On Saturday, July 7, there was serious flooding in the Town of James Island. Fortunately it did not last long.
The Camp and Folly intersection was badly flooded. The recently completed Camp and Folly improvement project included drainage that meets the 25 year design storm standard. That is 3.2 inches per hour at high tide. The rain was very heavy and almost exactly at high tide. The best evidence is that the rainfall was at least slightly more intense--3.5 inches per hour. Review of the drainage structures showed no blockage. (Thank you to Charleston Transportation for providing this information.) After the rain stopped and the tide fell, the water drained away. The flooding was gone by Sunday morning.
The neighborhoods near Folly and Camp also had significant flooding, especially in streets and yards. Oakcrest, Lynwood, and Queensborough all reported problems. Again, very heavy rain at high tide was the source of the problem. Slightly worse than the 25 year event. By the next morning, the water had drained away--at least from the roadways. That is a sign that the drainage is working, even if it is not robust enough to take such heavy rain at high tide.
The Town of James Island, the City of Charleston, and Charleston County plan an Island wide drainage study. The County is taking the lead, and is in the process of retaining a consultant who will identify all the drainage basins on James Island. After that is complete, the three jurisdictions will identify a drainage basin for more detailed work. The result will include recommendations for improved drainage infrastructure for that basin. Then we will work on a study for an additional basin, while working to implement recommendations for the first basin. The goal is to have a complete study for the entire island. The basin between Folly, Fort Johnson, and Camp is an area of great concern to both the Town of James Island and the City of Charleston.
Right now, the City of Charleston is taking the lead on a drainage study for the area between Folly, Central Park, and Riverland and Maybank. They are working with Charleston County. That area is north of the Town's jurisdiction. The County is taking the lead on a drainage study for Signal Point Road. They are working with the City of Charleston. That is south of the Town's jurisdiction. These studies will lead to recommendations for drainage improvements.
The cost is to be allocated to the three governments according to the area in each jurisdiction.
The Town of James Island has budgeted more than $400,000 for drainage improvements during the current fiscal year. We also have $200,000 budgeted for public works projects, which can include basic drainage maintenance as well as drainage repairs. Most of the money under that budget line item has been used on drainage problems in the past. We have three on-call stormwater infrastructure contractors and have been mobilizing them to complete necessary drainage improvement projects throughout the Town. County drainage crews continue to provide services valued at up to $150,000 per year in the area of the Town.
Earlier this year, we completed several repair projects in the Lynwood Subdivision. This summer, we upgraded an outfall in Lighthouse Point subdivision and this fall we have another drainage improvement project scheduled for the Tallwood neighborhood. We’re also hard at work securing necessary drainage easement acquisitions so we can properly maintain existing systems. We’re just wrapping up an easement project in the Stonepost subdivision, and we have another one underway in the Greenhill/Honey Hill community.
We have had a number of citizens report damage due to the storm on July 7. Please contact the Town at 843-795-4141 or email mjohnson@jamesislandsc.us to report any flood damage, especially to the living areas of your home.
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Thursday, July 5, 2018
Which PSD Commissioners Stand With James Island--More from the Wilder Memo
PSD Commissioner Kathy Woolsey placed four items on the agenda for the June 25th meeting. They were all aimed at reducing the burden of the 13% tax increase that had passed first reading in May. Commissioner Woolsey shared with former Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners the motions she intended to make on June 24.
After voting in favor of the 13% tax increase, Commissioners Kernodle, Hollingsworth, Wilder, and Engelman voted to table all four of the agenda items as a group without discussion. Commissioner Woolsey had no opportunity to make her motion, explain, answer questions, correct misconceptions or respond to concerns. Former Chairman Wilder responded to these agenda items here.
One of the agenda items called for the Commissioners to support Representative Peter McCoy's bill that would provide an opportunity for voters to reunite the Town..
