It was brought to my attention that the South Carolina Attorney General's Office gave an opinion in 2005 on the question of shortening terms of office regarding the Town of Mount Pleasant's shift in election dates. I have reviewed that and earlier opinions.
I was aware of Attorney General Opinions that argued that a municipality may set an election date and allow members of Council and the Mayor to serve beyond the two or four year term set by statute. I reviewed at least one in 2014 when this matter was before Council.
I was unaware or had forgotten that the South Carolina Constitution states that elected officials continue to serve until their successors are elected and qualified. The Town's ordinance to that effect is not really necessary.
I think the AG opinion is correct in that Council may not expressly change the length of term of office to reflect any change in the date of the election. An ordinance stating that a term of office will be three years and three months or five years and three months would be inconsistent with the SC Code.
As I read the opinions that stated that Council could by ordinance shorten terms by changing the election date, I was puzzled that the reason given was only that it was for the same reason that they could be extended. To me, that is plainly not correct. The provision of the South Carolina Constitution that elected officials continue to serve until their successors are elected and qualified provides for continuity in government and not a blanket authority to call elections at any time and cut short existing terms.
One Attorney General's Opinion cited another. The 1989 opinion that argued that a shortening of terms would be legal referred not to a change in the date of an election but rather a reduction in the "lame duck" period by moving the time those elected to office in Beaufort were sworn in from early July to shortly after the election in May. A more or less standard two month delay was shortened to a week. That seems like good policy to me. But was it legal? Supposedly, the home rule amendments to the South Carolina Constitution allows municipalities to set any term they like!
Was there some argument for that claim? Not really. In 1980, the Attorney General's Office was asked about extending terms in Maudlin and opined that whoever creates an office can set its term and because of the home rule amendments to the South Carolina Constitution, local governments appear to be free to do as they like.
It is certainly correct that the opinion given as to why Maudlin can extend terms would imply that terms can be shortened as well. Still, I would not want to depend on that opinion. It seems to be a claim that the statute setting municipal terms at two and four years is an unconstitutional violation local home rule. Oddly enough, the 1980 decision did not even mention the statutory terms of two or four years.
The later Attorney General opinions are inconsistent with that earlier opinion since they argue that municipalities cannot expressly set their terms at anything other than the two or four years set by the legislature, citing a 1976 ruling by the Supreme Court that municipalities are creatures of state government.
How can the two statutes--one allowing municipalities to set election dates and the other setting terms at two and four years--be consistent? If a municipal council moves the election to an earlier date, the result is that the incumbent continues until the term set by statute is complete, perhaps as a lame duck. If the election is held after the term is complete, then the constitutional provision that officers serve until their successors are elected applies. The statutory term commences whenever the new candidate is elected and qualified.
The South Carolina Constitution does provide that all statutes be liberally construed in favor of the powers and responsibilities of local government. I favor local government autonomy and in general think that the SC legislature interferes too much. However, the South Carolina courts have not read this provision of the South Carolina Constitution anything like what was suggested in the 1980 Attorney General's Opinion. I would not be confident that a municipality would succeed against a challenge by a local elected official whose term determined by statute and referendum by voters was cut short by a change in the election date.
Regardless, I think that having the next election as intended when the ordinances were passed by the initial Council elected in 2012, that is, in November of 2019, after the four year terms are complete, is the best approach. Having the current Council vote to move the election forward by two years and shorten the terms by nine months would be the wrong thing to do.
Monday, April 24, 2017
JIPSD Commissioners Vote 5 to 1 Against Bill to Reunite Town
Rep. Peter McCoy was invited to explain HB 4076 to the JIPSD Commissioners Monday night. Commissioners Kathy Woolsey and Inez Brown Crouch both made the request.
Rep. McCoy could not make the meeting and asked former Rep. Anne Peterson to explain the bill instead. Chairman Hollingsworth said that she could not because she is a lobbyist paid by the Town of James Island.
She was limited to speaking during the public comment period. She did a good job explaining the bill. One resident of the unincorporated area near Riverland Terrace spoke in favor of the bill and his desire to return to the Town.
The owner of the property that was the proposed site of the giant apartment complex, the Lively, said that he did not want his property in the Town. He preferred to keep it in the unincorporated area and while he had not read the entire bill, would probably oppose it.
Chairman Hollingsworth said that he called Mayor Tecklenburg of the City of Charleston who told him this was unconstitutional special legislation.
Commissioner Sandi Engelman made a motion to approve the bill. Commissioner Kay Kernodle seconded Commissioner Platt said that "endorse" would be a more appropriate word than "approve" and Commissioner Engleman agreed to the change..
Commissioner Kathy Woolsey said that the JIPSD should not side with the City of Charleston against the Town and that it should be up to the courts to determine the constitutionality, not the City of Charleston.
The vote was 5 to 1 against endorsing HB 4076.
Voting against Peter McCoy and his effort to reunite the Town were:
Chairman Hollingsworth
Commissioner Kernodle
Commissioner Engelman
Commissioner Platt
Commissioner Wilder
Voting in favor of giving those who were in the Town a chance to vote to return was::
Commissioner Kathy Woolsey
Rep. McCoy could not make the meeting and asked former Rep. Anne Peterson to explain the bill instead. Chairman Hollingsworth said that she could not because she is a lobbyist paid by the Town of James Island.
She was limited to speaking during the public comment period. She did a good job explaining the bill. One resident of the unincorporated area near Riverland Terrace spoke in favor of the bill and his desire to return to the Town.
The owner of the property that was the proposed site of the giant apartment complex, the Lively, said that he did not want his property in the Town. He preferred to keep it in the unincorporated area and while he had not read the entire bill, would probably oppose it.
Chairman Hollingsworth said that he called Mayor Tecklenburg of the City of Charleston who told him this was unconstitutional special legislation.
Commissioner Sandi Engelman made a motion to approve the bill. Commissioner Kay Kernodle seconded Commissioner Platt said that "endorse" would be a more appropriate word than "approve" and Commissioner Engleman agreed to the change..
Commissioner Kathy Woolsey said that the JIPSD should not side with the City of Charleston against the Town and that it should be up to the courts to determine the constitutionality, not the City of Charleston.
The vote was 5 to 1 against endorsing HB 4076.
Voting against Peter McCoy and his effort to reunite the Town were:
Chairman Hollingsworth
Commissioner Kernodle
Commissioner Engelman
Commissioner Platt
Commissioner Wilder
Voting in favor of giving those who were in the Town a chance to vote to return was::
Commissioner Kathy Woolsey
Sunday, April 23, 2017
The Next Town Election
Mayor and Council of the Town of James Island are elected to a four year term. The South Carolina Code only allows mayors and municipal councils to have either two or four year terms of office. Town ordinances cannot substitute any other term of office.
The South Carolina Code also requires that an incorporation election include a question regarding the term of office for mayor and council. The result of the 2012 incorporation election was a four year term. The South Carolina Code also requires that regardless of what the voters select, the Mayor and Council initially elected serve a two year term. After the Mayor and Council initially elected on July 29, 2012 completed their two year terms, the terms in the Town of James Island became four years.
In my opinion, Council cannot override the decision of the voters by ordinance. If Mayor and Council decide that two year terms are better than four year terms, then all they can do is call for a referendum on that question and the voters would decide to continue with four year terms or switch to two year terms. However, neither Council nor the voters may select other terms of office--one year, three years, five years, or ten years. Unless the SC Legislature modifies the law, the only two options are four years and two years and the choice must be made by referendum by the voters.
The South Carolina Code empowers municipal Councils to set the date of election by ordinance. It is a mistake to assume that by setting dates for an election, Council has somehow obtained the power to change the length of the term of office as it sees fit. If the date of the election is set before the terms of office are complete, then the incumbents still serve until the end of their terms. If they were replaced in the election, then they are what is sometimes called "lame ducks" for a time. In South Carolina, there are many elections in November of even years while the terms of office of the incumbents only end in January of the next year and anyone newly elected takes office at that time. The notion that holding an early election necessarily implies that terms of office are cut short is absurd.
If the date of the election is after the terms of the incumbents are complete, this might appear to create a time when a municipality has no governing body. For a municipality with a mayor-council form of government, it might appear to create a period where there is no executive either. Fortunately, municipalities typically have ordinances that provide that the incumbents remain in office until the election of their replacements is certified. The term of office is not extended, but rather an incumbent continues to serve after the term of office is complete.
I don't believe the power of Council to set the date of elections is unlimited. I don't believe that a Council whose terms have already expired would be authorized to change the date of an upcoming election in a way that would postpone the election and extend the period for which they are serving beyond their terms. Further, while I believe that the courts owe substantial deference to the elected Council in determining an appropriate election date, some rational basis for the date other than to allow the existing council to serve beyond their completed terms of office is necessary.
The possibility of abuse of the power to set election dates after the terms of office are complete can be avoided by having Council make the decisions not for their own term of office but rather for the subsequent election. For a new municipality, with the Mayor and Council elected for an initial two year term, that initial Council can determine a regular election cycle that will apply to whomever is elected to replace them and begin the terms of office whose lengths were set in the initial referendum.
That is exactly what was done by the Town of James Island. In April of 2014, the Council initially elected for a two year term in 2012 passed an election ordinance that shifted our election cycle from late July/early August of even years to the first Tuesday in November of odd years. The intention was for those elected in the summer of 2014 to complete their four year terms and then continue in office until their replacements are certified in November of 2019. Council did not vote to change the term of office to something different from four years, because it had no authority to do so. The only other choice under SC law is two years, and that would require a referendum.
