At the meeting regarding the Lively--the 300 plus apartments on Folly and Grimball--some members of the Grimball community brought up the stoplight at Grimball and Folly. They asked the elected officials there (which included me and all of Town Council) as well as County Councilman Joe Qualey, when will the stoplight be installed. The question was quite pointed, suggesting that Councilman Qualey was personally responsible for the stoplight. We listened to several members of the Grimball community recount accidents from the past. There was also some whooping and hollering involved which I didn't quite grasp.
Somebody at the meeting (and I have no idea who it was,) said that the stoplight was coming in June. That was news to me. (Good news.) Someone else said that it was approved but there was no money. That was also news, but I am pretty certain it was wrong. Liz Singleton gave an explanation why SCDOT (wrongly in her view) had said that the intersection did not need a stoplight. This might have been true at one time, but it is no longer correct.
What I know is that over two years ago, many of the elected officials from James Island had a meeting with SCDOT at James Island Elementary School. The SCDOT official said that conditions on Grimball and Folly did not merit a stoplight. All the elected officials insisted that one was needed. Councilman Qualey was there, along with Mayor Riley and I. State Representatives Peter McCoy and Leon Stravrinakis were there too. And many more. SCDOT gave in. The various local governments agreed to pitch in with money to help acquire right-of-way. The Town committed to $6000 for its share.
So, where is the stoplight? It is in "right of way" acquisition. Folly Road and Grimball Roads are state roads. That means that the South Carolina Department of Transportation manages them. SCDOT is in charge of this project. They are purchasing land around the intersection for the stoplight. (Charleston County is not in charge and so members of County Council, including Councilman Qualey, have no particular influence.)
In my view, SCDOT has become somewhat more responsive to the members of the legislature since the flooding last fall. Peter McCoy and Leon Stravrinakis were just informed by the SCDOT legislative liaison that the project is still in right of way acquisition (as it has been for more than two years now.) The date was given as sometime "next summer." I don't read that as being "this June." The "government relations officer' at SCDOT did promise our State Representatives to see if it can be hurried up.
Friday, April 29, 2016
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Hospitality Tax
Town Council voted 4 to 1 in favor of adopting the Hospitality Tax in the Town of James Island at last Thursday's meeting. The second and final reading will be at our May meeting. As always, there will be a public comment period at the May meeting where residents of the Town may share their views to Council on this or any other issue.
The Hospitality Tax is a 2% tax on sales of prepared foods and beverages. This means food and drink sold in restaurants located in the jurisdiction of the Town. It also includes fountain drinks, coffee and prepared foods sold by the convenience stores/gas stations located in the jurisdiction of the Town.
We have about 30 restaurants (and convenience stores/gas stations) that would be subject to this tax and about 90% are on Folly Road. Some examples are Zaxbys, Chick-Fil-A, Mondo Delite, and SIPS.
These businesses have located on Folly Road because it is so busy, especially during the spring, summer and early fall. We call it "beach traffic." Some of the traffic on Folly Road is people who are from "out of town," in the sense that they don't live in the Lowcountry and are heading to Folly Beach for a vacation. I don't think that makes up much of the traffic, but the vast majority of the traffic on Folly Road is people who are from "out of town" in the sense that they don't live in our Town, the Town of James Island. I think most "beach traffic" is people from other parts of the Lowcountry spending some time down at Folly Beach. And, of course, residents of Folly Beach and James Islanders from unincorporated Charleston County and the City of Charleston use Folly Road too.
The City of Charleston has long imposed a 2% Hospitality Tax, and it is charged at all the restaurants and convenience stores in areas on James Island annexed to the City of Charleston. (And everywhere else in the City of Charleston.) It also applies to all the prepared foods sold in grocery stores on James Island. All of them are under City jurisdiction. Examples of restaurants under City jurisdiction on Folly Road would be the Screen Door, Kickin Chickin, Taco Bell, IHOP, and McDonalds.
The City of Folly Beach, the Town of Mount Pleasant, the City of North Charleston, etc., etc., etc., all have a 2% Hospitality Tax. The State of South Carolina does not allow local governments to just come up with their own unique taxes. The Hospitality Tax is one of the few taxes that can be imposed by a municipal government. That is why so many local governments collect it.
The funds raised by the Hospitality Tax must be used somehow in relation to tourism. And while the promotion of tourism is a possible use, dealing with the costs and burdens created by tourism is also an allowed use.
