Radical Resolution To Endorse Declaration of Climate Emergency and Mobilization to Return to Council in December

 Councilman Milliken proposed that the Town adopt a resolution supporting the declaration of a "Climate Emergency and Mobilization" at our September Town council Meeting.   Council voted 3 to 2 to postpone consideration until our December meeting.   Councilwoman Mignano and Mullinax joined me in voting to postpone.  Councilman Boles joined Councilman Milliken in seeking an immediate vote on the Emergency Resolution.

A copy of the resolution shared by Councilman Milliken is here:

RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE DECLARATION OF A CLIMATE EMERGENCY ANDMOBILIZATION EFFORT TO RESTORE A SAFE CLIMATE

The movement for declaring a climate emergency comes from something called "the climate mobilization."   They have a website which is very alarming:  

The Climate Mobilization

This group requested that their activists pressure their local governments to adopt a declaration of climate emergency.   Here is their model resolution:

RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE DECLARATION OF A CLIMATE EMERGENCY AND EMERGENCY MOBILIZATION EFFORT TO RESTORE A SAFE CLIMATE

As can be seen above, Councilman Milliken placed an almost identical resolution before the Town.   His resolution will have the Town go on record in support of the positions and agenda of this radical activist group--"the climate mobilization."

A declaration of emergency generally allow the chief executive to exercise emergency powers.   This allows prompt action without approval by the governing body.   For the Town, this would allow the Mayor to take action without approval by Council.   This resolution would not override existing Town ordinances which allow the Mayor  to declare emergencies.   Much more concerning is that this resolution would put the Town on record as joining others in calling for the U.S. President to declare a national emergency in order to unilaterally impose regulations on families and businesses without approval by Congress.   

The nature of the regulations the Town is being called on to support are very extreme.  It the words of the Climate Mobilization Movement:

Mobilization is an emergency restructuring of a modern industrial economy, accomplished at rapid speed. It involves the vast majority of citizens, the utilization of a very high proportion of available resources, and impacts all areas of society –

Nothing less than a government-coordinated social and industrial revolution.

What would this be like?  According to the climate mobilization, the U.S. should copy the World War II economic mobilization.   However, this would not be a three year effort that ended with the defeat of the Axis Powers.   It is rather a ten year program that will likely never end.

Councilman Milliken is asking Town Council to endorse this social and industrial revolution proposed by the climate mobilization group.   They make no secret that they propose the impoverishment of the American people.   In the resolution before Council, we are, in effect, asked to blame the people of the United States for global climate change.  It should be no surprise that they intend major suffering for our people.   

As they implement their social and industrial revolution, food and other necessities are to be rationed.   Children will be given smaller rations than adults!   It is all spelled out in the Victory Plan.

 Victory Plan

Included in this plan is the following:

■ Quantity rationing of basic necessities 

■ Weekly free allowance issuances to citizens 

■ Sharing of rations among family members 

■ Appropriately smaller rations for young children 

■ Strict enforcement 

■ No loopholes for the rich 

■ Local citizen rationing boards

Taxes?  The plan proposes raising taxes up to 94%!   

What about agriculture?   U.S. agriculture is very productive and helps feed the world.  That is all to end.   According to the "Climate Mobilization," we are to:  

Transform agriculture

A rapid shift from industrial agriculture to localized, regenerative farming with limits on livestock production and a phase-out of factory farming.

  What does this really mean?   Returning the U.S. to a third-world way of life, where most Americans will grow their own food.    As Councilman Milliken explained, we will all have "victory gardens" in our yards.     Meat?   The victory plan proposes a vegetable based diet.  Ban meat.

The most likely result of this 10 year crash effort is mass starvation. 

A social and industrial revolution indeed.

The shift from the production of cars and washing machines to tanks and bombs did require substantial hardship for the American people for several years in the 1940s, but this plan is much more extreme.   It is much closer to what the Chinese Communists attempted in the 1950's with their "Great Leap Forward."   Their goal was to enhance productivity and improve the standard of living of the Chinese people.   It failed utterly and set back the Chinese economy for decades and generated mass starvation.   Paradoxically, this effort by the climate extremists would likely greatly reduce the carbon output of the U.S.  as it has the same actual consequence of previous government-led social and economic revolutions--mass poverty.

