The Town of James Island is holding a public hearing about a proposed franchise agreement with SCE&G at the next Council meeting on Thursday, April 17. The proposed agreement includes a 1% franchise fee on electricity and natural gas. The agreement will also remove the subdivision lighting fee from the bills for residential power users in the Town and require the Town to pay the electric bill for street lights in the Town.
The 1% franchise fee will cover the cost of the Town's power bill for street lights. It will raise approximately $149,000 per year and the cost of streetlights will be $10,000 per month. The fee will appear on the power and gas bills of residents in the Town. The bills will increase by the franchise fee, but the bills will decrease by the amount of the subdivision lighting fee.
The first Town signed a franchise agreement with SCE&G and had them install streetlights. The Town agreed to pay for those lights. It collected a franchise fee, which provided funds to pay for the streetlights. I don't know how much the franchise fee was, but I will find out.
When the first Town lost its court battle in 1996, the franchise agreement and fee went away, but SCE&G got the Public Service Commission of South Carolina to allow them to add a "subdivision lighting fee" to the power bills of the former residents of the first Town. SCE&G told me that if we do not sign this agreement, they will request a rate increase, to cover the cost of providing streetlights. They plan to do that anyway to cover the cost of providing street lights for those who were in the first Town but are not in the current Town.
For the second and third Towns, SCE&G took a "wait and see" approach. They waited to see if the Town would survive. They told me that their plan was to approach the Town if it prevailed in court. Unlike other municipalities, the second and third Towns had no way to install additional streetlights where needed. With the fourth Town free of legal challenge, SCE&G has been pressuring us to take responsibility for the streetlights installed by the first Town.
In my view, the current Town should take responsibility for the streetlights installed at the request of the first Town. I think the 1% franchise fee is necessary to cover this added cost. The Town will be able to have additional streetlights installed when necessary.
The City of Charleston has a 5% franchise fee for power and gas. That is relatively high, and most municipalities have a fee of 3%. I am proposing 1%. That would be the lowest in South Carolina. Future Mayor's and Council's could raise the franchise fee, but it will require an amendment of the ordinance for the franchise agreement. There would be a public hearing and a first and second reading (votes) by Council.
If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Email me at mayorwoolsey@gmail.com or call 697-7020.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Draft Budget
The draft budget for 2014-2015 is here. There will be a public hearing on it at the next Council meeting on April 17.
If you have any questions or comments, please let me know.
If you have any questions or comments, please let me know.
Car Thefts
The most recent crime report for James Island included two car thefts. There was another a week before.
Please keep your cars locked and keep an eye out. Car theft has not been a serious problem before, and I would hate to see it get worse.
We have had a persistent problem with thieves breaking into cars (or often just going into unlocked cars.) Please watch for this as well. Don't leave valuables in your car at night and lock your car.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Let There Be Light
Last night, Thursday, March 27, the light at Dills Bluff and Camp was swtiched on. It was only flashing, and Dills Bluff was closed tight. But better late than never!
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Senate Subcommittee Reports Out Senate Bill 723 to Judiciary
At Wednesday's Special Subcommittee hearing, Senate Bill 723 was reported out to the full Judiciary Committee. Special thanks to Senator Paul Thurmond for helping move the bill to the next step in the process. Thank you to Senator Massey and Senator Allen as well.
The bill was amended from its original form. However, none of the changes will prevent the Town from being reunited. The bill was amended to go into effect in January 2016. If it passes in the current form, there will be a three year window of opportunity for the Town to annex the remainder of the JIPSD--from 2016 to 2019.
The bill was also amended to require a municipality that annexes the remainder of a special purpose district using this method to hold a referendum before taking over provision of services or millage. Since I think this up to the voters of James Island anyway, I don't really see a referendum as a problem. While a special referendum would cost about $6,000 for the reunited Town, any such referendum could be held at the same time as a municipal election and so would cost nothing extra. We will have to pay the Charleston County election commission to run elections for Mayor and Council anyway. As I have explained before, I have no plans for the Town to take over the provision of fire protection, solid waste collection, or wastewater collection from the JIPSD. While I would like to have the Town collect the property tax millage to provide the local option sales tax, I am more than willing to put that before the voters of the Town.
