Town would have already spent the money on services, that would be a very serious problem.

I have proposed to the JIPSD that they reduce the millage they collect in our Town and provide us services by contract.    Just this year, I proposed that they reduce the millage they charge in the Town so that their taxes no longer cover the cost of solid waste collection in the Town.   If the JIPSD agreed, I would ask Council to adopt an operating millage for garbage service equal to the reduction in the JIPSD millage, so that the total millage for Town taxpayers would be the same.   The Town would then pay the JIPSD for solid waste collection services by contract.

Because the Town would provide a LOST credit against the Town property tax, there would be a substantial tax cut for property owners in the Town.   The residents of the Town would continue to get the same solid waste collection service and the JIPSD would continue to get the money needed to cover the costs of providing the service, but property taxpayers in the Town would pay less.

Here is the problem.   A town property tax to pay for solid waste collection would be an operating millage.   Our current operating millage is zero.   We would need to increase it to approximately 20 mills (replacing our current millage for lease purchase payments and reserve with an operating millage.)    Is an increase from an operating millage of zero to 20 a violation of the millage cap?

If the JIPSD were to agree with this proposal, I would seek a declaratory judgement by a Court that the Town could substitute its operating millage for part of the JIPSD operating millage.  Unfortunately, this would take time and an appeal would take longer.  And, of course, it would involve paying ample fees to attorneys.

That the change would leave the total millage the same would be a key argument.  The fact that a LOST tax credit would reduce the total amount actually paid by the taxpayer would also be relevant.   Did the Legislature really intend that the millage cap be a barrier to a property tax cut?

Rather than force the Town to go through some expensive legal process, I think that it is the responsibility of the Legislature to clarify this crazy formula that implies that new municipalities can never have an operating millage.

I believe that our new Senator should be willing to help.

3.   Will our new Senator help clarify whether the Local Option Sales Tax law requires a refundable property tax credit?

When I became Mayor in 2010, I asked the Municipal Association of South Carolina about the Local Option Sales Tax.   They explained that municipalities with no property tax are not obligated to provide credits against a property tax liability that does not exist.  They pointed out that there are many municipalities with no property tax and they just use the money to pay for services.

However, I supported reducing property taxes--not as a legal obligation, but as a Town policy.   The people in the Town pay property taxes for fire and solid waste services to the JIPSD and our property taxes aren't low.   The millage we pay is lower than what is imposed by the City of Charleston, but higher than what is charged by the City of Folly Beach.

After witnessing first hand the mess created by trying to mail out "refund" checks, I decided to come up with a better plan and began to work on some way to provide tax credits on the property tax bill.  To me, the obvious place to provide the credit is with the JIPSD millage because they are collecting property taxes and providing services that other municipalities, like the City of Charleston and the City of Folly Beach, fund with their property tax revenue.

Now, most municipalities provide a property tax credit on the tax bill.  That means that taxpayers pay less property tax, the municipalities receive less property tax revenue and the money from the Local Option Sales Tax is used to pay for services that would have be paid for by revenue from the property tax.   (The municipalities with no property tax don't provide any tax credits and just spend the money on services.)

So, in 2013, I asked the JIPSD if they would provide a credit against their tax millage.  They said no.   For 2014, I suggested that the JIPSD stop collecting a millage in the Town and let us buy fire and solid waste services from them by contract.   The Town would collect a millage and we would provide a property tax credit against our own millage.   The JIPSD said no.   For 2015, I proposed that the JIPSD collect a lower millage in the Town and let the Town purchase solid waste collection from them by contract.  The Town would collect a millage, leaving the total millage unchanged.

The response was a class action suit against the Town seeking to force us to write refund checks.   It was just a coincidence that the JIPSD lawyer filed the suit and the two representatives of the class were former JIPSD Commissioners.... right.

