I wrote JIPSD Chairman Donald Hollingsworth to share with him a proposal to reduce property taxes in the Town of James Island. I offered to have the Town pay the JIPSD to provide solid waste collection in the Town in exchange for the JIPSD reducing the operating tax they charge in the Town from 53.1 mils to 34 mils. The 34 mils reflects the cost of providing fire protection. The 19.1 mil difference is the cost of providing solid waste collection. If you multiply that 19.1 mils by the Town's property tax base, it comes up to about $95,000 per month. The Town's 20 mil property tax would be sufficient to cover that. With our LOST property tax credit, the net property tax owed the Town would still be zero. The revenue the Town receives from LOST, which is intended to replace the money the Town does not collect in property tax due to the credit, would be available to cover the cost of solid waste collection.
The result for Town taxpayers would be a substantial property tax cut. The JIPSD charges a 53.1 operating millage and a 3.8 bond millage for a total of 56.9 mils. If the JIPSD would agree to the Town's proposal, then the total tax for the JIPSD in the Town would be 37.8, a reduction of 33%.
I believe it is especially urgent for the JIPSD to agree to tax relief. While they plan no property tax increase for the 2017 property tax on the bills coming this October, they are planning on a 6 mil increase in their bond millage in 2018. This will be used to pay for the new fire station. I think they do need a new fire station, but they are talking about a 10.5% increase in property tax! By working with the Town, that could be more than offset and still provide for an ample property tax cut in the Town. Even after the JIPSD increases taxes in 2018, the property tax in the Town would be 23% lower than it is today.
Unfortunately, as before, the answer was no. Chairman Hollingsworth claims that their "customers" will be confused. He claims that they must treat like cases alike, solely mentioning the City of Charleston and the City of Folly Beach. And he said that it would be inappropriate for them to be involved in the governance of the Town.
It is very disappointing. None of these concerns make much sense. And they certainly don't make enough sense for the Commissioners to choose to raise taxes on the people of the Town by 10% when they have a chance to lower them instead by 23%.
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Consideration of Bill to Reunite the Town Blocked at JIPSD
At their April meeting, the JIPSD Commissioners voted 5 to 1 to oppose HB 4076 that would give the voters of the unincorporated area of the District an opportunity to annex to the Town. At that meeting, JIPSD Attorney Trent Kernodle harshly criticized the bill. Interestingly, he spoke favorably of HB 3669, which would accomplish the same goal.
Commissioner Kathy Woolsey asked that consideration of HB 3669 be put on the agenda for the May meeting. While the District rules give each Commissioner the right to place items on the agenda, Chairman Hollingsworth along with Vice Chair Kay Kernodle and Secretary Cubby Wilder refused to place this item on the agenda.
The reason why it is important for the JIPSD Commissioners to support a bill is that Senator Sandy Senn will only support our effort to reunite the Town if District Manager Robert Wise "signs off" on a bill.
If there is going to be any chance for those who were in the Town to have an opportunity to return, it is vitally important that all supporters of the Town, both within and without contact Senator Senn and ask her to support reuniting the Town. It would also help to contact Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, Platt, and Engelman and insist that they start supporting the Town rather than fighting it.
Commissioner Kathy Woolsey asked that consideration of HB 3669 be put on the agenda for the May meeting. While the District rules give each Commissioner the right to place items on the agenda, Chairman Hollingsworth along with Vice Chair Kay Kernodle and Secretary Cubby Wilder refused to place this item on the agenda.
The reason why it is important for the JIPSD Commissioners to support a bill is that Senator Sandy Senn will only support our effort to reunite the Town if District Manager Robert Wise "signs off" on a bill.
If there is going to be any chance for those who were in the Town to have an opportunity to return, it is vitally important that all supporters of the Town, both within and without contact Senator Senn and ask her to support reuniting the Town. It would also help to contact Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, Platt, and Engelman and insist that they start supporting the Town rather than fighting it.
James Island Moratorium Set Back at County Council
A motion to send a moratorium to the County Planning Commission failed on a 4-4 tie at Tuesday's County Council meeting. Councilwoman Anna Johnson, whose district includes a small portion of James Island, left the meeting right before the vote. Here is a map of her district. At the far west end, there is a small area of James Island included.
Councilman Joe Qualey supported the motion. He attended the James Island Intergovernmental Council meeting where the elected officials of James Island unanimously recommended that County Council adopt a moratorium consistent with that of the City of Charleston. Councilwoman Anna Johnson was absent from that entire meeting.
Voting in favor of moving the moratorium forward were Chairman Rawl and Councilmen Qualey, Schweer, and Darby. Voting against were Councilmen Summey, Moody, Sass and Pryor.
