County Councilwoman Johnson was right, and I was wrong. Her remarks as reported in the Post and Courier were correct.
On July 18. 2006, Charleston Council passed a Folly Road Overlay District. While the base zoning had and continues to have nearly all parcels residential, with just a few Community Commercial parcels, the Overlay was all Commercial Transitional. The parcels in the 2006 Overlay were the same (at least approximately the same) as in the Overlay passed by the Town last fall and before County Council for third and final reading on May 20th.
What else happened in 2006? The Town was incorporated for the third time. The referendum forming the Town had already passed on June 20, 2006. Still, less than a month later, County Council passed this new Overlay District allowing commercial development on Folly Road, none of which was going to be in their jurisdiction for long.
However, the Town could only begin operation after electing a Mayor and Council, which occurred on August 30th. So, there was approximately a one month period during which Charleston County used this new Overlay to allow commercial development on Folly Road.
The Town adopted the County's base zoning, but never recognized this Overlay. Members of Town Council from 2006, as well as the Chairman of our Planning Commission from the time, (all of whom were at the meeting tonight) knew nothing about it. So, something very close the current base zoning applied between August 30 of 2006 to June 20, 2011. That is when the Supreme Court ordered the Town closed. Suddenly, all of us who were in the Town were now part of unincorporated Charleston County. And the Charleston County Planning Department began to apply that long dormant Overlay District again.
When the Town reopened in August of 2012, it didn't include the Neighborhood Preservation area. Because of questionable contiguity, Grimball, Sol Legare, and Battery Island were all left out. (And it is one of my key goals to bring them back. We hope to give them a chance to vote on joining us again in 2016.)
Soon work began on revising the Folly Road Overlay District from Harbor View Road to Folly Beach. Charleston County Planning reached out to the Town to begin the process. The proposed "Neighborhood Preservation" area would have zoning consistent with what had existed when it was in the Town, from 2006 to 2011.
However, the current zoning in the Overlay District is Commercial Transitional. Aside from that one month in 2006, it has been that way from June of 2011 to today--nearly three years.
It was news to me. Councilwoman Johnson told me that she didn't know it at first either, but only found out about it more recently.
She has proposed an amendment to the "Neighborhood Preservation" Area so that it will all become Neighborhood Commercial. This is a less intensive commercial zoning than Commercial Transitional. Her amendment also would keep the specific uses prohibited in the area. She also proposed allowing small hotels and motels. And she proposed added restrictions on noise and late deliveries.
At the Public Hearing, Chairman Pryor first asked that people who live in the Neighborhood Preservation area be allowed to speak. I thought that was very sensible, because they are most directly effected. I thought he said that others would get to speak later. Councilman Qualey then spoke, explaining how the Town had responded to the requests of the people in the community to prevent commercial development. Councilwoman Johnson spoke next, explaining that the current zoning for the Overlay District was Commercial Transitional.
Then residents of the Neighborhood Preservation area were invited to speak. I had hoped that those who don't live in the Overlay, but right next to it, in Grimball, Battery Island, and the Grimball extension areas would get a chance to speak too.
Most of those who live on Folly Road were passionate about keeping the area residential. However, there were several who spoke in favor of giving people a choice to sell (or lease) their property for commercial uses.
Then some of the folks who lived in the wider community spoke. Former James Island Town Councilman Parris Williams spoke against the proposal to make the zoning commercial. Ron Middleton, a long time leader in the Grimball Community,spoke in opposition as well. Battery Island leader, Giovanni Richardson also spoke against it. And Liz Singleton, former chair of the James Island Planning Commission spoke in favor of keeping the zoning similar to what had existed when the area was in the Town.
I want to thank Chairman Pryor for recognizing me to speak. I apologized to Councilwoman Johnson (and later emphasized to her that she was right and I was wrong.) In my remarks, I pointed out that this Overlay District allowing Commercial Transitional hardly existed since the Town was formed the same year. And that it did not apply in part of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and part of 2011. And then what happened? They took away our Town and suddenly, this section of Folly Road was open to commercial development.
After that, Chairman Pryor closed the meeting. This was very controversial, with many people from all over James Island wanting to speak. Councilwoman Condon and Councilman Qualey urged that others get to speak too.
