The Town of James Island's Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) voted unanimously to deny a special exception for an additional car wash on Folly Road. I believe the BZA decision was fair and reasonable. I hope the owners of Huff Seafood are able to find a buyer for their property that will have a use more consistent with the goals of the Folly Road Overlay. I hope that Autobell can find a suitable location for their car wash, perhaps somewhere else on James Island.
After the meeting, the Town Administrator told me the BZA's decision. The hour was late. What happened? The BZA voted 4 to 1 to waive all time limits.
The South Carolina Code requires Boards of Zoning Appeals to adopt their own rules. The Town's BZA adopted rules five years ago that limit applicants to five minutes to make their presentation. Those opposed give remarks for up to two minutes, and then the applicant can rebut for two minutes.
The rules state that a majority vote by the BZA is needed to allow for any extension of these time limits. The BZA rules are posted here on the Town's website.
The next day, I asked the Planning Director what happened. She explained that the applicant's lawyer had been badgering her (by email) demanding more time to make their case. He said they had multiple expert witnesses to make presentations. Our Planning Director shared our rules, stating that it was solely the decision of the BZA to allow more time for applicant testimony
Before Tuesday's meeting, the BZA's Chairwoman met with the BZA Attorney. Soon after, the meeting started and the Chairwoman made the motion to waive all time limits, which passed 4 to 1. This was a surprise to everyone, including the applicants. According to Town staff, the applicants were in Council Chambers immediately before the meeting still debating how they would divide up their five minute time for their presentation.
Along with demanding more time, the applicant's attorney had been signalling an intent to appeal any unfavorable decision to circuit court. The reason for the extension of time limits was that a court might find that five minutes was an unreasonably short time for the applicants to present their arguments. Therefore, I understand and support the decision of the majority of the BZA to provide additional time.
When the motion to waive time limits was made, the Chairwoman asked that everyone be respectful and not waste time. Sadly, that was not to be. The worst offender was the applicant's attorney who wasted approximately an hour sharing his far-fetched legal theory that BZA should not be hearing the case, while attacking the competency of the Town and repeatedly sharing an intent to appeal any unfavorable decision. The arborist, stormwater engineer, and traffic engineer did provide some useful information to the BZA, and the Huff's explained their need to sell the property so they can retire.
Still, it is hard to believe that the useful information couldn't have been limited to an hour or even thirty minutes. Also, they were all supposed to be giving testimony to the BZA. Exactly why anyone thinks they should turn their back to the BZA and instead address the audience is beyond me.
The testimony of some of the opponents was nearly as bad, including one who took 45 minutes and another who removed the microphone, turned his back on the BZA and gave a speech to the audience. There is no evidence that any opponent needed more than two minutes to share their legitimate concerns with the BZA.
Fortunately, most opponents kept their remarks short and to the point. Thank you to everyone who attended the BZA meeting and did not abuse the process.
The applicants may appeal the BZA decision to circuit court within 30 days. Should that occur, the Town will defend the actions of the BZA, the Town Staff, and the Zoning Ordinance passed by Town Council.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Friday, March 23, 2018
Another Car Wash on Folly Road?
The owners of Huff's Seafood on Folly Road have been trying to sell their property for some time. They found a potential buyer who wants the property for a full-service car wash. As usual, the potential buyer came to the Town to make sure that their plans were consistent with our ordinances.
The Town does not own this property and it is not determining what will be placed there. To repeat, the current owner is trying to sell and a potential buyer would like to operate a full service car wash.
The Town's Planning Director applies our land-use ordinances. As a practical matter, I promptly learn about most proposed developments in the Town and especially when what for us is a major commercial redevelopment is proposed for Folly Road. However, our ordinances generally leave little room for discretion and there is just no question of the Mayor being in a position to make a decision about whether a proposed development will go forward.
The initial plan for the car wash was contrary to Town ordinances in two ways. One problem was that cars would wait under the canopy of a grand tree. It is the large live oak tree to the left of Huff's Seafood. The second problem was that a portion of the car wash would encroach too near the critical line, which is the official demarcation of the edge of the salt marsh.
Those seeking to open the car wash could have changed their plans, but under Town ordinances, they have the legal right to seek a variance. Our Town ordinances follow the requirements of the South Carolina Code, which gives the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the sole authority to grant variances.