The Town adopted a moratorium last night. I spoke with Mayor Goodwin, and the City of Folly Beach is likely to adopt a moratorium for its area of jurisdiction on James Island.
Three of the four local governments with planning and zoning authority on James Island have following through. Charleston County looks like it will be the problem.
All of James Island is in Charleston County, but only the unincorporated area of James Island is subject to Charleston County's planning and zoning authority. Nearly all of that area was in the Town before 2011. The Town has been working since 2012 to give them a chance to return to the Town. But that requires legislation in Columbia.
So now we have a situation where planning and zoning for a portion of James Island is determined by a County Council where James Islanders vote for only 2 of the 9 members. The other 7 never have to face any James Island voter. James Island makes up a significant portion of Councilman Qualey's district. Here is a map. The area of James Island that shows white on the map of Qualey's district is in Councilwoman Anna Johnson's district. Perhaps 15% of James Islanders are in her district, but most of her voters are in other portions of Charleston County--Johns Island, Edisto Island, Wadamalaw Island, and St. Pauls Parrish.
In my opinion, there is an obvious solution. We need to get the Town reunited. If these areas were in the Town, we would not have to depend on a County Council over which we have so little influence. Every member of the James Island Town Council lives on James Island and every voter we face in every election lives here too.
I don't think that sending the moratorium to the County Planning Commission was necessary as a first step. Still, it would have been a step forward.
The City of Charleston and the Town of James Island implemented the moratorium by ordinance on first reading. The Town is sending its moratorium to the James Island Planning Commission for a recommendation and will hold a public hearing at our regular Town Council meeting on June 15. Assuming Town Council votes in favor, the moratorium will be adopted as of May 25.
Councilman Joe Qualey supported the motion. He attended the James Island Intergovernmental Council meeting where the elected officials of James Island unanimously recommended that County Council adopt a moratorium consistent with that of the City of Charleston. Councilwoman Anna Johnson was absent from that entire meeting.
Voting in favor of moving the moratorium forward were Chairman Rawl and Councilmen Qualey, Schweer, and Darby. Voting against were Councilmen Summey, Moody, Sass and Pryor.
The Town adopted a moratorium last night. I spoke with Mayor Goodwin, and the City of Folly Beach is likely to adopt a moratorium for its area of jurisdiction on James Island.
Three of the four local governments with planning and zoning authority on James Island have following through. Charleston County looks like it will be the problem.
All of James Island is in Charleston County, but only the unincorporated area of James Island is subject to Charleston County's planning and zoning authority. Nearly all of that area was in the Town before 2011. The Town has been working since 2012 to give them a chance to return to the Town. But that requires legislation in Columbia.
So now we have a situation where planning and zoning for a portion of James Island is determined by a County Council where James Islanders vote for only 2 of the 9 members. The other 7 never have to face any James Island voter. James Island makes up a significant portion of Councilman Qualey's district. Here is a map. The area of James Island that shows white on the map of Qualey's district is in Councilwoman Anna Johnson's district. Perhaps 15% of James Islanders are in her district, but most of her voters are in other portions of Charleston County--Johns Island, Edisto Island, Wadamalaw Island, and St. Pauls Parrish.
In my opinion, there is an obvious solution. We need to get the Town reunited. If these areas were in the Town, we would not have to depend on a County Council over which we have so little influence. Every member of the James Island Town Council lives on James Island and every voter we face in every election lives here too.
I don't think that sending the moratorium to the County Planning Commission was necessary as a first step. Still, it would have been a step forward.
The City of Charleston and the Town of James Island implemented the moratorium by ordinance on first reading. The Town is sending its moratorium to the James Island Planning Commission for a recommendation and will hold a public hearing at our regular Town Council meeting on June 15. Assuming Town Council votes in favor, the moratorium will be adopted as of May 25.
Town Council Passes Moratorium
James Island Town Council held a special meeting and passed on first reading a temporary moratorium in support of the recent James Island moratorium passed by the City of Charleston. The Town's moratorium goes into effect immediately as of 5:15 PM on May 25, 2017 and is scheduled to end at the same time as that of the City of Charleston, on November 5, 2017.
The Town's moratorium is on accepting or processing zoning applications for more than 4 residential units per acre in nonresidential zones and also other development greater that 1500 square feet excepting redevelopment consistent with the Folly Road Overlay Zoning District. Because the Town's existing zoning allows much less density than that of the City of Charleston, the impact of the Town's moratorium will be relatively small. We have never allowed large apartment complexes in our commercial districts.