What will happen next? Third reading of the Folly Road Overlay District will be at the County Council meeting at 6:30 on May 20th. Chairman Pryor said that others who wanted to speak would be welcome to speak then.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Folly Road Overlay District : Neighborhood Preservation Area
On Monday, the Post and Courier published an article on the proposed Folly Road Overlay District. It was mostly false.
The Town adopted the Overlay District last fall. County Council has completed two readings (votes) and was scheduled for a third and final reading. That was postponed so that County Council could hold a public hearing on James Island. The hearing is on Tuesday, May 13 at 6:30 pm at the Sons of Elijah Lodge at 1831 Folly Road.
The Post and Courier article was full of inaccuracies. To start, the date was wrong. The article said the public hearing was to be last night rather than tonight. (That has been corrected on the online version. Thank you P&C.)
The focus of the article, and apparently the emphasis of the public hearing, will be the "Neighborhood Preservation" area of the Overlay. It runs between Raphael Lane and Battery Island Drive. This is an area that begins a bit before the Brickhouse Restaurant and ends a bit before the Harris Teeter. The Sons of Elijah Lodge is next to the JIPSD Fire Station, which is on the south end of the Neighborhood Preservation area.
Some of the parcels in this area are in the City of Charleston, and it includes the old junk yard which is being redeveloped into an apartment complex. Most of the parcels used to be in the Town of James Island, but because of questionable contiguity, they were not included in the current incorporation. These parcels are in the James Island Public Service District, and Senate Bill 723 and House Bill 4265 would allow for an election to be held in 2016 that would return those areas to the Town. For now, these parcels are in unincorporated Charleston County, so County Council determines their zoning.
The article quotes Councilwoman Johnson as stating that the parcels along Folly Road are currently zoned Commercial Transitional. She said that she wanted to rezone them as Neighborhood Commercial. The article said that the Folly Road Overlay District would rezone them as residential. Councilwoman Johnson is quoted as saying that this downzoning to residential would greatly reduce property values in the area.
All of this is mistaken.
No parcel in the area is zoned Commercial Transitional. Instead, nine of the parcels are zoned as Community Commerical, which is the most intensive commercial zoning in the County. (The Town has very similar zoning in the area near the Camp and Folly intersection.) Nearly all of those commercial parcels are around the Brickhouse Restaurant. There are only three parcels currently zoned Community Commercial south of the corner of Folly and South Grimball/Grimball Ext. Roads.
All of the other parcels, approximately 90 percent of them, are currently zoned S-3. This is zoning for single family residential development, with a density of 3 units per acre. It is very similar to the zoning that applies in most of the Town, and was the zoning that applied when these parcels were in the Town just three years ago. The Folly Road Overlay District "Neighborhood Preservation" area would make no change in the zoning of nearly all (about 90 percent) of the parcels. How could this reduce their value?
What about the nine parcels currently zoned as Community Commercial? These would be rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial. This is a commercial district less intensive that Community Commercial. However, all of the businesses that have existed on those few parcels, such as restaurants and small shops, would be permitted in Neighborhood Commercial.
The County's version of the Overlay includes a list of prohibited uses. The Town removed these extra prohibitions from its version of the Overlay. None of the prohibited uses are permitted in residential zones anyway, and most of them aren't permitted in Neighborhood Commercial either.
The article had a photo and included some quotes from the Gilliard family. The grandson complained that their property would be rezoned from commercial to residential. In fact, their property is currently zoned residential (S-3) so there would be no change in their zoning.
So, what is really happening?
Developers want to build apartments and businesses in this area. They need a change in the existing zoning of nearly all of these parcels.
Just last week, I was looking at a 9 acre parcel in this area as a possible site for a new Town park. The property is across Folly Rd. from the Brickhouse Restaurant. The real estate agent told us that he had two developers looking at the site to build apartments. I was a bit surprised, because I thought it was zoned for single family development. It is. Like nearly all the parcels in the area, it is S-3.
For now. If the developers can get it rezoned, then maybe they really will pay the $3 million asking price. (This is a good bit more than the $1 million that the Town could pay for a park or its value for single family development.)
I plan to attend the public hearing and listen closely to what the people in the community want.
Here is a diagram of the existing zoning. The brown is S-3 and the red is Community Commercial.
