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.
No comments:
Post a Comment