I do not believe that the Town of James Island needs an expensive government program to expand tourism on James Island. However, we see the cost of tourism--congestion on Folly Road--every day. One of the allowed uses of the Hospitality Tax is to improve and maintain transportation infrastructure used by tourists. Folly Road obviously counts.
Last year, the James Island community was part of a "Rethink Folly Road" planning process. It was initially spearheaded by the City of Charleston, but managed by the Berekley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments. The purpose is to improve Folly Road, including traffic flow. The result will be very expensive and usually, there is a requirement for a local match. Further, even if we can get outside funds for construction, there will be maintenance expenses.
I believe that the Hospitality Tax may well be the least bad way for the Town to fund our share of necessary expenses to improve Folly Road. That is why I am open to this new tax. The alternatives are worse.
We have had very little citizen response so far. I was contacted by one of our restaurant owners and staff has had conversations with a few others. We haven't heard from any of the large chains, as might be expected. As we have heard repeated several times, they are no doubt surprised that we aren't collecting it already like all the other area municipalities.
We have had a handful of citizens contact the Town. Some of the remarks suggest major misunderstanding of the tax.
One resident expressed regret that she did not annex to the City of Charleston. It was a puzzling remark. Residents of the Town will not be assessed a special "hospitality tax." It is rather patrons of restaurants in the Town would see a 2% tax added on to the bill. If you live in the City of Charleston, you will still pay the tax if you go to a restaurant located in the Town. And, of course, the City of Charleston has long applied this tax. This resident insisted that the City of Charleston had no such tax. They do. And we have all been paying it every time we go to Ladles or any of the other restaurants under City jurisdiction whether on James Island, on the Peninsula or in West Ashley.
In my view, much of the traffic on Folly Road is due to apartment complexes and other development in the City of Charleston . I think they very much should help fund Folly Road improvements. To the degree that those James Islanders who live in areas annexed to the City of Charleston patronize restaurants or grab a coffee from a gas station in the Town end up paying part of this tax, they will be helping to fund the improvements on Folly Road. Good.
Another resident opposed the tax on the grounds that the City of Charleston doesn't spend its Hospitality Tax money on improvements on Folly Road. This complaint didn't make much sense, really. That money goes to the City of Charleston and they use it to promote tourism and help with tourism related costs throughout the City. Surely, that is mostly on the peninsula.
Councilman Milliken made a similar point when he contacted a TV station. He implied that this tax is inappropriate for the Town because the Town isn't focused on tourism. Right.
We at the Town are not going to spend the money to promote tourism in downtown Charleston. Of course, all of it will be spent to benefit James Island. And there is no plan to use this money to promote James Island as a special tourist destination. Improving Folly Road is both a permitted expense and a major priority for the Town. At least for me, that is why I am even considering it.
Interestingly, we have had discussions at the staff level with the City of Charleston proposing that they earmark their Hospitality Tax money from Folly Road businesses in the City of Charleston to help fund the improvements on Folly Road. Whether that will occur, I am not sure. But part of the "deal" would be that the Town would do the same. That possibility is only on the table if the Town adopts the Hospitality Tax.
Another resident didn't think it was right that when he went to Kickin Chickin he would have to pay this extra 2% in order to improve Folly Road. He explained that James Islanders only go to "Charleston" for special occasions.
Of course, he already does pay that 2% tax at Kickin Chickin because it is located in the City of Charleston. If you are thinking that when you go to LaTabella you will pay 2% more---no, you already pay it, because it is in the City of Charleston.
And if you didn't know that you were paying that tax when you go to the IHOP but you do not if you go to Sweetwater Cafe, doesn't that say something about significance of this tax? Maybe I am cheap, but when I go out to one of our nicer restaurants, I usually spend $40 to $50. So, it is about 80 cents or a dollar more for the hospitality tax. Of course, I don't go out too much. Maybe other people go out most nights and spend a lot more. I suppose every little bit counts.
It was also suggested that the Town cut back government waste and use that to improve Folly Road. The resident then went into a long series of complaints that appeared to be focused on Federal government spending and taxes. The cost of improving Folly Road outstrips our entire Town budget. Of course, we can never pay for all of it. This proposal is to obtain funding to pay a share. And the kind of money the Town has available from other other sources is very small. The $450,000 this tax will raise each year is small compared to the cost of doing much of anything on Folly Road, but it is large compared to our current budget. (The Camp and Folly project is $14 million. The Town budget is more like $3 million in total.)
However, I can't stop here. I am an economist.