    The problem of the build-up of greenhouse gases has been developing for centuries.   The notion that it can end in a decade is irrational.   A reasonable plan to gradually reduce emissions is the only feasible approach.  

President-elect Biden rejected the positions of the climate extremists included in the "Green New Deal" for good reason.   If if the U.S. started on such a  road, well before the children are given their smaller rations, the plan would be rejected by the voters and any hope for an effective response to global climate change and greenhouse gas production would be set back for decades.   

But the far left has been working hard to pressure the President-elect to adopt this and other radical positions.  Unlike Councilman Milliken, most James Islanders did not vote for Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic nominee for President.   Many James Islanders supported the reelection of President Trump.   

It is inappropriate to have our Town government, which should represent all of our people, endorse extremist positions held only by a few, especially when the proposals are a recipe for disaster. 

Millage Rollback Passes on 3 to 2 Vote

 Last Thursday, October 1, Town Council voted 3 to 2 to roll back the Town millage from 20 to 17.9.   The meeting was very contentious, but in the end Councilmen Boles and Mullinax joined me in voting to rollback the millage.  Councilman Milliken and Councilwoman Mignano voted against the rollback.  

The rollback was done in compliance with SC Code 12-37.250.    The effect of that section of state law is that local government collects the same amount of revenue after a reassessment, leaving the dollar amount collected from property taxpayers unchanged on average.   Reassessment is required every five years by the South Carolina Constitution and the procedures are laid out in the South Carolina Code.   These provisions are applied by the County Assessor and County Auditor.   

Without the requirement for a rollback, reassessment would result in a sudden jump in property taxes every five years.   If there were no other complicating factors, then property taxes for Town homeowners would have increased 11% this year without the rollback.

However, the Town is in a very unusual situation in that we use our Local Option Sales Tax distribution to provide a credit large enough to reduce the net property tax collected by the Town to zero.   Property taxpayers in the Town pay nothing to the Town and the Town receives no revenue from property taxpayers.   As long as the Town continues with that policy, reassessment and rollbacks by the Town will not impact anyone's property tax bill or property tax or any other sort of revenue obtained by the Town.  

So why the controversy?

While several Lowcountry municipalities have no property tax, such as Ravenel, Meggett, Kiawah Island and Seabrook Island, the larger municipalities such as Charleston and Mount Pleasant do.  Those municipalities, as well as some smaller ones, like Folly Beach, provide a credit against property tax bills, but there is still an ample net property tax paid by their residents which funds a substantial part of their budgets.   For those municipalities, a higher millage increases the amount paid by their taxpayers and the amount of revenue they can use to fund their services.

The residents of the Town, like residents of municipalities with no property tax, must pay property taxes that municipalities like the City of Charleston, the Town of Mount Pleasant, and the City of Folly Beach do not pay.   Those of us in the Town pay property tax to the James Island Public Service District, which funds the very expensive fire protection and solid waste collection services.   The millage in the Town, including the Town and JIPSD millage together, is similar to that in the City of Charleston and substantially higher than in the City of Folly Beach or the Town of Mount Pleasant.   With the Town zeroing out its own millage and providing a credit through the cost share program against the JIPSD property tax, the result is a tax bill lower than in the City of Charleston, but still higher than in Folly Beach or the Town of Mount Pleasant.

State law authorizes municipalities to increase their property tax millage to obtain extra funding, but only to a limit.   The limit is based upon past inflation and population growth.   It is calculated by the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office.   Permissible increases can be carried forward for three years, so the Town could legally increase its millage by up to slightly more than 10%.   While ordinarily, the Town could have increased it from 20 to up to 22 mils, because of the reassessment, any increase this year and in the future must be from 17.9, which means that the maximum legal millage at this time is 19.7.   

The allowed increase in our millage cap is unique to the Town because it depends on population growth.   While some municipalities, like Folly Beach and the Town, have had little or no population growth, the City of Charleston and the Town of Mount Pleasant have had rampant development and population growth, and so are allowed substantially larger millage increases.  