The exception is different from the moratorium the City of Charleston passed. Of course, the City of Charleston has yet to adopt the Folly Road Overlay District. We hope that they will do so during their moratorium. The reason I supported the exception is that I believe that the Town should not hold up desirable redevelopment in our commercial area that will bring existing commercial buildings into compliance with the Folly Road Overlay. This will involve sidewalks, landscaping and other improvements that will benefit everyone on James Island.
The Town's Planning Commission will be making a recommendation regarding the moratorium at their next meeting. Town Council will hold a public hearing and vote on final approval at its next regular meeting on June 15.
The Town's moratorium is on accepting or processing zoning applications for more than 4 residential units per acre in nonresidential zones and also other development greater that 1500 square feet excepting redevelopment consistent with the Folly Road Overlay Zoning District. Because the Town's existing zoning allows much less density than that of the City of Charleston, the impact of the Town's moratorium will be relatively small. We have never allowed large apartment complexes in our commercial districts.
The exception is different from the moratorium the City of Charleston passed. Of course, the City of Charleston has yet to adopt the Folly Road Overlay District. We hope that they will do so during their moratorium. The reason I supported the exception is that I believe that the Town should not hold up desirable redevelopment in our commercial area that will bring existing commercial buildings into compliance with the Folly Road Overlay. This will involve sidewalks, landscaping and other improvements that will benefit everyone on James Island.
The Town's Planning Commission will be making a recommendation regarding the moratorium at their next meeting. Town Council will hold a public hearing and vote on final approval at its next regular meeting on June 15.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
No Left Turns from North Shore
The Harbor View Road Improvement project made North Shore right-turn-in and right-turn-out only. The traffic engineers (and anyone with any common sense) could see that turning left on Harbor View Road was unsafe. The visibility is poor as cars head onto big James Island down the causeway after the Buxton bridge.
Of course, we all know that there were many people who drove down Dills Bluff to North Shore until they hit Harbor View and turned left. In the morning traffic jam, they would avoid the traffic on Harbor View. Some people would stop and let them in, holding up everyone trying to leave the Island. No more.
If you are going down Dills Bluff and you want to get onto Harbor View, you can turn down Fort Sumter and catch the light or else you can turn down Waites or James. Don't keep "straight" on Dills Bluff as it turns into North Shore and then comes to Harbor View. You then have no choice but to turn right. You need to go around a "block," perhaps down to Waites and then back down James to Harbor View.
The most hard headed people just won't give up. They still turn left at North Shore to get onto Harbor View Road. It is practically a u-turn!
The Island Sheriff's Patrol has been assigning officers to give tickets to those attempting this maneuver. The intersection is in the City of Charleston and so the City police are working on the problem as well.
Some traffic control devices will be added to make it even more plain that there are no left turns out of North Shore to Harbor View.
Stop doing this now!
Friday, May 19, 2017
Town Resolution on James Island Moratorium
Town Council unanimously approved a resolution Thursday night regarding the James Island moratorium. I placed it on our agenda last week, before the James Island Intergovernmental Council met last Monday.
The resolution welcomed the City of Charleston's six month moratorium on more than four units and more than 1500 square feet in nonresidential zones. The Town's resolution also calls for Charleston County and the City of Folly Beach to adopt similar moratoriums in their areas of jurisdiction on James Island. Further, it calls for the Town's Planning Director to determine what, if any, moratorium is appropriate for the Town.
At the meeting, Councilman Stokes proposed an amendment to the Town's resolution. He added some items from the resolution that had been adopted by the Intergovernmental Council. Our amended resolution calls for a joint James Island Planning Committee that is to develop a James Island overlay zoning district and a James Island Comprehensive Plan. The five items proposed by Mayor Tecklenburg to be addressed by the plan were also added. Those are affordable housing, the Folly Road overlay, drainage improvements, a joint Design Review Board, and the urban growth boundary. It also calls on the four governments with jurisdiction on James Island to send representatives from their planning departments to develop a specific proposal for the joint James Island Planning Committee.
The Town did not adopt a moratorium at our May meeting. We should receive a recommendation from our Planning Director soon and, unless we hold a special meeting earlier, an ordinance will likely come before Council at our June meeting.,
There is substantial interest on Council to pass a moratorium in solidarity with the City of Charleston and the other two governments with planning and zoning jurisdiction on James Island. However, it is important to understand that Town zoning already limits residential development in our community commercial zone to four units per acre. A moratorium is not necessary to prevent more than four units per acre in our nonresidential zones. It is already contrary to the Town's Zoning Ordinance.