The basic economics of a sales tax is that the burden is shared by both buyer and seller. The practice of tacking on the tax at the end only creates the illusion that the tax is entirely paid by the buyer. The result of a "sales tax" is to slightly reduce the sellers' prices (menu prices charged and received by the restaurant) while also increasing the total amount paid by the patrons including the tax. Because of our unusual situation where restaurants in the Town do not pay the tax and nearby competitors do pay the tax, most of the burden of the tax would be on the restaurant rather than on the patron. Basically, Mondos has to compete with the Screen Door, and since the Screen Door has to charge 2% extra, Mondo can charge 2% more on the menu price and the patrons will go home having paid similar amounts at either restaurant. If Mondo pays the tax too, it will no longer be true. They will need to come closer to matching menu prices at restaurants in the City.
Now, restaurants are very competitive, but because they are all slightly different, they are "imperfectly" competitive. And I am sure that few businessmen and women are able to get their pricing and production perfect. But the baseline presumption should be that this tax will make operating restaurants in the Town slightly less profitable rather than significantly increase the amount paid by those patronizing the restaurants.
Further, given that there are limited parcels in the Town for businesses of any sort, including restaurants, a long run effect of the tax will be to slightly reduce the rents earned by commercial property owners in the Town. In other words, because a restaurant can currently operate without the tax if they are located on a Town parcel, this slightly raises the rents that the commercial landowners can get for their property. Since this benefit only applies to restaurants (and convenience stores/gas stations to a slight degree,) this should result in there being more restaurants than other businesses. There will be a tendency for restaurants to locate on Town parcels and other businesses to locate on City parcels. This effect would no longer exist if the Town also has the Hospitality tax.
Now, if we spend this money to improve Folly Road, this will be desirable for all of the businesses on Folly Road. All of the businesses, including the restaurants, will be made more profitable if the Folly Road corridor becomes a better place to stop rather than just pass through. But, in the long run, making Folly Road a better place to have a business will increase the rents that can be charged by the owners of commercial property on Folly Road.
So, the fundamental effect of the expenditure is to benefit the commercial property owners on the Folly Road and the burden of the tax will mostly be on them too. Think about it. They benefit greatly by having all of this "beach traffic." If there were no beach traffic, most of the property on Folly Road wouldn't be commercial at all! Most of us who live in the Town just see this as so much headache.
I know, it is complicated. It is a lot easier to say that the "tourists" will pay part of the cost of fixing up Folly Road. And I think it is likely that some residents of the Town will sometimes end up paying at least a little more when they go out to eat at restaurants on James Island. As will the tourists and the residents of the City of Charleston on James Island. But I am sure that it will end up being much less than the small amount that will be tacked on at the end of the bill.
But even if we do pay some more, we will also benefit from an improved Folly Road. We have to live with beach traffic. The only route to Folly Beach cuts through our Town. In my view, improving Folly Road is an important priority. As I said above, the Hospitality tax looks like it might be the least bad way to fund it.
Still, I want to know what you think. Be sure to let me or other members of Council know before our May meeting. That is when we have our second and final reading.
The Hospitality Tax is a 2% tax on sales of prepared foods and beverages. This means food and drink sold in restaurants located in the jurisdiction of the Town. It also includes fountain drinks, coffee and prepared foods sold by the convenience stores/gas stations located in the jurisdiction of the Town.
We have about 30 restaurants (and convenience stores/gas stations) that would be subject to this tax and about 90% are on Folly Road. Some examples are Zaxbys, Chick-Fil-A, Mondo Delite, and SIPS.
These businesses have located on Folly Road because it is so busy, especially during the spring, summer and early fall. We call it "beach traffic." Some of the traffic on Folly Road is people who are from "out of town," in the sense that they don't live in the Lowcountry and are heading to Folly Beach for a vacation. I don't think that makes up much of the traffic, but the vast majority of the traffic on Folly Road is people who are from "out of town" in the sense that they don't live in our Town, the Town of James Island. I think most "beach traffic" is people from other parts of the Lowcountry spending some time down at Folly Beach. And, of course, residents of Folly Beach and James Islanders from unincorporated Charleston County and the City of Charleston use Folly Road too.
The City of Charleston has long imposed a 2% Hospitality Tax, and it is charged at all the restaurants and convenience stores in areas on James Island annexed to the City of Charleston. (And everywhere else in the City of Charleston.) It also applies to all the prepared foods sold in grocery stores on James Island. All of them are under City jurisdiction. Examples of restaurants under City jurisdiction on Folly Road would be the Screen Door, Kickin Chickin, Taco Bell, IHOP, and McDonalds.
