A majority of seats on the James Island Public Service District (JIPSD) Commission are up for election on November 6, 2018. Filing closed on Wednesday at noon.
All four incumbents are seeking reelection:
Inez Brown Crouch
Kay Kernodle
William "Cubby" Wilder
Donald Hollingsworth
There are five challengers:
Alan Laughlin
Meredith Poston
Keane Steele
Marilyn Clifford
Ronald Ladson
The JIPSD Commission is independent of the Town of James Island and Charleston County. The JIPSD provides fire protection and solid waste collection and it also operates the sewer system in the Town and the unincorporated area of James Island. The Commissioners collect property tax for fire protection and solid waste collection. They collect sewer fees for waste water.
Taxpayers in the Town and the unincorporated area of James Island receive a consolidated property tax bill from Charleston County. The JIPSD collects approximately half of the property tax from a homeowner. After their recent 13% property tax hike, it is likely that their share will increase to slightly more than 50%.
Commissioners Kernodle, Wilder, and Hollingsworth all voted in favor of the property tax increase. Commissioner Brown-Crouch voted against.
Friday, August 17, 2018
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Flooding in the Town of James Island on July 7
On Saturday, July 7, there was serious flooding in the Town of James Island. Fortunately it did not last long.
The Camp and Folly intersection was badly flooded. The recently completed Camp and Folly improvement project included drainage that meets the 25 year design storm standard. That is 3.2 inches per hour at high tide. The rain was very heavy and almost exactly at high tide. The best evidence is that the rainfall was at least slightly more intense--3.5 inches per hour. Review of the drainage structures showed no blockage. (Thank you to Charleston Transportation for providing this information.) After the rain stopped and the tide fell, the water drained away. The flooding was gone by Sunday morning.
The neighborhoods near Folly and Camp also had significant flooding, especially in streets and yards. Oakcrest, Lynwood, and Queensborough all reported problems. Again, very heavy rain at high tide was the source of the problem. Slightly worse than the 25 year event. By the next morning, the water had drained away--at least from the roadways. That is a sign that the drainage is working, even if it is not robust enough to take such heavy rain at high tide.
The Town of James Island, the City of Charleston, and Charleston County plan an Island wide drainage study. The County is taking the lead, and is in the process of retaining a consultant who will identify all the drainage basins on James Island. After that is complete, the three jurisdictions will identify a drainage basin for more detailed work. The result will include recommendations for improved drainage infrastructure for that basin. Then we will work on a study for an additional basin, while working to implement recommendations for the first basin. The goal is to have a complete study for the entire island. The basin between Folly, Fort Johnson, and Camp is an area of great concern to both the Town of James Island and the City of Charleston.
Right now, the City of Charleston is taking the lead on a drainage study for the area between Folly, Central Park, and Riverland and Maybank. They are working with Charleston County. That area is north of the Town's jurisdiction. The County is taking the lead on a drainage study for Signal Point Road. They are working with the City of Charleston. That is south of the Town's jurisdiction. These studies will lead to recommendations for drainage improvements.
The cost is to be allocated to the three governments according to the area in each jurisdiction.
The Town of James Island has budgeted more than $400,000 for drainage improvements during the current fiscal year. We also have $200,000 budgeted for public works projects, which can include basic drainage maintenance as well as drainage repairs. Most of the money under that budget line item has been used on drainage problems in the past. We have three on-call stormwater infrastructure contractors and have been mobilizing them to complete necessary drainage improvement projects throughout the Town. County drainage crews continue to provide services valued at up to $150,000 per year in the area of the Town.
Earlier this year, we completed several repair projects in the Lynwood Subdivision. This summer, we upgraded an outfall in Lighthouse Point subdivision and this fall we have another drainage improvement project scheduled for the Tallwood neighborhood. We’re also hard at work securing necessary drainage easement acquisitions so we can properly maintain existing systems. We’re just wrapping up an easement project in the Stonepost subdivision, and we have another one underway in the Greenhill/Honey Hill community.
We have had a number of citizens report damage due to the storm on July 7. Please contact the Town at 843-795-4141 or email mjohnson@jamesislandsc.us to report any flood damage, especially to the living areas of your home.
The Camp and Folly intersection was badly flooded. The recently completed Camp and Folly improvement project included drainage that meets the 25 year design storm standard. That is 3.2 inches per hour at high tide. The rain was very heavy and almost exactly at high tide. The best evidence is that the rainfall was at least slightly more intense--3.5 inches per hour. Review of the drainage structures showed no blockage. (Thank you to Charleston Transportation for providing this information.) After the rain stopped and the tide fell, the water drained away. The flooding was gone by Sunday morning.
The neighborhoods near Folly and Camp also had significant flooding, especially in streets and yards. Oakcrest, Lynwood, and Queensborough all reported problems. Again, very heavy rain at high tide was the source of the problem. Slightly worse than the 25 year event. By the next morning, the water had drained away--at least from the roadways. That is a sign that the drainage is working, even if it is not robust enough to take such heavy rain at high tide.
The Town of James Island, the City of Charleston, and Charleston County plan an Island wide drainage study. The County is taking the lead, and is in the process of retaining a consultant who will identify all the drainage basins on James Island. After that is complete, the three jurisdictions will identify a drainage basin for more detailed work. The result will include recommendations for improved drainage infrastructure for that basin. Then we will work on a study for an additional basin, while working to implement recommendations for the first basin. The goal is to have a complete study for the entire island. The basin between Folly, Fort Johnson, and Camp is an area of great concern to both the Town of James Island and the City of Charleston.
Right now, the City of Charleston is taking the lead on a drainage study for the area between Folly, Central Park, and Riverland and Maybank. They are working with Charleston County. That area is north of the Town's jurisdiction. The County is taking the lead on a drainage study for Signal Point Road. They are working with the City of Charleston. That is south of the Town's jurisdiction. These studies will lead to recommendations for drainage improvements.
The cost is to be allocated to the three governments according to the area in each jurisdiction.