The City of Charleston responded to citizen demands for a two year moratorium on apartments with a six month moratorium on more than four units in nonresidential zones and also on commercial development greater than 1500 square feet. This does not prevent apartments, though the number of apartments would be small. I agree with the City's approach that rather than focus on apartments, the goal should be to limit the number of units. I don't think it is important whether a one acre commercial property is subdivided to allow 4 single family homes or if a small 4 unit apartment building is placed on the site with plenty of open space for the residents to enjoy.
However, I am very concerned that a moratorium would delay desirable commercial redevelopment in the Town. Nearly all of our commercially zoned property is on Folly Road and there are next to no vacant parcels. The Town adopted the Folly Road Overlay. If someone is interested in redeveloping one of the aging strip malls in the Town, I think that would be great for everyone on James Island. Such a redevelopment would provide sidewalks, landscaping, and other changes that would improve our commercial core. I do not want to delay an opportunity for improving our Island for six months!
I think it is great that it looks like the City of Charleston will be willing to adopt a modified version of the Folly Road overlay and is putting a temporary hold on commercial development allowed under its current zoning rules until we come to some agreement on appropriate modifications. But our policy is to encourage redevelopment consistent with the Folly Road overlay now.
That is the key issue that our Planning Director must consider before making a recommendation to Town Council and what Council must consider at our June meeting.
The resolution welcomed the City of Charleston's six month moratorium on more than four units and more than 1500 square feet in nonresidential zones. The Town's resolution also calls for Charleston County and the City of Folly Beach to adopt similar moratoriums in their areas of jurisdiction on James Island. Further, it calls for the Town's Planning Director to determine what, if any, moratorium is appropriate for the Town.
At the meeting, Councilman Stokes proposed an amendment to the Town's resolution. He added some items from the resolution that had been adopted by the Intergovernmental Council. Our amended resolution calls for a joint James Island Planning Committee that is to develop a James Island overlay zoning district and a James Island Comprehensive Plan. The five items proposed by Mayor Tecklenburg to be addressed by the plan were also added. Those are affordable housing, the Folly Road overlay, drainage improvements, a joint Design Review Board, and the urban growth boundary. It also calls on the four governments with jurisdiction on James Island to send representatives from their planning departments to develop a specific proposal for the joint James Island Planning Committee.
The Town did not adopt a moratorium at our May meeting. We should receive a recommendation from our Planning Director soon and, unless we hold a special meeting earlier, an ordinance will likely come before Council at our June meeting.,
There is substantial interest on Council to pass a moratorium in solidarity with the City of Charleston and the other two governments with planning and zoning jurisdiction on James Island. However, it is important to understand that Town zoning already limits residential development in our community commercial zone to four units per acre. A moratorium is not necessary to prevent more than four units per acre in our nonresidential zones. It is already contrary to the Town's Zoning Ordinance.
The City of Charleston responded to citizen demands for a two year moratorium on apartments with a six month moratorium on more than four units in nonresidential zones and also on commercial development greater than 1500 square feet. This does not prevent apartments, though the number of apartments would be small. I agree with the City's approach that rather than focus on apartments, the goal should be to limit the number of units. I don't think it is important whether a one acre commercial property is subdivided to allow 4 single family homes or if a small 4 unit apartment building is placed on the site with plenty of open space for the residents to enjoy.
However, I am very concerned that a moratorium would delay desirable commercial redevelopment in the Town. Nearly all of our commercially zoned property is on Folly Road and there are next to no vacant parcels. The Town adopted the Folly Road Overlay. If someone is interested in redeveloping one of the aging strip malls in the Town, I think that would be great for everyone on James Island. Such a redevelopment would provide sidewalks, landscaping, and other changes that would improve our commercial core. I do not want to delay an opportunity for improving our Island for six months!
I think it is great that it looks like the City of Charleston will be willing to adopt a modified version of the Folly Road overlay and is putting a temporary hold on commercial development allowed under its current zoning rules until we come to some agreement on appropriate modifications. But our policy is to encourage redevelopment consistent with the Folly Road overlay now.
That is the key issue that our Planning Director must consider before making a recommendation to Town Council and what Council must consider at our June meeting.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
James Island Intergovernmental Council Meeting Report
The James Island Intergovernmental Council approved a resolution calling for Charleston County, the Town of James Island and the City of Folly Beach to adopt moratoriums on James Island development consistent with that approved by Charleston City Council. The resolution also calls for the formation of a Joint James Island Planning Committee to be tasked with the development of a James Island Overlay Zoning District and a James Island Comprehensive Plan for the consideration of each jurisdiction's Planning Commission.
I moved the resolution be adopted and it was seconded by Mayor Tecklenburg.