The City of Folly Beach, the Town of Mount Pleasant, the City of North Charleston, etc., etc., etc., all have a 2% Hospitality Tax. The State of South Carolina does not allow local governments to just come up with their own unique taxes. The Hospitality Tax is one of the few taxes that can be imposed by a municipal government. That is why so many local governments collect it.
The funds raised by the Hospitality Tax must be used somehow in relation to tourism. And while the promotion of tourism is a possible use, dealing with the costs and burdens created by tourism is also an allowed use.
I do not believe that the Town of James Island needs an expensive government program to expand tourism on James Island. However, we see the cost of tourism--congestion on Folly Road--every day. One of the allowed uses of the Hospitality Tax is to improve and maintain transportation infrastructure used by tourists. Folly Road obviously counts.
Last year, the James Island community was part of a "Rethink Folly Road" planning process. It was initially spearheaded by the City of Charleston, but managed by the Berekley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments. The purpose is to improve Folly Road, including traffic flow. The result will be very expensive and usually, there is a requirement for a local match. Further, even if we can get outside funds for construction, there will be maintenance expenses.
I believe that the Hospitality Tax may well be the least bad way for the Town to fund our share of necessary expenses to improve Folly Road. That is why I am open to this new tax. The alternatives are worse.
We have had very little citizen response so far. I was contacted by one of our restaurant owners and staff has had conversations with a few others. We haven't heard from any of the large chains, as might be expected. As we have heard repeated several times, they are no doubt surprised that we aren't collecting it already like all the other area municipalities.
We have had a handful of citizens contact the Town. Some of the remarks suggest major misunderstanding of the tax.
One resident expressed regret that she did not annex to the City of Charleston. It was a puzzling remark. Residents of the Town will not be assessed a special "hospitality tax." It is rather patrons of restaurants in the Town would see a 2% tax added on to the bill. If you live in the City of Charleston, you will still pay the tax if you go to a restaurant located in the Town. And, of course, the City of Charleston has long applied this tax. This resident insisted that the City of Charleston had no such tax. They do. And we have all been paying it every time we go to Ladles or any of the other restaurants under City jurisdiction whether on James Island, on the Peninsula or in West Ashley.
In my view, much of the traffic on Folly Road is due to apartment complexes and other development in the City of Charleston . I think they very much should help fund Folly Road improvements. To the degree that those James Islanders who live in areas annexed to the City of Charleston patronize restaurants or grab a coffee from a gas station in the Town end up paying part of this tax, they will be helping to fund the improvements on Folly Road. Good.
Another resident opposed the tax on the grounds that the City of Charleston doesn't spend its Hospitality Tax money on improvements on Folly Road. This complaint didn't make much sense, really. That money goes to the City of Charleston and they use it to promote tourism and help with tourism related costs throughout the City. Surely, that is mostly on the peninsula.
Councilman Milliken made a similar point when he contacted a TV station. He implied that this tax is inappropriate for the Town because the Town isn't focused on tourism. Right.
We at the Town are not going to spend the money to promote tourism in downtown Charleston. Of course, all of it will be spent to benefit James Island. And there is no plan to use this money to promote James Island as a special tourist destination. Improving Folly Road is both a permitted expense and a major priority for the Town. At least for me, that is why I am even considering it.
Interestingly, we have had discussions at the staff level with the City of Charleston proposing that they earmark their Hospitality Tax money from Folly Road businesses in the City of Charleston to help fund the improvements on Folly Road. Whether that will occur, I am not sure. But part of the "deal" would be that the Town would do the same. That possibility is only on the table if the Town adopts the Hospitality Tax.
Another resident didn't think it was right that when he went to Kickin Chickin he would have to pay this extra 2% in order to improve Folly Road. He explained that James Islanders only go to "Charleston" for special occasions.
Of course, he already does pay that 2% tax at Kickin Chickin because it is located in the City of Charleston. If you are thinking that when you go to LaTabella you will pay 2% more---no, you already pay it, because it is in the City of Charleston.
And if you didn't know that you were paying that tax when you go to the IHOP but you do not if you go to Sweetwater Cafe, doesn't that say something about significance of this tax? Maybe I am cheap, but when I go out to one of our nicer restaurants, I usually spend $40 to $50. So, it is about 80 cents or a dollar more for the hospitality tax. Of course, I don't go out too much. Maybe other people go out most nights and spend a lot more. I suppose every little bit counts.