The Town of James Island has budgeted more than $400,000 for drainage improvements during the current fiscal year. We also have $200,000 budgeted for public works projects, which can include basic drainage maintenance as well as drainage repairs. Most of the money under that budget line item has been used on drainage problems in the past. We have three on-call stormwater infrastructure contractors and have been mobilizing them to complete necessary drainage improvement projects throughout the Town. County drainage crews continue to provide services valued at up to $150,000 per year in the area of the Town.
Earlier this year, we completed several repair projects in the Lynwood Subdivision. This summer, we upgraded an outfall in Lighthouse Point subdivision and this fall we have another drainage improvement project scheduled for the Tallwood neighborhood. We’re also hard at work securing necessary drainage easement acquisitions so we can properly maintain existing systems. We’re just wrapping up an easement project in the Stonepost subdivision, and we have another one underway in the Greenhill/Honey Hill community.
We have had a number of citizens report damage due to the storm on July 7. Please contact the Town at 843-795-4141 or email mjohnson@jamesislandsc.us to report any flood damage, especially to the living areas of your home.
Thursday, July 5, 2018
Which PSD Commissioners Stand With James Island--More from the Wilder Memo
PSD Commissioner Kathy Woolsey placed four items on the agenda for the June 25th meeting. They were all aimed at reducing the burden of the 13% tax increase that had passed first reading in May. Commissioner Woolsey shared with former Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners the motions she intended to make on June 24.
After voting in favor of the 13% tax increase, Commissioners Kernodle, Hollingsworth, Wilder, and Engelman voted to table all four of the agenda items as a group without discussion. Commissioner Woolsey had no opportunity to make her motion, explain, answer questions, correct misconceptions or respond to concerns. Former Chairman Wilder responded to these agenda items here.
One of the agenda items called for the Commissioners to support Representative Peter McCoy's bill that would provide an opportunity for voters to reunite the Town..
Agenda Item #10 - House Bill 3669 Clarifying the Meaning of Contiguity within Special Purpose Districts
The motion Commissioner Woolsey provided to Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners was:
Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, and Engelman voted to table, clearly not willing to support McCoy's approach at this time. Commissioners Brown-Crouch and and Woolsey voted against blocking discussion and a vote, showing their support for providing this opportunity for voters in areas formerly included in the Town.
The Wilder memo raises no issues or concerns with this bill. Rather it states that this "matter" has been opposed by a "multitude" of parties.
There was no "multitude" and few beyond those listed. The opposition was to a somewhat different bill filed by former Senator Paul Thurmond. Nearly all of those groups' concerns appeared to the result of misconceptions--perhaps due to misrepresentation. When the bill was accurately described, the opposition evaporated. I heard the lobbyists explain to Senator Thurmond that they would work with him to address their concerns. The easiest path forward was to create a series of (unnecessary) exceptions.
Also at the hearing was PSD General Counsel Trent Kernodle who claimed that the bill was intended as a path for the Town to take over the PSD. Senator Thurmond asked what provisions of the bill would have that effect. Kernodle could give no examples, because there were none.
However, there could be some opposition. While the bill Mayor Tecklenburg said he opposed last spring was a version of the Thurmond bill, he may well oppose the McCoy bill as well. Unlike many of the others, whose concerns were based on misconceptions, it is true that the McCoy bill would break the City of Charleston's monopoly on annexations on most of James Island. If the McCoy bill passes, the Town of James Island would be able to annex parcels and areas on James Island on an equal basis with the City of Charleston.
The key question for James Islanders is whether they expect their PSD Commissioners to support them and allow an opportunity to vote to reunite the Town or else back the City of Charleston's monopoly power as well as enabling its continued annexation and over-development on James Island.
Representative Peter McCoy has committed to me that he will work to give the former residents of the Town an opportunity to return. He has filed the necessary bills in the past and I am sure he will do so in the future. He was able to shepherd the Thurmond bill through the House a few years ago. He has many times expressed a willingness to work with the PSD Commissioners, but they continue to show no interest in discussion or dialogue.
Senator Senn, on the other hand, has told me several times that while she will not oppose our efforts, she will not support them unless the PSD gives her the go ahead. I think it is very important to have the Senator who represents most of James Island working to help us. We could always count on Senator McConnell and Senator Thurmond did his best for us as well. I believe it is important to obtain the support of a majority of PSD Commissioners and so the support of Senator Senn.
The bottom line is that the Wilder memo provides no specific provision of the McCoy bill that would cause any harm to the James Island Public Service District. That is because there are none.
The City of Charleston opposed the legislation that allowed the formation of the Town. The Town is here. I never expected that it would be any different for legislation that would provide an opportunity for James Islanders to vote to reunite the Town.
We have done it before. We can do it again. The question for the voters of the PSD is where do the PSD Commissioners stand. Are they with James Islanders? Or are they with the City of Charleston and special interest groups in Columbia?
After voting in favor of the 13% tax increase, Commissioners Kernodle, Hollingsworth, Wilder, and Engelman voted to table all four of the agenda items as a group without discussion. Commissioner Woolsey had no opportunity to make her motion, explain, answer questions, correct misconceptions or respond to concerns. Former Chairman Wilder responded to these agenda items here.
One of the agenda items called for the Commissioners to support Representative Peter McCoy's bill that would provide an opportunity for voters to reunite the Town..
Agenda Item #10 - House Bill 3669 Clarifying the Meaning of Contiguity within Special Purpose Districts
The motion Commissioner Woolsey provided to Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners was:
Move that the James Island Public Service District Commission support House Bill 3669 filed by Representative Peter McCoy to clarify the meaning on contiguity so that residents in the unincorporated area of the District will have the opportunity to rejoin the Town of James Island. Further, the Commission calls on Senator Sandy Senn to file a companion bill in the South Carolina Senate. Still further, calls on Representative Stavrinakis and Senator Campsen to co-sponsor these bills.Representative McCoy is preparing to pre-file HB 3669 this December. The Town is working to build support. Commissioner Woolsey asked the other Commissioners to join her in supporting this effort to give the former residents of the Town an opportunity to vote to rejoin the Town. This would allow them to share in potential tax relief that the Town can offer its residents and property owners.
Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, and Engelman voted to table, clearly not willing to support McCoy's approach at this time. Commissioners Brown-Crouch and and Woolsey voted against blocking discussion and a vote, showing their support for providing this opportunity for voters in areas formerly included in the Town.
The Wilder memo raises no issues or concerns with this bill. Rather it states that this "matter" has been opposed by a "multitude" of parties.
There was no "multitude" and few beyond those listed. The opposition was to a somewhat different bill filed by former Senator Paul Thurmond. Nearly all of those groups' concerns appeared to the result of misconceptions--perhaps due to misrepresentation. When the bill was accurately described, the opposition evaporated. I heard the lobbyists explain to Senator Thurmond that they would work with him to address their concerns. The easiest path forward was to create a series of (unnecessary) exceptions.
Also at the hearing was PSD General Counsel Trent Kernodle who claimed that the bill was intended as a path for the Town to take over the PSD. Senator Thurmond asked what provisions of the bill would have that effect. Kernodle could give no examples, because there were none.
However, there could be some opposition. While the bill Mayor Tecklenburg said he opposed last spring was a version of the Thurmond bill, he may well oppose the McCoy bill as well. Unlike many of the others, whose concerns were based on misconceptions, it is true that the McCoy bill would break the City of Charleston's monopoly on annexations on most of James Island. If the McCoy bill passes, the Town of James Island would be able to annex parcels and areas on James Island on an equal basis with the City of Charleston.
The key question for James Islanders is whether they expect their PSD Commissioners to support them and allow an opportunity to vote to reunite the Town or else back the City of Charleston's monopoly power as well as enabling its continued annexation and over-development on James Island.
Representative Peter McCoy has committed to me that he will work to give the former residents of the Town an opportunity to return. He has filed the necessary bills in the past and I am sure he will do so in the future. He was able to shepherd the Thurmond bill through the House a few years ago. He has many times expressed a willingness to work with the PSD Commissioners, but they continue to show no interest in discussion or dialogue.
Senator Senn, on the other hand, has told me several times that while she will not oppose our efforts, she will not support them unless the PSD gives her the go ahead. I think it is very important to have the Senator who represents most of James Island working to help us. We could always count on Senator McConnell and Senator Thurmond did his best for us as well. I believe it is important to obtain the support of a majority of PSD Commissioners and so the support of Senator Senn.
The bottom line is that the Wilder memo provides no specific provision of the McCoy bill that would cause any harm to the James Island Public Service District. That is because there are none.
The City of Charleston opposed the legislation that allowed the formation of the Town. The Town is here. I never expected that it would be any different for legislation that would provide an opportunity for James Islanders to vote to reunite the Town.
We have done it before. We can do it again. The question for the voters of the PSD is where do the PSD Commissioners stand. Are they with James Islanders? Or are they with the City of Charleston and special interest groups in Columbia?
Sunday, July 1, 2018
PSD Chairman Wilder's Response to Proposed Intergovernmental Agreement
On June 19, PSD Commissioner Kathy Woolsey placed four items on the agenda for the June 25 Public Service District Meeting. As the PSD rules require, the items were added to the agenda.
On June 24, Commissioner Woolsey shared with Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners the motion she intended make for each agenda item. After passing the 13% tax hike, Commissioners Wilder, Hollingsworth, Kernodle, and Engelman voted to table all four of these agenda items in a single 4-2 vote. Commissioner Woolsey was given no opportunity to make her motions, explain them to the Commission, or respond to any questions or concerns.
At the meeting, then Chairman Wilder said that he would respond to the agenda items on the Commission website. His response has appeared. I appreciate that this response was much more professional and civil than what appeared before. Unfortunately, there are some misconceptions and errors.
The first tabled agenda item was:
Agenda Item 9. Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of James Island to Reduce PSD Property Tax Burden.
The motion shared by Commissioner Woolsey to then Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners on June 24 was:
On June 24, Commissioner Woolsey shared with Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners the motion she intended make for each agenda item. After passing the 13% tax hike, Commissioners Wilder, Hollingsworth, Kernodle, and Engelman voted to table all four of these agenda items in a single 4-2 vote. Commissioner Woolsey was given no opportunity to make her motions, explain them to the Commission, or respond to any questions or concerns.
At the meeting, then Chairman Wilder said that he would respond to the agenda items on the Commission website. His response has appeared. I appreciate that this response was much more professional and civil than what appeared before. Unfortunately, there are some misconceptions and errors.
The first tabled agenda item was:
Agenda Item 9. Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of James Island to Reduce PSD Property Tax Burden.
The motion shared by Commissioner Woolsey to then Chairman Wilder and the other Commissioners on June 24 was:
Move that the James Island Public Service District seek an intergovernmental agreement with the Town of James Island for the purpose of reducing the property tax burden on the residents and property owners of the Town by:
a. accepting monies from the Town to partly or wholly fund the provision of solid waste collection and/or fire protection services by the District to the residents and property owners of the Town.
b. agreeing to allow a property tax credit on the county tax bill reducing the amount to be paid to the District for operations by property taxpayers under the Town’s jurisdiction.
What is most important in the Wilder memo is:
"The JIPSD has no interest in being a party to settle the questionable legality of another entity’s proposal."
In other words, the majority of PSD Commissioners are willing to throw away an offer of $1 million dollars without any dialogue or discussion. They would prefer to impose a 13% property tax increase on majority of their constituents -- the residents and voters of the Town of James Island.
The Wilder memo suggests that "the Town should seek a declaratory judgment action to settle the questionable legality of their proposal."
