Sen. Gerald Malloy speaks out on DCSD Bond Referendum
Sen. Gerald Malloy
By Jana E. Pye, Editor, editor@newsandpress.net
As the newspaper of record for Darlington County, we have been tasked with sharing opposing views regarding the penny tax bond referendum. Our local state senator was a supporter of the original DCSD bond in 2003, and is currently on the Darlington County Courthouse Committee. We asked him to weigh in on the upcoming bond referendum, and how he would be voting:
“There is not a larger proponent for public education that I know of in the South Carolina Senate. I am a citizen in this county. I am married and have four children that have been educated in the public school system in Darlington County with one still attending high school. My father-in-law was a principal, and my mother-in-law was a guidance counselor. I think a good public school education is sacrosanct. I have had the honor and privilege of being in the South Carolina Senate now for the last 14 years, and have served on several different committees and have served, and continue to serve on the Education Committee in the Senate. I, with some hesitation, have been involved in situations like this in a public way, and I am generally quiet on some local issues, but I have been integrally involved and have leant my voice to this issue as it relates to the taxation in Darlington County for a period of time.
But my responsibility to our county is well documented over the last several years when I expressed concern about competing taxing authorities. This is exhibit 1 as to why it is not working because we are in the blame game; there is a blame game going on with ‘they didn’t meet with us, so we ended up going first.’ And other statements, and that is not fair to our citizens. So therefore, ‘we are going to go forward with the tax that is not fully planned out’ and so that is the problem in this instance with the competing tax authorities.
In 2003, I came forward and endorsed the (original Darlington County School District penny tax) referendum, and put forth my efforts to help support it in light of a previous failed referendum; I sought and solicited support for that referendum. And talked to proponents of the referendum and felt it was necessary for our county to help move it forward. It was endorsed by me and many other public figures including former Governor David Beasley, and other members of our delegation. At this time for the same reasons, this is the first time that someone has asked me publically as to where I stand. For reasons I have already given and what has happened in the past and several issues that have come up in waiting for the bond debt that we worked so hard to get to be paid off, I am again now glad to be able to say my position publically. And that is, I am voting no. They asked for our endorsement last time, and it was on the front page of the papers. And this time, we were not asked to endorse it.
With great trepidation because of my service as a senator and in my understanding as to how democracy should work, people have a right to do things if they have autonomy. But for my purposes, I think there is a better way to do all of this. I think this plan is lacking if simple questions cannot be answered as to where they are going to build it, who is going to build it, what are the specs, and why are you going to borrow money when you haven’t paid your last money off, I am voting no on this bond referendum. It is simply lacking in strength, and I think this is tantamount to the largest tax increase in Darlington County history.”
How did you vote for Act 388?
“I will never forget that day. It was Wednesday, May 31, 2006, when the conference report (the bill in its final form) came before the Senate and I voted no against the Bill that would become known as Act 388.”
Did the Darlington County Council miss their time to be on this November ballot?
“Based on my understanding on the courthouse committee, no, they were not ready for the initiative. That was never the intent, from my perspective, to have it on this ballot. The intent was always to wait until the school district had completed paying off the penny from the last debt, which is now 2018. I did not believe that the taxpayers should end up having to stomach two separate pennies for two separate issues at the same time. That is why I had asked the school board to pay down their bond debt with the fund balance, and also to refinance those bonds some time ago; they were paying off the bond at a high rate.
They (courthouse committee) had not completed their planning process. I think that they did not miss it; I did not believe that to have a penny from the school district and a penny from the county at the same time was prudent for the tax payer and I would not support that because that would make Darlington County one of the highest taxed counties in the state and we are not a county that is high in tourism; we are not Horry County. We are a small rural county. Let’s face it; sales tax is a regressive tax anyway.
I want to emphasize that; it is a regressive tax; it is regressive by nature. And to add more to what they already had is in my view, not prudent and it was always my intention to get the county to have the opportunity to have creative revenue for infrastructure, and possibly a courthouse.
I’ve been a part of the courthouse committee and there have been discussions for a new courthouse literally long before I was in the Senate, at least more than 14 years and I have been a lawyer in this town for 26 years and it’s been there. The courthouse is an issue. It is a security risk. We’ve had missing prisoners; everyone knows you have to have three avenues for entrance; the public, jurors and judges and staff; the prison transfers and those that are awaiting trial. Right now, they all go in together on the same elevator. They have maintenance issues, and the maintenance issues are almost cost prohibitive. The county has already purchased land, and is in a review process. They sent out surveys and have done a lot of work on that and have hired consultants. I think it is also important for the viability and revitalization for downtown Darlington, and the County, at large.
