Clean James Island Creek

                                 James Island Creek seen from Dock Street Park

For some years, Charleston Waterkeeper has frequently included James Island Creek near Folly Road (the "Ellis Creek Bridge") as one of the local waterways too polluted for swimming.   Happily there were occasional "good" reports, but the bad ones were all too frequent.   Reports were better at their testing site by the Harborview Road bridge, but substantial bacteria counts were found there too.

Complaints to SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control) by area residents resulted in an official designation of an "impaired waterway."   The three local governments responsible for stormwater management in the James Island Creek Watershed, the Town of James Island, Charleston County, and the City of Charleston, were mandated to monitor bacteria levels in the creek and develop an action plan during the next five years.   This mandate is directly from SCDHEC but indirectly from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Failure to comply can result in multi-million dollar fines for local governments.  The James Island Public Service District (JIPSD) and Charleston Water System (CWS) provide sewer service in the James Island Creek Watershed, but are regulated under a separate provision of the law and so are not directly mandated to clean James Island creek.   The James Island TMDL the initial report from SCDHEC, was completed in November 2019.

As SCDHEC reviewed conditions in the creek, public works staff from the Town, City, and County were involved at every step. Creation of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) for a joint response began early on and was signed in December 2020.   The County has hired a consultant, Wolpert Engineering to provide monitoring.   They will test the water each month and an additional four times each year after heavy rains.   Also, they will use microbial source testing four times each year to identify the waste--human, pet, or wildlife.   They will be testing at the traditional locations near the bridges at Harborview Road and Folly Road.   A third location has been approved off  Jim Isle Drive at Battery Point.  A fourth may be identified later   The Town, City, and County pay for this testing in proportion to our area of jurisdiction in the watershed, roughly 58% City, 34% Town, and 8% County.  The Town's expense is expected to be approximately $10,000 per year.

In February 2020, the local governments formed the James Island Creek Water Quality Task Force.  This was an initiative from Charleston City Councilwoman Carol Jackson.  The body includes elected officials from the Town, City, and County, key staff members from those local governments, as well as elected officials and staff members from the James Island Public Service District and the Charleston Water System.  State elected officials are represented.  Also, representatives from conservation groups such as Waterkeeper and Coastal Conservation League are included.   The Chairman is Mayor John Tecklenburg of the City and I serve as vice Chair.   Other elected officials serving include County Councilwomen Jenny Honeycutt and Anna Johnson, City Councilmen Ross Appel and Dudley Gregorie, City Councilwoman Carol Jackson, Town Councilman Garret Milliken,  JIPSD Commissioner Kathy Woolsey, State Senator Sandy Senn and State Representative Spencer Wetmore.

The Education and Citizen Outreach Committee, chaired by Waterkeeper Andrew Wunderly, will share  information to residents about how they can help clean our creek and about what the task force and local governments are doing on their behalf.   You may have seen an editorial in the Post and Courier and TV reporting due to their efforts.   The Town, County and City all contribute stormwater utility monies paid by our residents to help fund the Ashley Cooper Education Consortium.  Operated by Clemson University's Extension Service, the consortium provides a wealth of information about managing stormwater and protecting our marshes and creeks.

The Technical Committee, chaired by James Island Town Administrator Ashley Kellahan, worked to get the MOA between the City, County, and Town hammered out and approved.   The testing plan is moving forward.  We anticipate our first quarterly report next month (November 2021.)

The Policy Committee, chaired by Charleston City Councilman Ross Appel, initiated a Watershed Plan which was provided at no cost by Terracon   All James Islanders owe this public-spirited engineering firm a hearty thanks for helping clean our creek. The James Island Creek Watershed Plan  was completed in May 2021.  It has been approved by SCDHEC and will go to the full task force for a recommendation for adoption by the Town, City, and County Councils.

Also Charleston Water System funded molecular source testing for the first time this spring (March and May of 2021.)  Working with Charleston Waterkeeper, their limited sampling revealed that the human DNA concentration was by far greater than the other source types analyzed. While the test results are by no means conclusive, they do indicate that human waste is indeed a factor and contributor to the pollution in the James Island Creek.