The Council elected in 2012 did not vote to change the election date in order to allow themselves to serve a period beyond the completion of their two year terms. Rather, they made a decision for those elected in the summer of 2014 to serve an additional time beyond the completion of their term of office in order to allow for a permanent shift of the election cycle to November of odd years.
The notion that the Town's current election law requires that elections be held in every November of an odd year, with Mayor and Council being replaced every two years is absurd and frivolous. This would effectively create two year terms without a referendum. Further, the notion that the ordinance required an election of Mayor and Council in November of 2015, creating the potential for a lame duck period until the terms of office are complete in the summer of 2018 is equally absurd. The voters are supposed to choose the Mayor and Council to take office in the summer of 2018 in November 2015? Would the Mayor and Council serving from 2022 to 2026 be elected in November of 2017? Would those elected in 2019 serve from 2026 to 2030?
It would not have been absurd for Council to have intended that there be an election in November of 2017, with the Council and Mayor elected at that time taking office approximately nine months later on August 1, 2018. There is nothing unusual about holding an election somewhat before the term of office are complete. However, nine months is an unusually long lame duck period and so should create some skepticism about any such interpretation.
In 2010, the Mayor of the Town of James Island was not not reelected and served as a lame duck during most of August. During that period, the Mayor expended substantial sums of money, including checks written for the maximum that could be authorized by the Mayor to a new organization, the Sea Island Chamber of Commerce, run by her daughter. This led to a federal investigation, though no violation of federal law was found. Due to that experience, I favor a short lame duck period.
Of course, having written the ordinances in question and discussed and debated them with Council, I know exactly what was intended and understood by Council when approved. The next election is to be held on the first November of an odd year after the terms of office of those elected in 2014 have expired.
Further, the creation of an unusually long lame duck period, of nine months rather than the more common two months, would be a permanent feature of the new election system, rather than a one time feature of the transition. Those elected in November of 2017 would take office in early August of 2018 and then serve until early August of 2022. If their replacements were elected in November of 2021, there would again be an unusually long lame duck period and so on, until Council fixes the problem.
What Council did intend was that after the one time period where the Council and Mayor elected in 2014 will serve after their terms are complete in August 2018 until their replacements are elected in November of 2019, the future terms of office will run close to the times of the elections and there will be at most a few days where Council or Mayor have a lame duck status. The Council and Mayor elected in 2019 will take office as soon as the election results are certified. Their terms will end a few days after the election in November of 2023, when the newly elected Mayor and Council will take office.
The current Council and Mayor have not taken action to extend their time in office beyond their terms by changing the date of the election. That was done before they were elected in 2014. While I was reelected along Councilmen Blank and Mullinax, we did not know that this ordinance would apply to us when we voted for it. It could well have applied to our opponents in the 2014 election.
Was there a rational basis for shifting the date of the next election to November 2019? The Town signed an intergovernmental agreement with the County to have the County Election Commission manage our elections in 2014 and in the future. While the Election Commission staff was willing to hold an election in the summer of 2014, this is a very bad time for them because they have just finished the primaries and are already starting on the November general election.
Moving our date back to, say June, so that we have no more than a reasonable lame duck period, was impossible because of the primary elections. My preference was November of even years which would have created a short, one time transition between when terms of office ended in the summer of 2018 and when the new officials would be elected and take office in November 2018. My key consideration was an increased turnout for Town elections. The County Election Commission staff would not agree because the general election ballot is already long and complicated with many different overlapping districts. They didn't want to add ours too.
They recommended November of odd years, which is a time that they are promoting as a municipal election day. I agreed because I think there is a chance we will improve turnout if everyone knows it is municipal election day and also I hope that our share of the costs will be lower than the total cost of running a unique Town of James Island election. However, the County Election Commission staff would have no problem if we chose to hold elections in the spring of either odd or even years. There are other municipalities that have their own unique election times. They just encourage the common "municipal election day."
My initial proposal in 2014 included staggered terms. My reading of the South Carolina code is that municipalities may, by ordinance, create staggered terms by providing for half of the members of council to have two year terms for one time, and then have four year terms after. This only applies if the voters chose four year terms by referendum. If the voters chose two year terms, the SC code says they cannot be staggered.
My approach would have been for the two candidates with the least votes in the summer of 2014 election to receive two year terms and then they would continue to serve after their terms were up in the summer of 2016 until the election of November of 2017. Their replacements would then take office and serve four year terms The Mayor and two members of Council with the most votes in 2014 would have their four year terms up in the summer of 2018, but would continue to serve until November of 2019 and then their replacements would take office.
My initial proposal, then, would have the two members of council elected and taking office in November of 2017 would have four year terms up at the time of the November 2021 election and the Mayor and members of Council elected and taking office in November of 2019 would complete their terms at the time of the 2023 election.
This proposal resulted in substantial push back from members of Council in 2014. It was said that the voters choose four year terms in the referendum, and we should not create two year terms for any member of Council, even if those elected would serve beyond their terms for a total time in office of a bit more than three years. I didn't agree that we needed a referendum to apply this provision of the SC Code, but I was convinced that a better approach would be to wait to see if the Town was reunited and expand the size of Council to six seats so that the new residents (and the old ones too) could promptly vote for two new members of Council. The SC Code requires a referendum to expand the size of Council. Depending on the timing, we would figure out a way to get them on the 2017, 2021 cycle and so create staggered terms.
I am still open to creating staggered terms by ordinance, but I am opposed to retroactively shortening the terms of any current member of Council and putting their seat up for election in 2017. Any such change should apply to those elected in November 2019. However, right now, I think we should wait to see if we can annex the unincorporated area and reunite the Town, and if so, hold a referendum to expand Council to six seats and allow all the voters of the Town, both those now in the Town and those that are returned, to elect those two new members right away and at the same time, create staggered terms.
I think any ordinance to shorten the current terms of office of the Mayor and all members of Town Council by putting them up for election in November of 2017 is illegal. I oppose holding an election in November in 2017 for the Mayor and Council with those elected taking office in the summer of 2018. It would permanently create an unusually excessive lame duck period. And frankly, having the current council make drastic changes in their own planned election date smacks of abuse of power for political advantage.
Yes, the Prime Minister of Great Britain has just called a snap election, and the pundits expect that she will win in a landslide because her opponents are especially weak. Guess what? We don't live in Great Britain but rather in South Carolina.
The South Carolina Code also requires that an incorporation election include a question regarding the term of office for mayor and council. The result of the 2012 incorporation election was a four year term. The South Carolina Code also requires that regardless of what the voters select, the Mayor and Council initially elected serve a two year term. After the Mayor and Council initially elected on July 29, 2012 completed their two year terms, the terms in the Town of James Island became four years.
In my opinion, Council cannot override the decision of the voters by ordinance. If Mayor and Council decide that two year terms are better than four year terms, then all they can do is call for a referendum on that question and the voters would decide to continue with four year terms or switch to two year terms. However, neither Council nor the voters may select other terms of office--one year, three years, five years, or ten years. Unless the SC Legislature modifies the law, the only two options are four years and two years and the choice must be made by referendum by the voters.
The South Carolina Code empowers municipal Councils to set the date of election by ordinance. It is a mistake to assume that by setting dates for an election, Council has somehow obtained the power to change the length of the term of office as it sees fit. If the date of the election is set before the terms of office are complete, then the incumbents still serve until the end of their terms. If they were replaced in the election, then they are what is sometimes called "lame ducks" for a time. In South Carolina, there are many elections in November of even years while the terms of office of the incumbents only end in January of the next year and anyone newly elected takes office at that time. The notion that holding an early election necessarily implies that terms of office are cut short is absurd.
If the date of the election is after the terms of the incumbents are complete, this might appear to create a time when a municipality has no governing body. For a municipality with a mayor-council form of government, it might appear to create a period where there is no executive either. Fortunately, municipalities typically have ordinances that provide that the incumbents remain in office until the election of their replacements is certified. The term of office is not extended, but rather an incumbent continues to serve after the term of office is complete.
I don't believe the power of Council to set the date of elections is unlimited. I don't believe that a Council whose terms have already expired would be authorized to change the date of an upcoming election in a way that would postpone the election and extend the period for which they are serving beyond their terms. Further, while I believe that the courts owe substantial deference to the elected Council in determining an appropriate election date, some rational basis for the date other than to allow the existing council to serve beyond their completed terms of office is necessary.
The possibility of abuse of the power to set election dates after the terms of office are complete can be avoided by having Council make the decisions not for their own term of office but rather for the subsequent election. For a new municipality, with the Mayor and Council elected for an initial two year term, that initial Council can determine a regular election cycle that will apply to whomever is elected to replace them and begin the terms of office whose lengths were set in the initial referendum.
That is exactly what was done by the Town of James Island. In April of 2014, the Council initially elected for a two year term in 2012 passed an election ordinance that shifted our election cycle from late July/early August of even years to the first Tuesday in November of odd years. The intention was for those elected in the summer of 2014 to complete their four year terms and then continue in office until their replacements are certified in November of 2019. Council did not vote to change the term of office to something different from four years, because it had no authority to do so. The only other choice under SC law is two years, and that would require a referendum.
The Council elected in 2012 did not vote to change the election date in order to allow themselves to serve a period beyond the completion of their two year terms. Rather, they made a decision for those elected in the summer of 2014 to serve an additional time beyond the completion of their term of office in order to allow for a permanent shift of the election cycle to November of odd years.