If the Town operated like the Town of Mount Pleasant or the City of Charleston, and provided a partial (and relatively small) property tax credit, and collected a substantial property tax revenue, then increasing our millage the maximum legal amount would have resulted in a more than 10% increase in the amount Town residents paid and our revenue from property tax.   The gross amount before the credit would increase about 10% and depending on the amount of the credit, the percent increase in net amount could increase by more.  

What happened at our meeting?

It appeared that initially Councilmen Boles and Milliken wanted to defeat the rollback and leave our millage unchanged.   Councilman Milliken claimed that his research suggested that no rollback was necessary.  There was also some question about what punishment the Town would suffer if we were to defy state law.   

However, Councilwoman Mignano proposed "as a compromise," that the Town provide a partial rollback to 18.9.   Councilman Milliken made the motion for this compromise and Councilwoman Mignano seconded it.

If there were no complicating factors, this would result in a 5% increase in the average property tax bill due the Town which would add about $73,000 per year in new revenue.   But there is a major complicating factor.  As long as the Town provides a property tax credit sufficient to zero out the Town's property tax, there would be no change in the amount Town taxpayers pay or the amount of revenue the Town collects.   

Similarly, as initially suggested by Councilman Boles and Milliken, if the Town did not roll back its millage at all, this would have increased property taxes about 11%, but if the Town continues to provide a credit to zero it out, there would be no change in property tax paid or revenue received.

Councilwoman Mignano then proposed that the Town reduce the amount of credit it provides so that taxpayers would have to actually pay something to the Town and the Town would receive more revenue.   She wanted to obtain this new revenue to help the Town avoid delays in drainage projects.   Charleston County does substantial drainage work for the Town at no cost, but sometimes we must be patient waiting for them to get to our projects while they do work in other parts of Charleston County.   She believes that the Town should collect property tax so that the money can be used to provide faster service.  

I suggested that we first vote on the millage amendment from 17.9 to 18.9.  That increase passed 3 to 2, with Councilmen Milliken and Mullinax joining Councilwoman Mignano to approve.   Councilman Boles and I voted against the amendment.   

Councilwoman Mignano then proposed that the Town reduce the amount of property tax credit it provides by 5%.  Her motion failed for lack of a second.   

The amended resolution to adopt a millage of 18.9 failed with Councilwoman Mignano and Councilman Milliken voting in favor, and Councilmen Mulllinax and Boles joining me to oppose.

The result then was that the Town's millage would remain at 20, in violation of state law.   Councilmen Mullinax and Boles joined me in reconsidering this action, reversing the amendment, and passing the rollback of 17.9.    

Councilman Boles expressed concern about voting on this matter at a special meeting and felt we should consider it at our regular meeting.  I pointed out that the County will have already mailed the property tax bills by the time of our October meeting and we had already missed a deadline the day before.   Councilman Milliken complained that since he is no economist, I should do a better job in educating him and the rest of Council about how property tax works.

In my view, having the Town for the very first time make our residents pay a property tax to the Town (along with continuing to pay the JIPSD) based upon a decision at a special meeting called because of a routine deadline for the property tax bill is little short of criminal.  If  members of Town Council believe that our residents should start paying property tax to the Town as well as the JIPSD, then they should have brought this up during the budget process last spring, which includes a public hearing and two readings.   If something new has happened since, they can impose a property tax our our residents as part of next year's budget.   Really, they should have told voters they plan to start having them pay a property tax when they ran for Town Council a year ago.

When the voters approved the fourth incorporation of the Town in 2012, Mayor Riley said vote NO.  He said the Town would soon have no choice but to start raising property tax.  I responded that it wasn't necessary for the Town to collect property tax and that we could reduce the total property tax paid by the residents of the Town.  It was a long struggle, but with the cost sharing agreement with the JIPSD, property taxes paid by Town residents have been reduced.  

But I always knew that what would happen in the future depended on who Town voters elected to Town Council.   

It still isn't necessary for the Town to collect a property tax for itself on top of what the JIPSD already collects, but if the voters of James Island don't take a stand, Mayor Riley's prediction will soon come true.   