It was also suggested that the Town cut back government waste and use that to improve Folly Road. The resident then went into a long series of complaints that appeared to be focused on Federal government spending and taxes. The cost of improving Folly Road outstrips our entire Town budget. Of course, we can never pay for all of it. This proposal is to obtain funding to pay a share. And the kind of money the Town has available from other other sources is very small. The $450,000 this tax will raise each year is small compared to the cost of doing much of anything on Folly Road, but it is large compared to our current budget. (The Camp and Folly project is $14 million. The Town budget is more like $3 million in total.)
However, I can't stop here. I am an economist.
The basic economics of a sales tax is that the burden is shared by both buyer and seller. The practice of tacking on the tax at the end only creates the illusion that the tax is entirely paid by the buyer. The result of a "sales tax" is to slightly reduce the sellers' prices (menu prices charged and received by the restaurant) while also increasing the total amount paid by the patrons including the tax. Because of our unusual situation where restaurants in the Town do not pay the tax and nearby competitors do pay the tax, most of the burden of the tax would be on the restaurant rather than on the patron. Basically, Mondos has to compete with the Screen Door, and since the Screen Door has to charge 2% extra, Mondo can charge 2% more on the menu price and the patrons will go home having paid similar amounts at either restaurant. If Mondo pays the tax too, it will no longer be true. They will need to come closer to matching menu prices at restaurants in the City.
Now, restaurants are very competitive, but because they are all slightly different, they are "imperfectly" competitive. And I am sure that few businessmen and women are able to get their pricing and production perfect. But the baseline presumption should be that this tax will make operating restaurants in the Town slightly less profitable rather than significantly increase the amount paid by those patronizing the restaurants.
Further, given that there are limited parcels in the Town for businesses of any sort, including restaurants, a long run effect of the tax will be to slightly reduce the rents earned by commercial property owners in the Town. In other words, because a restaurant can currently operate without the tax if they are located on a Town parcel, this slightly raises the rents that the commercial landowners can get for their property. Since this benefit only applies to restaurants (and convenience stores/gas stations to a slight degree,) this should result in there being more restaurants than other businesses. There will be a tendency for restaurants to locate on Town parcels and other businesses to locate on City parcels. This effect would no longer exist if the Town also has the Hospitality tax.
Now, if we spend this money to improve Folly Road, this will be desirable for all of the businesses on Folly Road. All of the businesses, including the restaurants, will be made more profitable if the Folly Road corridor becomes a better place to stop rather than just pass through. But, in the long run, making Folly Road a better place to have a business will increase the rents that can be charged by the owners of commercial property on Folly Road.
So, the fundamental effect of the expenditure is to benefit the commercial property owners on the Folly Road and the burden of the tax will mostly be on them too. Think about it. They benefit greatly by having all of this "beach traffic." If there were no beach traffic, most of the property on Folly Road wouldn't be commercial at all! Most of us who live in the Town just see this as so much headache.
I know, it is complicated. It is a lot easier to say that the "tourists" will pay part of the cost of fixing up Folly Road. And I think it is likely that some residents of the Town will sometimes end up paying at least a little more when they go out to eat at restaurants on James Island. As will the tourists and the residents of the City of Charleston on James Island. But I am sure that it will end up being much less than the small amount that will be tacked on at the end of the bill.
But even if we do pay some more, we will also benefit from an improved Folly Road. We have to live with beach traffic. The only route to Folly Beach cuts through our Town. In my view, improving Folly Road is an important priority. As I said above, the Hospitality tax looks like it might be the least bad way to fund it.
Still, I want to know what you think. Be sure to let me or other members of Council know before our May meeting. That is when we have our second and final reading.
Tree Ordinance Revised
The Town's tree ordinance revision was finalized Thursday.
The definition of "Grand Tree" in the Town is now 24 inches DBA (Diameter at Breast Height.) This is a return to the size enforced in the Town before 2013. The 24 inch definition applied in the area of the Town's jurisdiction for many years. It is consistent with the definition that applies to our neighbors in unincorporated Charleston County and in the City of Charleston here on James Island.
If you are a homeowner and a tree is in your own yard, and it is less than two feet wide at four feet up, then it is your decision whether to keep it or remove it. If the tree is a sweet gum (gumball tree,) pine tree, Bradford Pear, or Mimosa, you can still make the decision even if it is larger than 24 inches. Bradford Pears and Mimosas are the only alien and invasive trees that frequently grow to more than 24 inches on James Island, but the same rule applies to all the others, such as Chinese Tallow (popcorn trees) which, unfortunately, are common here.