Chairman Wilder is no lawyer, but one would hope that a competent attorney would have reviewed his memo. The Pope Flynn law firm has explained that the Town cannot obtain a declaratory judgement on its own. That is because we do not believe that the PSD must agree to accept our money in exchange for services or provide tax relief to our residents and property owners. Our argument is that a voluntary agreement between the PSD and the Town would be legal and desirable for both parties. Therefore, the only way to obtain a declaratory judgement is to prepare a specific agreement that the JIPSD and Town would support if it were legal, and then have the PSD Commission and the Town Council adopt it pending a determination of its legality. The PSD and Town would be on the same side of the declaratory judgement, claiming that our agreement is legal. Since the benefits of this proposal mostly go to Town residents and property owners, it would be entirely appropriate for the Town to bear the cost of this friendly legal action.
The Wilder memo criticizes this opportunity to provide tax relief because the well-respected Pope Flynn law firm has described the proposal they developed as being "novel" and "not settled law." Novel means new. It doesn't mean bad, speculative or doubtful. Maybe no other PSD has raised taxes so much or perhaps no other municipality cares enough about its taxpayers to be willing to help. "Not settled law," means that this proposal has not been challenged and then determined by a court to be legal That seems to follow from it being new. The Wilder memo provides no challenge to the legal principles argued by the Pope Flynn law firm.
I was surprised by the scare tactics included in the Wilder memo. Most shocking was the claim that the Commissioners or senior PSD employees might be held personally liable for accepting the Town's money in exchange for services or for consenting to a Town tax credit against PSD taxes on the County tax bill. If the PSD worked with the Town to obtain a declaratory judgement, and the courts determined that the proposal was contrary to South Carolina law, there would be no liability to anyone for trying to find out whether it was legal or not. And if it was determined to be legal by the courts, there would be no liability to anyone for implementing the agreement. Further, even if the Town and PSD implemented an agreement without a declaratory judgement (a course not advised by the Pope Flynn law firm,) elected officials and public employees have strong protections against any personal liability for their official actions.
Similarly, as long as no money changes hands before a declaratory judgement, then there is no way that the PSD would have to pay anything back to the Town. Now, if the Town and PSD implemented an agreement without a declaratory judgement, and the Town lost in court, then there is a very slight chance that money would have to be paid back by someone. However, it would almost certainly be the Town that would be responsible for making any such payments. The chance that the PSD would be required to return money used to pay for providing services is negligible. Further, the Town would be more than willing to agree to cover the cost of services provided to our residents by the PSD. That would be fair and reasonable. Still further, even that slight threat can be avoided if the PSD would work with the Town to obtain a declaratory judgement before implementing the agreement.
Finally, I have never said that the Town would use any part of its sales tax revenue to purchase services from the PSD. While I don't think there is any problem with doing so, if that is of concern to the PSD, then the Town could use its other sources of funds to make payments to the PSD. Fortunately, none of our other vendors or suppliers have ever been worried about whether the money they receive from the Town comes from sales tax or some other revenue source. I would also note that the PSD receives more than $1 million per year from the City of Charleston and the City of Folly Beach without ever expressing worry about the source of funds used by those Cities to make their payments.
The Town's offer to the help the PSD by turning a 13% tax increase into a 20% tax cut remains open. All that is necessary is to find a majority of PSD Commissioners willing to work with the Town.
The Wilder memo criticizes this opportunity to provide tax relief because the well-respected Pope Flynn law firm has described the proposal they developed as being "novel" and "not settled law." Novel means new. It doesn't mean bad, speculative or doubtful. Maybe no other PSD has raised taxes so much or perhaps no other municipality cares enough about its taxpayers to be willing to help. "Not settled law," means that this proposal has not been challenged and then determined by a court to be legal That seems to follow from it being new. The Wilder memo provides no challenge to the legal principles argued by the Pope Flynn law firm.
I was surprised by the scare tactics included in the Wilder memo. Most shocking was the claim that the Commissioners or senior PSD employees might be held personally liable for accepting the Town's money in exchange for services or for consenting to a Town tax credit against PSD taxes on the County tax bill. If the PSD worked with the Town to obtain a declaratory judgement, and the courts determined that the proposal was contrary to South Carolina law, there would be no liability to anyone for trying to find out whether it was legal or not. And if it was determined to be legal by the courts, there would be no liability to anyone for implementing the agreement. Further, even if the Town and PSD implemented an agreement without a declaratory judgement (a course not advised by the Pope Flynn law firm,) elected officials and public employees have strong protections against any personal liability for their official actions.
Similarly, as long as no money changes hands before a declaratory judgement, then there is no way that the PSD would have to pay anything back to the Town. Now, if the Town and PSD implemented an agreement without a declaratory judgement, and the Town lost in court, then there is a very slight chance that money would have to be paid back by someone. However, it would almost certainly be the Town that would be responsible for making any such payments. The chance that the PSD would be required to return money used to pay for providing services is negligible. Further, the Town would be more than willing to agree to cover the cost of services provided to our residents by the PSD. That would be fair and reasonable. Still further, even that slight threat can be avoided if the PSD would work with the Town to obtain a declaratory judgement before implementing the agreement.
Finally, I have never said that the Town would use any part of its sales tax revenue to purchase services from the PSD. While I don't think there is any problem with doing so, if that is of concern to the PSD, then the Town could use its other sources of funds to make payments to the PSD. Fortunately, none of our other vendors or suppliers have ever been worried about whether the money they receive from the Town comes from sales tax or some other revenue source. I would also note that the PSD receives more than $1 million per year from the City of Charleston and the City of Folly Beach without ever expressing worry about the source of funds used by those Cities to make their payments.
The Town's offer to the help the PSD by turning a 13% tax increase into a 20% tax cut remains open. All that is necessary is to find a majority of PSD Commissioners willing to work with the Town.
Friday, June 29, 2018
Why the Town Needs the JIPSD
After a 13% property tax hike, some residents may ask why does James Island need the James Island Public Service District.
For the nearly 20 years that I have been involved in James Island politics, outsiders (and newcomers) have been puzzled by the fact that the Town of James Island has never provided fire protection or solid waste collection. They ask, why is there an independent JIPSD? I have always said, it might be a little unusual, but it is our James Island way. There is no need for us to change our organization of governmental services just because that is the way they do it in the City of Charleston. (or up North!)