Agenda Item #10 - House Bill 3669 Clarifying the Meaning of Contiguity within Special Purpose Districts
The motion Commissioner Woolsey provided to Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners was:
Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, and Engelman voted to table, clearly not willing to support McCoy's approach at this time. Commissioners Brown-Crouch and and Woolsey voted against blocking discussion and a vote, showing their support for providing this opportunity for voters in areas formerly included in the Town.
The Wilder memo raises no issues or concerns with this bill. Rather it states that this "matter" has been opposed by a "multitude" of parties.
There was no "multitude" and few beyond those listed. The opposition was to a somewhat different bill filed by former Senator Paul Thurmond. Nearly all of those groups' concerns appeared to the result of misconceptions--perhaps due to misrepresentation. When the bill was accurately described, the opposition evaporated. I heard the lobbyists explain to Senator Thurmond that they would work with him to address their concerns. The easiest path forward was to create a series of (unnecessary) exceptions.
Also at the hearing was PSD General Counsel Trent Kernodle who claimed that the bill was intended as a path for the Town to take over the PSD. Senator Thurmond asked what provisions of the bill would have that effect. Kernodle could give no examples, because there were none.
However, there could be some opposition. While the bill Mayor Tecklenburg said he opposed last spring was a version of the Thurmond bill, he may well oppose the McCoy bill as well. Unlike many of the others, whose concerns were based on misconceptions, it is true that the McCoy bill would break the City of Charleston's monopoly on annexations on most of James Island. If the McCoy bill passes, the Town of James Island would be able to annex parcels and areas on James Island on an equal basis with the City of Charleston.
The key question for James Islanders is whether they expect their PSD Commissioners to support them and allow an opportunity to vote to reunite the Town or else back the City of Charleston's monopoly power as well as enabling its continued annexation and over-development on James Island.
Representative Peter McCoy has committed to me that he will work to give the former residents of the Town an opportunity to return. He has filed the necessary bills in the past and I am sure he will do so in the future. He was able to shepherd the Thurmond bill through the House a few years ago. He has many times expressed a willingness to work with the PSD Commissioners, but they continue to show no interest in discussion or dialogue.
Senator Senn, on the other hand, has told me several times that while she will not oppose our efforts, she will not support them unless the PSD gives her the go ahead. I think it is very important to have the Senator who represents most of James Island working to help us. We could always count on Senator McConnell and Senator Thurmond did his best for us as well. I believe it is important to obtain the support of a majority of PSD Commissioners and so the support of Senator Senn.
The bottom line is that the Wilder memo provides no specific provision of the McCoy bill that would cause any harm to the James Island Public Service District. That is because there are none.
The City of Charleston opposed the legislation that allowed the formation of the Town. The Town is here. I never expected that it would be any different for legislation that would provide an opportunity for James Islanders to vote to reunite the Town.
We have done it before. We can do it again. The question for the voters of the PSD is where do the PSD Commissioners stand. Are they with James Islanders? Or are they with the City of Charleston and special interest groups in Columbia?
After voting in favor of the 13% tax increase, Commissioners Kernodle, Hollingsworth, Wilder, and Engelman voted to table all four of the agenda items as a group without discussion. Commissioner Woolsey had no opportunity to make her motion, explain, answer questions, correct misconceptions or respond to concerns. Former Chairman Wilder responded to these agenda items here.
One of the agenda items called for the Commissioners to support Representative Peter McCoy's bill that would provide an opportunity for voters to reunite the Town..
Agenda Item #10 - House Bill 3669 Clarifying the Meaning of Contiguity within Special Purpose Districts
The motion Commissioner Woolsey provided to Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners was:
Move that the James Island Public Service District Commission support House Bill 3669 filed by Representative Peter McCoy to clarify the meaning on contiguity so that residents in the unincorporated area of the District will have the opportunity to rejoin the Town of James Island. Further, the Commission calls on Senator Sandy Senn to file a companion bill in the South Carolina Senate. Still further, calls on Representative Stavrinakis and Senator Campsen to co-sponsor these bills.Representative McCoy is preparing to pre-file HB 3669 this December. The Town is working to build support. Commissioner Woolsey asked the other Commissioners to join her in supporting this effort to give the former residents of the Town an opportunity to vote to rejoin the Town. This would allow them to share in potential tax relief that the Town can offer its residents and property owners.
Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, and Engelman voted to table, clearly not willing to support McCoy's approach at this time. Commissioners Brown-Crouch and and Woolsey voted against blocking discussion and a vote, showing their support for providing this opportunity for voters in areas formerly included in the Town.
The Wilder memo raises no issues or concerns with this bill. Rather it states that this "matter" has been opposed by a "multitude" of parties.
There was no "multitude" and few beyond those listed. The opposition was to a somewhat different bill filed by former Senator Paul Thurmond. Nearly all of those groups' concerns appeared to the result of misconceptions--perhaps due to misrepresentation. When the bill was accurately described, the opposition evaporated. I heard the lobbyists explain to Senator Thurmond that they would work with him to address their concerns. The easiest path forward was to create a series of (unnecessary) exceptions.
Also at the hearing was PSD General Counsel Trent Kernodle who claimed that the bill was intended as a path for the Town to take over the PSD. Senator Thurmond asked what provisions of the bill would have that effect. Kernodle could give no examples, because there were none.
However, there could be some opposition. While the bill Mayor Tecklenburg said he opposed last spring was a version of the Thurmond bill, he may well oppose the McCoy bill as well. Unlike many of the others, whose concerns were based on misconceptions, it is true that the McCoy bill would break the City of Charleston's monopoly on annexations on most of James Island. If the McCoy bill passes, the Town of James Island would be able to annex parcels and areas on James Island on an equal basis with the City of Charleston.
The key question for James Islanders is whether they expect their PSD Commissioners to support them and allow an opportunity to vote to reunite the Town or else back the City of Charleston's monopoly power as well as enabling its continued annexation and over-development on James Island.
Representative Peter McCoy has committed to me that he will work to give the former residents of the Town an opportunity to return. He has filed the necessary bills in the past and I am sure he will do so in the future. He was able to shepherd the Thurmond bill through the House a few years ago. He has many times expressed a willingness to work with the PSD Commissioners, but they continue to show no interest in discussion or dialogue.
Senator Senn, on the other hand, has told me several times that while she will not oppose our efforts, she will not support them unless the PSD gives her the go ahead. I think it is very important to have the Senator who represents most of James Island working to help us. We could always count on Senator McConnell and Senator Thurmond did his best for us as well. I believe it is important to obtain the support of a majority of PSD Commissioners and so the support of Senator Senn.
The bottom line is that the Wilder memo provides no specific provision of the McCoy bill that would cause any harm to the James Island Public Service District. That is because there are none.
The City of Charleston opposed the legislation that allowed the formation of the Town. The Town is here. I never expected that it would be any different for legislation that would provide an opportunity for James Islanders to vote to reunite the Town.
We have done it before. We can do it again. The question for the voters of the PSD is where do the PSD Commissioners stand. Are they with James Islanders? Or are they with the City of Charleston and special interest groups in Columbia?
Sunday, July 1, 2018
PSD Chairman Wilder's Response to Proposed Intergovernmental Agreement
On June 19, PSD Commissioner Kathy Woolsey placed four items on the agenda for the June 25 Public Service District Meeting. As the PSD rules require, the items were added to the agenda.
On June 24, Commissioner Woolsey shared with Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners the motion she intended make for each agenda item. After passing the 13% tax hike, Commissioners Wilder, Hollingsworth, Kernodle, and Engelman voted to table all four of these agenda items in a single 4-2 vote. Commissioner Woolsey was given no opportunity to make her motions, explain them to the Commission, or respond to any questions or concerns.