Mayor Tecklenburg proposed to amend the resolution to add five proposals for the comprehensive plan for James Island which were related to five proposals for James Island planning and zoning that he had presented earlier in the meeting. These were affordable housing, the urban growth boundary, joint design review board, drainage improvements, and the Folly Road Overlay. I seconded his amendment. Both the amendment and the resolution passed unanimously.
The resolution calls for a representative of the planning department of each jurisdiction to meet and develop a specific proposal for the James Island Planning Committee to be approved by the governing body of each jurisdiction.
JIPSD Commissioner Eugene Platt made a motion for the moratorium to be extended to two years. County Councilman Joe Qualey said it would be difficult to get County Council to agree to even six months. Mayor Tecklenburg said that it was difficult to get City Council to agree to anything more than six month. Several members pointed out that the moratorium could be extended. (I doubt that everything considered in the resolution can come close to be completed in six months, but it might be possible for the City of Charleston and Charleston County to make some key changes in their zoning ordinances to make extension of the moratorium less pressing. We will see.) The motion for a two year moratorium was defeated.
The Intergovernmental Council heard reports about Rethink Folly Road including the Town's grant request from the Council of Governments to complete sidewalks from Camp Road to Ellis Creek. It also heard reports and saw preliminary maps for the proposed 1/2 cent sales tax projects for James Island--Central Park and Riverland, Fort Johnson and Secessionville, Fort Johnson and Camp, and sidewalks on Folly between Camp and George Griffith.
Friday, May 5, 2017
How Should We Provide Services in the Town?
How should we provide services in the Town?
In particular, should the Town continue to obtain sewer, fire protection, and solid waste collection from the James Island Public Service District?
Or should some or all of those services instead be provided by Town government?
In an earlier blog post, one published by the Post and Courier, I said that after the Town is reunited, we should discuss this matter.
Of course, it would be foolish to close down JIPSD operations, sell off its equipment and buildings, lay off its employees and then have the Town build new buildings, buy new equipment, and hire new employees.
It is rather that instead of the JIPSD Commissioners and their District Manager being in charge of all of those operations, some (or all) of them might be transferred to the Town, which means that Town Council, the Mayor and the Town Administrator would manage some (or all) of the services.
Further, instead of having the JIPSD cover the cost of the services by charging sewer fees for sewer services and levying property taxes for fire protection and solid waste collection, the Town would collect some (or all) of the fees and taxes to pay for the costs for some (or all) of the services. Most importantly, the Town could use its other sources of revenue to help fund fire protection and solid waste collection.
I have kept an open mind. I am sure there are advantages and disadvantages specific to each particular service.
But I have always insisted that this decision should be up to the people of James Island. The voters of the JIPSD elect Commissioners and the voters of the Town elect a Mayor and Council. If the voters of James Island believe that all of these services should stay with the JIPSD, then they should elect Commissioners and a Mayor and Council who agree. If, on the other hand, they think that some or all of these services should be transferred from the JIPSD to the Town, then they should elect Commissioners and a Mayor and Council who support change.
Before 2011, nearly all of the voters of the JIPSD were in the Town and all of the voters of the Town were in the JIPSD. (There were maybe 20 people in unincorporated James Island in 2011.)
Today, all of the voters of the Town are in the JIPSD and they make up a majority. However, about 1/3 of the voters of the JIPSD remain in unincorporated James Island. They were in the Town, but were not included in the 2012 incorporation election.
I am committed to giving the former residents of the Town an opportunity to return to the Town. That is why I support legislation in Columbia to make it possible.
The recent Brian Hicks column criticizing the Town because the JIPSD provides fire, solid waste collection, and sewer in the Town was nothing new. For years, elected officials from other local governments in the area have been critical of the Town. They call us a "paper town."
I have always explained that the way we provide fire protection and solid waste collection on James Island may be a little unusual (though hardly unique,) but James Islanders are happy with our approach. If James Islanders want to make changes, it is our decision and we do not have to blindly copy other municipalities.
Brian Hick's claim that it is illegal for the Town to receive services from the JIPSD because a PSD can only provide services in an unincorporated area is false. It up to the people of James Island how we want to organize our services. In particular, we can continue to have the JIPSD provide us some or all of the services it currently provides.
However, there are some James Islanders who feel threatened by even a hint that change is possible. They treat consideration of a shift to Town provision of any service currently provided by the JIPSD as blasphemy.
Supposedly, the Town only exists because of the JIPSD, so it is a sacrilege to even consider shifting any service from the JIPSD to the Town.
That doesn't make any sense. Neither the Town nor the JIPSD were ordained by God to be eternal and neither should be made into idols. Both are human organizations whose purpose is to serve the people of James Island in an effective and efficient manner. Only by a careful weighing of advantages and disadvantages can we determine what is best for the people of James Island.