The notion that the Town's current election law requires that elections be held in every November of an odd year, with Mayor and Council being replaced every two years is absurd and frivolous. This would effectively create two year terms without a referendum. Further, the notion that the ordinance required an election of Mayor and Council in November of 2015, creating the potential for a lame duck period until the terms of office are complete in the summer of 2018 is equally absurd. The voters are supposed to choose the Mayor and Council to take office in the summer of 2018 in November 2015? Would the Mayor and Council serving from 2022 to 2026 be elected in November of 2017? Would those elected in 2019 serve from 2026 to 2030?
It would not have been absurd for Council to have intended that there be an election in November of 2017, with the Council and Mayor elected at that time taking office approximately nine months later on August 1, 2018. There is nothing unusual about holding an election somewhat before the term of office are complete. However, nine months is an unusually long lame duck period and so should create some skepticism about any such interpretation.
In 2010, the Mayor of the Town of James Island was not not reelected and served as a lame duck during most of August. During that period, the Mayor expended substantial sums of money, including checks written for the maximum that could be authorized by the Mayor to a new organization, the Sea Island Chamber of Commerce, run by her daughter. This led to a federal investigation, though no violation of federal law was found. Due to that experience, I favor a short lame duck period.
Of course, having written the ordinances in question and discussed and debated them with Council, I know exactly what was intended and understood by Council when approved. The next election is to be held on the first November of an odd year after the terms of office of those elected in 2014 have expired.
Further, the creation of an unusually long lame duck period, of nine months rather than the more common two months, would be a permanent feature of the new election system, rather than a one time feature of the transition. Those elected in November of 2017 would take office in early August of 2018 and then serve until early August of 2022. If their replacements were elected in November of 2021, there would again be an unusually long lame duck period and so on, until Council fixes the problem.
What Council did intend was that after the one time period where the Council and Mayor elected in 2014 will serve after their terms are complete in August 2018 until their replacements are elected in November of 2019, the future terms of office will run close to the times of the elections and there will be at most a few days where Council or Mayor have a lame duck status. The Council and Mayor elected in 2019 will take office as soon as the election results are certified. Their terms will end a few days after the election in November of 2023, when the newly elected Mayor and Council will take office.
The current Council and Mayor have not taken action to extend their time in office beyond their terms by changing the date of the election. That was done before they were elected in 2014. While I was reelected along Councilmen Blank and Mullinax, we did not know that this ordinance would apply to us when we voted for it. It could well have applied to our opponents in the 2014 election.
Was there a rational basis for shifting the date of the next election to November 2019? The Town signed an intergovernmental agreement with the County to have the County Election Commission manage our elections in 2014 and in the future. While the Election Commission staff was willing to hold an election in the summer of 2014, this is a very bad time for them because they have just finished the primaries and are already starting on the November general election.
Moving our date back to, say June, so that we have no more than a reasonable lame duck period, was impossible because of the primary elections. My preference was November of even years which would have created a short, one time transition between when terms of office ended in the summer of 2018 and when the new officials would be elected and take office in November 2018. My key consideration was an increased turnout for Town elections. The County Election Commission staff would not agree because the general election ballot is already long and complicated with many different overlapping districts. They didn't want to add ours too.
They recommended November of odd years, which is a time that they are promoting as a municipal election day. I agreed because I think there is a chance we will improve turnout if everyone knows it is municipal election day and also I hope that our share of the costs will be lower than the total cost of running a unique Town of James Island election. However, the County Election Commission staff would have no problem if we chose to hold elections in the spring of either odd or even years. There are other municipalities that have their own unique election times. They just encourage the common "municipal election day."
My initial proposal in 2014 included staggered terms. My reading of the South Carolina code is that municipalities may, by ordinance, create staggered terms by providing for half of the members of council to have two year terms for one time, and then have four year terms after. This only applies if the voters chose four year terms by referendum. If the voters chose two year terms, the SC code says they cannot be staggered.
My approach would have been for the two candidates with the least votes in the summer of 2014 election to receive two year terms and then they would continue to serve after their terms were up in the summer of 2016 until the election of November of 2017. Their replacements would then take office and serve four year terms The Mayor and two members of Council with the most votes in 2014 would have their four year terms up in the summer of 2018, but would continue to serve until November of 2019 and then their replacements would take office.
My initial proposal, then, would have the two members of council elected and taking office in November of 2017 would have four year terms up at the time of the November 2021 election and the Mayor and members of Council elected and taking office in November of 2019 would complete their terms at the time of the 2023 election.
This proposal resulted in substantial push back from members of Council in 2014. It was said that the voters choose four year terms in the referendum, and we should not create two year terms for any member of Council, even if those elected would serve beyond their terms for a total time in office of a bit more than three years. I didn't agree that we needed a referendum to apply this provision of the SC Code, but I was convinced that a better approach would be to wait to see if the Town was reunited and expand the size of Council to six seats so that the new residents (and the old ones too) could promptly vote for two new members of Council. The SC Code requires a referendum to expand the size of Council. Depending on the timing, we would figure out a way to get them on the 2017, 2021 cycle and so create staggered terms.
I am still open to creating staggered terms by ordinance, but I am opposed to retroactively shortening the terms of any current member of Council and putting their seat up for election in 2017. Any such change should apply to those elected in November 2019. However, right now, I think we should wait to see if we can annex the unincorporated area and reunite the Town, and if so, hold a referendum to expand Council to six seats and allow all the voters of the Town, both those now in the Town and those that are returned, to elect those two new members right away and at the same time, create staggered terms.
I think any ordinance to shorten the current terms of office of the Mayor and all members of Town Council by putting them up for election in November of 2017 is illegal. I oppose holding an election in November in 2017 for the Mayor and Council with those elected taking office in the summer of 2018. It would permanently create an unusually excessive lame duck period. And frankly, having the current council make drastic changes in their own planned election date smacks of abuse of power for political advantage.
Yes, the Prime Minister of Great Britain has just called a snap election, and the pundits expect that she will win in a landslide because her opponents are especially weak. Guess what? We don't live in Great Britain but rather in South Carolina.
Saturday, April 22, 2017
JIPSD to discuss House Bill to Reunite Town
The JIPSD Commissioners have invited Rep. McCoy to their meeting on Monday, April 24 at 6 pm to discuss HB 4076, . This bill would give voters in the unincorporated area of James Island an opportunity to vote to rejoin the Town.
Support by the JIPSD Commissioners is vital because Senator Sandy Senn made the District Manager's support a condition before she will co-sponsor and work for the bill. The District Manager works for the JIPSD Commissioners.
If the bill does pass, then it will take a majority of JIPSD Commissioners to vote in order to allow for an annexation election in the unincorporated portion of the district. If there is not a majority of JIPSD Commissioners who support giving those in the unincorporated area of James Island an opportunity to return to the Town, then the bill will do James Islanders no good.
I think it is great that the JIPSD Commissioners are willing to discuss this bill. Those interested in having a chance to reunite the Town should attend.
Support by the JIPSD Commissioners is vital because Senator Sandy Senn made the District Manager's support a condition before she will co-sponsor and work for the bill. The District Manager works for the JIPSD Commissioners.
If the bill does pass, then it will take a majority of JIPSD Commissioners to vote in order to allow for an annexation election in the unincorporated portion of the district. If there is not a majority of JIPSD Commissioners who support giving those in the unincorporated area of James Island an opportunity to return to the Town, then the bill will do James Islanders no good.
I think it is great that the JIPSD Commissioners are willing to discuss this bill. Those interested in having a chance to reunite the Town should attend.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Contiguity on James Island
The Town of James Island was first incorporated in late 1992. It was formed entirely on James Island. The Town was made up of several highland areas divided by creeks and saltwater marsh. The City of Charleston had incorporated nearly all of the creeks and saltwater marsh on James Island by that time. The City challenged the formation of the Town on the basis that its jurisdictional claim over these marshes and creeks formed a barrier such that the various parts of the Town were not contiguous. There was no question about the efficient provision of services to marshes and creeks. Nor was there any notion that the various bridges and causeways connecting the highlands, all of which were state roads, would be inadequate to allow for the efficient provision of services in a Town made up of multiple highlands divided by creeks and marsh.
The Town's view was that the contiguity requirements imposed by the state for annexation were never intended to allow one municipality to block the formation of a municipality in a neighboring community by annexing its marshes and creeks. Any rationale for contiguity based upon efficient provision of services would not apply.
The Supreme Court disagreed. The first Town was voided. The Supreme Court's view was that if the City of Charleston had not annexed the marshes and creeks, there would have been no problem with forming a Town. The Town would have annexed the marshes and creeks, including them and the highlands creating a contiguous whole. The Court let stand the City of Charleston's strategy of annexing creeks and marshes to block the formation of a neighboring municipality.
However, the Town was correct about the intention of the Legislature as was shown a few years later when incorporation law was changed. With the new law, annexation of creeks and saltwater marsh were not allowed to provide a barrier to incorporation. The City of Charleston's strategy to block a neighboring community from forming a municipality would not be allowed to succeed. The elected leadership of our State recognized the injustice of rewarding such a strategy. The fact that salt marshes and creeks are not relevant to the efficient provision of services was plain and so not a concern. Nor would allowing incorporation across already incorporated salt water marshes or creeks allow a municipality to be formed to include some property in another county miles away.
The second Town of James Island was formed in 2002. It did not recklessly ignore the requirement of contiguity. It applied the rules passed by the Legislature that allowed for contiguity across salt water creeks and marsh even if they had been incorporated by another municipality. The City of Charleston challenged the law, claiming it was unconstitutional special legislation. The Supreme Court agreed, arguing that there was no rational basis for limiting the contiguity exception to salt marshes and creeks. What about fresh water creeks or mountain ranges? The second Town was voided.
