Here is an excerpt of those minutes:
Discussion and action to authorize the acquisition of real property for the public purpose of constructing a Town Hall facility located near Dills Bluff Road and Camp Road:
Mayor Woolsey asked if there is a motion to move forward to pursue the purchase of the PSD property.
Councilman Milliken moved and Councilman Mullinax seconded for discussion.
Councilman Stokes said we have, through different folks inside each one of these organizations, have done quite a bit of negotiating back and forth over a long period of time, and we have given full disclosure that there are other alternatives that we are looking at. He said without having something in place more concrete than what we have now, he does not see the purpose of continuing to pursue that avenue when we have other things before us that we can pursue right now. We have to choose a path and go down that.
Councilman Blank stated that he hasn’t seen any real indication that the property was for sale.
Councilman Milliken said he would like to continue to pursue the PSD property. His reason for expressing interest in the motion is he feel it is a better piece of property. He knows that we have had difficulties in negotiating a clear offer, but he would like to believe that the PSD would do that. We have no evidence that they have yet, but he would like to hold a candle for that property. He does not want to reject it at this point but feel it is important to move forward with the purchase of the other property; and, if in fact, the PSD property becomes available for the next meeting, perhaps we can make a move for that property. This is his reason for expressing interest in the PSD property.
Councilman Mullinax said he agreed with Councilman Milliken’s comments but he is worried about the timeframe and from what happened at the last PSD meeting, they do not seem to have any interest. And, if too by their next meeting whether anything would change. He agrees with the general theory but worry about the timetable.
Mayor Woolsey said he likes the PSD property and the conceptual plan; but he is very concerned about the time issue. He expressed disappointment; that there was this perfect storm where they did not show up to have a meeting when it was on the agenda.
There were no further discussion. Mayor Woolsey said a “Yes” vote would be to pursue the PSD property; and a “No” vote, we would not. YES: Councilman Milliken. NO: Councilman Blank, Councilman Mullinax, Council Stokes, Mayor Woolsey. Motion failed 4-1.
There was no vote on the MOU that Trent Kernodle wrote up on January 7. If Council had voted in favor of continuing to pursue the JIPSD property, then I would have asked for a motion to approve Kernodle's MOU. I would have voted against it and I am sure that most members of Council would have done the same. Perhaps after extended negotiations, a Memorandum of Understanding acceptable to both Town Council and the Commissioners could have been developed.
By the time the JIPSD Commissioners met on January 25, it was public record that the Town was no longer interested in purchasing their property and so had no interest in the specific MOU Kernodle had prepared or any other regarding a Town Hall on the JIPSD property. It is hard to understand why they bothered to pass it.
Council voted to instead move forward with our alternative site on January 13. The vote was 5 to 0. This was also in the minutes that were approved on January 25. Further, immediately after the January 13 meeting, we announced our new Town Hall location. It is not on the JIPSD property, but rather is at 1120 and 1122 Dills Bluff Road. Here is my blog post from January 14. Here is the item on the Town's official website.
Every JIPSD Commissioner knew that the Town had given up on them and that we were going forward with an alternative.
Every JIPSD Commissioner knew that the Town had given up on them and that we were going forward with an alternative.
A few days after the JIPSD meeting, I received a letter and a signed copy of the MOU from the JIPSD. I haven't responded yet. I am not sure what is the point.
On Tuesday, February 2, I received a letter from the JIPSD signed by 5 of the 7 Commissioners. Those signing the letter were Waring, Wilder, Hollingsworth, Kernodle, and Platt. While there were spaces for McMillan and Brown-Crouch to sign, their signatures were not included.
While there are many slight inaccuracies in the letter, I am most concerned with the last paragraph which was a lie. Five of the seven Commissioners signed their names to a falsehood. The author of the letter writes:
This is false.
My email of January 10, 2016 was sent to each Commissioner and to all members of Town Council. The five Commissioners who signed the above had every opportunity to read the email for themselves.