If there is a tree in your yard that is greater than 24 inches DBA, then you can only cut it down (or have it cut down) with a permit. You need to call Town Hall. If it is sick or dying or else a danger to person or property (usually this is root damage to a foundation,) the Planning Director will investigate and can provide a permit for $25. If the problem is not obvious, the Planning Director might require an arborist report too, which will cost about $100.
If you want to remove any other tree from your yard that is more than 24 inches DBA, then you still need a permit, but it must be approved by the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals. You need to call Town Hall. Modifying the landscape in your yard to reduce crowding of trees, to replace existing trees with different trees (say a water oak with a live oak,) to improve the view, or to reduce shade to allow grass, flowers, or shrubbery to flourish are all examples of reasons that will only be allowed with BZA approval. The fee to appear before the BZA is $250 for a single tree with an additional $50 for each additional tree. This helps pay for the advertising we must do. This fee is paid even if the BZA rejects the request. Your neighbors might well show up to the BZA meeting insisting that you leave your tree be.
If the request is approved by the BZA, mitigation is required. This means you must replace the trees that are removed. The Planning Director will help develop a plan, which could be planting new trees in your own yard, planting trees somewhere else, perhaps in a Town Park, or else paying money to the Town's tree fund which the Town can use for planting trees as it determines in the future. The plan must be approved by the BZA. The mitigation is "inch for inch" and so for a relatively small grand tree it will run about $1,000.
The penalties for failing to follow these procedures are very serious. If you cut down a tree in your own yard that would require approval by the BZA without a permit, then you pay $1000 per tree plus mitigation which is 3 times inch for inch. For a small grand tree, this would be $4,000. Larger live oaks can run closer to $10,000 or even more. Don't do it!
We have had unscrupulous tree companies tell homeowners that the permit has been taken care of. Don't believe it. When a professional firm illegally takes down a tree, the Town goes after them and makes them pay a fine and mitigation. But that doesn't relieve the homeowner of responsibility for illegal removal of trees. You will be held responsible too. Worse, the unscrupulous tree company will be no where to be found, taking off with what you paid them and with you owing major fines and mitigation.
If you want to take down a tree and you are unsure about these rules--call Town Hall. We will be glad to help.
If you are removing trees for new construction, the rules can be more restrictive depending on the proposed use. Call Town Hall. You will almost certainly need a zoning permit and building permit anyway. For most uses, trees with DBA over 8 inches are protected. For a heavily-wooded parcel, some may be removed, but many must remain. For all uses other than single family residential, any protected tree that must remain on the property can only be removed with a permit. The rules for removing grand trees for new construction are the same as those in a homeowner's yard.
Staff is currently reviewing a proposal to apply the Town's protected tree rules to the development of new major residential subdivisions. These would be subdivisions with more than four single family detached residences. While I don't anticipate many more of these in the area under Town jurisdiction, I think the rules that apply to multifamily, commercial, and institutional should also apply to any new major subdivisions. The rules would require that many of the trees greater than 8 inches DBA remain as the homes are built in the new major residential subdivision. This would not change the rules applying to grand trees.
I have also asked staff to develop a permitting process for work in the right of way in Town jurisdiction. Part of the reason is a response to problems with the work ATT did on right of ways in the Town over the last year. Like most James Islanders, I was very unhappy with the ATT contractors. However, a second reason is to protect street trees . While we are fortunate to have inherited many large and beautiful street trees, we also plant new ones. They start out being quite small and need protection when first planted and as they grow.
The definition of "Grand Tree" in the Town is now 24 inches DBA (Diameter at Breast Height.) This is a return to the size enforced in the Town before 2013. The 24 inch definition applied in the area of the Town's jurisdiction for many years. It is consistent with the definition that applies to our neighbors in unincorporated Charleston County and in the City of Charleston here on James Island.
If you are a homeowner and a tree is in your own yard, and it is less than two feet wide at four feet up, then it is your decision whether to keep it or remove it. If the tree is a sweet gum (gumball tree,) pine tree, Bradford Pear, or Mimosa, you can still make the decision even if it is larger than 24 inches. Bradford Pears and Mimosas are the only alien and invasive trees that frequently grow to more than 24 inches on James Island, but the same rule applies to all the others, such as Chinese Tallow (popcorn trees) which, unfortunately, are common here.