The Planning Director processes applications for variances, but does not approve them and has no authority to reject them. The BZA is appointed by Town Council. It acts as a quasi-judicial body. State law prohibits the Town staff, the Mayor or Town Council from either granting or denying variances.
An application was made for the variances, the public was notified, but the application was withdrawn. Those trying to open the car wash chose to redo their plan. Their new plan seeks to put part of the car wash on the neighboring parcel, which is the location of Title Max. With this change, they will no longer encroach on the required buffer for the marsh, but they still plan to have cars waiting under the canopy of the oak tree.
An applicant can always withdraw a pending application. To prevent them from applying repeatedly, there is a one year waiting period before reapplying. However, the BZA may grant a waiver of the waiting period at the request of the applicant. At their March meeting, the BZA granted the wavier.
Perhaps as soon as April, the BZA will consider an application for a variance regarding cars waiting under the canopy of the grand tree. I believe their decision should depend on the potential harm to the tree. The applicant will almost certainly have an arborist on hand to testify.
However, there is an additional requirement that applies to this parcel because of its location. The underlying zoning is community commercial, and car washes are a "use of right" in a community commercial zone. But this parcel is in the Folly Road Overlay. This overlay zoning district makes a variety of uses "special exceptions." As a vehicular service, a car wash is prohibited unless the Town grants a special exception. Our ordinances give the sole authority to grant such special exceptions to the BZA.
A requirement that a car wash obtain a special exception allows the BZA to impose additional conditions on the use. Usually, such conditions are aimed at protecting residential neighbors from excessive noise or light. I believe protecting the environment, particularly the Town waterways from spills, would also be possible.
However, I believe that the BZA may also consider the broader purposes of the Folly Road Overlay.
There are several uses that require a special exception. Examples include fast food restaurants and gas stations. I believe that the reason for this provision is to avoid having Folly Road become a strip of gas stations and fast food restaurants and, maybe, car washes.
I must admit that another car wash, even a "full service" one, is not the sort of business that I would count as an improvement for Folly Road. I think that the best way to improve Folly Road, which is the goal of both the Folly Road Overlay and Rethink Folly Road. is to recruit desirable businesses to the area and have them seek to buy land that the current owners are trying to sell. The Town has been looking into funding just such an effort. We hope that this can be a joint project with the other local governments participating in the Folly Road Overlay and Rethink Folly Road.
A few days ago, I read on "Next Door" a copy of a post from "Save James Island" that claimed that the Town's BZA was meeting without having posted an agenda and implying that the Town was trying to sneak in this car wash without public scrutiny. In truth, an agenda had been posted as usual and all that was before the BZA was a proposed waiver of the waiting period. In no way has the Town been seeking to have a car wash at this or any other location, much less trying to do so in secret. It is sad that there has been a regular pattern of false and malicious rumors. It is just dirty politics.
The Town, and more specifically, the Town's BZA, must apply our ordinances in a fair and reasonable way. Any unreasonable or arbitrary action by the BZA will only result in an appeal to circuit court with the result that the car wash (or worse) will appear along with the Town having to pay substantial legal fees. We must do things right. We must follow the proper procedures.
The Town does not own this property and it is not determining what will be placed there. To repeat, the current owner is trying to sell and a potential buyer would like to operate a full service car wash.
The Town's Planning Director applies our land-use ordinances. As a practical matter, I promptly learn about most proposed developments in the Town and especially when what for us is a major commercial redevelopment is proposed for Folly Road. However, our ordinances generally leave little room for discretion and there is just no question of the Mayor being in a position to make a decision about whether a proposed development will go forward.
The initial plan for the car wash was contrary to Town ordinances in two ways. One problem was that cars would wait under the canopy of a grand tree. It is the large live oak tree to the left of Huff's Seafood. The second problem was that a portion of the car wash would encroach too near the critical line, which is the official demarcation of the edge of the salt marsh.
Those seeking to open the car wash could have changed their plans, but under Town ordinances, they have the legal right to seek a variance. Our Town ordinances follow the requirements of the South Carolina Code, which gives the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the sole authority to grant variances.
The Planning Director processes applications for variances, but does not approve them and has no authority to reject them. The BZA is appointed by Town Council. It acts as a quasi-judicial body. State law prohibits the Town staff, the Mayor or Town Council from either granting or denying variances.