The Town adopted the Overlay District last fall. County Council has completed two readings (votes) and was scheduled for a third and final reading. That was postponed so that County Council could hold a public hearing on James Island. The hearing is on Tuesday, May 13 at 6:30 pm at the Sons of Elijah Lodge at 1831 Folly Road.
The Post and Courier article was full of inaccuracies. To start, the date was wrong. The article said the public hearing was to be last night rather than tonight. (That has been corrected on the online version. Thank you P&C.)
The focus of the article, and apparently the emphasis of the public hearing, will be the "Neighborhood Preservation" area of the Overlay. It runs between Raphael Lane and Battery Island Drive. This is an area that begins a bit before the Brickhouse Restaurant and ends a bit before the Harris Teeter. The Sons of Elijah Lodge is next to the JIPSD Fire Station, which is on the south end of the Neighborhood Preservation area.
Some of the parcels in this area are in the City of Charleston, and it includes the old junk yard which is being redeveloped into an apartment complex. Most of the parcels used to be in the Town of James Island, but because of questionable contiguity, they were not included in the current incorporation. These parcels are in the James Island Public Service District, and Senate Bill 723 and House Bill 4265 would allow for an election to be held in 2016 that would return those areas to the Town. For now, these parcels are in unincorporated Charleston County, so County Council determines their zoning.
The article quotes Councilwoman Johnson as stating that the parcels along Folly Road are currently zoned Commercial Transitional. She said that she wanted to rezone them as Neighborhood Commercial. The article said that the Folly Road Overlay District would rezone them as residential. Councilwoman Johnson is quoted as saying that this downzoning to residential would greatly reduce property values in the area.
All of this is mistaken.
No parcel in the area is zoned Commercial Transitional. Instead, nine of the parcels are zoned as Community Commerical, which is the most intensive commercial zoning in the County. (The Town has very similar zoning in the area near the Camp and Folly intersection.) Nearly all of those commercial parcels are around the Brickhouse Restaurant. There are only three parcels currently zoned Community Commercial south of the corner of Folly and South Grimball/Grimball Ext. Roads.
All of the other parcels, approximately 90 percent of them, are currently zoned S-3. This is zoning for single family residential development, with a density of 3 units per acre. It is very similar to the zoning that applies in most of the Town, and was the zoning that applied when these parcels were in the Town just three years ago. The Folly Road Overlay District "Neighborhood Preservation" area would make no change in the zoning of nearly all (about 90 percent) of the parcels. How could this reduce their value?
What about the nine parcels currently zoned as Community Commercial? These would be rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial. This is a commercial district less intensive that Community Commercial. However, all of the businesses that have existed on those few parcels, such as restaurants and small shops, would be permitted in Neighborhood Commercial.
The County's version of the Overlay includes a list of prohibited uses. The Town removed these extra prohibitions from its version of the Overlay. None of the prohibited uses are permitted in residential zones anyway, and most of them aren't permitted in Neighborhood Commercial either.
The article had a photo and included some quotes from the Gilliard family. The grandson complained that their property would be rezoned from commercial to residential. In fact, their property is currently zoned residential (S-3) so there would be no change in their zoning.
So, what is really happening?
Developers want to build apartments and businesses in this area. They need a change in the existing zoning of nearly all of these parcels.
Just last week, I was looking at a 9 acre parcel in this area as a possible site for a new Town park. The property is across Folly Rd. from the Brickhouse Restaurant. The real estate agent told us that he had two developers looking at the site to build apartments. I was a bit surprised, because I thought it was zoned for single family development. It is. Like nearly all the parcels in the area, it is S-3.
For now. If the developers can get it rezoned, then maybe they really will pay the $3 million asking price. (This is a good bit more than the $1 million that the Town could pay for a park or its value for single family development.)
I plan to attend the public hearing and listen closely to what the people in the community want.
Here is a diagram of the existing zoning. The brown is S-3 and the red is Community Commercial.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Tax Credit News
The South Carolina Department of Revenue has determined that they do not have the authority to answer the questions I asked about tax credit proposals. They did not directly contact the Town but rather told an assistant attorney general, who called me. She said that now that the Town has asked SCDOR and they said they cannot answer, it is appropriate for the Attorney General's Office to answer our questions. She also said she will be working on this next week.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Post and Courier on Property Tax Credits
The Post and Courier published a good article about the property tax credits here.