If there is a tree in your yard that is greater than 24 inches DBA, then you can only cut it down (or have it cut down) with a permit. You need to call Town Hall. If it is sick or dying or else a danger to person or property (usually this is root damage to a foundation,) the Planning Director will investigate and can provide a permit for $25. If the problem is not obvious, the Planning Director might require an arborist report too, which will cost about $100.
If you want to remove any other tree from your yard that is more than 24 inches DBA, then you still need a permit, but it must be approved by the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals. You need to call Town Hall. Modifying the landscape in your yard to reduce crowding of trees, to replace existing trees with different trees (say a water oak with a live oak,) to improve the view, or to reduce shade to allow grass, flowers, or shrubbery to flourish are all examples of reasons that will only be allowed with BZA approval. The fee to appear before the BZA is $250 for a single tree with an additional $50 for each additional tree. This helps pay for the advertising we must do. This fee is paid even if the BZA rejects the request. Your neighbors might well show up to the BZA meeting insisting that you leave your tree be.
If the request is approved by the BZA, mitigation is required. This means you must replace the trees that are removed. The Planning Director will help develop a plan, which could be planting new trees in your own yard, planting trees somewhere else, perhaps in a Town Park, or else paying money to the Town's tree fund which the Town can use for planting trees as it determines in the future. The plan must be approved by the BZA. The mitigation is "inch for inch" and so for a relatively small grand tree it will run about $1,000.
The penalties for failing to follow these procedures are very serious. If you cut down a tree in your own yard that would require approval by the BZA without a permit, then you pay $1000 per tree plus mitigation which is 3 times inch for inch. For a small grand tree, this would be $4,000. Larger live oaks can run closer to $10,000 or even more. Don't do it!
We have had unscrupulous tree companies tell homeowners that the permit has been taken care of. Don't believe it. When a professional firm illegally takes down a tree, the Town goes after them and makes them pay a fine and mitigation. But that doesn't relieve the homeowner of responsibility for illegal removal of trees. You will be held responsible too. Worse, the unscrupulous tree company will be no where to be found, taking off with what you paid them and with you owing major fines and mitigation.
If you want to take down a tree and you are unsure about these rules--call Town Hall. We will be glad to help.
If you are removing trees for new construction, the rules can be more restrictive depending on the proposed use. Call Town Hall. You will almost certainly need a zoning permit and building permit anyway. For most uses, trees with DBA over 8 inches are protected. For a heavily-wooded parcel, some may be removed, but many must remain. For all uses other than single family residential, any protected tree that must remain on the property can only be removed with a permit. The rules for removing grand trees for new construction are the same as those in a homeowner's yard.
Staff is currently reviewing a proposal to apply the Town's protected tree rules to the development of new major residential subdivisions. These would be subdivisions with more than four single family detached residences. While I don't anticipate many more of these in the area under Town jurisdiction, I think the rules that apply to multifamily, commercial, and institutional should also apply to any new major subdivisions. The rules would require that many of the trees greater than 8 inches DBA remain as the homes are built in the new major residential subdivision. This would not change the rules applying to grand trees.
I have also asked staff to develop a permitting process for work in the right of way in Town jurisdiction. Part of the reason is a response to problems with the work ATT did on right of ways in the Town over the last year. Like most James Islanders, I was very unhappy with the ATT contractors. However, a second reason is to protect street trees . While we are fortunate to have inherited many large and beautiful street trees, we also plant new ones. They start out being quite small and need protection when first planted and as they grow.
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Can We Have a Property Tax Reduction in 2016?
I have written the James Island Public Service District Commissioners asking that they reduce the property tax they collect in the jurisdiction of the Town for 2016 and instead receive payment for solid waste services from the Town by contract during the 2016-17 fiscal year.
I have suggested that the JIPSD follow the practice of many other local governments and itemize their operating millage, with a separate millage for fire protection and solid waste collection. The County Auditor would easily be able to stop collecting the JIPSD millage for solid waste collection in the jurisdiction of the Town, resulting in a substantial tax cut for residents of the Town. With this proposal, those living in the Town would still pay the JIPSD millage for fire protection, and those in the unincorporated area of the JIPSD would pay both the fire protection and solid waste collection millage.
The Town would continue to collect its own millage and also continue to provide a property tax credit. The LOST statute requires that the Town provide a credit against its own property tax, reducing the amount that must be paid to the Town. I am proposing again that the amount of the tax credit be sufficient to zero out the Town property tax bill for each and every Town taxpayer.