An application was made for the variances, the public was notified, but the application was withdrawn. Those trying to open the car wash chose to redo their plan. Their new plan seeks to put part of the car wash on the neighboring parcel, which is the location of Title Max. With this change, they will no longer encroach on the required buffer for the marsh, but they still plan to have cars waiting under the canopy of the oak tree.
An applicant can always withdraw a pending application. To prevent them from applying repeatedly, there is a one year waiting period before reapplying. However, the BZA may grant a waiver of the waiting period at the request of the applicant. At their March meeting, the BZA granted the wavier.
Perhaps as soon as April, the BZA will consider an application for a variance regarding cars waiting under the canopy of the grand tree. I believe their decision should depend on the potential harm to the tree. The applicant will almost certainly have an arborist on hand to testify.
However, there is an additional requirement that applies to this parcel because of its location. The underlying zoning is community commercial, and car washes are a "use of right" in a community commercial zone. But this parcel is in the Folly Road Overlay. This overlay zoning district makes a variety of uses "special exceptions." As a vehicular service, a car wash is prohibited unless the Town grants a special exception. Our ordinances give the sole authority to grant such special exceptions to the BZA.
A requirement that a car wash obtain a special exception allows the BZA to impose additional conditions on the use. Usually, such conditions are aimed at protecting residential neighbors from excessive noise or light. I believe protecting the environment, particularly the Town waterways from spills, would also be possible.
However, I believe that the BZA may also consider the broader purposes of the Folly Road Overlay.
(B) Purpose and intent. The purpose of the FRC-O, Folly Road Corridor Overlay Zoning District, is to create a corridor that is well-planned and attractive through the implementation of consistent land use and design standards with adjacent jurisdictions and utilizing traffic safety measures and access management for vehicles and pedestrians to ensure safe and efficient traffic movement.
I must admit that another car wash, even a "full service" one, is not the sort of business that I would count as an improvement for Folly Road. I think that the best way to improve Folly Road, which is the goal of both the Folly Road Overlay and Rethink Folly Road. is to recruit desirable businesses to the area and have them seek to buy land that the current owners are trying to sell. The Town has been looking into funding just such an effort. We hope that this can be a joint project with the other local governments participating in the Folly Road Overlay and Rethink Folly Road.
A few days ago, I read on "Next Door" a copy of a post from "Save James Island" that claimed that the Town's BZA was meeting without having posted an agenda and implying that the Town was trying to sneak in this car wash without public scrutiny. In truth, an agenda had been posted as usual and all that was before the BZA was a proposed waiver of the waiting period. In no way has the Town been seeking to have a car wash at this or any other location, much less trying to do so in secret. It is sad that there has been a regular pattern of false and malicious rumors. It is just dirty politics.
The Town, and more specifically, the Town's BZA, must apply our ordinances in a fair and reasonable way. Any unreasonable or arbitrary action by the BZA will only result in an appeal to circuit court with the result that the car wash (or worse) will appear along with the Town having to pay substantial legal fees. We must do things right. We must follow the proper procedures.
Friday, March 16, 2018
Gateway Park -- Report on County Council Meeting
County Council considered the Town's proposal for a pocket park at Camp and Folly last Tuesday. The Town requested that the County lease the parcel for $1 per year for 5 years with three (or two) renewals.
The vote was 5 to 4 against.
Voting in favor were Chairman Rawl, and Councilmen Qualey, Sass and Schweers. (These were the same four who voted in favor at the Finance Committee meeting.)
Voting against were members of Council Darby, Johnson, Moody, Pryor and Summey. (Darby had abstained at the Finance Committee and Summey had been absent.)
Everyone at the public hearing spoke in favor. Thank you to Betsy La Force, Katie Zimmerman, Lauren Gelatly, and Margaret Fabri.
There was also work behind the scenes. Thank you to Mayor Tecklenburg, who wrote County Council in support and thank you to City Councilwoman Carol Jackson who put that together. James Island's state Representative Peter McCoy lobbied hard for a fifth vote. (I had five votes counted in our favor going into the meeting, but it didn't work out that way.)
And, of course, thank you to the four members of Council who voted in favor, including James Island's Councilman, Joe Qualey.
Where do we go from here?
At the meeting, Councilman Pryor and Summey mentioned using Greenbelt funds to make this happen. Councilman Pryor asked to put the issue on the agenda for the next meeting. I believe Councilman Summey is committed to finding Greenbelt funds to help pay for the project.