We are defending against that suit.  The Town's position is that the plaintiffs are claiming that the property tax credit required by the LOST statute is refundable, which means that if the credit is greater than the amount of the property tax liability, the excess credit must be paid out to the taxpayer.   In South Carolina income tax law there are many tax credits, but only a handful of them are refundable.   Those few all specifically state that they are refundable and there is a provision of the law that states that a credit is not refundable unless required by law.   However, that rule specifically applies to any tax administered by the South Carolina Department of Revenue (SCDOR.)   Property taxes are administered by County Auditors and Treasurers.   There are a variety of property tax credits authorized in South Carolina law.   None of them are described as refundable.   Are they not refundable like nearly all the income tax credits?  Or are they refundable?  That is the question.  Too bad the Legislature never bothered to say.

While there are only a few income tax credits that are refundable, SCDOR routinely provides refunds for most taxpayers because of income tax withholding.  This makes it relatively easy to provide for a refundable income tax credit.  Local governments do not usually provide refunds to property taxpayers, but rather just send out bills and receive payments.  Property tax refunds occur when there was some error and a taxpayer was billed and paid too much.   Most property taxpayers do not routinely receive property tax refunds.  If the Legislature makes a property tax credit refundable, it would be imposing an obligation on local governments to develop a special administrative apparatus to provide refunds.

I believe that the South Carolina Legislature should clarify that unless specifically stated, no tax credits authorized under South Carolina law are refundable, not solely those that are administrated by SCDOR.   Further, the Legislature shouldn't make any property tax credit refundable because it imposes an unreasonable burden on local governments.

Of course, we are currently battling this out in court.

In response to the suit, the Town has adopted a property tax millage and we are meeting the requirements of the law by providing a credit against that millage.    In my view, the only remaining issue in the suit is about the LOST funds the Town received in 2012, 2013, and 2014 before we adopted a millage and began providing credits.   Does the Town have to mail out refunds to everyone who would have had to pay property taxes to the Town if we had a property tax during those years?  Clarifying the law now would not directly fix what happened in the past.

But I think the Legislature should clarify this matter going forward, and not just for the Town of James Island, but also for the 40 municipalities in South Carolina with low or no millage.

I believe that our new Senator should be willing to help.  

4. Will our new Senator help clarify the status of municipalities that incorporate within a special purpose district?

The South Carolina Code has detailed procedures governing the relationship between a municipality and a special purpose district when the municipality annexes part of the special purpose district.    These procedures protect the interests of both the residents within the municipality and those residents of the special purpose that remain outside the municipality.   However, South Carolina law is silent on what happens when a municipality is incorporated either partly or wholly within a special purpose district.

This is a deficiency within the law, and I think the Legislature should fill the hole.  The most obvious fix would be for the same rules to apply whether some or all of a municipality was incorporated within a special purpose district or else it has annexed a portion of the special purpose district.

All of the Town of James Island is within the James Island Public Service District.  Most of it was incorporated within the district but some parts have been annexed.   If we are able to reunite the Town, it will still be true that most of the Town will have been incorporated within the JIPSD, but about 1/3 of the residents will have been annexed.

The rules for the areas that the Town annexed are clear.  The Town has the right to provide any or all the services provided by the JIPSD either directly or by contract with the JIPSD.   Whether or not the annexed areas remain within the JIPSD is a matter for negotiation.  The amount that the Town must pay for services by contract is subject to negotiation.   The statute requires that the County Auditor and Treasurer make the needed changes in the property tax bills and states that the JIPSD and the Town cannot both collect taxes for the same services.  The reduction in taxes collected by the JIPSD for some service it currently provides in the Town would also be something that would be negotiated.

Given the JIPSD's attitude about working with the Town, how could we ever hope to negotiate an agreement?  