Almost immediately, the elected leaders of our State corrected this problem found by the Supreme Court in the previous law. They allowed contiguity across all county, state, and federal property even if already incorporated in another municipality. The third Town was formed, not recklessly ignoring contiguity, but rather applying the rules for incorporation passed by our elected representatives.
However, there were some places where the City of Charleston had put together a line of private properties that created a barrier to contiguity. These narrow strips of properties created less of a barrier to the efficient provision of services than the natural barriers created by the marshes. I believe that those putting together the incorporation effort in 2005 thought that if parts of the Town were ruled non-contiguous, then those areas would be removed from the Town by the Court. What would it hurt to try? (No one asked me about the wisdom of that strategy.)
The third Town was formed in 2006. The City of Charleston challenged the incorporation law claiming that it was unconstitutional to have different contiguity rules for incorporation than for annexation. The Supreme Court rejected the City's constitutional challenge recognizing the authority of the Legislature. However, while the circuit court had agreed that the state and county roads connecting the various parts of the Town were public property and could be used for contiguity, the Supreme Court determined that parts of the Town were not contiguous. Rather than merely removing those parts of the Town that it determined were not contiguous, it ruled the Town void.
The Town considered seeking another revision of incorporation law, but instead chose to use the 2005 law that the Supreme Court had ruled constitutional. This time we were very careful to leave out anything that might be challenged as not contiguous. Because incorporation law allows incorporation across already incorporated public property, a key concern was private marsh that had been incorporated by the City of Charleston. While that had never been challenged before, would the City challenge it now? Better safe than sorry, when in doubt, leave it out. The Town had learned that the South Carolina Supreme Court would impose the death penalty for incorporating anything it later determined was not contiguous.
This approach was successful in avoiding a court challenge to our 2012 incorporation. Mayor Riley explained that his lawyers said that a challenge was unlikely to succeed, so he gave up. However, approximately 1/3 of the people who had been in the Town in 2011 were not included.
The City of Charleston claimed that much of the north area of the Town was not contiguous in 2011 and the Supreme Court agreed. Would there be any challenge to an effort to annex the areas in what had been the southern portion of the Town in 2011? The City of Charleston had not challenged contiguity there and the Supreme Court had not ruled that those parts were not contiguous. The Town annexed six parcels. The City asked the Attorney General to challenge all of them. The Attorney General ended up challenging four. The Town consented to the Attorney General's challenge. The City had no standing and dropped it suit. The Town annexed several neighborhoods in 2014.
Notice that instead of the Town being dissolved as had occurred in 1997, 2004, and 2011, the result was that the Town signed a consent order with the State and regained a number of neighborhoods. This is much better than what would have happened if we had tried to add all of those areas during incorporation and they were later ruled non-contiguous.
Based upon the Attorney General's challenges, we have a better idea of what we can and cannot do under current annexation law. That is why the Town has emphasized the need for a change in annexation law.
If you go to Centerville and look north from the Town across the marshes of Ellis Creek, about 500 feet away is the Central Park community, a largely unincorporated area that was in the Town in 2011. Contiguous unincorporated properties in that community extend to just north of Central Park Road and over to Fleming Road. Then there is a break in contiguity. The City of Charleston annexed a couple of properties that created a 117 foot barrier before the next unincorporated area. The area across that break was in the Town in 2011. Close by, there is an additional 19 foot break that is the driveway "pole" on a "flag" lot. Then, going north, the northern portion of the Central Park community transitions into Woodland Shores. This large contiguous unincorporated area was in the Town until 2011. In the middle of Woodland Shores, there is another break. This time, it is 210 feet. Past that break, there is more contiguous unincorporated area going all the way into Riverland Terrace up to the northern border of James Island at the Wappoo Cut. All of that area was in the Town in 2011.
Yes, the Wappoo Cut is distant from the current boundary of the Town near Ellis Creek, but the breaks in contiguity in the unincorporated area between are very narrow. The largest break is across the marsh at Ellis Creek and no one is providing any services to the creek and marsh. The other breaks are trivial. They are generally two properties wide.
On the south end of Town, Greencrest is currently our southern most neighborhood. It is south of Fort Johnson Road and on the east side of Folly. Nano farms is at the very south end of the Town's current border. Across Folly Road are commercial areas that have been annexed to the City of Charleston. Less than 900 feet from the existing boundary of the Town, just behind the businesses on Folly Road, is the Grimball Community. Contiguous unincorporated area extends south to Battery Island and east to Bur Clair and the Scott Hill Community (Grimball Extension Rd.) All of this was in the Town in 2011. There is a 73 foot break between that area and the Secessionville area running up Fort Lamar Road. That was in the Town in 2011. There is a 127 foot break between Battery Island and Sol Legare, also in the Town in 2011. Riverfront is separated from Sol Legare by another 500 feet break across Folly Road. The shopping center to the west is in the City of Folly Beach and the apartments to the east are in the City of Charleston. But just off Folly Road there are large communities of unincorporated area on both sides that were in the Town in 2011.
The only significant break in contiguity is between unincorporated Riverfront and unincorporated Oak Island, both in the Town in 2011. There is nearly a mile of marsh and creek beyond Riverfront before reaching what was the southernmost portion of the Town in 2011. Oak Island is unusual in that it is entirely surrounded by salt marsh and creeks annexed to the City of Folly Beach rather than the City of Charleston. Oak Island is quite distant from Folly Island, though a bit closer than it is to Sol Legare and Riverfront. It is very close to the Folly Beach neighborhood of Little Oak Island, and the City of Folly Beach has actually annexed areas north of Oak Island on Sol Legare.
House Bill 4076 would make it possible for the Town to skip over these breaks in contiguity--breaks in contiguity in the James Island Public Service District now and what would be breaks in the contiguity of the Town. The bill would not allow the Town of James Island or any other municipality to annex some individual parcel in Orangeburg County. The intention of the bill is that if a municipality was incorporated to include a majority of the voters of a public service district, then those remaining in the unincorporated portion of the public service district may vote to annex to the municipality. Unless an area is in the same public service district as a municipality, the law will not apply. In particular, neither the Town nor any other municipality in our area is in the same public service district as any parcel in Orangeburg County. For the Town, we are only in the same public service district as unincorporated areas on James Island.
I have sometimes heard it claimed that the courts have determined that contiguity is required for annexation. In fact, the courts have clearly ruled that annexation (and incorporation) law is a matter of the Legislature's discretion which therefore can require contiguity or not as it sees fit. There is nothing in the South Carolina Constitution that mandates contiguity. What the South Carolina Constitution does require is that any legislation regarding local governments--such as municipalities and public service districts--be general. A law that expressly allowed only the Town of James Island to annex the unincorporated areas of the James Island Public Service District would be unconstitutional special legislation.
House Bill 4076 applies to all municipalities and special purpose districts in the State that meet certain conditions. The key condition is that the voters of the municipality have a dominant position in the politics of the special purpose district. The rational purpose for the condition is to create balance and a broader community of interest by allowing those in the unincorporated area to annex to the municipality and so vote in municipal elections just as those in the municipality can vote in public service district elections. This issue is irrelevant for those municipalities that have agreed to remove their residents from a district upon annexation, since they can no longer vote in elections for the governing body of the special purpose district and so influence its policies. Similarly, it is not relevant when the governing board of the special purpose district is appointed by County Council (or the State Legislative delegation) rather than elected.
House Bill 4076 solves a problem that can exist anywhere in the State where one municipality has followed a strategy of piecemeal annexation to create breaks in the contiguity of a special purpose district, and another municipality has been formed in remaining portion of the public service district and it is sufficiently large to dominate the elected governing body of the special purpose district. However, this does not imply that all requirements for contiguity are out the window.
If the Legislation passes, and the JIPSD Commissioners request an election, and the majority of voters in the unincorporated area of the JIPSD vote in favor of annexation, then the Town will return to approximately its same size as in 2011. This will include slightly less than half of the population on James Island and approximately half of the highland area. This is as opposed to the status quo where the Town includes about 30% of the population and 20% of the highland area, the unincorporated area includes about 20% of the population and 30% of the highland area and the City of Charleston about half of both. The City has jurisdiction over nearly all of the salt marsh on James Island, though the City of Folly Beach has a good bit of marsh between Folly Island and James Island.
I don't believe that the City of Charleston has standing to challenge Town annexation. However, if there is a legal challenge to annexations under this bill, the Town will determine whether we are likely to prevail. If we defend our annexations in court and lose, then we will be exactly where we are today. Failure to annex does not result in closing down the Town. It took two times to get the incorporation legislation right and another time to find out how to apply it. I would hope that we would get the annexation legislation right the first time, but James Islanders can be persistent.
If this process does wind its way to an election, and those in the unincorporated area of James Island vote against returning to the Town, then I believe the Town should accept their decision. My commitment is to give those who were in the Town in 2011 (and 2004 and 1997) an opportunity to return to the Town. If the voters reject that opportunity, then it will be time for the Town to move on.
The Town's view was that the contiguity requirements imposed by the state for annexation were never intended to allow one municipality to block the formation of a municipality in a neighboring community by annexing its marshes and creeks. Any rationale for contiguity based upon efficient provision of services would not apply.
The Supreme Court disagreed. The first Town was voided. The Supreme Court's view was that if the City of Charleston had not annexed the marshes and creeks, there would have been no problem with forming a Town. The Town would have annexed the marshes and creeks, including them and the highlands creating a contiguous whole. The Court let stand the City of Charleston's strategy of annexing creeks and marshes to block the formation of a neighboring municipality.