So, I am cautiously optimistic.
The vote was 5 to 4 against.
Voting in favor were Chairman Rawl, and Councilmen Qualey, Sass and Schweers. (These were the same four who voted in favor at the Finance Committee meeting.)
Voting against were members of Council Darby, Johnson, Moody, Pryor and Summey. (Darby had abstained at the Finance Committee and Summey had been absent.)
Everyone at the public hearing spoke in favor. Thank you to Betsy La Force, Katie Zimmerman, Lauren Gelatly, and Margaret Fabri.
There was also work behind the scenes. Thank you to Mayor Tecklenburg, who wrote County Council in support and thank you to City Councilwoman Carol Jackson who put that together. James Island's state Representative Peter McCoy lobbied hard for a fifth vote. (I had five votes counted in our favor going into the meeting, but it didn't work out that way.)
And, of course, thank you to the four members of Council who voted in favor, including James Island's Councilman, Joe Qualey.
Where do we go from here?
At the meeting, Councilman Pryor and Summey mentioned using Greenbelt funds to make this happen. Councilman Pryor asked to put the issue on the agenda for the next meeting. I believe Councilman Summey is committed to finding Greenbelt funds to help pay for the project.
So, I am cautiously optimistic.
Saturday, March 10, 2018
Gateway Park at Camp and Folly
The Town of James Island has proposed that the property at the corner of Camp and Folly, where there is currently a vacant Subway, become "Gateway Park." Charleston County owns the property, having purchased it in order to obtain the right of way for the Folly and Camp improvement project.
The proposed park will include a park benches, landscaping, a bus shelter, public parking, and way finding signage. It will provide a bit of green space in the "Commercial Core" of James Island.
Town has requested that Charleston County lease the property to the Town for $1 per year for five years with three renewable terms. The Town will be responsible for cleaning up the property and constructing the park.
The Town's proposal was presented to the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee. The Committee passed a resolution endorsing the project and requesting that Charleston County lease the property to the Town.
County Council's Finance Committee voted 4 to 3 to approve the lease. There will be a public hearing at the County Council meeting on Tuesday, March 13 at 6 PM at Council Chambers in North Charleston. County Council will then vote on the proposed lease.
At the Finance Committee, Chairman Rawl, Councilman Qualey, Sass and Schweers all voted in favor.
In opposition were Councilwoman Johnson and Councilmen Moody and Pryor. Those opposed were willing to sell the property to the Town for approximately $600,000. They were not opposed to the project, but were not willing for the County to lease the property at a modest price. The likely effect of their stand will be for the County to sell to a developer with the likely result of a third gas station at the intersection.
Councilwoman Johnson represents a substantial portion of James Island, but she said she would like to see the property sold and the money used for projects on Johns Island. It might be helpful if some of her constituents on James Island would contact her and ask that she support projects for our Island as well!
There are nine members of County Council. At the Finance Committee meeting, Councilman Darby abstained. The real question mark is Councilman Summey, who was absent. If Summey votes iffavor, then it will pass. If he joins Pryor, Johnson, and Moody, then it will fail on a tie.n
The Town will fund the creation of the park using funds from its hospitality tax. Nearly of the money from that tax is raised from restaurants on Folly Road in the commercial core. This project will put some of that money back into the area. This is consistent with the mission of Rethink Folly Road seeking to make it destination for people to stop, shop, eat and drink. Many municipalities in South Carolina fund similar projects with the hospitality tax revenue.
If you can, please come to the public hearing next Tuesday and ask for the County's help with a gateway park rather than a third gas station at Camp and Folly.
The proposed park will include a park benches, landscaping, a bus shelter, public parking, and way finding signage. It will provide a bit of green space in the "Commercial Core" of James Island.
Town has requested that Charleston County lease the property to the Town for $1 per year for five years with three renewable terms. The Town will be responsible for cleaning up the property and constructing the park.
The Town's proposal was presented to the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee. The Committee passed a resolution endorsing the project and requesting that Charleston County lease the property to the Town.
County Council's Finance Committee voted 4 to 3 to approve the lease. There will be a public hearing at the County Council meeting on Tuesday, March 13 at 6 PM at Council Chambers in North Charleston. County Council will then vote on the proposed lease.