There are several reasons why the Town needs the JIPSD.
For the nearly 20 years that I have been involved in James Island politics, outsiders (and newcomers) have been puzzled by the fact that the Town of James Island has never provided fire protection or solid waste collection. They ask, why is there an independent JIPSD? I have always said, it might be a little unusual, but it is our James Island way. There is no need for us to change our organization of governmental services just because that is the way they do it in the City of Charleston. (or up North!)
There are several reasons why the Town needs the JIPSD.
First, there is no practical way for the Town to fund the provision of services to its former residents in the unincorporated area of James Island. The Town cannot levy a property tax in the unincorporated area. Our other revenues depend on the Town's population or are raised in the Town's jurisdiction. As a result it is not practical or reasonable for the Town to provide expensive services to the unincorporated area. That is job of the JIPSD.
Second, the Town is not currently authorized to provide wastewater transportation (sewer.) To do so, we would need to pass a referendum and set up an enterprise fund similar to the Charleston Water System. In other words, we would need to set up something that looks a good bit like the JIPSD. While possible, I don't think that makes much sense. We already have the JIPSD to provide sewer service in our community.
Third, the Town is authorized under state law to provide fire protection and solid waste collection. Having the Town set up a third fire department on James Island or a third solid waste collection service is possible, but it is a recipe for replacing our current wasteful duplication of services with triplication. Who would want that?.
Fourth, if the Town were to manage and fund both its own fire department and solid waste collection, it could use its various existing sources of revenue but it would be necessary to increase our property tax levy. Like in most municipalities, the tax credit on the bill would be less than the amount owed and residents would pay property tax to the Town for the first time. A benefit of that approach would be that the property taxes paid to the Town would likely be less than what is currently paid to the JIPSD. However, it also would likely be necessary for the Town to leave the JIPSD. Given the current makeup of the JIPSD Commission, that could only happen after a protracted and expensive legal battle. Further, it is almost certain that they would seek to compel the Town to continue to pay the JIPSD for fire protection for decades and for solid waste collection for many years. If the Town leaves the JIPSD, then Town voters would no longer have any say in choosing JIPSD Commissioners. If court action by the JIPSD were successful, then the Town would have to pay for our services twice--once to the JIPSD under court order and another time to actually pay for the services. Further, we would pay whatever a JIPSD Commission on which we have no representation wants to charge. It is very likely that this would be much more expensive than what the JIPSD is charging us now, even after a 13% increase. I find this scenario entirely unacceptable.
Fifth, the Town could set up a fire department and solid waste collection service and provide those services to the JIPSD by contract. The JIPSD could continue to collect property tax in the unincorporated area and pay the Town for services provided to the former residents of the Town. Having the Town set up a new fire department and a new solid waste service while the JIPSD closes down its current fire department and solid waste service would be foolish. Most Town residents are happy with our fire department and our solid waste collection. Who is interested in disrupting the fine work done by our fire fighters and sanitation workers? I certainly am not. Therefore, any such plan would only be sensible if the JIPSD were willing to transfer its fire protection and solid waste operations to the Town. That will never happen with the current leadership of the JIPSD. More importantly, in my view, it would be unfair and unreasonable because our former residents in what is now the unincorporated area would not be able to vote for Mayor and Council, and so would have no representation regarding the provision of key services.
Sixth, the JIPSD collects approximately $1 million from the City of Charleston and $100,000 from the City of Folly Beach for it general fund each year. The total amount paid by those Cities will increase by about $250,000 per year with the JIPSD tax hike, with most of the increase going into the PSD debt fund. This is significant sum for the JIPSD. By comparison, the JIPSD will be obtaining about $4 million in property tax from the Town's tax district and $2.5 million from the unincorporated area. This money paid by the two Cities is not based on any voluntary agreement but rather a court order that forces them to pay the amount that the JIPSD would have collected in property tax in certain areas those Cities annexed on James Island. This is because the JIPSD borrowed from the federal government, and the federal government makes those Cities contribute until all of the federal loans are paid back. For the most part, the JIPSD collects money based upon the taxes it would have collected in the annexed area to fund its fire service. If the JIPSD were to transfer its fire department to the Town, it is very likely that the cities of Charleston and Folly Beach would petition the federal courts to allow them to stop making these payments and I believe it is doubtful that the Town could obtain subsidies from its neighboring municipalities. Absent those subsidies, the net cost of fire service would be higher for those of us remaining outside of the City of Charleston and Folly Beach. This would partly (and maybe fully) offset the benefit of the Town's ability to use other sources of revenue to pay for fire protection.
Some, but not all, of the reasons above only apply if there remain unincorporated areas on James Island. The unincorporated areas on James Island can shrink and even disappear though annexation by the City of Charleston, the City of Folly Beach, or the Town of James Island. Since all of the unincorporated areas of James Island were in the Town at one time or other, I think of our efforts at annexation as "reuniting the Town." If the Town's efforts were successful (or if the City of Charleston or Folly Beach were to annex all of the former areas of the Town,) then many of the reasons why the JIPSD is necessary would disappear. It might be that some associated with the JIPSD do no more than pay lip service to allowing the Town's former residents an opportunity to vote to return because they see leaving residents in the unincorporated area as insurance for the continued independence of the JIPSD.
If the unincorporated area were to disappear one way or another, ideally, by having the Town reunited, this would simply mean that the boundaries of the Town and the JIPSD would be the same. The JIPSD would still remain independent, collect property taxes and provide fire collection and solid waste services, as well as collect sewer bills and provide wastewater transportation. The Town would continue to provide code enforcement, do building inspections, fund the Island Sheriff's Patrol, pave roads and build sidewalks, improve drainage, provide street lighting, and do planning and zoning, but now in what we hope would be an expanded area that includes all parts of James Island that have not already been annexed into the City of Charleston or the City of Folly Beach.