Unfortunately, it included, "Under state law, the town could keep the money and use it for operating expenses, Woolsey said."
If I said that, I misspoke.
State law is unclear. The practice in South Carolina has been for municipalities without a property tax to spend all LOST funds.
However, nothing in the LOST statutes authorizes that practice. It has never been litigated, so no court has approved spending the money. There is no Attorney General opinion on the practice. And the SCDOR has never given an official legal opinion on the matter.
The most "official" guidance is an SCDOR draft opinion from 1995. That opinion at least implied that it would be illegal for a municipality to spend the funds and further, it specifically states that mailing out rebate checks is illegal. Intererstingly, it was requested by the first Town, and the draft opinion "approves" of a plan for the Charleston County Auditor to place a credit against JIPSD taxes on the bills, with the Town directly paying the amount of the credit to the JIPSD. However, it was only a draft opinion that was never finalized.
Here is what the statute says: SC 4-10-40 states in part:
Note that is says "must be used." It doesn't say that it must be used to provide a credit against the property tax imposed by the municipality. It rather it says it must be used to provide a credit against the property tax liability of taxpayers "in" the county and municipality. We have been working on that angle, but are seeking guidance from SCDOR.
The most straightforward approach is for the Town to provide a credit against its own property tax. By having the Town collect a millage in its own jurisdiction and pay the JIPSD for fire protection and solid waste collection, the credit can be applied exactly as it does in other municipalities. The taxpayers pay less to the County Treasurer, the County Treasurer sends less to the Town, and then the Town uses the funds from the Property Tax Credit Fund along with the property tax receipts to pay for services. The Town can pay the JIPSD for the services we currently receive.
JIPSD Chairman was quoted as saying:
Worse, the Town never attempted to mail property tax rebate checks for cars and boats. But the LOST statute mandates tax credits for all property subject to tax.
In my view, spending money that the statute states must be used for tax credits would be irresponsible without better legal guidance. Also, mailing out rebate checks when the closest thing we have to a legal opinion from the SCDOR says that it would be illegal is a mistake. Hopefully, we will get further legal guidance from SCDOR. If necessary, we will return to the Attorney General. Finally, we may need a declaratory judgement from a court. And then we will go forward.
The people in the Town of James Island pay 54 mils property tax to the JIPSD. While this is lower than the property tax millage imposed by the City of Charleston, it is higher than that levied by the City of Folly Beach or the Town of Mount Pleasant. The people of the Town of James Island deserve the full property tax relief promised when the sales tax was increased due to LOST. I remain committed to proving that tax relief to the people of the Town.
Unfortunately, it included, "Under state law, the town could keep the money and use it for operating expenses, Woolsey said."
If I said that, I misspoke.
State law is unclear. The practice in South Carolina has been for municipalities without a property tax to spend all LOST funds.
However, nothing in the LOST statutes authorizes that practice. It has never been litigated, so no court has approved spending the money. There is no Attorney General opinion on the practice. And the SCDOR has never given an official legal opinion on the matter.
The most "official" guidance is an SCDOR draft opinion from 1995. That opinion at least implied that it would be illegal for a municipality to spend the funds and further, it specifically states that mailing out rebate checks is illegal. Intererstingly, it was requested by the first Town, and the draft opinion "approves" of a plan for the Charleston County Auditor to place a credit against JIPSD taxes on the bills, with the Town directly paying the amount of the credit to the JIPSD. However, it was only a draft opinion that was never finalized.
Here is what the statute says: SC 4-10-40 states in part:
(B)(1) All of the
revenue received by a county and municipality from the Property Tax Credit Fund
must be used to provide a credit against the property tax liability of
taxpayers in the county and municipality in an amount determined by multiplying
the appraised value of the taxpayer's taxable property by a fraction in which
the numerator is the total estimated revenue received by the county or
municipality from the Property Tax Credit Fund during the applicable fiscal
year of the political subdivision and the denominator is the total of the appraised
value of taxable property in the county or municipality as of January 1 of the
applicable taxable year.
The most straightforward approach is for the Town to provide a credit against its own property tax. By having the Town collect a millage in its own jurisdiction and pay the JIPSD for fire protection and solid waste collection, the credit can be applied exactly as it does in other municipalities. The taxpayers pay less to the County Treasurer, the County Treasurer sends less to the Town, and then the Town uses the funds from the Property Tax Credit Fund along with the property tax receipts to pay for services. The Town can pay the JIPSD for the services we currently receive.