At the Finance Committee, Chairman Rawl, Councilman Qualey, Sass and Schweers all voted in favor.
In opposition were Councilwoman Johnson and Councilmen Moody and Pryor. Those opposed were willing to sell the property to the Town for approximately $600,000. They were not opposed to the project, but were not willing for the County to lease the property at a modest price. The likely effect of their stand will be for the County to sell to a developer with the likely result of a third gas station at the intersection.
Councilwoman Johnson represents a substantial portion of James Island, but she said she would like to see the property sold and the money used for projects on Johns Island. It might be helpful if some of her constituents on James Island would contact her and ask that she support projects for our Island as well!
There are nine members of County Council. At the Finance Committee meeting, Councilman Darby abstained. The real question mark is Councilman Summey, who was absent. If Summey votes iffavor, then it will pass. If he joins Pryor, Johnson, and Moody, then it will fail on a tie.n
The Town will fund the creation of the park using funds from its hospitality tax. Nearly of the money from that tax is raised from restaurants on Folly Road in the commercial core. This project will put some of that money back into the area. This is consistent with the mission of Rethink Folly Road seeking to make it destination for people to stop, shop, eat and drink. Many municipalities in South Carolina fund similar projects with the hospitality tax revenue.
If you can, please come to the public hearing next Tuesday and ask for the County's help with a gateway park rather than a third gas station at Camp and Folly.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
Rethink Folly Steering Committee News
In January, the Rethink Folly Committee elected County Councilman Joe Qualey to serve as Vice Chair in place of former Charleston City Councilwoman Kathleen Wilson. The Committee also welcomed new City Councilwoman Carol Jackson.
The Committee voted to recommend that the County's Bike and Pedestrian infill project begin in the area between Ellis Creek and Prescott Avenue. This is in what the Folly Road Overlay Zoning District describes as James Island's Commercial Core. The project is on the west side of Folly Road.
The County has selected the Reveer Group to do the design for the bike-ped project. They should begin survey work shortly after March 1 and should have preliminary design by September. This preliminary design will include options of a standard five foot sidewalk, a wider sidewalk (perhaps 8 feet) and multi-use path of variable width, narrowing in areas where there isn't sufficient room, and finally the proposal of moving the curb out into Folly Road, partly putting the multi-use path in place of the existing bike lane. Cost estimates will be provided for these options, and the Rethink Folly Road committee will have an opportunity to provide a recommendation on these options. After than, detailed design work will commence. The project should be ready to bid our for construction in the summer of 2019.
County Council has approved $365,000 for the current bike/ped project, which added to the Town's $400,000, the City of Charleston's $400,000, the $1.5 million federal grant obtained by the Town from COG adds up to $2,665,000.
The half-cent sales tax referendum included $15 million for James Island, and there are several projects going forward. These include intersection improvements at Riverland and Central Park, Fort Johnson and Secessionville, and Fort Johnson and Camp. The County still believes that there will be approximately $2 million left over after those three projects are funded, but County Council would have to approve spending any additional money on the bike-ped improvements on Folly Road. (In previous reports, I had been counting all $2 million as being in the bag, but really there is only $365,000 has been approved.)
At the February Meeting, the Committee approved a change in schedule to meeting every other month. This was a compromise with the staff recommendation that the meetings be quarterly. The meetings will now be every other month on the fourth Wednesday at 3:30 PM. The next meeting will be April 25.
Also at the February meeting, the Committee voted to recommend that the speed limit on Folly Road be reduced from 40 mph to 35 mph in the segment between the James Island Connector and Fort Johnson Road. The Rethink Folly Road plan calls for the speed limit to be reduced to 30 mph from the Wappoo Bridge to Fort Johnson Road and then to 35 mph on to the Folly River Bridge. SCDOT recently reduced the speed limit from 45 mph to 40 mph between the James Island Connector and Fort Johnson Road. The Committee believes that this remains an excessive speed for a central business area, and it is especially dangerous for pedestrians as well as those using the bike lanes.
The Committee voted to recommend that the County's Bike and Pedestrian infill project begin in the area between Ellis Creek and Prescott Avenue. This is in what the Folly Road Overlay Zoning District describes as James Island's Commercial Core. The project is on the west side of Folly Road.