However, the Town was correct about the intention of the Legislature as was shown a few years later when incorporation law was changed. With the new law, annexation of creeks and saltwater marsh were not allowed to provide a barrier to incorporation. The City of Charleston's strategy to block a neighboring community from forming a municipality would not be allowed to succeed. The elected leadership of our State recognized the injustice of rewarding such a strategy. The fact that salt marshes and creeks are not relevant to the efficient provision of services was plain and so not a concern. Nor would allowing incorporation across already incorporated salt water marshes or creeks allow a municipality to be formed to include some property in another county miles away.
The second Town of James Island was formed in 2002. It did not recklessly ignore the requirement of contiguity. It applied the rules passed by the Legislature that allowed for contiguity across salt water creeks and marsh even if they had been incorporated by another municipality. The City of Charleston challenged the law, claiming it was unconstitutional special legislation. The Supreme Court agreed, arguing that there was no rational basis for limiting the contiguity exception to salt marshes and creeks. What about fresh water creeks or mountain ranges? The second Town was voided.
Almost immediately, the elected leaders of our State corrected this problem found by the Supreme Court in the previous law. They allowed contiguity across all county, state, and federal property even if already incorporated in another municipality. The third Town was formed, not recklessly ignoring contiguity, but rather applying the rules for incorporation passed by our elected representatives.
However, there were some places where the City of Charleston had put together a line of private properties that created a barrier to contiguity. These narrow strips of properties created less of a barrier to the efficient provision of services than the natural barriers created by the marshes. I believe that those putting together the incorporation effort in 2005 thought that if parts of the Town were ruled non-contiguous, then those areas would be removed from the Town by the Court. What would it hurt to try? (No one asked me about the wisdom of that strategy.)
The third Town was formed in 2006. The City of Charleston challenged the incorporation law claiming that it was unconstitutional to have different contiguity rules for incorporation than for annexation. The Supreme Court rejected the City's constitutional challenge recognizing the authority of the Legislature. However, while the circuit court had agreed that the state and county roads connecting the various parts of the Town were public property and could be used for contiguity, the Supreme Court determined that parts of the Town were not contiguous. Rather than merely removing those parts of the Town that it determined were not contiguous, it ruled the Town void.
The Town considered seeking another revision of incorporation law, but instead chose to use the 2005 law that the Supreme Court had ruled constitutional. This time we were very careful to leave out anything that might be challenged as not contiguous. Because incorporation law allows incorporation across already incorporated public property, a key concern was private marsh that had been incorporated by the City of Charleston. While that had never been challenged before, would the City challenge it now? Better safe than sorry, when in doubt, leave it out. The Town had learned that the South Carolina Supreme Court would impose the death penalty for incorporating anything it later determined was not contiguous.
This approach was successful in avoiding a court challenge to our 2012 incorporation. Mayor Riley explained that his lawyers said that a challenge was unlikely to succeed, so he gave up. However, approximately 1/3 of the people who had been in the Town in 2011 were not included.
The City of Charleston claimed that much of the north area of the Town was not contiguous in 2011 and the Supreme Court agreed. Would there be any challenge to an effort to annex the areas in what had been the southern portion of the Town in 2011? The City of Charleston had not challenged contiguity there and the Supreme Court had not ruled that those parts were not contiguous. The Town annexed six parcels. The City asked the Attorney General to challenge all of them. The Attorney General ended up challenging four. The Town consented to the Attorney General's challenge. The City had no standing and dropped it suit. The Town annexed several neighborhoods in 2014.
Notice that instead of the Town being dissolved as had occurred in 1997, 2004, and 2011, the result was that the Town signed a consent order with the State and regained a number of neighborhoods. This is much better than what would have happened if we had tried to add all of those areas during incorporation and they were later ruled non-contiguous.
Based upon the Attorney General's challenges, we have a better idea of what we can and cannot do under current annexation law. That is why the Town has emphasized the need for a change in annexation law.
If you go to Centerville and look north from the Town across the marshes of Ellis Creek, about 500 feet away is the Central Park community, a largely unincorporated area that was in the Town in 2011. Contiguous unincorporated properties in that community extend to just north of Central Park Road and over to Fleming Road. Then there is a break in contiguity. The City of Charleston annexed a couple of properties that created a 117 foot barrier before the next unincorporated area. The area across that break was in the Town in 2011. Close by, there is an additional 19 foot break that is the driveway "pole" on a "flag" lot. Then, going north, the northern portion of the Central Park community transitions into Woodland Shores. This large contiguous unincorporated area was in the Town until 2011. In the middle of Woodland Shores, there is another break. This time, it is 210 feet. Past that break, there is more contiguous unincorporated area going all the way into Riverland Terrace up to the northern border of James Island at the Wappoo Cut. All of that area was in the Town in 2011.
Yes, the Wappoo Cut is distant from the current boundary of the Town near Ellis Creek, but the breaks in contiguity in the unincorporated area between are very narrow. The largest break is across the marsh at Ellis Creek and no one is providing any services to the creek and marsh. The other breaks are trivial. They are generally two properties wide.
On the south end of Town, Greencrest is currently our southern most neighborhood. It is south of Fort Johnson Road and on the east side of Folly. Nano farms is at the very south end of the Town's current border. Across Folly Road are commercial areas that have been annexed to the City of Charleston. Less than 900 feet from the existing boundary of the Town, just behind the businesses on Folly Road, is the Grimball Community. Contiguous unincorporated area extends south to Battery Island and east to Bur Clair and the Scott Hill Community (Grimball Extension Rd.) All of this was in the Town in 2011. There is a 73 foot break between that area and the Secessionville area running up Fort Lamar Road. That was in the Town in 2011. There is a 127 foot break between Battery Island and Sol Legare, also in the Town in 2011. Riverfront is separated from Sol Legare by another 500 feet break across Folly Road. The shopping center to the west is in the City of Folly Beach and the apartments to the east are in the City of Charleston. But just off Folly Road there are large communities of unincorporated area on both sides that were in the Town in 2011.
The only significant break in contiguity is between unincorporated Riverfront and unincorporated Oak Island, both in the Town in 2011. There is nearly a mile of marsh and creek beyond Riverfront before reaching what was the southernmost portion of the Town in 2011. Oak Island is unusual in that it is entirely surrounded by salt marsh and creeks annexed to the City of Folly Beach rather than the City of Charleston. Oak Island is quite distant from Folly Island, though a bit closer than it is to Sol Legare and Riverfront. It is very close to the Folly Beach neighborhood of Little Oak Island, and the City of Folly Beach has actually annexed areas north of Oak Island on Sol Legare.
House Bill 4076 would make it possible for the Town to skip over these breaks in contiguity--breaks in contiguity in the James Island Public Service District now and what would be breaks in the contiguity of the Town. The bill would not allow the Town of James Island or any other municipality to annex some individual parcel in Orangeburg County. The intention of the bill is that if a municipality was incorporated to include a majority of the voters of a public service district, then those remaining in the unincorporated portion of the public service district may vote to annex to the municipality. Unless an area is in the same public service district as a municipality, the law will not apply. In particular, neither the Town nor any other municipality in our area is in the same public service district as any parcel in Orangeburg County. For the Town, we are only in the same public service district as unincorporated areas on James Island.
I have sometimes heard it claimed that the courts have determined that contiguity is required for annexation. In fact, the courts have clearly ruled that annexation (and incorporation) law is a matter of the Legislature's discretion which therefore can require contiguity or not as it sees fit. There is nothing in the South Carolina Constitution that mandates contiguity. What the South Carolina Constitution does require is that any legislation regarding local governments--such as municipalities and public service districts--be general. A law that expressly allowed only the Town of James Island to annex the unincorporated areas of the James Island Public Service District would be unconstitutional special legislation.
House Bill 4076 applies to all municipalities and special purpose districts in the State that meet certain conditions. The key condition is that the voters of the municipality have a dominant position in the politics of the special purpose district. The rational purpose for the condition is to create balance and a broader community of interest by allowing those in the unincorporated area to annex to the municipality and so vote in municipal elections just as those in the municipality can vote in public service district elections. This issue is irrelevant for those municipalities that have agreed to remove their residents from a district upon annexation, since they can no longer vote in elections for the governing body of the special purpose district and so influence its policies. Similarly, it is not relevant when the governing board of the special purpose district is appointed by County Council (or the State Legislative delegation) rather than elected.
House Bill 4076 solves a problem that can exist anywhere in the State where one municipality has followed a strategy of piecemeal annexation to create breaks in the contiguity of a special purpose district, and another municipality has been formed in remaining portion of the public service district and it is sufficiently large to dominate the elected governing body of the special purpose district. However, this does not imply that all requirements for contiguity are out the window.
If the Legislation passes, and the JIPSD Commissioners request an election, and the majority of voters in the unincorporated area of the JIPSD vote in favor of annexation, then the Town will return to approximately its same size as in 2011. This will include slightly less than half of the population on James Island and approximately half of the highland area. This is as opposed to the status quo where the Town includes about 30% of the population and 20% of the highland area, the unincorporated area includes about 20% of the population and 30% of the highland area and the City of Charleston about half of both. The City has jurisdiction over nearly all of the salt marsh on James Island, though the City of Folly Beach has a good bit of marsh between Folly Island and James Island.
I don't believe that the City of Charleston has standing to challenge Town annexation. However, if there is a legal challenge to annexations under this bill, the Town will determine whether we are likely to prevail. If we defend our annexations in court and lose, then we will be exactly where we are today. Failure to annex does not result in closing down the Town. It took two times to get the incorporation legislation right and another time to find out how to apply it. I would hope that we would get the annexation legislation right the first time, but James Islanders can be persistent.