My email included:
Of course, the purpose of my email was to explain that I could only vote in favor of pursuing a Town Hall on the JIPSD property at our special meeting on Wednesday, January 13 if the JIPSD provided a contract by that time to sell the 1.2 commercial parcel for no more than $300,000 with a closing no later than March 31. If they would not agree to that, then I would favor going with our alternative site.
In my view, such a contract would need to be authorized by the Commissioners at their January 11 meeting. Since there were only 3 Commissioners in attendance at that meeting, the Vice Chair declared there was no quorum and so no meeting was held.
As far as I was concerned, when Council met on January 13, the necessary contract had not been provided by the JIPSD, and so, I could not support going forward with the JIPSD site and I would vote to choose the alternative. And I would recommend that the rest of Council do the same.
Now, I cannot be sure that a majority of Council would have agreed to the JIPSD site even with the contract I proposed. I am pretty sure that the majority would not have gone forward if we had nothing more than Trent Kernodle's MOU as approved by the Commissioners.
It is shocking to me that someone associated with the JIPSD wrote a letter that included a blatant lie. And further, that five Commissioners signed this letter, when they had received the email that clearly stated that I was very interested in the joint campus.
I would also note that this section of the letter purports to speak for "the District." A quorum of the JIPSD Commissioners signed the letter. This makes it an official act of the Commissioners. Was this done at a public meeting? Was the press notified? Were all the Commissioners notified?
Town Council never writes letters signed by a majority of Council unless it is approved at a meeting of Council. We don't want to run afoul of FOIA.
The letter states "that all of the terms of the MOU were agreed to in principle by the representatives of the Town."
This is a misrepresentation.
Trent Kernodle prepared the MOU without any Town input at all. It was presented to the Town at 4:27 PM on Thursday, January 7. We were given a deadline of 5:00 PM that very same day for it to appear on the JIPSD Commission agenda.
The District Manager didn't like this plan. He wrote:
Anyway, he appears to agree to tell the Commissioners that "you and the Town" are withdrawing a supposed "original participation" in the MOU. When this MOU was presented to the Commissioners on January 25, the District Manager did not keep his commitment stated here and rather told the Commissioners that he had an email saying that the Town supported the MOU.
Anyway, it is interesting that the District Manager thinks that the Town was "participating" in the MOU and we now have a letter claiming that "that all of the terms of the MOU were agreed to in principle by the representatives of the Town." The Town received it at 4:27 PM and his email claims that we returned it at 4:30 PM. (In reality, it was at 4:34.)
You have got to be kidding.
The day of the JIPSD meeting (that never happened,) the Town Administrator wrote:
Any "approval" of the MOU was done by me, sight unseen. When I heard that Trent Kernodle would be writing up an MOU that very day and that we were supposed to return it by 5, I told the Town Administrator to agree to let them put whatever they wanted on their agenda and that we would review it before their Monday meeting.
In my view, if the JIPSD Commissioners wanted to approve what Trent Kernodle proposed, that is fine. They can do what they want. And it would come to Town Council at our meeting on January 13 and we would decide whether we should support it.
The notion that the "Town representatives" approved "all of the items in principle" is absurd.
Also note that the Town Administrator mentions that the Town has an alternative site in mind and that we will be choosing between it and the JIPSD site.
The JIPSD letter on Feb 2 implies that the Commissioners were surprised that the Town was looking at an alternative site.
The Town Administrator wrote the District Manager to propose that the Town buy the 1.2 acre commercial parcel last July. We were surprised that he seemed interested and that he thought that there was a chance the JIPSD would sell. But when it became clear that nothing was going to happen soon, the Town Administrator regularly noted that we were looking for alternative sites. The District Manager said that he understood and recommended that we continue to do so. (Not something that provided us with much confidence that a majority of Commissioners would eventually agree to a sale.) In December, the Town Administrator told the District Manager that we had found an alternative site and we needed to make a decision between the JIPSD site or the alternative very soon. We had a deadline on January 14 and a meeting on January 13--the last minute for us. January 11 was the last chance for the JIPSD. They missed it because they couldn't get 4 out of the 7 Commissioners to attend a meeting. If Commissioners didn't know, then it was because the District Manager didn't keep them in the loop.