The Watershed Plan points to aging septic systems being the culprit for  contamination.  The study shows that the CWS sewage treatment plant at Plum Island and Sanitary Sewer Overflows by the JIPSD and CWS pipes are not major contributors to the problem.  SCDHEC regulates the installation of new septic systems, but it does not require any maintenance.  It recommends that homeowners pay for regular inspections by licensed contractors and pump outs when needed.  Also, while septic systems can last for many years, most of the septic systems in the area were built decades ago, well past the usual estimates of a life-span of less than 50 years.   

Due to these concerns, James Island Town Council is currently considering an ordinance requiring homeowners to have their septic systems inspected as recommended by SCDHEC at least every three years.   Further, a properly functioning septic system or sewer connection will be required which will include regular pump outs and any other maintenance or replacement for septic systems.   If and when sewer becomes available, the Town will enforce the existing JIPSD ordinance requiring connection.   SCDHEC imposes strict regulation of JIPSD (and CWS) regarding any leakage of sewage from their pipes or pump stations. 

At an early stakeholders meeting organized by the Charleston Waterkeeper in 2019, the JIPSD was asked to explore the cost of extending sewer into areas in the JI creek watershed that now depend on aging septic systems.  The estimated cost was approximately $8 million.  At the time, there was little prospect of adequate funding for this major undertaking.  However, the American Rescue Plan Act provides federal funding that local governments can use for sewer extension.  The Town is slated to receive $3.2 million in ARPA funds, and Town Council has budgeted half to address water quality in James Island Creek.   All the local governments, as well as our state representatives, are seeking some of the more than $2 billion of ARPA money that was allocated to our state government.  All indications are that the state will require local government ARPA  money as a match to help fully fund this project. 

Approximately 85% of the homes in the James Island Creek watershed with aging septic systems are in the Town.  Most of the new development in areas under City jurisdiction already has public sewer.  The ARPA money is only available for a limited time and money not spent must be returned to the federal government.   In my view, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to solve a major problem that the Town and other local governments must address.

The Town of James Island has already taken key steps to address water quality.  The Town adopted a new stormwater ordinance to control fill and build and reduce flooding, which will also help protect water quality in our marshes and creeks, including James Island Creek.   The Town's limits for residential density also control runoff in this and other areas of the Town. Further, the Town, working with the JIPSD, has introduced a program of providing pet waste stations.   Pet waste can also a source of storm water pollution.   The key step, however, will be getting contamination from aging septic tanks under control.  

Please help us Clean Our Creek.

Chase is Coming to Camp and Folly

 The derelict Subway is gone.  Chase Bank is building a branch at the corner of Camp and Folly.   At some future time, the owners of the lot where Pizza Hut stood will put in a business, but that has yet to be determined.   For now, that area will be grassed and vacant. The parking for the bank will be to the rear, at the current location of Corky's.  Corky's is moving further south on Folly Road near Signal Point Road.  

The Town will retain the easement it purchased from Corky's for public improvements at the corner.   The planned bus shelter site, however, has been moved further up Folly, near the existing stop in front of where Pizza Hut stood. The after hours parking that Corky's had agreed to provide will now be provided by Chase bank.  

The Chase bank construction complies with the Town's new storm water regulations passed in May of 2020 as well as the Folly Road overlay.   There is no increase in overall elevation of the property and the grading at the property boundaries will be gently sloped to protect the neighbors.   Some of the parking will be pervious, as required by the Folly Road Overlay.   There will be trees and other landscaping in and around the building and parking lot.

The two buildings that have been demolished--Subway and Pizza Hut--and Corky's which is slated for demolition later, were all constructed  before there was any storm water regulation.   The area was nearly all impervious--buildings and asphalt with no retention ponds. There was very little green area or trees.   The redevelopment and landscaping of this property will substantially improve both the appearance and the control of storm water in this area.  Storm water will be collected in underground catch basins and  treated for water quality with a Stormceptor water quality device.  There will be an overall 15% reduction in storm water runoff.  Further, any new business at the old Pizza Hut location can add no additional storm water runoff.

The plans for the site, as well as the storm water pollution protection plan are available for inspection at Town Hall.  

After Chase Bank completes its project, the Town will develop a plan for landscaping and improvements for the easement area.  Council has approved the installation of flags in its easement.  Precise design is waiting until the Chase construction and landscaping is complete.

Abandoned Subway Building

New Park This Summer or a Vacant Lot?