While shifting some services such as solid waste collection or fire protection to Town management would become more feasible if the unincorporated area disappeared, that doesn't mean it would be desirable. In my view, the only way to do so without a costly legal battle would be for the voters of the JIPSD (which would then be the same as the voters of the Town) to elect PSD Commissioners who agreed with a new approach to organizing services on James Island. However, in my opinion, if we elected JIPSD Commissioners who were willing to work with the Town, then why would we need to make these sort of changes? Why not continue with our traditional James Island way?
Aside from an apparent lack of support by the JIPSD for our efforts to reunite the Town, the second problem is their refusal to accept the Town's financial help. While JIPSD property taxes are currently lower than in the City of Charleston, the millage is higher than for the Town of Mount Pleasant or the City of Folly Beach. Worse, the JIPSD's long run fiscal plan shows another 12% increase in property tax within five years. (While shown on the JIPSD's budget, those increases are not legally binding and will only be levied if approved by the Commissioners in the future.)
If the Town and the JIPSD had the same boundaries, it would be a relatively simple matter for the JIPSD to lower its property millage and sell the Town services on our residents' behalf. It is almost certain that the JIPSD wants to collect property tax for fire protection so that they can maximize the amount of revenue they can obtain from the Cities of Charleston and Folly Beach. However, the Town's proposal for a tax credit on the County tax bill against JIPSD property tax would not interfere with the JIPSD's millage at all and it could also be applied to Town residents immediately while we continue to seek to reunify the Town and so provide tax relief along with other Town services to our former residents in the unincorporated area.
And now you know why four of the JIPSD Commissioners signed a letter filled with hate and abuse in response to the Town's offer of help. They cannot imagine that I would consider all of these possibilities if I didn't have a secret plan to take over the JIPSD.
There is no such plan. I just think that a responsible leader needs to understand the alternatives.
There is no such plan. I just think that a responsible leader needs to understand the alternatives.
If the Town were reunited and we could use the Town's other sources of revenue to reduce the JIPSD property tax burden, then I would be more than satisfied. Future Mayors and Councils and Commissions can deal with the long run organization of service delivery on James Island. However, it is my belief and desire that any proposal for change be fully transparent and that candidates supporting such changes openly advocate them when running for Mayor, Council, or Commission, so that the voters of James Island have the final say.
As I have said before, should the Town and JIPSD be joined? Perhaps. But it is up to the people of James Island.
As I have said before, should the Town and JIPSD be joined? Perhaps. But it is up to the people of James Island.
Monday, June 25, 2018
13% JIPSD Tax Hike on October Tax Bills
The James Island Public Service District Commission passed a 13% increase in their property tax by 4 to 2.
Voting in favor were Commissioners Donald Hollingsworth, Kay Kernodle, Cubby Wilder, and Sandi Engelman. Voting against were Commissioners Inez Brown Crouch and Kathy Woolsey.
The tax increase will appear on the bills of property owners in the Town of James Island and also the unincorporated area of James Island coming out in October. The amount to be paid to the PSD will rise 13% and the share of the total property tax bill going to the PSD will rise from approximately 48% to 54%.
Commissioner Kathy Woolsey moved to amend the budget to remove the increase in the debt millage. She explained that most government bodies levy the bond millage after they have sold the bonds to start generating revenue before the first interest payments come due. She pointed out that the Commissioners don't know the cost of the new fire station and so the amount that will be borrowed and the needed millage. Her amendment would result in the debt millage appearing on the 2020 property tax bill rather than the 2019 bill coming out this October. However, she said that the Commissioners could take actions in the meantime to find other sources of revenue to partially pay for the fire station, reduce the amount to be borrowed, and so the debt millage in 2020 and future years. Commissioner Brown Crouch seconded.
The amendment was voted down 4 to 2. Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, and Engelman all voted no without discussion. Woolsey and Brown Crouch voted to approve.
The second and final vote on the budget with the 13% property tax increase was 4 to 2. Commissioner Brown Crouch shared arguments against the tax increase, focusing on the hardship for those with low and fixed incomes. Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, and Engelman all voted in favor of the tax hike without discussion.
The four items placed on the agenda by Commissioner Woolsey to reduce or offset the tax hike were all tabled as a group. In making the motion to table, Commissioner Hollingsworth stated that the items "had been discussed." None were discussed at the meeting, but perhaps he was referencing some private meeting for some of the Commissioners. Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, and Engelman voted to table without further discussion. Commissioners Woolsey and Brown Crouch voted against.
At the public hearing, only one resident spoke in favor of the tax hike and 18 residents spoke against. The mood of the crowd of nearly 70 was against the tax hike. Those speaking out against the tax increase were frequently greeted with applause. Some noted that many of the Commissioners will be up for election in November.
Those voting for the tax increase that are up for election are Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, and Wilder.
The elections for next year's officers were by secret ballot. Engleman received 3 votes for Chair, Kathy Woolsey received 2, and Donald Hollingsworth a single write-in. Hollingsworth received 4 votes for Vice-chair and Woolsey received 2. Wilder received 4 votes for Secretary and Woolsey received 2.
Commissioner Kathy Woolsey challenged Kay Kernodle's proxy vote for the tax increase at the previous meeting, providing opinions from the Attorney General's Office that proxy votes are illegal. When she asked who approved the proxy, no answer was given. Commissioner Platt had prepared a proxy for this meeting, but it was not used. The parliamentarian hired by the PSD said that in the South Carolina Senate it was possible to vote in absentia if the vote is not decisive. It is not clear what this had to do with the PSD, except that the budget would have passed 3 to 2 on first reading without Kernodle's vote in favor.
Voting in favor were Commissioners Donald Hollingsworth, Kay Kernodle, Cubby Wilder, and Sandi Engelman. Voting against were Commissioners Inez Brown Crouch and Kathy Woolsey.
The tax increase will appear on the bills of property owners in the Town of James Island and also the unincorporated area of James Island coming out in October. The amount to be paid to the PSD will rise 13% and the share of the total property tax bill going to the PSD will rise from approximately 48% to 54%.