JIPSD Chairman was quoted as saying:
Engelman said the commission's attorney has said that would be illegal. And he simply doesn't like the idea. "I like to keep things separate," he said.The Town has asked for an SCDOR legal opinion on Trent Kernodle's argument that it is illegal for the Town to pay the JIPSD for services. However, Chairman Engelman makes it clear that the real problem is that he doesn't want it to happen. "I like to keep things separate." Commissioner Welch said about the same at the joint Town Council/Commissioner meeting last month. He said that the Town's proposal is "just silly." I had hoped that he would agree to reconsider based upon the legal guidance we were seeking from the state. But it was clear that it didn't matter what the Attorney General or SCDOR says. The majority of JIPSD Commissioners just don't want to work with the Town to provide a tax credit.
David Engelman, chairman of the James Island PSD, said he thinks the town should again send checks. If that's a difficult task, the town should hire a consultant to do it."During the third incorporation, the Town always paid a contractor to print and mail property tax rebate checks. The administrative nightmare wasn't printing or mailing the checks. It was correcting all of the errors in the aftermath. Yes the IRS mails out rebate checks. They make everyone file, right? They audit people and put them in jail for misrepresenting their income.
Worse, the Town never attempted to mail property tax rebate checks for cars and boats. But the LOST statute mandates tax credits for all property subject to tax.
In my view, spending money that the statute states must be used for tax credits would be irresponsible without better legal guidance. Also, mailing out rebate checks when the closest thing we have to a legal opinion from the SCDOR says that it would be illegal is a mistake. Hopefully, we will get further legal guidance from SCDOR. If necessary, we will return to the Attorney General. Finally, we may need a declaratory judgement from a court. And then we will go forward.
The people in the Town of James Island pay 54 mils property tax to the JIPSD. While this is lower than the property tax millage imposed by the City of Charleston, it is higher than that levied by the City of Folly Beach or the Town of Mount Pleasant. The people of the Town of James Island deserve the full property tax relief promised when the sales tax was increased due to LOST. I remain committed to proving that tax relief to the people of the Town.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Property Tax Credit
The Town of James Island receives between $50,000 to $80,000 each month from the the Local Option Sales Tax Property Tax Credit Fund. We began receiving those checks three months after we began operations in August of 2012. The total amount received is approximately $1.1 million. Through the end of the fiscal year in June, we should have nearly $1.3 million. I believe that these funds should be used to provide a tax credit. If we could do so, the result would be an approximate 25 percent property tax cut for a homeowner. The property tax cut for businesses, rental property, and cars would be closer to 9 percent and for boats and other personal property it would be 6 percent.
The Town proposed that it collect the operating property tax millage in place of the James Island PSD and then directly pay them an equivalent amount (approximately $2.7 million per year) for fire protection and solid waste collection. Unfortunately, 5 of the 7 Commissioners rejected that approach. Commissioner Carter McMillan is willing to work with the Town to provide a tax credit. While Commissioner Brown-Crouch abstained when the majority of Commissioners voted to send a letter to the Town rejecting our proposal, she has since been open to working with the Town.
The letter the JIPSD sent to the Town raised legal issues regarding our proposal. The Town requested an Attorney General's opinion on various legal issues surrounding the proposal.
We received a response. The Town asked if a substitution of the Town's millage for the JIPSD millage would violate the millage cap. This is a state law that limits any increase in millage to the previous year's inflation rate and population growth.
The Attorney General's opinion is that it does violate the letter of the law, but that because taxpayers would face the same total millage and pay less tax due to the provision of a LOST tax credit, a court might determine that the Legislature did not intend to prohibit such a substitution. The Attorney General recommended that the Town seek a declaratory judgement from a court before substituting a Town millage for the JIPSD millage. The Town's attorney, Bo Wilson, is looking into the procedure for obtaining a declaratory judgement. He estimates that the legal cost would be less than $5,000. In my view, only when there is a majority of JIPSD Commissioners willing to work with the Town to provide a property tax credit should we go forward. If a court determines that such a solution is contrary to the statute, then we will need to reach out to Representative McCoy and Senators Thurmond and Campsen yet again.