The bill will not allow municipalities with their own power distribution system to use this method of annexation. Territory annexed by this method cannot be used to provide contiguity to annex additional territory. Some of the "Whereas" clauses that discussed potential conflict about the provision of services were cut out. Paula Benson, of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff, will write up the amended version of the bill, and I will provide a link or copy when it is available.
Former James Island Representative Anne Peterson Hutto, now a lobbyist for the Coastal Conservation League, said that her group still opposes the bill . She said that while they weren't opposed to reuniting the Town per se, they did oppose all piecemeal changes in annexation legislation and instead only favored comprehensive annexation reform. My interpretation is that they believe that solving limited problems, like reuniting our Town, should be held hostage to their greater agenda. (At least she didn't bring up the Town annexing onto Johns Island.)
Last week, Trent Kernodle sent an alternative bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. I want to commend Mr. Kernodle and the JIPSD for providing something specific. I liked the "Kernodle alternative." It kept what I think is the key element of the current bill, and that is the proposal for a municipality incorporated within a special purpose district to annex the entire remainder of the special purpose district. I thought the "Kernodle alternative" needed some modification and worked on it a bit, but our lawyer, Danny Crowe, suggested that we were too far along on the original bill to start over. That made sense to me, and after the hearing, I am confident that starting over would have been a mistake.
Trent Kernodle testified at the hearing. He was very supportive of the concept of annexing the entire remainder of the special purpose district, but insisted that there be an annexation referendum at the beginning of the process. In the current version of the bill, those opposed to the annexation (reuniting the Town) would need a petition with 5 percent of the registered voters in the area to be annexed. That would be about 200 signatures. If they did that, then there would be a referendum in those parts of the JIPSD that are not currently in the Town. If the majority opposed reuniting the Town, then it wouldn't happen.
The current bill is similar to an existing provision in annexation law, which applies to the current bill too. If 5 percent of the voters in the municipality sign a petition challenging the annexation, there would be a referendum within the current boundaries of the municipality. (Right now, we are in the period for such a petition regarding the result of the annexation election of February 25. I don't know that anyone is gathering signatures to block our annexation of "West Fort Johnson" or "East Lighthouse Point.")
Kernodle's view is that those in the area to be annexed should not need to show any level of opposition before requiring the referendum. The argument he made to me is that this would be more consistent with current annexation law and so would be more likely to survive a legal challenge. Every step of this process must consider a challenge that this is unconstitutional special legislation.
I testified at the hearing as well. (It is Spring Break at The Citadel.) There had been a proposal, coming from some of the special purpose districts, to limit the window of opportunity to 60 days. I thought that was much too tight. We proposed 5 years, which would provide two election cycles for the voters of James Island to have their say. I said that I could live with a year, and that is how 3 years came about. It was a compromise between 5 years and 60 days, more or less. The first I heard about 3 years was when Senator Massey proposed three years with January 2016 as the date the bill would begin to apply..
I also said that I have no problem with an annexation election at the beginning of the process. I am confident those most of our former citizens would like to return to the Town. Kernodle's argument that holding such an election upfront would help avoid legal challenges has value. I like it primarily because it is more consistent with the promises I made before the incorporation election in 2012--those who were left out of that election should have an opportunity to vote too and I would work for that
Paula Benson is working on language to make the referendum "automatic" at the beginning of the process. It will also require that the municipality pay for the referendum. That cost would be between $2,000 and $3,000. It would be well worth it to reunite our Town.
The bill will go on the Senate Judiciary Committee's agenda, but Paula Benson said that it would not likely be discussed at their next meeting on Tuesday. It might come up as soon as April 7.
It is getting late in the legislative year, so we may be back next January. As I have said before, we will be patient, but persistent. We have waited a long time. And we made another step forward on Wednesday. Thanks again Senator Thurmond.
The bill was amended from its original form. However, none of the changes will prevent the Town from being reunited. The bill was amended to go into effect in January 2016. If it passes in the current form, there will be a three year window of opportunity for the Town to annex the remainder of the JIPSD--from 2016 to 2019.