Town Hospitality Tax Funds Improvements and Beautification at Camp and Folly

The Town just purchased an easement at the corner of Camp and Folly. Corkys purchased the old subway property from Charleston County for the appraised value of $500,000.  The Town purchased an easement on 30% of the property for $100,000.   This perpetual easement provides an area on the corner where the Town can place public improvements.  In effect, the Town has obtained use of 30% of the property for 20% of the total cost.  The improvements planned for the Town's easement include a bus shelter similar to the one across Folly by Walgreens, a bike rack, a multi-use path, informational signage, and landscaping.

Corkys will tear down  the derelict Subway building and expand its parking on the portion of the property it retains.  As part of the agreement, public parking must be allowed on the lot during week days evenings, Saturday afternoons and evenings, as well as all day on Sundays.

The Town purchased the easement and plans to fund the improvements using revenue from the hospitality tax.  Many municipalities in South Carolina have used hospitality tax to fund similar streetscape improvements.  Unfortunately, the improvements planned for the easement will likely be postponed for the coming fiscal year.   Still, I hope that before too long, this corner will become an attractive touch of green along Folly Road, improving and beautifying the center of  our Town's commercial corridor.  

Other projects the Town funds with the hospitality tax include Brantley Park at the corner of Brantley and Folly, the Town's $400,000 contribution to the multi-million Phase I Rethink Folly Sidewalk project which runs along Folly from Ellis Creek to Wilton Street (across from Walmart,) the Town's parking lot at Santee and Folly, and a multi-use path along Folly from Wilton Street to Fort Johnson Road.

The focus on Folly Road is no accident.   Folly Road is used by tourists and by improving the segment of Folly Road in the Town, we hope to encourage tourists who pass through our Town to stop at our local businesses, and especially at our restaurants.   It is our restaurants--mostly on Folly Road--that collect the hospitality tax.    

The hospitality tax is the Town's primary source for funds to pay for the improvements outlined in the Rethink Folly Road Plan.  Our goal is to make Folly Road to be a place where everyone wants to come, both tourists and Town residents.

Requiring a Special Exception for Hotels on Folly Road

Zoning in the Town's commercial core has always allowed for hotels and motels.  Because the Town limits the height of buildings on Folly Road to 35 feet (approximately 2 stories) there has been little interest in building one in areas under Town jurisdiction.  There has not been a hotel or motel on James Island for many years.

The Town's Planning Commission has recommended adding a further restriction--that hotels and motels only be allowed in the Town's commercial core with with a special exception from the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals.    If the specific location proposed for a hotel or motel were inappropriate, the Board could deny the request.  More importantly, the Board would be able to impose conditions needed to protect  neighboring residences or the natural environment.  While hotels and motels are already been a prohibited use in other areas on Folly Road under Town jurisdiction because the underlying zoning--mostly office residential--does not allow them, the Planning Commission proposal expressly prohibits hotels and motels in all areas areas of the Folly Road Overlay other than the commercial core..

The Town's commercial core is centered at the intersection of Camp and Folly and runs between Ellis Creek and Prescott Street (next to the new JIPSD fire station)  It is already commercially developed with only one very small vacant lot, so all that is possible is redevelopment. (The more open areas on Folly Road south of Grimball and Fort Johnson on to Folly Beach are not in the Town.)  

Nearly all of the Town's commercial core is made up of old strip malls, gas stations, and car washes. These were constructed long before there were any drainage requirements aimed at protecting our Island waters from pollution from stormwater runoff.   Similarly, sidewalks, trees, and other plantings were not required when these properties were developed decades ago.  All of these improvements will be required with redevelopment.  That is a key goal of the Rethink Folly Road plan--to promote redevelopment of the commercial core on James Island to make it a place of which all James Islanders can be proud.  

I believe that the right hotel would be help spur desirable redevelopment in the Town's commercial core.  Further, accommodation tax money can be raised to provide further improvements to infrastructure and beautification of Folly Road. There is currently little meeting space for local organizations on James Island and James Islanders would finally have a place for extended family members to stay nearby.   

The Planning Commission's proposed requirement that hotels and motels obtain a special exception is a a reasonable way to control hotels and motels on redeveloped  property in the Town.  It will allow us to limit the number and size of hotels and motels.  In my opinion, a ban on all hotels and motels on Folly Road is a rash and drastic approach that is not consistent with the well being of our community.