The JPSD said that it would be illegal for them to receive any funds from the local option sales tax. The Attorney General's opinion was that this should be determined by the South Carolina Department of Revenue. I wrote the Director of the South Carolina Department of Revenue asking for an advisory opinion on whether funds the Town received from the LOST property tax credit fund could be received by other governmental entities in exchange for the provision of services. I also asked whether the LOST statute would prohibit the Town from depositing funds we receive from the LOST Property Tax Fund with the County Treasurer, and having those funds be used to compensate either Charleston County or else the JIPSD, for a property tax credit against the millage they charge in the Town's jurisdiction. We are waiting for a response from the Department of Revenue.
When I first became Mayor in 2010, we had a training session for Council by the Municipal Association of South Carolina. We asked whether the Town was required to provide a property tax credit. Their response was that because the Town had no property tax, we were free to use the money as we choose. There are many municipalities in South Carolina with no property tax and they spend all of the LOST money they receive on current operations. This practice greatly influenced my thinking regarding LOST. While I have always been committed to providing property tax relief to our citizens, I saw this as a Town policy.
As I have reviewed the law myself over the last few months, I have become much less confident that standard practice in South Carolina is consistent with the LOST statute. I think that the most responsible course is to save all of the funds the Town receives from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund until either the Town introduces a property tax or else we receive clear guidance from the South Carolina Department of Revenue regarding some alternative means of providing a credit against the liability of taxpayers in the Town.
The Town proposed that it collect the operating property tax millage in place of the James Island PSD and then directly pay them an equivalent amount (approximately $2.7 million per year) for fire protection and solid waste collection. Unfortunately, 5 of the 7 Commissioners rejected that approach. Commissioner Carter McMillan is willing to work with the Town to provide a tax credit. While Commissioner Brown-Crouch abstained when the majority of Commissioners voted to send a letter to the Town rejecting our proposal, she has since been open to working with the Town.
The letter the JIPSD sent to the Town raised legal issues regarding our proposal. The Town requested an Attorney General's opinion on various legal issues surrounding the proposal.
We received a response. The Town asked if a substitution of the Town's millage for the JIPSD millage would violate the millage cap. This is a state law that limits any increase in millage to the previous year's inflation rate and population growth.
The Attorney General's opinion is that it does violate the letter of the law, but that because taxpayers would face the same total millage and pay less tax due to the provision of a LOST tax credit, a court might determine that the Legislature did not intend to prohibit such a substitution. The Attorney General recommended that the Town seek a declaratory judgement from a court before substituting a Town millage for the JIPSD millage. The Town's attorney, Bo Wilson, is looking into the procedure for obtaining a declaratory judgement. He estimates that the legal cost would be less than $5,000. In my view, only when there is a majority of JIPSD Commissioners willing to work with the Town to provide a property tax credit should we go forward. If a court determines that such a solution is contrary to the statute, then we will need to reach out to Representative McCoy and Senators Thurmond and Campsen yet again.
The JPSD said that it would be illegal for them to receive any funds from the local option sales tax. The Attorney General's opinion was that this should be determined by the South Carolina Department of Revenue. I wrote the Director of the South Carolina Department of Revenue asking for an advisory opinion on whether funds the Town received from the LOST property tax credit fund could be received by other governmental entities in exchange for the provision of services. I also asked whether the LOST statute would prohibit the Town from depositing funds we receive from the LOST Property Tax Fund with the County Treasurer, and having those funds be used to compensate either Charleston County or else the JIPSD, for a property tax credit against the millage they charge in the Town's jurisdiction. We are waiting for a response from the Department of Revenue.
When I first became Mayor in 2010, we had a training session for Council by the Municipal Association of South Carolina. We asked whether the Town was required to provide a property tax credit. Their response was that because the Town had no property tax, we were free to use the money as we choose. There are many municipalities in South Carolina with no property tax and they spend all of the LOST money they receive on current operations. This practice greatly influenced my thinking regarding LOST. While I have always been committed to providing property tax relief to our citizens, I saw this as a Town policy.
As I have reviewed the law myself over the last few months, I have become much less confident that standard practice in South Carolina is consistent with the LOST statute. I think that the most responsible course is to save all of the funds the Town receives from the LOST Property Tax Credit Fund until either the Town introduces a property tax or else we receive clear guidance from the South Carolina Department of Revenue regarding some alternative means of providing a credit against the liability of taxpayers in the Town.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Town of James Island "Leash Law"
The Town adopted the Charleston County's "Livability Code" by referernce. This is what would sometimes be called a "leash law." The entire section is here.