The County has selected the Reveer Group to do the design for the bike-ped project. They should begin survey work shortly after March 1 and should have preliminary design by September. This preliminary design will include options of a standard five foot sidewalk, a wider sidewalk (perhaps 8 feet) and multi-use path of variable width, narrowing in areas where there isn't sufficient room, and finally the proposal of moving the curb out into Folly Road, partly putting the multi-use path in place of the existing bike lane. Cost estimates will be provided for these options, and the Rethink Folly Road committee will have an opportunity to provide a recommendation on these options. After than, detailed design work will commence. The project should be ready to bid our for construction in the summer of 2019.
County Council has approved $365,000 for the current bike/ped project, which added to the Town's $400,000, the City of Charleston's $400,000, the $1.5 million federal grant obtained by the Town from COG adds up to $2,665,000.
The half-cent sales tax referendum included $15 million for James Island, and there are several projects going forward. These include intersection improvements at Riverland and Central Park, Fort Johnson and Secessionville, and Fort Johnson and Camp. The County still believes that there will be approximately $2 million left over after those three projects are funded, but County Council would have to approve spending any additional money on the bike-ped improvements on Folly Road. (In previous reports, I had been counting all $2 million as being in the bag, but really there is only $365,000 has been approved.)
At the February Meeting, the Committee approved a change in schedule to meeting every other month. This was a compromise with the staff recommendation that the meetings be quarterly. The meetings will now be every other month on the fourth Wednesday at 3:30 PM. The next meeting will be April 25.
Also at the February meeting, the Committee voted to recommend that the speed limit on Folly Road be reduced from 40 mph to 35 mph in the segment between the James Island Connector and Fort Johnson Road. The Rethink Folly Road plan calls for the speed limit to be reduced to 30 mph from the Wappoo Bridge to Fort Johnson Road and then to 35 mph on to the Folly River Bridge. SCDOT recently reduced the speed limit from 45 mph to 40 mph between the James Island Connector and Fort Johnson Road. The Committee believes that this remains an excessive speed for a central business area, and it is especially dangerous for pedestrians as well as those using the bike lanes.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Town wins $1.5 million COG Grant for Folly Road Sidewalks
The Town applied for $1.2 million of Federal complete streets funding through the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments (BCD COG) to complete sidewalks on the west side of Folly from the Ellis Creek bridge to Eugene Gibbs (near Chik-fil-e). This would connect up to the sidewalks included in the County's Camp-Folly improvement project and so complete sidewalks along the west side of Folly to near the old Burger King.
At its November meeting, in response to the Town's application, the BCD COG awarded $1.5 million for bike-pedestrian improvements on Folly Road.
The Town has pledged $400,000 (from our hospitality tax revenue.) Sidewalk infill on Folly Road was a listed project on last year's 1/2 sales tax referendum and the County anticipates that $2 million will be available. The City of Charleston has matched the Town's $400,000, though it will probably only be available in the City's 2019 budget. This adds up to $4.3 million.
While this is plenty of money to complete a sidewalk between the Ellis Creek Bridge and Eugene Gibbs, the project has expanded to become a proposed multi-use path along the west side of Folly from the Ellis Creek Bridge to Sol Legare Road. The cost of the expanded project is $15.9 million.
At the request of the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee, the County prepared an application for Federal complete street funding through the BCD COG for this entire project. The County asked for $6.9 million, which was all of the complete street funding available. The County application arrived too late to be considered at the November meeting, and since the Town's application was funded for $1.5 million, that leaves $5.4 million. We cannot count on the County getting all of the remaining money and it might not get any. However, if it did get all of it, combined with the $4.3 million that would add up to $9.7 million, well short of $15.9 million.
The application for funding the larger project should come before the BCD COG early in the new year. However, the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee is anxious to make recommendations for spending the $4.3 million on hand. Charleston County Transportation Department is preparing options for consideration at the January 17 meeting.
The County application included various options including a sidewalk everywhere there is an existing bike lane on the west side of Folly Road and a mulit-use path elsewhere. The estimate for that was $10.3 million, but I found an inconsistency in the estimates for right-of-way and asked if there was an error. When the error was corrected, the cost of the sidewalk/bike-lane/multi-use path option fell to approximately $9.7 million. While that option could be funded if all of the additional $5.4 million was obtained, as I explained above, receiving any, much less all, of that funding is hardly certain.