If this process does wind its way to an election, and those in the unincorporated area of James Island vote against returning to the Town, then I believe the Town should accept their decision. My commitment is to give those who were in the Town in 2011 (and 2004 and 1997) an opportunity to return to the Town. If the voters reject that opportunity, then it will be time for the Town to move on.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
"Chilling Threats" Against the Town and the JIPSD?
In a recent Post and Courier article, columnist Brian Hicks reported "chilling threats" from unnamed City of Charleston officials against the James Island Public Service District and the Town of James Island. The implication is that if the Town of James Island persists in its effort to annex the unincorporated portions of James Island, the City will challenge the legality of the JIPSD providing services within the Town. He quoted a section of the South Carolina code that describes the purpose of public service districts to be the provision of services in unincorporated areas.
However, there are other, more specific, provisions of the SC code that show that a public service district can provide services within a municipality. One such provision allows a public service district to be extended into an area that includes a municipality. That provision specifies that if the municipality has a right to provide a service that the new public service district proposes to provide, then the municipality's permission is needed and if not granted, the public service district cannot collect taxes for that particular service within the municipality. That provision makes no sense if there is a blanket prohibition on public service districts providing services within the boundaries of a municipality.
Further, the provisions in South Carolina code that govern annexations within public service districts clearly imply that a public service district can continue to provide services within a municipality. The possibility that there would be no change in the boundary of the public service district is plainly implied. Also, the continued provision of some service by the public service district to the municipality by contract is expressly contemplated. Most importantly, any change in the status quo of the public service district continuing to provide services must be triggered by the municipality that overlaps the public service district, not some third party such as a neighboring municipality.
The City of Charleston tried to block the residents of the Town from voting in the JIPSD election of 2002 and failed. (My count is 3-3 on the legal front.)
Finally, if HB 4076 passes, it specifies that if the Town is reunited, the JIPSD would have the right to provide services in the entire Town and that a referendum would be necessary to close down the JIPSD or else transfer services to the Town. Being a new, more recent law, it would supersede any court interpretation of past statutes.
My view is that once the Town is reunited, so that everyone in the JIPSD is also in the Town, then we can consider whether it is desirable to shift some or all JIPSD services to the Town. Any such change should only occur if that is the desire of the people of the Town (and the JIPSD, which would be the same after we are reunited.) The requirement that a specific referendum on this matter be held is consistent with what I think is the only reasonable approach for the people of James Island.
My bottom line is that the way we organize services in the Town and the District is up to the people of the Town and the District. If the people of the Town want to continue to receive services from the JIPSD, then we have every right to do so.
The City of Charleston has followed a policy of removing any area it annexes from public service districts and providing the services itself rather than continuing to work with the public service district. Perhaps 50 years ago, that policy was required by SC law, but since that time there have been provisions added to the law that make it plain that wasteful duplication of services already provided by a public service district is not required.
Both the South Carolina Constitution and the South Carolina Code provide broad latitude for political subdivisions, which include municipalities and public service districts, to make agreements for the provision of services. Nothing gives veto power over agreements between the Town and the JIPSD to third parties such as the City of Charleston.
The Town of James Island has been seeking the return of our lost citizens ever since 2012. Just because the Post and Courier and Brian Hicks every once in a while takes note of our continuing effort hardly means that the City of Charleston and the Town of James Island must end what has been a fruitful policy of cooperation.
The next James Island Intergovernmental Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 15 at 7 PM. Development issues are on the agenda. I anticipate that Mayor Tecklenburg and the members of City Council whose districts are at least partly on James Island--Wilson, Moody, and Gregorie--will attend. The members of County Council with districts partly on James Island--Qualey and Johnson--are invited as always. I strongly favor cooperation regarding planning and zoning.
The Town joined the City of Charleston in participating in the Rethink Folly Road project. City Councilwoman Wilson and I both serve on the Steering Committee. If working together will fix traffic problems on James Island, the Town of James Island has proven itself a willing partner.
Just today, representatives of the City of Charleston, the Town, and Charleston County met at Town Hall to begin discussions on new 1/2 sales tax projects on James Island--tentatively Riverland and Central Park, Secessionville and Fort Johnson, and bike and pedestrian improvements on Folly Road. Cooperation between the Town and the City is nothing new and I have every reason to believe it will continue.
Monday, April 17, 2017
James Island Annexation and the City of Charleston
The Post and Courier quoted statements from a City of Charleston spokesman as to why they will oppose giving residents of the unincorporated area of James Island an opportunity to vote to rejoin the Town.
He cited two principles Mayor Tecklenburg applies to annexations. The first was that annexation should not create donut holes.
House Bill 4076 would not create any new donut hole on James Island. There are already donut holes on James Island. Each area of unincorporated territory on James Island is surrounded by one or more municipalities.
If donut holes are defined as areas of unincorporated territory surrounded by a municipality, then if the voters of the unincorporated area choose to rejoin the Town, then there will be no donut holes on James Island. All territory on James Island would be in either the City of Charleston, the City of Folly Beach, or the Town of James Island.
Of course, the result will be almost exactly identical to 2011, and what exists on much of James Island today--a very complicated boundary between the City of Charleston and the Town of James Island with some neighborhoods in the City of Charleston while others are mostly in the Town but include some homes in the City of Charleston.
This patchwork of jurisdiction does create problems. But from the City's point of view, the patchwork would not change. It is just that the breaks in City jurisdiction would be areas where the Town has jurisdiction rather than sometimes areas where the Town has jurisdiction and sometimes unincorporated areas solely under County and JIPSD jurisdiction.
And whose fault is this patchwork of jurisdictions? It is entirely the fault of the City of Charleston. Rather than annex in a systematic way, so that new areas were entirely in the City of Charleston, they ran down rivers and streets to pick up properties here and there. When that was forbidden, they began to annex long strings of properties running into unincorporated areas, leaving behind areas that were unincorporated and mostly now make up the Town of James Island. This approach to annexation created donut holes and odd shaped areas of City jurisdiction that remain difficult to service.
If the City of Charleston finds it too difficult to provide services to individual houses in mostly Town neighborhoods or else some neighborhood that is down a creek stuck in the middle of the Town, there is a simple solution. City Council can pass an ordinance to adjust the boundary. I am confident that Town Council will do the same and take these areas off the City's hands. Oddly enough, such a boundary adjustment cannot be made with the County. While it is simple for municipalities to adjust boundaries, it is almost impossible to remove an area from municipal jurisdiction back to unincorporated status.
The City of Charleston has an obvious benefit from the legal status quo. Annexations that create donut holes surrounded by the City of Charleston create an area where only the City of Charleston can annex. HB 4076 would create an exception so that the Town of James Island can annex areas surrounded by the City of Charleston that are in the James Island Public Service District. That includes all the unincorporated area on James Island and all the areas that were in the Town in 2011.
So, what the City of Charleston gives up is their hope that one day the unincorporated areas on James Island will annex to the City of Charleston and their crazy quilt annexations on James Island will no longer create difficulties in providing services in those parts of James Island. If, instead, the voters of those areas choose to return to the Town, then the City will never be able to annex those areas. Rather than a status quo where the City of Charleston has blocked everyone else from annexing in those areas, it will not be able to annex any part of any area on James Island.
I should mention that this does not absolutely prevent the City of Charleston from expanding on James Island. I don't want to hold out any false hope, but a merger of the Town of James Island into the City of Charleston is possible under existing South Carolina law. It would require ordinances by both City Council and Town Council, though I cannot imagine that any future James Island Town Council would support such action without overwhelming support in a referendum in the Town. I know I wouldn't.
Of course, the City could solve all of its James Island problems by agreement with the Town of James Island to adjust the boundaries between the City and Town. I would suggest Charleston Harbor, the Wappoo Cut, and the Stono River. I can well imagine that the City would never consider such an adjustment without overwhelming support in a referendum in the City portions of James Island. More modest rationalizations of borders between the City and Town are possible, though I imagine any such adjustments would be politically difficult on both sides. Again, adjustments are legally possible between municipalities but nearly impossible between a municipality and an unincorporated area.
More realistically, I think that the way to solve the problems created by the City's past annexation practices on James Island is continued cooperation between the City and the Town. Because we are both municipalities, such cooperation can work better than what is possible between the City and unincorporated areas. Rather than hold out for a few, gradual annexations by people in unincorporated areas, just letting them join the Town and working together to avoid waste and duplication is the best way to move forward.
Mayor Tecklenburg's second principle is that all annexations should be voluntary by individual property owners. I have sympathy with this view, however, that is exactly what creates patterns of piecemeal annexations and inefficiencies in the provision of services. Perhaps because South Carolina law requires that new municipalities be formed by majority vote, I believe it is entirely appropriate for annexation to occur by election. There is nothing that prevents the City of Charleston from organizing annexation elections in the unincorporated areas of James Island. All that the Town is requesting is that those voters have a chance to vote to return to the Town too.
In 2011, all parts of James Island that were not in the City of Charleston or the City of Folly Beach became unincorporated. The Town was gone. In 2012, most of the voters in the unincorporated area of James Island had an opportunity to vote to form a new Town. The result was 85% in favor. About 1/3 of the voters in that unincorporated area, nearly all of whom had been in the Town the year before, were not allowed to vote and could not join. All we are asking is to correct that injustice and give them a chance to vote as well.
Let us have this chance to vote, and if the voters want to stay unincorporated, then we can just move forward the best we can. I think any effort by the City to block a vote is a mistake. James Islanders are very persistent.
