Tax Credit Progress

The James Island Public Service District (JIPSD) Commission has agreed to work with the Town on a cost sharing plan that includes a credit against the property taxes levied by the JIPSD in the Town.   The plan is for Town to use some of its other revenues to pay for some of  cost of providing fire protection and solid waste collection to Town residents in exchange for the JIPSD consenting to the Town providing a credit against the JIPSD line on the County property tax bill.   As a result, homeowners and other property owners in the Town would pay less property tax to the JIPSD.   In effect, the property owners in the Town would be paying the JIPSD directly for part of the cost  of providing fire protection and solid waste collection through property tax but they would also be paying part through their Town government.

The JIPSD Commission voted 7 to 1 to sign an MOU with the Town to pursue the project and agreed to have the Pope-Flynn law firm jointly represent the Town and the JIPSD to work through the details fully protecting the interests of both entities and also to defend our agreement from any legal challenge. 

Incredibly, there has been an effort on social media to attack this proposal as unfair because the Town will be using its revenues to provide benefits to the taxpayers of the Town and not taxpayers in the City of Charleston.  However, taxpayers in the City do not pay taxes to the JIPSD at all, but rather pay property tax to the City of Charleston. The City does use a small part of its various sources of revenue, including property tax, generated all over  the City, to pay the JIPSD for fire protection services provided to some City residents, especially on James Island. The City is compelled to do this by court order, though that will end in 2032, thirteen years from now.

It is entirely reasonable for the Town to use the revenue generated its is jurisdiction to pay the JIPSD for services for its residents, like the City of Charleston already does. The City has a budget approximately 50 times larger than that of the Town. It would be entirely unreasonable for the Town to use its limited funds to pay for services for City residents, even those on James Island--including the fire protection they receive from the JIPSD.

Further, it would be unfair and unreasonable for the taxpayers of the Town to continue to pay the same amount of property tax for fire protection and solid waste collection from the JIPSD when they would be paying for part through their Town government.

The plan that the Town and JIPSD is pursuing will not have any adverse effect on any City resident whether on James Island or not. The benefits will go to the residents of the Town.   And that is the responsibility of the Town government--to provide services to its residents.   The JIPSD role will be to accept the Town's money and to consent to allowing the Town to provide a credit on the JIPSD line on the property tax bill. 

Perhaps there are some City residents on James Island who believe that the Town should use its limited resources to provide them benefits on an equal basis to its own residents.   Fortunately, such people do not vote in either Town or JIPSD elections.   The recent increase in the JIPSD property tax did not appear on any property tax bill of anyone who lives in the City, and no one in the City voted to remove the three Commissioners who supported that increase in November. 

The Town and the JIPSD worked together in the nineties for a tax credit, but Town 1 was ruled illegally formed right before it was implemented.   The City of Charleston did challenge that plan, but that was because if the Town lost on appeal, the City expected it would collect a substantial portion of the Town's assets.  They pursued other court actions to limit expenditures by the Town of James Island during its final year.   The City did prevail, Town 1 did close, and the City and other governments in Charleston County got a big payoff. 

Today, the City of Charleston is not challenging the existence of the Town, has no potential claim to our assets, and has little reason and no legal right to challenge our expenditures. 

The proposal for the Town to again work with the JIPSD on tax credits was first introduced in 2010, but put on hold until after the Town was cleared by the South Carolina Supreme Court.   Unfortunately, the Town was closed and the City of Charleston (and Charleston County and other municipalities in Charleston County) got a big pay day. 

During the effort for the fourth (and final) incorporation in 2012, the feasibility study included credits against JIPSD property tax as a way that the Town would help pay for fire protection and solid waste collection.   The first proposal to the JIPSD Commission came in 2013 and it has been repeated every year since.   The difference?   In 2019, a majority of Commissioners approved an MOU and agreed to work with the Town.   The reason this happened in January of 2019 was because that was the first regular meeting of the Commissioners that were elected last November.

I would note that the same voices on social media that make the outlandish claim that using Town funds to provide benefits to Town residents is unfair to James Islanders annexed to the City also supported the 13% property tax hike and worked to reelect those JIPSD Commissioners who passed it.

Sometimes it is difficult to take some of the ranting and raving on social media seriously. Well, maybe we shouldn't.

Thank You James Island Public Service District Commissioners

Thank you to the James Island Public Service District Commission for endorsing House Bill 3661 on contiguity by a 7 to 1 vote.   It was the first regular JIPSD Commission meeting that included the three new Commissioners who were elected last November.

Ever since former JIPSD General Counsel Trent Kernodle showed up at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing five years ago to testify against legislation that would create an opportunity to reunite the Town, we have been working to get majority support on the JIPSD Commission for reform of annexation legislation.   After 2016, when Senator Thurmond chose not to seek reelection, the Commission's position has become even more important.  Senator Sandy Senn has insisted that the JIPSD agree to any legislation to reunite the Town before she would support it. Since that time, there has been one Commission vote against (2017), one tabling without discussion (2018,) and two efforts to put the matter on the agenda squashed by former JIPSD Chairs (2017 and 2018.)    All that has now changed.  Thank you.

