County does not want to overburden the taxpayer
By Marion C. Stewart, III, Interim Darlington County Administrator
The voters of Darlington County are being asked to extend the penny sale tax to build three new elementary schools. While this is a worthwhile goal, we must refute several points brought up by the School District in its statement regarding this bond and tax issue. The timing and misinformation being distributed cannot stand unchallenged.
The County and School District are two autonomous governing bodies able to impose separate millage levies on property owners. Each provides different services, but they both have the same goal, to improve our County for all citizens.
The County is not interested in increasing the tax burden on its citizens, so the County has waited for more than 10 years for the School District’s bond on the penny to end. The County has tried to coordinate with the District on the timing of the renewal of the penny tax to little avail.
The County would like to use the funds to build a new courthouse that is sorely needed to provide proper, safe, and secure government services.
The current building has outlived its useful life and is plagued by structural issues, an antiquated heating and cooling system, and a continually leaking roof, windows and drainage system that cause a cascade of insurmountable maintenance problems.
The issue of constructing a new courthouse has been under review and public discussion for decades, and the least burdensome method to fund this project would be through the penny tax. That is the County’s goal, to limit the tax impact on our citizens.
Should voters give the School District the penny sales tax revenues on Nov. 8, the County would not have access to that revenue stream for 16 years. Should the School District penny sale tax referendum not pass and the County gets the penny tax revenue in the future; the County can only access those funds for 8 years. After which, the School District could move forward on their school plans.
The County’s courthouse project cannot wait another decade or longer to be resolved. Beyond the health and safety concerns, judiciary orders could require the County to address the issues at the courthouse, and then the County would be forced to levy additional millage to fund the project.
The biggest misconception in this discussion came from the District itself. The District has said the County and School District impose “exactly the same amount” of millage on property owners. The actual figures show a much different story. The County gets considerably less.
The County imposes 98.44 mills altogether, including millage for county bonds, the library system, environmental services, the fire district and the capital fire bonds. (Individual taxpayers may see additional millage imposed on their bills if they live in one of the municipalities or special purpose districts, such organizations impose additional taxes, but these numbers generally represent what County Council imposes on its citizens verses the School District Board.)
In total, the School District imposes 197.30 mills, when you include the millage supporting Florence-Darlington Technical College, which the School District Board approves. Of that 197.30, 168.68 is school operating millage, 16.62 is for school bonds, and 12 mills is for Tech.
When you compare the 98.44 mills that the County imposes to 197.30 mills that the schools impose (or 185.3 mills if you remove the millage approved by the School Board for FDTC, the County imposes roughly half the amount of millage imposed by the School District. That is hardly “exactly the same amount” of millage!
That disparity means the County can’t maintain its current buildings and operations to the same standards as the School District, much less make capital improvements to address safety and security issues.
The report that the School District does not receive the 168.68 operating millage on homeowner property is technically correct, but still misleading. “Act 388” removed property taxes imposed by the schools on home-owner occupied residences; this shows up on your tax bill as “School Tax Credit.” This credit is not from the School District but an act of the SC State Legislature to provide home-owner tax relief. The State of SC then provides state tax dollars to the School Districts to make up for and/or supplement the lost property tax millage revenue. So, while the funds may not officially come from you the taxpayer as a property tax, you, the taxpayer, still foot the bill through state funds.
The State does not make up any similar type of lost millage revenue as a result of the millage cap imposed on the County based on the Consumer Price Index and population growth for the County. The State also places a cap on increases in assessed value of property thereby limiting property tax millage revenue increases for the County as well.
Darlington County has many needs and is working to move forward on a number of levels in a manner that does not overburden our taxpayers. While we are proud of the dedicated and excellent work being done in our schools for our children and their future, the County would like the same opportunity to provide improved service to our citizens with much needed capital improvements. Our children deserve that for their future as well.