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Annexation News and History
The Post and Courier had a front page story on McCoy's annexation bill. Notice anything missing? The reporter didn't bother to call anyone from the Town of James Island!
When the Town was incorporated in 2012, approximately 1/3 of those who were in the Town in 2011 were left out. They had no opportunity to vote. Many were turned away at the polls.
The reason was that the Town was formed in a way such that there was no chance that it would lose a court challenge. Seeing no way he could succeed, Mayor Riley filed no challenge in 2012. The deadline for any legal challenge to the Town has long passed. The Town is here to stay.
However, my commitment to the former citizens of the Town remains to give them an opportunity to rejoin the Town. The Town began working on a method to allow for annexation almost immediately after our doors were reopened in August of 2012.
The Town annexed six properties in the southern portion of James Island in the spring of 2013. Senator Thurmond and Representative McCoy filed bills in the Senate and House in late 2013 similar to the one Representative McCoy filed in the House last month.
At the same time, I formed the James Island Intergovernmental Council and invited all the elected officials on James Island to participate. That included Mayor Riley and all three of the members of Charleston City Council whose districts are at least partially on James Island. James Island Town Council, the JIPSD Commissioners, and our State and County representatives participate as well. Mayor Riley attended the first meeting at James Island Town Hall in February 2013.
The City sued to block all six of the Town's annexations and also requested that the State Attorney General sue as well. The Attorney General sought to block five of the six annexations. With the help of Senator Thurmond, the Attorney General's office allowed a second annexation, leaving challenges to four.
The Post and Courier wrote a story on this and there was a column that breathlessly predicted a return to total war between the City and Town.
The Town settled with the State, and agreed that four of the annexations were illegal. The Town wrote the City of Charleston pointing out that it had no standing to challenge the Town's annexations. The City of Charleston dropped its suit. The legal issues were solved in a couple of months with no appearances in court.
In the Spring of 2014, based upon the two annexations not challenged by the State, the Town held annexation elections in Quail Run and a portion of Lighthouse Point. Those areas were returned to the Town.
While all of this was happening, the City of Charleston and the Town of James Island cooperated in a variety of areas. Most notably, residents of the Town began to pay the same fees as those in the City of Charleston for City sponsored youth sports. The Town pays the difference to the City. Stormwater managers for the state, county, City of Charleston, and the Town meet each quarter at Town Hall to coordinate storm water (flood) control on James Island. Nearly every Town sidewalk project has crossed City jurisdiction and there has never been any problem with City approval. The sidewalk project between Camp and Folly to Riverland Drive and James Island County Park has been a joint project between the City and Town.
However, none of this stopped our effort to reunite the Town. In 2014, we made some progress in Columbia. McCoy's bill passed the House and Thurmond's bill was heavily amended, made it through the Senate Judiciary committee, and then was stymied by a hold placed by Senator Kimpson.
Yes, a single Senator can block a needed law.
Many residents of James Island, especially from the African American community, contacted Senator Kimpson saying they wanted an opportunity to vote to join the Town. Senator Kimpson withdrew his hold on the bill. Unfortunately, Senator Pinckney then placed a hold on the bill. After James Islanders contacted him, he agreed to withdraw his hold shortly before he was assassinated in 2015.
It was a bit of a mystery why Senators Kimpson and Pinckney opposed the bill. I have discovered that it was the Coastal Conservation League lobbying behind the scenes. Dana Beach claimed that the Town had a secret plan to annex parts of Johns Island. It was never made clear to me where that conspiracy theory came from. I think that we are the Town of James Island pretty much says it all. I have never had any interest in having the Town cross the Stono River to Johns Island.
Meanwhile, Representative McCoy, along with Town Councilman Josh Stokes, began to work on a different bill. Rather than creating a new method of annexation, it would create a special definition of contiguity within a public service district. That bill was filed late in 2016 and then refiled this February. The Town hired former SC House representative Anne Peterson to help us with the bill.
A subcommittee hearing was scheduled in March, but lobbyists in Columbia suggested that we would have more success with the 2014 bill that had already been amended to take care of all of their concerns. While I thought the new approach was better, I supported the 2014 bill then and would do so now.
I asked Senator Chip Campsen to sponsor a companion bill in the Senate. He tentatively agreed and has staff looking at the bill. Senator Campsen represents the southern end of the Town and also unincorporated areas in the southern portion of James Island that would be allowed to vote to return to the Town. Senator Campsen serves on the James Island intergovernmental committee. He cosponsored the changes in incorporation law with Senator Glenn McConnell that are responsible for the existence of the Town. He voted in favor of approximately the same bill in 2014 at the Senate Judiciary committee. I greatly appreciate Senator Campsen's help on this matter. He is a true friend of James Island.
I also asked Senator Sandy Senn to sponsor or co-sponsor a companion bill in the Senate. She represents the northern portion of the Town of James Island and also the unincorporated areas in the north portion of James Island that would be allowed to vote to join the Town if the bill passes. She was just elected last November. (My hope is both of our Senators, Campsen and Senn, would be cosponsors of the companion bill in the Senate.)
Senator Senn said that she would only support the bill if Robert Wise signed off on it.
Who is Robert Wise? He is the district manager of the James Island Public Service District. He works for the JIPSD Commissioners, who are elected by the people of the Town and the unincorporated area on James Island.
I asked Robert Wise if he would be willing to sign off on the bill as Senator Senn asked. He responded that he would talk to Commission Chairman Donald Hollingsworth and representatives of other Public Service Districts across the state. (I certainly think it is appropriate that he defer to the elected officials for whom he works.)
I contacted Chairman Hollingsworth and he said he could only support the bill based upon what representatives of other public service districts across the state tell him, and that he saw some issues with the bill. I asked him to share his concerns so that we may address them. I haven't heard back.
JIPSD Commissioner Inez Brown Crouch had asked to have the matter placed upon the Commission agenda in March and allow former Rep. Anne Peterson come and explain the bill. Chairman Hollingsworth agreed, but in an executive committee meeting with Commissioners Hollingsworth, Wilder, and Kernodle, the request to bring it before the full Commission was denied. Commissioner Brown Crouch has insisted that the matter be considered at the April meeting. The agenda for that meeting will come out next Friday.
The bill is supposed to be considered by a House subcommittee next week. Because "crossover" day has passed, it will be very difficult for this bill to pass both the House and Senate until next year.
I called Mayor Tecklenburg and asked him not to oppose this bill. During that same conversion we briefly discussed over-development on James Island and I said that it would be on the agenda for the May meeting of the James Island Intergovernmental Council. He said he wanted to be there. City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson has since written me proposing an Island-wide master plan. The Chairman of the intergovernmental council this year, Town Mayor Pro-Tem Leonard Blank, will be asking the County, City, and Town representatives to have planning staff on hand so that we can begin looking at an approach to work together on development issues.
After reviewing Rep. McCoy's bill and looking at a map of James Island, Mayor Tecklenburg called me to say he would not support the bill. However, I certainly do not believe that the Town's long standing effort to allow our former citizens a chance to rejoin the Town will prevent cooperation with the City of Charleston on other matters. I admit we didn't discuss that on the phone. I doubt that it crossed his mind that other cooperation would stop. It certainly never crossed my mind.
There will be no war. We will continue to work together where we can. Sorry Post and Courier.
Monday, April 10, 2017
Services in the Town of James Island
For many years, critics of the Town have claimed that it provides no services and that this somehow implies that the Town must raise taxes in the future.
Recently, I heard the claim that the Town provides no police, fire, garbage or recycling.
Law enforcement in the Town is provided by the Charleston County Sheriff's Office. Charleston County Sheriff, Al Cannon, is not supportive of the Town having an independent police force. I believe it is unnecessary and expensive.
The Town has instead developed the Island Sheriff's Patrol. We pay extra in order to have additional Sheriff's Deputies provide law enforcement in the Town. So, the Town does provide for law enforcement, though without an independent police force. Sargent Shawn James coordinates the Island Sheriff's Patrol. He gives a report at all the Town meetings. He very much is concerned with protecting and serving the people of the Town.
If the unincorporated area of James Island returns to the Town, the Island Sheriff's Patrol will also provide extra law enforcement in those areas. This means that if you have speeding problems on your street, you can call Town Hall, and we will assign additional patrols the control the problem. If there are break-ins in your area, there will be extra patrols at night.
The Town of James Island primarily receives fire protection from the James Island Public Service District (JIPSD.) Those in the unincorporated area of James Island also primarily receive fire protection from the JIPSD. If the unincorporated area of James Island returns to the Town, there will be no change in fire protection. It will continue to be primarily provided by the JIPSD. Those in the Town pay property tax to the JIPSD for fire services. Those in the unincorporated area of James Island also pay taxes to the JIPSD for fire services. If the unincorporated area of James Island returns to the Town, there will be no change in the property taxes paid for fire serves.
For many years now, there has been a mutual aid agreement between the JIPSD Fire Department and the City of Charleston (and Folly Beach) Fire Departments. For this reason, the City of Charleston Fire Department helps the JIPSD fight fires in the Town of James Island and the unincorporated area of James Island. This will continue if the unincorporated area of James Island is returned to the Town of James Island.
The people in the Town and in the unincorporated area pay nothing directly to the City of Charleston for this help, but the taxes collected by the JIPSD pay for the James Island Fire Department, and the James Island Fire Department helps fight fires in other areas, especially in the areas of James Island annexed to the City of Charleston (or the City of Folly Beach.) None of this will change if the unincorporated area of James Island returns to the Town.