In particular, should the Town continue to obtain sewer, fire protection, and solid waste collection from the James Island Public Service District?
Or should some or all of those services instead be provided by Town government?
In an earlier blog post, one published by the Post and Courier, I said that after the Town is reunited, we should discuss this matter.
Of course, it would be foolish to close down JIPSD operations, sell off its equipment and buildings, lay off its employees and then have the Town build new buildings, buy new equipment, and hire new employees.
It is rather that instead of the JIPSD Commissioners and their District Manager being in charge of all of those operations, some (or all) of them might be transferred to the Town, which means that Town Council, the Mayor and the Town Administrator would manage some (or all) of the services.
Further, instead of having the JIPSD cover the cost of the services by charging sewer fees for sewer services and levying property taxes for fire protection and solid waste collection, the Town would collect some (or all) of the fees and taxes to pay for the costs for some (or all) of the services. Most importantly, the Town could use its other sources of revenue to help fund fire protection and solid waste collection.
I have kept an open mind. I am sure there are advantages and disadvantages specific to each particular service.
But I have always insisted that this decision should be up to the people of James Island. The voters of the JIPSD elect Commissioners and the voters of the Town elect a Mayor and Council. If the voters of James Island believe that all of these services should stay with the JIPSD, then they should elect Commissioners and a Mayor and Council who agree. If, on the other hand, they think that some or all of these services should be transferred from the JIPSD to the Town, then they should elect Commissioners and a Mayor and Council who support change.
Before 2011, nearly all of the voters of the JIPSD were in the Town and all of the voters of the Town were in the JIPSD. (There were maybe 20 people in unincorporated James Island in 2011.)
Today, all of the voters of the Town are in the JIPSD and they make up a majority. However, about 1/3 of the voters of the JIPSD remain in unincorporated James Island. They were in the Town, but were not included in the 2012 incorporation election.
I am committed to giving the former residents of the Town an opportunity to return to the Town. That is why I support legislation in Columbia to make it possible.
The recent Brian Hicks column criticizing the Town because the JIPSD provides fire, solid waste collection, and sewer in the Town was nothing new. For years, elected officials from other local governments in the area have been critical of the Town. They call us a "paper town."
I have always explained that the way we provide fire protection and solid waste collection on James Island may be a little unusual (though hardly unique,) but James Islanders are happy with our approach. If James Islanders want to make changes, it is our decision and we do not have to blindly copy other municipalities.
Brian Hick's claim that it is illegal for the Town to receive services from the JIPSD because a PSD can only provide services in an unincorporated area is false. It up to the people of James Island how we want to organize our services. In particular, we can continue to have the JIPSD provide us some or all of the services it currently provides.
However, there are some James Islanders who feel threatened by even a hint that change is possible. They treat consideration of a shift to Town provision of any service currently provided by the JIPSD as blasphemy.
Supposedly, the Town only exists because of the JIPSD, so it is a sacrilege to even consider shifting any service from the JIPSD to the Town.
That doesn't make any sense. Neither the Town nor the JIPSD were ordained by God to be eternal and neither should be made into idols. Both are human organizations whose purpose is to serve the people of James Island in an effective and efficient manner. Only by a careful weighing of advantages and disadvantages can we determine what is best for the people of James Island.
A Tale of Two Bills: Contiguity and Annexation
In 2014, Senator Thurmond and Representative McCoy each filed a bill that would allow the Town to be reunited. The Senate version of the bill was S 723.
Hearings were held by a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill was heavily amended to satisfy concerns raised by various lobbyists, especially those with the special purpose district association and also the association of counties. Both the original and amended version of S 723 is here.
While I was not happy with some of the amendments, I agreed to support the amended bill. It did provide a process to reunite the Town. Trent Kernodle and, apparently, the JIPSD, also agreed to support S 723 as amended.
It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, though all the Democrats were opposed. A hold was placed on the bill by Democrat Senator Kimpson. We now know that this was done at the request of the Coastal Conservation League. That meant it did not go the Senate floor for a vote.
The original version of the bill, without the amendments, passed in the House. Then House Leader Bobby Harrell made the difference. Glenn McConnell was no longer President Pro-Tem of the Senate, which made our task much more difficult there.
James Islanders, including many from our African American communities, contacted Senator Kimpson. He withdrew his hold, but Senator Pinckney put a hold on the bill. Again, this was done at the behest of Coastal Conservation League. By this time, the legislative year was over. Senator Pinckney was also contacted by James Islanders, again including many from our African-American communities, and he agreed to withdraw his hold shortly before he was assassinated.