Commissioner Kathy Woolsey moved to amend the budget to remove the increase in the debt millage. She explained that most government bodies levy the bond millage after they have sold the bonds to start generating revenue before the first interest payments come due. She pointed out that the Commissioners don't know the cost of the new fire station and so the amount that will be borrowed and the needed millage. Her amendment would result in the debt millage appearing on the 2020 property tax bill rather than the 2019 bill coming out this October. However, she said that the Commissioners could take actions in the meantime to find other sources of revenue to partially pay for the fire station, reduce the amount to be borrowed, and so the debt millage in 2020 and future years. Commissioner Brown Crouch seconded.
The amendment was voted down 4 to 2. Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, and Engelman all voted no without discussion. Woolsey and Brown Crouch voted to approve.
The second and final vote on the budget with the 13% property tax increase was 4 to 2. Commissioner Brown Crouch shared arguments against the tax increase, focusing on the hardship for those with low and fixed incomes. Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, and Engelman all voted in favor of the tax hike without discussion.
The four items placed on the agenda by Commissioner Woolsey to reduce or offset the tax hike were all tabled as a group. In making the motion to table, Commissioner Hollingsworth stated that the items "had been discussed." None were discussed at the meeting, but perhaps he was referencing some private meeting for some of the Commissioners. Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, Wilder, and Engelman voted to table without further discussion. Commissioners Woolsey and Brown Crouch voted against.
At the public hearing, only one resident spoke in favor of the tax hike and 18 residents spoke against. The mood of the crowd of nearly 70 was against the tax hike. Those speaking out against the tax increase were frequently greeted with applause. Some noted that many of the Commissioners will be up for election in November.
Those voting for the tax increase that are up for election are Commissioners Hollingsworth, Kernodle, and Wilder.
The elections for next year's officers were by secret ballot. Engleman received 3 votes for Chair, Kathy Woolsey received 2, and Donald Hollingsworth a single write-in. Hollingsworth received 4 votes for Vice-chair and Woolsey received 2. Wilder received 4 votes for Secretary and Woolsey received 2.
Commissioner Kathy Woolsey challenged Kay Kernodle's proxy vote for the tax increase at the previous meeting, providing opinions from the Attorney General's Office that proxy votes are illegal. When she asked who approved the proxy, no answer was given. Commissioner Platt had prepared a proxy for this meeting, but it was not used. The parliamentarian hired by the PSD said that in the South Carolina Senate it was possible to vote in absentia if the vote is not decisive. It is not clear what this had to do with the PSD, except that the budget would have passed 3 to 2 on first reading without Kernodle's vote in favor.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
The PSD Tax Hike and Unincorporated James Island
The James Island Public Service District includes the Town and the unincorporated area of James Island. The majority of the voters in the District live in the Town. PSD property taxes are paid by property owners in the Town and the unincorporated area.
PSD property taxes appear on the tax bill of every property owner in the Town of James Island and all voters residing in the Town of James Island are eligible to vote for PSD Commissioner.
No PSD property tax appears on the tax bill of any property owner in the City of Charleston or Folly Beach, even if they live on James Island. No voter residing in the City of Charleston or Folly Beach is eligible to vote for PSD Commissioner, even if they live on James Island.
The proposed 13% tax hike will directly impact everyone in the Town and the unincorporated area of the PSD. The 13% tax increase means that payments to the PSD on the County tax bill coming this October will be 13% higher than the amount that had to be paid to the PSD on last October's bill. The more valuable your house, car or other taxable property, the more it will be.
Nearly all of what is now unincorporated James Island was in the Town of James Island in 2011. (A handful of homes around Houghton Avenue were the only unincorporated area on James Island between 2006 and 2011.) I care very much about the property tax burden for those in the unincorporated area. I would like to help them too, but for that to happen, they need to rejoin the Town.
There have been seven attempts to form a Town on James Island in the modern era. The final four were successful in forming a Town, but the City of Charleston sued the first three times and used the Court system to close the Town down. The seventh effort was fully successful and the time limit for filing a legal challenge passed years ago. The Town of James Island is here to stay. But to avoid a legal challenge by the City of Charleston, Free James Island incorporated an area based on a philosophy of "when in doubt, leave it out." While the majority of those who were in the Town in 2011 were able to vote to reform the Town in 2012, many had to be left out. I promised then that I would do my best to give them a chance to vote too.
The formation of a new Town is called incorporation and the addition of people to an existing Town is called annexation. Both require contiguity. A new municipality must be formed in areas that are contiguous. A municipality can annex additional properties or areas that are contiguous. The simple meaning of contiguous is "next to."
Because of the pattern of annexation by the City of Charleston on James Island, none of the remaining unincorporated area on James Island is next to the Town. It is separated from the Town by areas that have already been annexed by the City of Charleston.
In 2014, Representative McCoy and Senator Thurmond filed legislation that would have allowed voters in the unincorporated area of the District to vote to rejoin the Town. That legislation required that the PSD Commissioners agree to a referendum. Representative McCoy got the bill passed in the House. Senator Thurmond shepherded the bill through the Senate Judiciary Committee. But the Coastal Conservation League had Senator Kimpson and then Senator Pinckney put a hold on the bill, blocking consideration by the whole Senate. Thanks to the effort of PSD Commissioner Inez Brown-Crouch and many friends of the Town in the Sol Legare, Battery Island, and Grimball Communities, both of those Senators eventually relented. However, the Coastal Conservation League had stymied our efforts to allow an opportunity for our former residents to vote on whether to rejoin the Town.
In 2017, Representative McCoy, working with Town Councilman Josh Stokes, tried a different approach. House Bill 3669 clarifies contiguity to allow a municipality entirely within a PSD to annex a parcel or area within the same PSD across breaks in the contiguity of the PSD. The Town is entirely within the James Island PSD and all of the unincorporated area of James Island would be contiguous to the Town given this clarification. To reunite the Town, it would require that 25% of the registered voters in the unincorporated area of the PSD sign a petition. There would then be an election and if the majority of those voting favored returning to the Town, then the Town would be reunited. This bill would require no action by the PSD Commissioners.