The bill was also amended to require a municipality that annexes the remainder of a special purpose district using this method to hold a referendum before taking over provision of services or millage. Since I think this up to the voters of James Island anyway, I don't really see a referendum as a problem. While a special referendum would cost about $6,000 for the reunited Town, any such referendum could be held at the same time as a municipal election and so would cost nothing extra. We will have to pay the Charleston County election commission to run elections for Mayor and Council anyway. As I have explained before, I have no plans for the Town to take over the provision of fire protection, solid waste collection, or wastewater collection from the JIPSD. While I would like to have the Town collect the property tax millage to provide the local option sales tax, I am more than willing to put that before the voters of the Town.
The bill will not allow municipalities with their own power distribution system to use this method of annexation. Territory annexed by this method cannot be used to provide contiguity to annex additional territory. Some of the "Whereas" clauses that discussed potential conflict about the provision of services were cut out. Paula Benson, of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff, will write up the amended version of the bill, and I will provide a link or copy when it is available.
Former James Island Representative Anne Peterson Hutto, now a lobbyist for the Coastal Conservation League, said that her group still opposes the bill . She said that while they weren't opposed to reuniting the Town per se, they did oppose all piecemeal changes in annexation legislation and instead only favored comprehensive annexation reform. My interpretation is that they believe that solving limited problems, like reuniting our Town, should be held hostage to their greater agenda. (At least she didn't bring up the Town annexing onto Johns Island.)
Last week, Trent Kernodle sent an alternative bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. I want to commend Mr. Kernodle and the JIPSD for providing something specific. I liked the "Kernodle alternative." It kept what I think is the key element of the current bill, and that is the proposal for a municipality incorporated within a special purpose district to annex the entire remainder of the special purpose district. I thought the "Kernodle alternative" needed some modification and worked on it a bit, but our lawyer, Danny Crowe, suggested that we were too far along on the original bill to start over. That made sense to me, and after the hearing, I am confident that starting over would have been a mistake.
Trent Kernodle testified at the hearing. He was very supportive of the concept of annexing the entire remainder of the special purpose district, but insisted that there be an annexation referendum at the beginning of the process. In the current version of the bill, those opposed to the annexation (reuniting the Town) would need a petition with 5 percent of the registered voters in the area to be annexed. That would be about 200 signatures. If they did that, then there would be a referendum in those parts of the JIPSD that are not currently in the Town. If the majority opposed reuniting the Town, then it wouldn't happen.
The current bill is similar to an existing provision in annexation law, which applies to the current bill too. If 5 percent of the voters in the municipality sign a petition challenging the annexation, there would be a referendum within the current boundaries of the municipality. (Right now, we are in the period for such a petition regarding the result of the annexation election of February 25. I don't know that anyone is gathering signatures to block our annexation of "West Fort Johnson" or "East Lighthouse Point.")
Kernodle's view is that those in the area to be annexed should not need to show any level of opposition before requiring the referendum. The argument he made to me is that this would be more consistent with current annexation law and so would be more likely to survive a legal challenge. Every step of this process must consider a challenge that this is unconstitutional special legislation.
I testified at the hearing as well. (It is Spring Break at The Citadel.) There had been a proposal, coming from some of the special purpose districts, to limit the window of opportunity to 60 days. I thought that was much too tight. We proposed 5 years, which would provide two election cycles for the voters of James Island to have their say. I said that I could live with a year, and that is how 3 years came about. It was a compromise between 5 years and 60 days, more or less. The first I heard about 3 years was when Senator Massey proposed three years with January 2016 as the date the bill would begin to apply..
I also said that I have no problem with an annexation election at the beginning of the process. I am confident those most of our former citizens would like to return to the Town. Kernodle's argument that holding such an election upfront would help avoid legal challenges has value. I like it primarily because it is more consistent with the promises I made before the incorporation election in 2012--those who were left out of that election should have an opportunity to vote too and I would work for that
Paula Benson is working on language to make the referendum "automatic" at the beginning of the process. It will also require that the municipality pay for the referendum. That cost would be between $2,000 and $3,000. It would be well worth it to reunite our Town.