I am not sure that there is a majority on Town Council who would support this proposal at this time. But if there is a majority of JIPSD Commissioners willing to cooperate on providing a tax reduction, I will work to find a majority of Council who will support it as well. Last year, the Town's property tax revenue was earmarked for lease purchase payments for real estate and for a reserve. This would need to change to allow our property tax revenue to also be used for solid waste collection.
If there is no majority of JIPSD Commissioners and Town Council willing to move forward on this proposal this year, then I will ask Council to again earmark the Town's property tax revenue for lease purchase payments for real estate and reserve. This will allow the Town to make further progress in paying off the new Town Hall. Funds in the reserve will be available to make capital improvements such as drainage and sidewalks in future years.
If the Town, working with the JIPSD, can provide a property tax reduction this year, then we will gradually pay off the new Town Hall over the next 15 years. And we will still have the other sources of funds we have been using for capital improvement projects.
At the Town's budget workshop in 2015, I asked each member of Council if they favored writing checks to property taxpayers in the Town. Each member of Council said no. I agreed and still agree. Tax credits should reduce the amount of property tax paid on the tax bill. Having the Town send out refund checks is an administrative nightmare. No municipality in South Carolina follows that policy.
While I was willing to be patient and wait for an agreement with the JIPSD, a majority of Council (three members) said that we had waited long enough to provide a credit on the tax bill and should begin spending the money we have received. As a compromise, some agreed that if and when the JIPSD comes to an agreement with the Town, we can again consider a tax reduction. That is the policy the Town is currently following.
Each year, I have worked to lower property taxes in the Town in cooperation with the JIPSD. I didn't want to let this year pass without again making an effort. Unfortunately, the JIPSD Commissioners are the same ones who rejected the Town's proposal last year. Still, I hope that some or all of them have had a change of heart. Regardless, it is my sincere hope that after the JIPSD election next November, there will be a majority of Commissioners willing to work with the Town to reduce property taxes in 2017.
I have suggested that the JIPSD follow the practice of many other local governments and itemize their operating millage, with a separate millage for fire protection and solid waste collection. The County Auditor would easily be able to stop collecting the JIPSD millage for solid waste collection in the jurisdiction of the Town, resulting in a substantial tax cut for residents of the Town. With this proposal, those living in the Town would still pay the JIPSD millage for fire protection, and those in the unincorporated area of the JIPSD would pay both the fire protection and solid waste collection millage.
The Town would continue to collect its own millage and also continue to provide a property tax credit. The LOST statute requires that the Town provide a credit against its own property tax, reducing the amount that must be paid to the Town. I am proposing again that the amount of the tax credit be sufficient to zero out the Town property tax bill for each and every Town taxpayer.
I am not sure that there is a majority on Town Council who would support this proposal at this time. But if there is a majority of JIPSD Commissioners willing to cooperate on providing a tax reduction, I will work to find a majority of Council who will support it as well. Last year, the Town's property tax revenue was earmarked for lease purchase payments for real estate and for a reserve. This would need to change to allow our property tax revenue to also be used for solid waste collection.
If there is no majority of JIPSD Commissioners and Town Council willing to move forward on this proposal this year, then I will ask Council to again earmark the Town's property tax revenue for lease purchase payments for real estate and reserve. This will allow the Town to make further progress in paying off the new Town Hall. Funds in the reserve will be available to make capital improvements such as drainage and sidewalks in future years.
If the Town, working with the JIPSD, can provide a property tax reduction this year, then we will gradually pay off the new Town Hall over the next 15 years. And we will still have the other sources of funds we have been using for capital improvement projects.
At the Town's budget workshop in 2015, I asked each member of Council if they favored writing checks to property taxpayers in the Town. Each member of Council said no. I agreed and still agree. Tax credits should reduce the amount of property tax paid on the tax bill. Having the Town send out refund checks is an administrative nightmare. No municipality in South Carolina follows that policy.
While I was willing to be patient and wait for an agreement with the JIPSD, a majority of Council (three members) said that we had waited long enough to provide a credit on the tax bill and should begin spending the money we have received. As a compromise, some agreed that if and when the JIPSD comes to an agreement with the Town, we can again consider a tax reduction. That is the policy the Town is currently following.
Each year, I have worked to lower property taxes in the Town in cooperation with the JIPSD. I didn't want to let this year pass without again making an effort. Unfortunately, the JIPSD Commissioners are the same ones who rejected the Town's proposal last year. Still, I hope that some or all of them have had a change of heart. Regardless, it is my sincere hope that after the JIPSD election next November, there will be a majority of Commissioners willing to work with the Town to reduce property taxes in 2017.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)