James Island Town Council will vote Thursday, May 20th whether to open Brantley Park this summer.  Council budgeted $185,000 from the hospitality fund for the project last May and had approved the park plans in January.  Staff bid out the project this spring and the low bid was $153,000, well below budget.  The project was ready to move forward in April, but Council voted 3 to 2 to defer until the May meeting.   Some on Council question whether James Islanders want another park and raised concerns that too much money was being spent along Folly Road.  

The Town has more than $1.3 million in its hospitality tax fund and anticipates collecting an additional $540,000 next year.   Approximately 85% of that money is raised from restaurants along Folly Road.  The funds to purchase the land for the park came from the Charleston County Greenbelt Fund.  The Town’s application to purchase the land included a commitment to have a park open to the public. 

Do James Islanders want another park?   Do the people of the Town want to see some green space along Folly Road?    Please let Town Council know whether we should move forward to open Brantley Park this summer or do they want a vacant lot?  

 

Town Tax Credit Programs

    The Town of James Island has two tax credit programs.    The first is the Local Option Sales Tax Credit  The sales tax in Charleston County includes an additional one percent that is mostly used to reduce County and Municipal property taxes.   Town staff forecasts that we will receive approximately $1.1 million from the Property Tax Credit Fund over the 2021-22 fiscal year.   State law requires an equal credit against the Town’s 17.9 mill property tax.   

    I have asked Town Council to approve an additional $220,000 credit from the LOST County/Municipal Revenue distribution for this year.  If Town Council approves, the Town’s property tax will continue to be zeroed out.   When you look at your consolidated property tax bill from the Charleston County Auditor for your house, car, or boat, the Town’s millage will appear, but the amount next to it will be zero.   As always, the Town will add nothing to your total property tax bill, and no property tax revenue will go to the Town.  

    The Town’s second tax credit program is our Cost Share Agreement with the James Island Public Service District (JIPSD.)  The JIPSD is an independent special purpose district that provides fire protection and solid waste collection in the Town and unincorporated area of James Island.  The Town contributes part of the cost of providing fire protection and solid waste collection in the Town and in exchange the District allows for a tax credit.   As a result, everyone in the Town pays a reduced property tax on homes, cars and boats to the James Island Public Service District.   I have asked Town Council to provide a $1.1 million cost share to the District for the 2020-21 fiscal year.

     If Town Council approves the full LOST credit and the cost share, the amount Town property taxpayers must pay will be little changed from last year.  If Town Council votes down the cost share, the result will be a  40% increase in the amount Town homeowners pay to the JIPSD compared to last year.   Because this makes up nearly 50% of the total property tax bill, this would be a 16% increase in the total property tax bill for homeowners.  There would also be increases in the tax that must be paid on all property such as cars and boats.  

    I strongly support the Cost Share Agreement.   If the Town had its own fire and solid waste departments as do our neighbors in the City of Charleston and the City of Folly Beach, then the Town’s property tax millage would need to be much higher.   We would need to charge approximately the same millage as we currently pay the James Island Public Service District—likely 60.3 mills for this coming year.   However, we would be required by state law to use the Town’s distribution from the property tax credit fund to provide a credit.   The Town could not possibly zero-out property taxes, but the total charges to Town property taxpayers would be the same as what we must pay with the cost share agreement we have now.   So, the people of the Town can remain part of the James Island Public Service District, continue to receive the fire protection and solid waste collect services they have always provided us, while paying approximately the amount we would if Town had its own fire department and solid waste collection service.   

It would be wasteful triplication to add a third fire service and sold waste collection service on James Island. The cost share with the James Island Public Service District is a cost-efficient method of providing our Town taxpayers with the benefits intended by the LOST program.

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

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

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

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

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

The Climate Mobilization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Victory Plan

Included in this plan is the following:

■ Quantity rationing of basic necessities 

■ Weekly free allowance issuances to citizens 

■ Sharing of rations among family members 

■ Appropriately smaller rations for young children 

■ Strict enforcement 

■ No loopholes for the rich 

■ Local citizen rationing boards

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

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

Transform agriculture

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

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

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

A social and industrial revolution indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

Millage Rollback Passes on 3 to 2 Vote

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

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

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

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

So why the controversy?

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

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

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

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

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

What happened at our meeting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Town Hospitality Tax Funds Improvements and Beautification at Camp and Folly

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

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

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

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

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

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