Speaker of the House Lucas told me he supports our effort. Unfortunately, the Senate has become even more difficult. Senator Thurmond moved to Mount Pleasant and didn't run for reelection. He was replaced by Senator Senn. Senator Senn wrote me last year stating that she would support the Town's effort at reunification only if Robert Wise agreed. Who is Robert Wise? He is the District Administrator of the PSD. While I am not sure why Senator Senn places so much weight on the opinion of the PSD District Administrator or why he does not want to see the Town reunited, I believe that if the PSD Commissioners were willing to support allowing the people of unincorporated James Island an opportunity to rejoin the Town, then Robert Wise would give Senator Senn the OK to file companion legislation. While passage in the Senate would still be difficult, right now, the PSD is the key road block.
Why this important now?
If those in the unincorporated area of James Island could rejoin the Town, then they too could benefit from the ability of the Town to obtain revenue from many sources other than property tax. The proposal of the Town to allow for a property tax credit against PSD taxes could be available to everyone who lives in the PSD.
PSD Commissioner Kathy Woolsey has placed this matter on the agenda for the June 25th meeting. Please come to the public hearing at 5:30 and ask that the PSD Commissioners work with the Town to benefit all the people of James Island.
PSD property taxes appear on the tax bill of every property owner in the Town of James Island and all voters residing in the Town of James Island are eligible to vote for PSD Commissioner.
No PSD property tax appears on the tax bill of any property owner in the City of Charleston or Folly Beach, even if they live on James Island. No voter residing in the City of Charleston or Folly Beach is eligible to vote for PSD Commissioner, even if they live on James Island.
The proposed 13% tax hike will directly impact everyone in the Town and the unincorporated area of the PSD. The 13% tax increase means that payments to the PSD on the County tax bill coming this October will be 13% higher than the amount that had to be paid to the PSD on last October's bill. The more valuable your house, car or other taxable property, the more it will be.
Nearly all of what is now unincorporated James Island was in the Town of James Island in 2011. (A handful of homes around Houghton Avenue were the only unincorporated area on James Island between 2006 and 2011.) I care very much about the property tax burden for those in the unincorporated area. I would like to help them too, but for that to happen, they need to rejoin the Town.
There have been seven attempts to form a Town on James Island in the modern era. The final four were successful in forming a Town, but the City of Charleston sued the first three times and used the Court system to close the Town down. The seventh effort was fully successful and the time limit for filing a legal challenge passed years ago. The Town of James Island is here to stay. But to avoid a legal challenge by the City of Charleston, Free James Island incorporated an area based on a philosophy of "when in doubt, leave it out." While the majority of those who were in the Town in 2011 were able to vote to reform the Town in 2012, many had to be left out. I promised then that I would do my best to give them a chance to vote too.
The formation of a new Town is called incorporation and the addition of people to an existing Town is called annexation. Both require contiguity. A new municipality must be formed in areas that are contiguous. A municipality can annex additional properties or areas that are contiguous. The simple meaning of contiguous is "next to."
Because of the pattern of annexation by the City of Charleston on James Island, none of the remaining unincorporated area on James Island is next to the Town. It is separated from the Town by areas that have already been annexed by the City of Charleston.
In 2014, Representative McCoy and Senator Thurmond filed legislation that would have allowed voters in the unincorporated area of the District to vote to rejoin the Town. That legislation required that the PSD Commissioners agree to a referendum. Representative McCoy got the bill passed in the House. Senator Thurmond shepherded the bill through the Senate Judiciary Committee. But the Coastal Conservation League had Senator Kimpson and then Senator Pinckney put a hold on the bill, blocking consideration by the whole Senate. Thanks to the effort of PSD Commissioner Inez Brown-Crouch and many friends of the Town in the Sol Legare, Battery Island, and Grimball Communities, both of those Senators eventually relented. However, the Coastal Conservation League had stymied our efforts to allow an opportunity for our former residents to vote on whether to rejoin the Town.
In 2017, Representative McCoy, working with Town Councilman Josh Stokes, tried a different approach. House Bill 3669 clarifies contiguity to allow a municipality entirely within a PSD to annex a parcel or area within the same PSD across breaks in the contiguity of the PSD. The Town is entirely within the James Island PSD and all of the unincorporated area of James Island would be contiguous to the Town given this clarification. To reunite the Town, it would require that 25% of the registered voters in the unincorporated area of the PSD sign a petition. There would then be an election and if the majority of those voting favored returning to the Town, then the Town would be reunited. This bill would require no action by the PSD Commissioners.
Speaker of the House Lucas told me he supports our effort. Unfortunately, the Senate has become even more difficult. Senator Thurmond moved to Mount Pleasant and didn't run for reelection. He was replaced by Senator Senn. Senator Senn wrote me last year stating that she would support the Town's effort at reunification only if Robert Wise agreed. Who is Robert Wise? He is the District Administrator of the PSD. While I am not sure why Senator Senn places so much weight on the opinion of the PSD District Administrator or why he does not want to see the Town reunited, I believe that if the PSD Commissioners were willing to support allowing the people of unincorporated James Island an opportunity to rejoin the Town, then Robert Wise would give Senator Senn the OK to file companion legislation. While passage in the Senate would still be difficult, right now, the PSD is the key road block.
Why this important now?
If those in the unincorporated area of James Island could rejoin the Town, then they too could benefit from the ability of the Town to obtain revenue from many sources other than property tax. The proposal of the Town to allow for a property tax credit against PSD taxes could be available to everyone who lives in the PSD.
PSD Commissioner Kathy Woolsey has placed this matter on the agenda for the June 25th meeting. Please come to the public hearing at 5:30 and ask that the PSD Commissioners work with the Town to benefit all the people of James Island.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)