One of the strangest elements of our local public finances is that while James Islanders who annex to the City of Charleston or the City of Folly Beach pay no taxes to the JIPSD, the City of Charleston and the City of Folly Beach pay the JIPSD an amount equal to the property taxes those property owners would have paid to the JIPSD for fire services if they had not been annexed. These payments are required by a federal court order. The reason for the order is a federal statute that protects entities receiving federal loans to provide water , sewer, or fire services.
If the Town of James Island were to provide its own fire service independent of the JIPSD, the Town would be subject to the same federal law. As long as the JIPSD owes money to the federal government, the Town would be required to pay a substantial portion (approximately half) of the cost of the JIPSD service, while providing a duplicate fire service of our own. Since only a small fraction of the City of Charleston and Folly Beach is made up of areas annexed on James Island, this wasteful practice imposes a tolerable burden on their budgets. Since all of the Town of James Island is on James Island, this federal law makes a fire department independent of the JIPSD not only irrational but also economically unfeasible for the Town.
The Town of James Island receives solid waste collection (garbage and trash) from the JIPSD. Those in the unincorporated area of James Island also receive solid waste collection from the JIPSD. If the unincorporated portion of James Island were returned to the Town, this would not change. Those in the Town and the unincorporated area pay for this service with property taxes levied by the JIPSD. If the unincorporated portion of James Island were returned to the Town, this should not impact the property taxes needed to pay for this service, either for old or new residents of the Town.
The Town levies a property tax and provides an equal property tax credit resulting in no net property tax liability due the Town. The percent of property taxes paid by Town residents that go to the Town is zero. We will do the same for all the new residents if the Town is reunited.
I have asked the JIPSD to provide solid waste services to the residents of the Town by contract, while reducing the amount of property taxes they collect in the Town. If the majority of JIPSD Commissioners agree, then a substantial property tax reduction would be possible. If the unincorporated portion of James Island is returned to the Town, such a plan would be simpler since all property taxpayers in the JIPSD could have the same, lower property tax rate.
Recycling is provided to residents of the Town of James Island by Charleston County. Charleston County also provides the service to residents of the unincorporated portion of James Island as well as residents of the City of Charleston. Payment for this is a $99 fee on the property tax bill. There would be no change if those in the unincorporated area of James Island rejoin the Town. Charleston County would continue to provide the service to both new and old residents of the Town. It would foolish and wasteful for the Town of James Island to have a separate recycling program.
The Town provides services. The Town has staff providing planning and zoning, building, code enforcement, business license, and public works services. We work closely with Charleston County in many of these areas. Still, our goal is for our residents who need these services to be able to do everything here on James Island and avoid a trip to Bridgeview in North Charleston. The Town has been very successful in leveraging our funds to pay for public works improvements. We have paved roads and constructed sidewalks. While County crews do substantial basic public work in the Town, just as they do in the unincorporated area of James Island, the Town regularly supplements this work with private contracts paid with Town money, especially when backlogs create long delays for the County. The Town maintains and has improved Dock Street Park and is preparing to open Pinckney Park.
Taxes in the Town, even including the JIPSD property tax, are lower than in the City of Charleston. There are few cost savings compared to being in the County, but one is that the storm water fee in the Town is only $48 rather than the $72 now charged by the County.
Recently, I heard the claim that the Town provides no police, fire, garbage or recycling.
Law enforcement in the Town is provided by the Charleston County Sheriff's Office. Charleston County Sheriff, Al Cannon, is not supportive of the Town having an independent police force. I believe it is unnecessary and expensive.
The Town has instead developed the Island Sheriff's Patrol. We pay extra in order to have additional Sheriff's Deputies provide law enforcement in the Town. So, the Town does provide for law enforcement, though without an independent police force. Sargent Shawn James coordinates the Island Sheriff's Patrol. He gives a report at all the Town meetings. He very much is concerned with protecting and serving the people of the Town.
If the unincorporated area of James Island returns to the Town, the Island Sheriff's Patrol will also provide extra law enforcement in those areas. This means that if you have speeding problems on your street, you can call Town Hall, and we will assign additional patrols the control the problem. If there are break-ins in your area, there will be extra patrols at night.
The Town of James Island primarily receives fire protection from the James Island Public Service District (JIPSD.) Those in the unincorporated area of James Island also primarily receive fire protection from the JIPSD. If the unincorporated area of James Island returns to the Town, there will be no change in fire protection. It will continue to be primarily provided by the JIPSD. Those in the Town pay property tax to the JIPSD for fire services. Those in the unincorporated area of James Island also pay taxes to the JIPSD for fire services. If the unincorporated area of James Island returns to the Town, there will be no change in the property taxes paid for fire serves.
For many years now, there has been a mutual aid agreement between the JIPSD Fire Department and the City of Charleston (and Folly Beach) Fire Departments. For this reason, the City of Charleston Fire Department helps the JIPSD fight fires in the Town of James Island and the unincorporated area of James Island. This will continue if the unincorporated area of James Island is returned to the Town of James Island.
The people in the Town and in the unincorporated area pay nothing directly to the City of Charleston for this help, but the taxes collected by the JIPSD pay for the James Island Fire Department, and the James Island Fire Department helps fight fires in other areas, especially in the areas of James Island annexed to the City of Charleston (or the City of Folly Beach.) None of this will change if the unincorporated area of James Island returns to the Town.
One of the strangest elements of our local public finances is that while James Islanders who annex to the City of Charleston or the City of Folly Beach pay no taxes to the JIPSD, the City of Charleston and the City of Folly Beach pay the JIPSD an amount equal to the property taxes those property owners would have paid to the JIPSD for fire services if they had not been annexed. These payments are required by a federal court order. The reason for the order is a federal statute that protects entities receiving federal loans to provide water , sewer, or fire services.
If the Town of James Island were to provide its own fire service independent of the JIPSD, the Town would be subject to the same federal law. As long as the JIPSD owes money to the federal government, the Town would be required to pay a substantial portion (approximately half) of the cost of the JIPSD service, while providing a duplicate fire service of our own. Since only a small fraction of the City of Charleston and Folly Beach is made up of areas annexed on James Island, this wasteful practice imposes a tolerable burden on their budgets. Since all of the Town of James Island is on James Island, this federal law makes a fire department independent of the JIPSD not only irrational but also economically unfeasible for the Town.
The Town of James Island receives solid waste collection (garbage and trash) from the JIPSD. Those in the unincorporated area of James Island also receive solid waste collection from the JIPSD. If the unincorporated portion of James Island were returned to the Town, this would not change. Those in the Town and the unincorporated area pay for this service with property taxes levied by the JIPSD. If the unincorporated portion of James Island were returned to the Town, this should not impact the property taxes needed to pay for this service, either for old or new residents of the Town.
The Town levies a property tax and provides an equal property tax credit resulting in no net property tax liability due the Town. The percent of property taxes paid by Town residents that go to the Town is zero. We will do the same for all the new residents if the Town is reunited.
I have asked the JIPSD to provide solid waste services to the residents of the Town by contract, while reducing the amount of property taxes they collect in the Town. If the majority of JIPSD Commissioners agree, then a substantial property tax reduction would be possible. If the unincorporated portion of James Island is returned to the Town, such a plan would be simpler since all property taxpayers in the JIPSD could have the same, lower property tax rate.
Recycling is provided to residents of the Town of James Island by Charleston County. Charleston County also provides the service to residents of the unincorporated portion of James Island as well as residents of the City of Charleston. Payment for this is a $99 fee on the property tax bill. There would be no change if those in the unincorporated area of James Island rejoin the Town. Charleston County would continue to provide the service to both new and old residents of the Town. It would foolish and wasteful for the Town of James Island to have a separate recycling program.
The Town provides services. The Town has staff providing planning and zoning, building, code enforcement, business license, and public works services. We work closely with Charleston County in many of these areas. Still, our goal is for our residents who need these services to be able to do everything here on James Island and avoid a trip to Bridgeview in North Charleston. The Town has been very successful in leveraging our funds to pay for public works improvements. We have paved roads and constructed sidewalks. While County crews do substantial basic public work in the Town, just as they do in the unincorporated area of James Island, the Town regularly supplements this work with private contracts paid with Town money, especially when backlogs create long delays for the County. The Town maintains and has improved Dock Street Park and is preparing to open Pinckney Park.
Taxes in the Town, even including the JIPSD property tax, are lower than in the City of Charleston. There are few cost savings compared to being in the County, but one is that the storm water fee in the Town is only $48 rather than the $72 now charged by the County.
Monday, April 3, 2017
Annexation Bill Filed by Rep. Peter McCoy to help Reunite James Island
State Representative Peter McCoy has filed annexation legislation in Columbia. It is House Bill 4076.
To become law, the bill must pass the South Carolina House and Senate and be signed by the Governor.
After it passes, the next step would be for the James Island Public Service District (JIPSD) Commissioners to vote for a resolution asking the Town to hold an annexation election for the unincorporated portion of the district.
Soon after, an election would be held for those in the unincorporated area of the JIPSD. This is almost entirely made up of areas that were in the Town in 2011 but are not in the Town now. The voters in this area had no chance to vote in the Town's incorporation election in 2012.
If the majority of voters in the unincorporated area of the JIPSD choose to annex, then the Town will be reunited.
I think it is especially important that people who live in areas that were in the Town and want to join us contact their Senator and Representative and ask for their support. All we are asking is for everyone to have a chance to vote.
Senator Campsen represents areas south of Fort Johnson Road and Senator Senn represents people north of Fort Johnson Road. Representative Stavrinakis' district includes Riverland Terrace, the Grimball Community, and Sol Legare.
And, of course, give a big thank you to Representative Peter McCoy for all of his work to help reunite James Island.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)