The multi-use path option between the Ellis Creek Bridge and George Griffith (Walmart) includes shifting the existing curb on Folly Road into the current roadway taking away the existing bike lane. This would require reconstructing the drainage system. The total cost of the multi-use path along this segment is $7.5 million. The reason for moving the curb is that federal regulations require 12 feet for a multi-use path and it must be 3 feet from the curb. There is not enough room between the existing curb and the Sunoco Station and Doctors Care near the Ellis Creek Bridge and the power substation near Walmart. There is more than enough room for a five foot sidewalk and that would cost less than half--$3.3 million.
In my opinion, moving the curb, reconstructing the drainage, moving all of the underground utilities, and spending $7.5 million is not reasonable. I also think doing nothing in James Island's commercial core is unacceptable.
There are no similar barriers and so no need to move the curb onto the roadway south of George Griffith. (There is no curb south of Grimball/Fort Johnson.) In those segments, the federally-required 12 foot muli-use path 3 feet from the roadway is more practical. There is no bike lane on the west side of Folly between George Griffith and Rafael, so a multi-use path will take care of bikers as well as pedestrians.
We will see what the County transportation engineers say and what the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee recommends.
At its November meeting, in response to the Town's application, the BCD COG awarded $1.5 million for bike-pedestrian improvements on Folly Road.
The Town has pledged $400,000 (from our hospitality tax revenue.) Sidewalk infill on Folly Road was a listed project on last year's 1/2 sales tax referendum and the County anticipates that $2 million will be available. The City of Charleston has matched the Town's $400,000, though it will probably only be available in the City's 2019 budget. This adds up to $4.3 million.
While this is plenty of money to complete a sidewalk between the Ellis Creek Bridge and Eugene Gibbs, the project has expanded to become a proposed multi-use path along the west side of Folly from the Ellis Creek Bridge to Sol Legare Road. The cost of the expanded project is $15.9 million.
At the request of the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee, the County prepared an application for Federal complete street funding through the BCD COG for this entire project. The County asked for $6.9 million, which was all of the complete street funding available. The County application arrived too late to be considered at the November meeting, and since the Town's application was funded for $1.5 million, that leaves $5.4 million. We cannot count on the County getting all of the remaining money and it might not get any. However, if it did get all of it, combined with the $4.3 million that would add up to $9.7 million, well short of $15.9 million.
The application for funding the larger project should come before the BCD COG early in the new year. However, the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee is anxious to make recommendations for spending the $4.3 million on hand. Charleston County Transportation Department is preparing options for consideration at the January 17 meeting.
The County application included various options including a sidewalk everywhere there is an existing bike lane on the west side of Folly Road and a mulit-use path elsewhere. The estimate for that was $10.3 million, but I found an inconsistency in the estimates for right-of-way and asked if there was an error. When the error was corrected, the cost of the sidewalk/bike-lane/multi-use path option fell to approximately $9.7 million. While that option could be funded if all of the additional $5.4 million was obtained, as I explained above, receiving any, much less all, of that funding is hardly certain.
The multi-use path option between the Ellis Creek Bridge and George Griffith (Walmart) includes shifting the existing curb on Folly Road into the current roadway taking away the existing bike lane. This would require reconstructing the drainage system. The total cost of the multi-use path along this segment is $7.5 million. The reason for moving the curb is that federal regulations require 12 feet for a multi-use path and it must be 3 feet from the curb. There is not enough room between the existing curb and the Sunoco Station and Doctors Care near the Ellis Creek Bridge and the power substation near Walmart. There is more than enough room for a five foot sidewalk and that would cost less than half--$3.3 million.
In my opinion, moving the curb, reconstructing the drainage, moving all of the underground utilities, and spending $7.5 million is not reasonable. I also think doing nothing in James Island's commercial core is unacceptable.
There are no similar barriers and so no need to move the curb onto the roadway south of George Griffith. (There is no curb south of Grimball/Fort Johnson.) In those segments, the federally-required 12 foot muli-use path 3 feet from the roadway is more practical. There is no bike lane on the west side of Folly between George Griffith and Rafael, so a multi-use path will take care of bikers as well as pedestrians.
We will see what the County transportation engineers say and what the Rethink Folly Road Steering Committee recommends.