The tax payer has to understand and know that there should be some discussion if it is a need, I think you can make an argument that if the District had it for a period of time, another has it for a period of time, and you can make the same argument now as okay. Did they follow the right steps to get it on the ballot? Sure. Okay? And if it advances, well, that is democracy. And the thing is, we have to accept the answer. So, you put it up there. And if it does not pass, some may be concerned that the District will just increase the millage. Scare tactics should have no place in this scenario. You can’t say I’ll do this later on if you don’t do this because it is not fair to the tax payer. The tax payer only has one wallet. And so what we have is how we challenge things. Their voice only comes on these issues at referendum time and during elections.”
In your opinion, could a shared penny tax have worked to achieve the needs of the county – school district and county needs?
“Neither one is that far along. Can you share a penny? I think there is a possibility of sharing at some point. But the point is you cannot do it and then say, well we are going to go first when you are already doing it; so in essence, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and so we are already paying off the existing debt and accumulating another debt is problematic. And I know what people will say that sounds pretty conservative; yes, it is. We do the best we can; we want to be socially responsible. But fiscally conservative. As I say about allocating resources, it is our responsibility to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ money. We are a poor rural area. It is coming out of our taxpayers’ wallet – and each taxpayer’s one wallet is going for this. We have been working on the courthouse for many years. I must emphasize it’s not just a courthouse; it is infrastructure needs within the county. The county needs to build infrastructure because our population growth is stagnant.
When I was first elected to Senate, the county had roughly 68,000 people; after the Census in 2010, it was roughly the same figure. We grew maybe 1 percent. Horry County grew by 17-18%. To me that shows the future of the state and where our population is going. We have a declining population in our area. Our population is flat. You factor in the fact that the school district during the time – you can check back to 5-7 years ago where the population was around 14,000 students – today there is only 10,400 students or so. Those 10,000 students will include the enabling proviso that we passed in the Senate and the House a year or two back that brought in 4 year old Kindergarten which is included in that number.
Everybody wants to support children. When they say new schools, let’s think about this. You have 10,000 students; $60 million dollars in new debt. We all say we all want to have these great schools and that’s good. We also want to have somewhere for our children to come back to. They say we need money for schools that are 50+ years old; we don’t know what is going to happen to the old schools. What happens in Society Hill, and other areas? The really challenging thing is for those that are in the very rural parts of our county and simply what it does for them. Where in this project, what about Society Hill, Mechanicsville, Dovesville, and other rural areas?
So we want to educate our children. We also want them to have a place to come back to. We want a Darlington County that our children and other children will want to come back to, to work if they so choose. And so but it is scary that we have a stagnant population growth; and I think it is directly tied to infrastructure needs here in our county so we can build businesses so we will be able to increase our tax base which lessens the burden for our individual tax payers so we don’t have to rely solely upon the local option sales tax which I think is regressive in nature.”
DCSD writes that the experts gave them advice. We know that the bond attorney for both the school district and the county is the same person, Ben Zeigler. Is there an issue with that?
“I’ve not had any conversations with any experts as to any proposals. I would think that not to speak to any particular person or entity but if there is advice coming from the same source advising two entities on this same issue, I would find that challenging particularly if the experts are putting together a plan and the parties do not agree to all parts of the plan.”
In your opinion what are the greatest needs for the county?
“We get back then to the politics of this entire situation… which is, how you allocate resources. We have to take care of the core functions of government. In this instance, with the representatives from the four municipalities to address infrastructure issues so they can set priorities, address things that happen, which is a pro education move and so it would greatly benefit the school district to work cooperatively and collaboratively together as it relates to the benefit of the citizens of Darlington County. This bond referendum is not cooperative and collaborative. And so therefore, we are left with more questions than answers. So then I go to my example … this is probably the largest tax increase in Darlington County history of $60 million dollars. And I think it leaves too many questions. The timing is poor, not good, and the plan is lacking in my view. If my Daddy were asking to spend money he would say where are you going to build, who is going to build it, and how are you going to do it. It brings up more questions than answers.
And so, I am concerned about our county. We have people in our county that have problems with their drinking water and are – not by choice – on well water. We have the citizens in Lamar- and listen, it’s not lost to me that everybody has needs for a new school – but they have radium in their water. We are working hard at trying to fix that problem. They are buying water from Darlington County Sewer and Water Authority. They are dependent upon their assistance to give their citizens clean drinking water. So they are subject to the rates set by the Darlington County Water and Sewer. So there is a concern on what happens to a small town when they don’t become self-sustaining. That is just one example of what I call infrastructure items that are needed.
It is not just about a new courthouse. That is one of many issues along with infrastructure and the core functions of Government and everyday needs of the citizens of this County. In this instance, the competing authorities and a race to the referendum ballot is not prudent and in the best interest of the citizens of Darlington County. For those reasons, and possibly others, I cannot support the School District’s referendum and I will respectfully be voting no.”