The bill will go on the Senate Judiciary Committee's agenda, but Paula Benson said that it would not likely be discussed at their next meeting on Tuesday. It might come up as soon as April 7.
It is getting late in the legislative year, so we may be back next January. As I have said before, we will be patient, but persistent. We have waited a long time. And we made another step forward on Wednesday. Thanks again Senator Thurmond.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Harbor View Road Construction News
Charleston County reported the following:
Permitting for the Harbor View Road project is taking longer than our schedule anticipated. We currently expect to begin construction in late spring or early summer of this year. I apologize that I cannot give you a better date at this time, but once all permits are received I will be able to give more exact dates.
Work on Harbor View Road can occur at all hours of the day, however construction work that requires a lane closure during the weekday must occur at night. The SCDOT has directed that lane closures on Harbor View Road only occur between the hours of 8pm to 6am Sunday through Thursday nights. All work performed at night will require sufficient lighting for safety of the motorist and construction workers.
Permitted lanes closures during Saturday and Sunday are still being evaluated by SCDOT. We suspect that due to the low traffic volume on the weekends that lane closures may be permitted during day time hours on Saturday and Sunday. There is also the possibility that SCDOT may give more relaxed hours for the weekday restrictions during the summer months when school is not in session. However, this will not be determined until a later date when a traffic count can be conducted after school dismisses for the summer.
Thank you Councilwoman Berry for obtaining this report.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
The Town and the James Island Public Service District Employees
It has been brought to my attention that James Island PSD employees have been told that I plan to take over the PSD and then fire them. There is no truth to this, and I am deeply troubled that anyone would spread such rumors.
I have never proposed having the Town take over the provision of services from the James Island PSD. I do not believe that most voters in the Town or the District would support such a move.
I have proposed that the Town collect the operating tax millage in its jurisdiction. The reason is that it would allow us to provide a LOST tax credit to residents of the Town exactly as do other municipalities. I have always explained that the Town would then directly pay for the services provided by the James Island PSD. There would be no change in the total financial support received by the District and no change in employment at the District.
In the long run, the relationship between the District and Town is up to the voters of James Island. In my view, the loyal employees of the James Island Public Service District should have no concern. The voters and taxpayers of James Island greatly appreciate their service. No change in the organization of the District and Town threatens their jobs. But most importantly, I have never proposed and do not favor having the Town take over provision of fire protection, solid waste disposal, or wastewater services from the James Island PSD.
I invite anyone, and especially any JIPSD employee, to give me a call at 697-7020, come by my office at Town Hall, or email me at mayorwoolsey@jamesislandsc.us so that I can in person explain to you that these rumors are false. I especially invite senior employees Robert Wise, Chief Seabolt, Phillip Johnson, and David Hoffman to contact me. Let's join together to end needless worry and fear for the hardworking employees of the James Island PSD.
I have never proposed having the Town take over the provision of services from the James Island PSD. I do not believe that most voters in the Town or the District would support such a move.
I have proposed that the Town collect the operating tax millage in its jurisdiction. The reason is that it would allow us to provide a LOST tax credit to residents of the Town exactly as do other municipalities. I have always explained that the Town would then directly pay for the services provided by the James Island PSD. There would be no change in the total financial support received by the District and no change in employment at the District.
In the long run, the relationship between the District and Town is up to the voters of James Island. In my view, the loyal employees of the James Island Public Service District should have no concern. The voters and taxpayers of James Island greatly appreciate their service. No change in the organization of the District and Town threatens their jobs. But most importantly, I have never proposed and do not favor having the Town take over provision of fire protection, solid waste disposal, or wastewater services from the James Island PSD.
I invite anyone, and especially any JIPSD employee, to give me a call at 697-7020, come by my office at Town Hall, or email me at mayorwoolsey@jamesislandsc.us so that I can in person explain to you that these rumors are false. I especially invite senior employees Robert Wise, Chief Seabolt, Phillip Johnson, and David Hoffman to contact me. Let's join together to end needless worry and fear for the hardworking employees of the James Island PSD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)