These are the rules that applied in the area of the Town before we were incorporated. By adopting this Code by reference, the rules applying to the residents and animals in the Town remained the same.
Here are some excerpts. First, animals "running at large" can be taken and euthanized:
Sec. 3-5. Impoundment of pets running at large; disposition.
(a) Any pet or dangerous pet running at large may be impounded by the animal control officer or any of the persons empowered to enforce this chapter and transported to the county animal shelter, or to any other nonprofit animal shelter designated by county council, and there impounded and confined until redeemed or disposed of as hereinafter provided. If an animal is transported to an animal shelter other than the Charleston Animal Society, the redemption fee cited in section 3-6 below shall not be collected.
(b) Immediately after impounding any properly tagged pet, the animal control officer and/or animal shelter operator shall make a reasonable effort to notify the owner in writing or by telephone of its impoundment and to inform the owner of the conditions whereby he can regain custody of the pet.
(c) At-large animals and pets shall be either euthanized after five working days, or placed for adoption at the discretion of the animal shelter operator (Charleston Animal Society).
The owner is subject to a summons and fine for letting an animal run free:
(b) An animal control officer shall issue a summons if there is probable cause to believe that a violation of any provision of this chapter has been violated, including the following violations:
(11) Allowing animals to run free, break loose, or escape in any manner;
The ordinance also requires that animals be restrained:
Sec. 3-11. Restraint.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any owner or custodian of any animal to permit same to run at large at any time upon streets or highways or properties other than his own property within the county. Such owner or custodian shall comply with the definition of "restraint" in section 3-1
(b) It shall be unlawful to keep a dangerous dog in any manner not allowed under section 47-3-610, et seq., Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976.
Here are some definitions:
At large means an animal which is off the property and/or premises of the owner or keeper and not under physical control by owner or keeper by means of a leash or restraint.
A dog that attacks cats is dangerous:
Dangerous animal means an animal which:
(1) The owner knows, or reasonably should know, has a propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, cause injury, or otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animals;
Restraint means when a pet or animal is confined to the premises of its owner or keeper by fence, chain, or other appropriate measure, on the premises of its owner or keeper, or when a pet is accompanied by owner or keeper and is physically controlled by a leash or similar physical device.
Sec. 3-18. Nuisances.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keep, possess, or maintain an animal in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance or a nuisance to neighbors. By way of example and not of limitation, the following acts or actions of an owner, harborer or possessor of an animal are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and therefore unlawful:
(b) (1) Having an animal that disturbs the rights of, threatens the safety of, or damages a member of the general public, or interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of their property, or public property; or
(2) Allowing or permitting an animal to damage the property of anyone other than its owner, including, but not limited to, turning over garbage containers or damaging gardens, flowers or vegetables, or repeatedly defecating upon the property of another; or
(3) Maintaining animals in an environment of unsanitary conditions or lack of cleanliness which results in offensive odor or is dangerous to the public health, welfare or safety, or a failure to maintain a condition of good order and cleanliness which reduces the probability of transmission of disease; or
(4) Maintaining property that is offensive, annoying or dangerous to the public health, safety or welfare of the community because of the number, type, variety, density or location of the animals on the property; or
(5) Allowing or permitting an animal to bark, whine or howl in an excessive, continuous or untimely fashion so as to interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring premises; or
(6) Maintaining an animal that is diseased and dangerous to the public health; or
(7) Maintaining an animal that habitually or repeatedly chases, snaps at, threatens, attacks or barks at pedestrians, joggers, dogs walked on a leash by owners, bicycles, or vehicles; or
Charleston County Animal Control, under the direction of the Sheriff's Office, enforces all of these regulations in the Town. While you can and should contact them directly, please let Town Hall know about any problems.
Sec. 3-44. Penalty.
Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500.00 or not more than 30 days in jail, or both.
With court costs, it runs a bit over $1,000.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
James Island Public Service District Proposed Budget
Here is a copy of the budget proposed by the JIPSD staff. Thank the Commissioners for putting this on the web, and especially Commissioner McMillan who proposed putting it on the web.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)