Also, thank you to Senator Chip Campsen, who represents the southern portion of James Island, for looking to file a companion bill in the South Carolina Senate.   (Watch for further progress reports.)

I spoke with newly elected County Councilwoman Jenny Honeycutt.  She supports giving residents of the unincorporated area of James Island the opportunity to annex to the Town.  Thank you.

And special thanks to City Councilwoman Carol Jackson for supporting our effort to allow residents of the unincorporated area of James Island to choose whether to annex to the City of Charleston or the Town of James Island on a equal basis.   

I learned from Councilwoman Jackson that the City of Charleston will oppose this bill.   I certainly hope that Mayor Tecklenburg will change his mind.  The last time we discussed the matter, what was at issue was what we sometimes call the "Thurmond bill."   The "McCoy bill" is somewhat different.   It really does allow residents of the unincorporated area of James Island to annex into the City of Charleston or the Town of James Island on an equal basis.

However, the concern Councilwoman Jackson shared is that HB 3661 could be used by the City of North Charleston to annex areas in the historic district in West Ashley.  This would only be possible if the area the City of North Charleston seeks to annex is in the same special purpose district as all parts of the City of North Charleston and that special purpose district has an elected governing body.  I don't believe that all of the City of North Charleston is in any special purpose district, though the parts in Charleston County, which is most of it, are in the North Charleston Sewer District. More importantly, the governor appoints the Commissioners of the North Charleston Sewer District, so HB 3661 would not apply to any effort of the City of North Charleston to jump over any narrow strips of territory annexed by the City of Charleston in its effort to block annexation by the City of North Charleston in the West Ashley Historic District. 

The only special purpose districts in Charleston County with elected governing bodies are the St. Andrews Public Service District and the James Island Public Service District. Only the James Island Public Service District has a municipality entirely included, which is the Town of James Island.   The bill only applies if all of the voters of a municipality can also vote for the governing body of the special purpose district.  There is no municipality entirely included in the St. Andrews Public Service District--it is all unincorporated. The City of Charleston removes any areas it annexes from both the St. Andrews Public Service District or the James Island Public Service District.   No City of Charleston residents vote for the Commissioners of either of the Public Service Districts.

I am very confident that Representative McCoy can get the bill through the South Carolina House.  The House passed previous bills aimed at reuniting the Town.  

The problem has always been with the South Carolina Senate.   In 2015, we were blocked first by Senator Marlon Kimpson and then by the late Senator Clemente Pinckney.   They did so on behalf of the Coastal Conservation League. They both relented, first Senator Kimpson, and then Senator Pinckney shortly before his assassination, due to calls made and letters sent by James Island's African American community.  That was the behind the scenes work going on before Senator Thurmond was replaced by Senator Senn.  Since then, the key priority has been getting the JIPSD Commission on board.  I believe that support by the newly elected Commissioners will make the difference, but there is no guarantee.  The South Carolina Senate is difficult.

If the law passes, and someone in the unincorporated area annexes to the Town, then it is possible that there could be a legal challenge  I am confident that this proposed law is consistent with the South Carolina Constitution (and, of course, it would be part of the South Carolina Code.)  So, the Town would defend. If that were to occur, and the Town were to lose, then the properties annexed would again be unincorporated. There is no possibility of the City of Charleston suing again to dissolve the Town. The deadline for any such suit passed long ago in 2012.  I believe that when the time comes, the City's lawyers will realize that their chance for success are slim and no legal challenge will materialize.  

When I discussed annexation with Mayor Tecklenburg some time ago, we both agreed to disagree on this issue, but to continue to work together on other issues of common concern. I realize that it is difficult for some people to conceive of such an approach, but it is really what is necessary for responsible leadership.  (I am waiting for the new Brian Hicks column about how war is about to commence on James Island.   All he has to do is change the dates on his 2015 column about the "war" he predicted that never materialized.)

One final note. The goal of reforming annexation law began in the summer of 2011 when the Free James Island Board decided to go forward with reincorporating the part of the former town we could under existing incorporation law, rather than trying to first reform incorporation law.  The decision was to get the Town back up and running with as much area as we were confident could be defended against a challenge by the City, and then work to reform annexation law so that everyone left out of the new Town would have a chance to return.  

In 2014, the Town was able to annex two areas. The City of Charleston did challenge, but it just took a letter from the Town's Attorney for them to relent.  (On the other hand, the Town withdrew its effort to annex four other properties after a challenge from the state Attorney General.)  

Legislation has been pending that the Town has supported pretty much the entire time, and I have never stopped asking that legislation be filed and passed.   The annual Town newsletters have reported on these efforts as well as this blog.   It was an issue in the Town election in 2014 and the JIPSD Commission elections in 2016 and 2018.   I hope no one believes false and malicious rumors on social media that I have suddenly returned to this matter in 2019 after eight years of ignoring it.  (Eight years ago, the Town was still united! Well, I guess  I shouldn't be surprised what some people will write on facebook.)