At the meeting, then Chairman Wilder said that he would respond to the agenda items on the Commission website. His response has appeared. I appreciate that this response was much more professional and civil than what appeared before. Unfortunately, there are some misconceptions and errors.
The first tabled agenda item was:
Agenda Item 9. Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of James Island to Reduce PSD Property Tax Burden.
The motion shared by Commissioner Woolsey to then Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners on June 24 was:
On June 24, Commissioner Woolsey shared with Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners the motion she intended make for each agenda item. After passing the 13% tax hike, Commissioners Wilder, Hollingsworth, Kernodle, and Engelman voted to table all four of these agenda items in a single 4-2 vote. Commissioner Woolsey was given no opportunity to make her motions, explain them to the Commission, or respond to any questions or concerns.
At the meeting, then Chairman Wilder said that he would respond to the agenda items on the Commission website. His response has appeared. I appreciate that this response was much more professional and civil than what appeared before. Unfortunately, there are some misconceptions and errors.
The first tabled agenda item was:
Agenda Item 9. Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of James Island to Reduce PSD Property Tax Burden.
The motion shared by Commissioner Woolsey to then Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners on June 24 was:
Move that the James Island Public Service District seek an intergovernmental agreement with the Town of James Island for the purpose of reducing the property tax burden on the residents and property owners of the Town by:
a. accepting monies from the Town to partly or wholly fund the provision of solid waste collection and/or fire protection services by the District to the residents and property owners of the Town.
b. agreeing to allow a property tax credit on the county tax bill reducing the amount to be paid to the District for operations by property taxpayers under the Town’s jurisdiction.
What is most important in the Wilder memo is:
"The JIPSD has no interest in being a party to settle the questionable legality of another entity’s proposal."
In other words, the majority of PSD Commissioners are willing to throw away an offer of $1 million dollars without any dialogue or discussion. They would prefer to impose a 13% property tax increase on majority of their constituents -- the residents and voters of the Town of James Island.
The Wilder memo suggests that "the Town should seek a declaratory judgment action to settle the questionable legality of their proposal."
Chairman Wilder is no lawyer, but one would hope that a competent attorney would have reviewed his memo. The Pope Flynn law firm has explained that the Town cannot obtain a declaratory judgement on its own. That is because we do not believe that the PSD must agree to accept our money in exchange for services or provide tax relief to our residents and property owners. Our argument is that a voluntary agreement between the PSD and the Town would be legal and desirable for both parties. Therefore, the only way to obtain a declaratory judgement is to prepare a specific agreement that the JIPSD and Town would support if it were legal, and then have the PSD Commission and the Town Council adopt it pending a determination of its legality. The PSD and Town would be on the same side of the declaratory judgement, claiming that our agreement is legal. Since the benefits of this proposal mostly go to Town residents and property owners, it would be entirely appropriate for the Town to bear the cost of this friendly legal action.
The Wilder memo criticizes this opportunity to provide tax relief because the well-respected Pope Flynn law firm has described the proposal they developed as being "novel" and "not settled law." Novel means new. It doesn't mean bad, speculative or doubtful. Maybe no other PSD has raised taxes so much or perhaps no other municipality cares enough about its taxpayers to be willing to help. "Not settled law," means that this proposal has not been challenged and then determined by a court to be legal That seems to follow from it being new. The Wilder memo provides no challenge to the legal principles argued by the Pope Flynn law firm.
I was surprised by the scare tactics included in the Wilder memo. Most shocking was the claim that the Commissioners or senior PSD employees might be held personally liable for accepting the Town's money in exchange for services or for consenting to a Town tax credit against PSD taxes on the County tax bill. If the PSD worked with the Town to obtain a declaratory judgement, and the courts determined that the proposal was contrary to South Carolina law, there would be no liability to anyone for trying to find out whether it was legal or not. And if it was determined to be legal by the courts, there would be no liability to anyone for implementing the agreement. Further, even if the Town and PSD implemented an agreement without a declaratory judgement (a course not advised by the Pope Flynn law firm,) elected officials and public employees have strong protections against any personal liability for their official actions.