By this time, Representative McCoy and James Island Town Councilman Josh Stokes began to work on a different bill that would accomplish the same goal with a slightly different approach. Rather than a new method of annexation, this involved a modification of contiguity.
A bill based on this new approach was filed by Representative McCoy near the end of the session in 2016 and then refiled in February 2017 as H 3669. Here is that bill.
H 3669 was scheduled for a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary committee in March. Lobbyists for some special purpose districts in the upstate told the Town's lobbyist, former House Representative Ann Peterson, that they would oppose the new bill, but were still willing to support Senate bill 723 as amended. They said that all of the lobbyists had agreed that the amended version of that bill took care of all of their concerns back in 2014.
Based upon those conversations, McCoy asked the subcommittee Chair to pull H 3669 from the agenda and instead filed a new bill H 4076 which was the same as S 723 as amended from 2014. Here is the that new/old bill.
I asked Senators Campsen and Senn to file a companion bill in the Senate. Senator Campsen, who had co-sponsored the bills that allowed the Town to be incorporated with Senator McConnel, agreed and said he would have staff look at it.
Senator Senn wrote me and said that I needed to get Robert Wise's OK. Robert Wise is the District Manager of the JIPSD.
I asked the District Manager if he would support this bill and to share any concerns he might have with it so that we can make any needed modifications. I was puzzled as to why Senator Senn put the the fate of the people of James Island in the hands of one man, but the voters put her in office, including many on James Island. Wise said he would discuss it with the other directors of the special purpose district association and JIPSD Chair Hollingsworth.
I asked JIPSD Chair Hollingsworth if he would support the bill and he said that he could only support it if the other special purpose districts in the state would support it and said he had some concerns about the bill. I asked him to please share those concerns, but he made no response.
JIPSD Commissioner Inez Brown Crouch asked to have the issue placed upon the JIPSD Commission agenda for their March meeting and have Anne Peterson come explain the bill. I hoped that this would allow us to discover what concerns JIPSD Commissioners had with this bill. Commissioner Brown-Crouch called Hollingsworth who agreed to place it on the agenda, but the executive committee of Commissioners Wilder, Kernodle and Hollingsworth refused to place it on the March agenda. The problem was that Anne Peterson worked for the Town.
For the April meeting, Commissioners Kathy Woolsey and Inez Brown-Crouch again asked to have Representative McCoy explain the bill. It was placed on the agenda. Representative McCoy couldn't make the meeting and asked Chairman Hollingsworth to allow Anne Peterson to explain the bill. Hollingsworth refused because Peterson is a paid lobbyist of the Town. Peterson explained the bill during the public comment period.
When it came up on the agenda, Commissioner Engelman proposed adopting the bill and Commissioner Kernodle seconded.
There was some discussion by the Commissioners. Commissioners Kernodle and Engleman emphasized that that they did not want the Town to take over the JIPSD. Chairman Hollingsworth reported on his call to Mayor Tecklenburg to find the City's position on the bill. The City is opposed to reuniting the Town. Hollingsworth also raised concerns that the PSD is not authorized to hold referendums and asked who would pay for the annexation election? Clearly, he hadn't looked over the bill, since it required the Charleston County election commission to hold the annexation election as it always does and requires the Town to pay for it.
Trent Kernodle was then called upon to give his view of the bill.
The bad news is that he made various confused and inaccurate claims that could be loosely related to points made by the Commissioners. The most serious error was his claim that the bill would substitute a referendum for the existing legal procedures for shifting services from the JIPSD to the Town or else completely dissolving the JIPSD. In reality, the bill just adds the referendum as an additional hurdle.
The good news is that Trent Kernodle appeared to support HB 3669. This was the bill McCoy first filed in 2016 and in February of 2017. If that bill can pass, then it would allow the Town to be reunited.
Having the JIPSD support the bill is important, because Senator Senn insists that the JIPSD, or, more specifically, its District Manager, Robert Wise, "sign off" on any bill to reunite the Town.
I think the best approach is for the JIPSD to join with the Town in supporting H 3669.
Hearings were held by a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill was heavily amended to satisfy concerns raised by various lobbyists, especially those with the special purpose district association and also the association of counties. Both the original and amended version of S 723 is here.
While I was not happy with some of the amendments, I agreed to support the amended bill. It did provide a process to reunite the Town. Trent Kernodle and, apparently, the JIPSD, also agreed to support S 723 as amended.
It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, though all the Democrats were opposed. A hold was placed on the bill by Democrat Senator Kimpson. We now know that this was done at the request of the Coastal Conservation League. That meant it did not go the Senate floor for a vote.