There has been a request by one of the Commissioners to have this letter put on the agenda for the JIPSD meeting on Monday February 8.
While there are many slight inaccuracies in the letter, I am most concerned with the last paragraph which was a lie. Five of the seven Commissioners signed their names to a falsehood. The author of the letter writes:
"The District was dismayed to receive your email of Saturday, January 10, 2016, again inexplicably stating that the Town had no interest in cooperating with the District, and advising that it had already, during the time the representatives had agreed to terms, found other property to buy, and thus had no interest in forming a joint governmental campus to better serve the citizens."
This is false.
My email of January 10, 2016 was sent to each Commissioner and to all members of Town Council. The five Commissioners who signed the above had every opportunity to read the email for themselves.
My email included:
"I appreciate the work that JIPSD Commission Manager Robert Wise and Town Administrator Ashley Kellahan have done in developing the rough outline for a Town Hall located on the JIPSD property on Dills Bluff.
I support the campus design in concept. I believe that having Town Hall on this site next door to a possible future JIPSD administrative building would be best for the people of James Island. We are making a decision, not just for the next few years, but for the next few decades at least."I further included:
"If the Commissioners authorize such a contract and it is provided to the Town in time for our meeting, and if a majority of Council approves the JIPSD site, then we can work towards actualizing the remainder of the proposed joint project. This would involve the Town purchasing an additional .23 acres out of 425-12-00-185 , joint parking, and the other elements of the outlined plan for a joint campus."In these passages I clearly state that I am very interested in the joint campus. There is no way to honestly construe my email as stating that the Town had already chosen another site and had no interest in a joint campus on the JIPSD property.
Of course, the purpose of my email was to explain that I could only vote in favor of pursuing a Town Hall on the JIPSD property at our special meeting on Wednesday, January 13 if the JIPSD provided a contract by that time to sell the 1.2 commercial parcel for no more than $300,000 with a closing no later than March 31. If they would not agree to that, then I would favor going with our alternative site.
In my view, such a contract would need to be authorized by the Commissioners at their January 11 meeting. Since there were only 3 Commissioners in attendance at that meeting, the Vice Chair declared there was no quorum and so no meeting was held.
As far as I was concerned, when Council met on January 13, the necessary contract had not been provided by the JIPSD, and so, I could not support going forward with the JIPSD site and I would vote to choose the alternative. And I would recommend that the rest of Council do the same.
Now, I cannot be sure that a majority of Council would have agreed to the JIPSD site even with the contract I proposed. I am pretty sure that the majority would not have gone forward if we had nothing more than Trent Kernodle's MOU as approved by the Commissioners.
It is shocking to me that someone associated with the JIPSD wrote a letter that included a blatant lie. And further, that five Commissioners signed this letter, when they had received the email that clearly stated that I was very interested in the joint campus.
I would also note that this section of the letter purports to speak for "the District." A quorum of the JIPSD Commissioners signed the letter. This makes it an official act of the Commissioners. Was this done at a public meeting? Was the press notified? Were all the Commissioners notified?
Town Council never writes letters signed by a majority of Council unless it is approved at a meeting of Council. We don't want to run afoul of FOIA.
The letter states "that all of the terms of the MOU were agreed to in principle by the representatives of the Town."
This is a misrepresentation.
Trent Kernodle prepared the MOU without any Town input at all. It was presented to the Town at 4:27 PM on Thursday, January 7. We were given a deadline of 5:00 PM that very same day for it to appear on the JIPSD Commission agenda.
message --------
From: Ashley Kellahan <akellahan@jamesislandsc.us>
Date: 01/08/2016 4:10 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Robert Wise <wiser@jipsd.org>
Subject: Follow-up
Hey Robert,
Well, I appreciate y’all getting us something so quickly to review yesterday. Unfortunately, it was only David Bevon who had a chance to review it and was ok with it. Bo has since reviewed it and has concerns on the language and would not recommend Council signing it.