Thursday, November 9, 2017
Town Prevails in LOST Class Action
The class action suit against the Town of James Island filed in 2015 by former Mayoral candidate Trent Kernodle was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. The class representatives working with Kernodle were former JIPSD Commissioner Rod Welch, former JIPSD Commission Chair David Engelman and current JIPSD Vice-Chair Sandi Engelman.
The class action sought refunds of Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) monies received by the Town. The Revenue Procedures Act (RPA) prohibits any class action for tax refunds and instead requires that taxpayers seek refunds from the county or state official that assessed the property tax. Any dispute regarding a requested refund must be litigated using the State's administrative court system. The RPA instructs any judge hearing a claim in circuit court to dismiss that action without prejudice. Taxpayers seeking a refund may request a refund from the appropriate state or county official.
The Town levied a property tax starting in 2015 and has provided the required credit against that tax, resulting in no net municipal property tax liability. The remaining dispute was over LOST revenue the Town received between 2012 and 2014, before it levied a property tax. The Town's legal position is that it is not required to provide a credit against a tax that does not exist, so the Town did not collect any excess property tax that it must refund. There are approximately forty municipalities in South Carolina without property tax receiving revenue from LOST. None of them provide refunds of credits against a nonexistent tax.
While the Judge dismissed this case, he rejected Kernodle's argument that taxpayers of the Town deserved a refund of a tax they did not pay. In 2016, he added Charleston County as an additional plaintiff against the Town and eventually made it plain that he favored giving the Town's LOST money to Charleston County, who would then use it to provide property tax credits to all County taxpayers. If that had occurred, approximately 2% of the benefit of that money would go to Town taxpayers. Nearly all would have gone to those outside of the Town, mostly people living in Charleston, North Charleston, and Mount Pleasant. Fortunately, Charleston County did not cooperate and supported the Town's position that the RPA required that the suit be dismissed.
There is good reason to believe that the Judge's theory was in error because the distribution of the revenue between municipalities and county government is set out in the statute. In 1995, the City of Charleston made a more plausible argument that the municipal share of LOST revenue should solely be distributed among municipalities that have a property tax to provide a credit against. While I don't agree with that legal position and have no reason to believe the City of Charleston would pursue it again, I also believe it is safer for the Town to continue with a property tax and provide a credit against it. The Town would be shielded from any harm due to legal action based upon that theory, and, in fact, would benefit if the revenues are directed solely to municipalities with a property tax.
The class action sought refunds of Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) monies received by the Town. The Revenue Procedures Act (RPA) prohibits any class action for tax refunds and instead requires that taxpayers seek refunds from the county or state official that assessed the property tax. Any dispute regarding a requested refund must be litigated using the State's administrative court system. The RPA instructs any judge hearing a claim in circuit court to dismiss that action without prejudice. Taxpayers seeking a refund may request a refund from the appropriate state or county official.
The Town levied a property tax starting in 2015 and has provided the required credit against that tax, resulting in no net municipal property tax liability. The remaining dispute was over LOST revenue the Town received between 2012 and 2014, before it levied a property tax. The Town's legal position is that it is not required to provide a credit against a tax that does not exist, so the Town did not collect any excess property tax that it must refund. There are approximately forty municipalities in South Carolina without property tax receiving revenue from LOST. None of them provide refunds of credits against a nonexistent tax.
While the Judge dismissed this case, he rejected Kernodle's argument that taxpayers of the Town deserved a refund of a tax they did not pay. In 2016, he added Charleston County as an additional plaintiff against the Town and eventually made it plain that he favored giving the Town's LOST money to Charleston County, who would then use it to provide property tax credits to all County taxpayers. If that had occurred, approximately 2% of the benefit of that money would go to Town taxpayers. Nearly all would have gone to those outside of the Town, mostly people living in Charleston, North Charleston, and Mount Pleasant. Fortunately, Charleston County did not cooperate and supported the Town's position that the RPA required that the suit be dismissed.
There is good reason to believe that the Judge's theory was in error because the distribution of the revenue between municipalities and county government is set out in the statute. In 1995, the City of Charleston made a more plausible argument that the municipal share of LOST revenue should solely be distributed among municipalities that have a property tax to provide a credit against. While I don't agree with that legal position and have no reason to believe the City of Charleston would pursue it again, I also believe it is safer for the Town to continue with a property tax and provide a credit against it. The Town would be shielded from any harm due to legal action based upon that theory, and, in fact, would benefit if the revenues are directed solely to municipalities with a property tax.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)