The original version of the bill, without the amendments, passed in the House. Then House Leader Bobby Harrell made the difference. Glenn McConnell was no longer President Pro-Tem of the Senate, which made our task much more difficult there.
James Islanders, including many from our African American communities, contacted Senator Kimpson. He withdrew his hold, but Senator Pinckney put a hold on the bill. Again, this was done at the behest of Coastal Conservation League. By this time, the legislative year was over. Senator Pinckney was also contacted by James Islanders, again including many from our African-American communities, and he agreed to withdraw his hold shortly before he was assassinated.
By this time, Representative McCoy and James Island Town Councilman Josh Stokes began to work on a different bill that would accomplish the same goal with a slightly different approach. Rather than a new method of annexation, this involved a modification of contiguity.
A bill based on this new approach was filed by Representative McCoy near the end of the session in 2016 and then refiled in February 2017 as H 3669. Here is that bill.
H 3669 was scheduled for a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary committee in March. Lobbyists for some special purpose districts in the upstate told the Town's lobbyist, former House Representative Ann Peterson, that they would oppose the new bill, but were still willing to support Senate bill 723 as amended. They said that all of the lobbyists had agreed that the amended version of that bill took care of all of their concerns back in 2014.
Based upon those conversations, McCoy asked the subcommittee Chair to pull H 3669 from the agenda and instead filed a new bill H 4076 which was the same as S 723 as amended from 2014. Here is the that new/old bill.
I asked Senators Campsen and Senn to file a companion bill in the Senate. Senator Campsen, who had co-sponsored the bills that allowed the Town to be incorporated with Senator McConnel, agreed and said he would have staff look at it.
Senator Senn wrote me and said that I needed to get Robert Wise's OK. Robert Wise is the District Manager of the JIPSD.
I asked the District Manager if he would support this bill and to share any concerns he might have with it so that we can make any needed modifications. I was puzzled as to why Senator Senn put the the fate of the people of James Island in the hands of one man, but the voters put her in office, including many on James Island. Wise said he would discuss it with the other directors of the special purpose district association and JIPSD Chair Hollingsworth.
I asked JIPSD Chair Hollingsworth if he would support the bill and he said that he could only support it if the other special purpose districts in the state would support it and said he had some concerns about the bill. I asked him to please share those concerns, but he made no response.
JIPSD Commissioner Inez Brown Crouch asked to have the issue placed upon the JIPSD Commission agenda for their March meeting and have Anne Peterson come explain the bill. I hoped that this would allow us to discover what concerns JIPSD Commissioners had with this bill. Commissioner Brown-Crouch called Hollingsworth who agreed to place it on the agenda, but the executive committee of Commissioners Wilder, Kernodle and Hollingsworth refused to place it on the March agenda. The problem was that Anne Peterson worked for the Town.
For the April meeting, Commissioners Kathy Woolsey and Inez Brown-Crouch again asked to have Representative McCoy explain the bill. It was placed on the agenda. Representative McCoy couldn't make the meeting and asked Chairman Hollingsworth to allow Anne Peterson to explain the bill. Hollingsworth refused because Peterson is a paid lobbyist of the Town. Peterson explained the bill during the public comment period.
When it came up on the agenda, Commissioner Engelman proposed adopting the bill and Commissioner Kernodle seconded.
There was some discussion by the Commissioners. Commissioners Kernodle and Engleman emphasized that that they did not want the Town to take over the JIPSD. Chairman Hollingsworth reported on his call to Mayor Tecklenburg to find the City's position on the bill. The City is opposed to reuniting the Town. Hollingsworth also raised concerns that the PSD is not authorized to hold referendums and asked who would pay for the annexation election? Clearly, he hadn't looked over the bill, since it required the Charleston County election commission to hold the annexation election as it always does and requires the Town to pay for it.
Trent Kernodle was then called upon to give his view of the bill.
The bad news is that he made various confused and inaccurate claims that could be loosely related to points made by the Commissioners. The most serious error was his claim that the bill would substitute a referendum for the existing legal procedures for shifting services from the JIPSD to the Town or else completely dissolving the JIPSD. In reality, the bill just adds the referendum as an additional hurdle.
The good news is that Trent Kernodle appeared to support HB 3669. This was the bill McCoy first filed in 2016 and in February of 2017. If that bill can pass, then it would allow the Town to be reunited.
Having the JIPSD support the bill is important, because Senator Senn insists that the JIPSD, or, more specifically, its District Manager, Robert Wise, "sign off" on any bill to reunite the Town.
I think the best approach is for the JIPSD to join with the Town in supporting H 3669.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)