I think at this point you may want to pull the MOU from the agenda, and go back to the idea of having them approve a general plan to move forward on the concept and work with the Town on developing a MOU. I certainly can’t come and support the MOU based on Bo’s comments. Council is still going to decide fairly soon on whether or not to move forward on this other site. I think if your Commission was to approve the concept plan, then I would take it to Council and have them decide between the two options.
The District Manager didn't like this plan. He wrote:
From: Robert Wise [mailto:wiser@jipsd.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 9:12 AM
To: Ashley Kellahan <akellahan@jamesislandsc.us>
Subject: RE: Follow-up
Ashley,To us, "pulling from the agenda," would be done at the JIPSD meeting Monday night. It is really easy, "If there is no objection, I would like to pull the MOU from the agenda."
Very surprising and disappointing...
Unfortunately based on your and Mr. Bevon emails at 4:30 Thursday stating you both were okay with the MOU. We made the 5:00 deadline as previously discussed. The Commission packets were mailed and the agendas were mailed and the media was notified, basically recieving your email, changing your position, at 4 on Friday was way to late to do anything. So I will inform the Commission Monday you and the Town are withdrawing your original participation in the MOU.
Anyway, he appears to agree to tell the Commissioners that "you and the Town" are withdrawing a supposed "original participation" in the MOU. When this MOU was presented to the Commissioners on January 25, the District Manager did not keep his commitment stated here and rather told the Commissioners that he had an email saying that the Town supported the MOU.
Anyway, it is interesting that the District Manager thinks that the Town was "participating" in the MOU and we now have a letter claiming that "that all of the terms of the MOU were agreed to in principle by the representatives of the Town." The Town received it at 4:27 PM and his email claims that we returned it at 4:30 PM. (In reality, it was at 4:34.)
You have got to be kidding.
The day of the JIPSD meeting (that never happened,) the Town Administrator wrote:
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 11:44 AM
To: 'Robert Wise' <wiser@jipsd.org>
Subject: RE: Follow-up
I understand. I had spoken with the Mayor prior to leaving that day and we knew we’d have a tight window to review and would have to send to Bo later. The mayor gave me the OK to approve as I saw fit, because he thought if there were changes we had to it they could be potentially be added in later.
However, given our situation with the alternate property, he knew going back and forth on an MOU at this point wouldn’t be enough – it would have to be a contract for sale. Which is why he sent that email to the Commissioners this weekend. I do plan on attending tonight in case anyone has any questions for me.
Ashley R. Kellahan
Town Administrator
Any "approval" of the MOU was done by me, sight unseen. When I heard that Trent Kernodle would be writing up an MOU that very day and that we were supposed to return it by 5, I told the Town Administrator to agree to let them put whatever they wanted on their agenda and that we would review it before their Monday meeting.
In my view, if the JIPSD Commissioners wanted to approve what Trent Kernodle proposed, that is fine. They can do what they want. And it would come to Town Council at our meeting on January 13 and we would decide whether we should support it.
The notion that the "Town representatives" approved "all of the items in principle" is absurd.
Also note that the Town Administrator mentions that the Town has an alternative site in mind and that we will be choosing between it and the JIPSD site.
The JIPSD letter on Feb 2 implies that the Commissioners were surprised that the Town was looking at an alternative site.
The Town Administrator wrote the District Manager to propose that the Town buy the 1.2 acre commercial parcel last July. We were surprised that he seemed interested and that he thought that there was a chance the JIPSD would sell. But when it became clear that nothing was going to happen soon, the Town Administrator regularly noted that we were looking for alternative sites. The District Manager said that he understood and recommended that we continue to do so. (Not something that provided us with much confidence that a majority of Commissioners would eventually agree to a sale.) In December, the Town Administrator told the District Manager that we had found an alternative site and we needed to make a decision between the JIPSD site or the alternative very soon. We had a deadline on January 14 and a meeting on January 13--the last minute for us. January 11 was the last chance for the JIPSD. They missed it because they couldn't get 4 out of the 7 Commissioners to attend a meeting. If Commissioners didn't know, then it was because the District Manager didn't keep them in the loop.
There has been a request by one of the Commissioners to have this letter put on the agenda for the JIPSD meeting on Monday February 8.
No comments:
Post a Comment