Similarly, as long as no money changes hands before a declaratory judgement, then there is no way that the PSD would have to pay anything back to the Town. Now, if the Town and PSD implemented an agreement without a declaratory judgement, and the Town lost in court, then there is a very slight chance that money would have to be paid back by someone. However, it would almost certainly be the Town that would be responsible for making any such payments. The chance that the PSD would be required to return money used to pay for providing services is negligible. Further, the Town would be more than willing to agree to cover the cost of services provided to our residents by the PSD. That would be fair and reasonable. Still further, even that slight threat can be avoided if the PSD would work with the Town to obtain a declaratory judgement before implementing the agreement.
Finally, I have never said that the Town would use any part of its sales tax revenue to purchase services from the PSD. While I don't think there is any problem with doing so, if that is of concern to the PSD, then the Town could use its other sources of funds to make payments to the PSD. Fortunately, none of our other vendors or suppliers have ever been worried about whether the money they receive from the Town comes from sales tax or some other revenue source. I would also note that the PSD receives more than $1 million per year from the City of Charleston and the City of Folly Beach without ever expressing worry about the source of funds used by those Cities to make their payments.
The Town's offer to the help the PSD by turning a 13% tax increase into a 20% tax cut remains open. All that is necessary is to find a majority of PSD Commissioners willing to work with the Town.
The Wilder memo criticizes this opportunity to provide tax relief because the well-respected Pope Flynn law firm has described the proposal they developed as being "novel" and "not settled law." Novel means new. It doesn't mean bad, speculative or doubtful. Maybe no other PSD has raised taxes so much or perhaps no other municipality cares enough about its taxpayers to be willing to help. "Not settled law," means that this proposal has not been challenged and then determined by a court to be legal That seems to follow from it being new. The Wilder memo provides no challenge to the legal principles argued by the Pope Flynn law firm.
I was surprised by the scare tactics included in the Wilder memo. Most shocking was the claim that the Commissioners or senior PSD employees might be held personally liable for accepting the Town's money in exchange for services or for consenting to a Town tax credit against PSD taxes on the County tax bill. If the PSD worked with the Town to obtain a declaratory judgement, and the courts determined that the proposal was contrary to South Carolina law, there would be no liability to anyone for trying to find out whether it was legal or not. And if it was determined to be legal by the courts, there would be no liability to anyone for implementing the agreement. Further, even if the Town and PSD implemented an agreement without a declaratory judgement (a course not advised by the Pope Flynn law firm,) elected officials and public employees have strong protections against any personal liability for their official actions.
Similarly, as long as no money changes hands before a declaratory judgement, then there is no way that the PSD would have to pay anything back to the Town. Now, if the Town and PSD implemented an agreement without a declaratory judgement, and the Town lost in court, then there is a very slight chance that money would have to be paid back by someone. However, it would almost certainly be the Town that would be responsible for making any such payments. The chance that the PSD would be required to return money used to pay for providing services is negligible. Further, the Town would be more than willing to agree to cover the cost of services provided to our residents by the PSD. That would be fair and reasonable. Still further, even that slight threat can be avoided if the PSD would work with the Town to obtain a declaratory judgement before implementing the agreement.
Finally, I have never said that the Town would use any part of its sales tax revenue to purchase services from the PSD. While I don't think there is any problem with doing so, if that is of concern to the PSD, then the Town could use its other sources of funds to make payments to the PSD. Fortunately, none of our other vendors or suppliers have ever been worried about whether the money they receive from the Town comes from sales tax or some other revenue source. I would also note that the PSD receives more than $1 million per year from the City of Charleston and the City of Folly Beach without ever expressing worry about the source of funds used by those Cities to make their payments.
The Town's offer to the help the PSD by turning a 13% tax increase into a 20% tax cut remains open. All that is necessary is to find a majority of PSD Commissioners willing to work with the Town.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)