Fortunately, the statute mandates binding arbitration.    I think it is entirely reasonable that the JIPSD stop collecting taxes within the Town for the provision of solid waste services and allow the Town to pay for that service by contract.   I think it is fair for the Town to pay the amount that the JIPSD would have collected from those taxes.  The Town would be paying on behalf of those in the Town a fair share of the total cost of providing the service in the district.  The Town, of course, would have to collect its own millage to cover the cost, but that would leave the total millage unchanged.   And with the LOST tax credit, the people in the Town would pay less.   The Town would insist that our residents remain within the JIPSD, so that we could continue to vote for JIPSD Commissioners.  That would be fair and  reasonable because the JIPSD would still directly collect taxes for fire services from the residents of the Town and also would impose sewer fees.   The residents of the Town should have representation on the Commission when those decisions are made.

The current statute does not allow the JIPSD to continue its practice of stonewalling.   Well, at least not regarding the areas that the Town has annexed.  But the law is unclear regarding areas that were originally incorporated--most of the Town.

The Town could seek a declaratory judgement or simply follow the procedure that applies with annexation for both the annexed and the originally incorporated portions of the Town.   But I think the SC Legislature should clarify the matter.  Why isn't there some procedure for resolving conflicts between a special purpose district and a municipality that was incorporated either wholly or partly within the special purpose district?

I believe that our new Senator should be willing to help.

Where do the candidates stand on these issues?

Proposed Amendment to the Town's Tree Ordinance

The Town's staff proposed to the Planning Commission that the provisions of the Town's Zoning Ordinance regarding protected trees be applied to major residential subdivisions.  Trees with DBA (diameter at breast height) of eight inches or greater are already protected with new commercial, multifamily, or institutional development.   This change will apply these rules to new major residential subdivisions.   While few major subdivisions are likely in the future, there have been two over the last four years.   The Preserve at Dills Bluff is already in construction and  the"Bootleggers" is moving forward.    The rule change would not apply to those major subdivisions, but it will apply to any future major subdivisions.

The basic rule is that 20 trees greater than 8 inches per acre must be left on a site.  However, the larger the tree, the more credit provided, so it is more accurate to state that 160 inches DBA per acre must be left on the site.   If there are  too few large trees on the site, then new trees must be planted.  That requirement is 40 inches DBA per acre.   These rules already apply to most new development.  The change is that it will now apply to newly developed major residential subdivisions.  

The Town's Planning Commission has recommended this change to Town Council.

In my opinion, the provisions of the Town's tree ordinance should apply to major residential subdivisions in a way consistent with commercial, multi-family, or institutional development.

Town staff has also proposed that the Planning Director be authorized to allow the removal of protected trees greater than 8 inches DBA if necessary for the reasonable use of the property.   Removal of any "Grand Tree," with DBA greater than 24 inches, would still require approval by the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals.  The Town's Planning Commission has recommended this change to Town Council.

In my opinion, the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals should focus on "Grand Trees" which are special, and leave the merely average "protected trees" to the Town's Planning Director.

Town staff proposed that the Planning Director be authorized to determine the necessary mitigation for protected and grand trees that are removed.   The Town's Board of Zoning Appeals retains the sole authority to permit the removal of any grand tree, but details regarding the mitigation plan are left to the Planning Director.  The Town's Planning Commission recommended this change to Town Council.

In my opinion, experience has shown that flexibility is needed in calibrating mitigation plans because such plans involve specific locations and particular trees that we hope will not only survive but flourish.  The Planning Director can work with a property owner to determine an effective and fair mitigation plan.

Town staff proposed that the Town's Tree fund be used for beautification generally.  The Planning Commission recommended against that proposal and instead limited those funds to be used solely for the planting or maintenance of trees.    In other words, the Planning Commission recommends  that the Town Council spend no monies on shrubs or flowers, but only on trees.  The Planning Commission's proposal did slightly add to the discretion allowed to Town Council.  The funds may be used to  maintain existing trees rather than solely plant new ones.

In my opinion, the Town of James Island has many trees, and while we may well have reason to use Town funds to plant new ones from time to time, planting shrubs and even annuals may sometimes be a better use of the Town's limited funds.  However, allowing the Town to use those funds to maintain existing trees rather than just plant new ones is an important and desirable change.