Vote No on Penny Tax for Schools
By Bobby Hudson, Chairman, Darlington County Council
Recently the Darlington County School District public information officer wrote an article stating “there has been a great deal of misinformation circulating” in respect to the penny sale tax bond referendum on the November ballot. While the projects that the School District has announced are certainly worthwhile and can have positive impacts on the education of the children of Darlington County, I am very disappointed in the misinformation communicated in the article.
Most certainly the statement “Currently the Darlington County School District’s millage is exactly the same amount as the County’s millage.” is grossly incorrect. The total millage most recently levied by Darlington County Council is approximately half of the total millage levied by the Darlington County School District. Last year, the County’s total was 98.44 mills compared to the School District’s 197.30 mills.
While the statement expressing the School District no longer receive operating funds from homeowner property tax due to “Act 388” is partially correct; you would be wise to consider Paul Harvey’s signature tag line. “The rest of the story “is that while the SC State Legislature passed “Act 388”, they also provide State funding to make up for the lost property tax funds and have continued to provide those funds to the school districts across the state.
Now I must speak to the article’s suggestion that Darlington County Council would not work with the School District in a joint funding option. The possibilities, the way I remember, included an option for both the Darlington County Council and the Darlington County School District to each place a one-penny sale tax at the same time on our citizens. This would result in an additional penny local option sales tax instead of the current one-penny local option tax for 8 years and then dropping back to one penny for an additional 7 years for a total of 15 years. This option increases the tax burden on our citizens and pushes Darlington County’s local option sales tax totals higher than surrounding counties.
Another option was for the County and the School District to take turns having a one penny sales tax that matches the soon to expire one penny sale tax the School District has utilized for the last 13 years. This option would not increase the tax burden on our citizens above that of today’s sales tax.
An important point here, the County’s term would have a max of 8 years and the School District’s term would have a max of 15 years. Simply put, should the County’s term go first and then the School District’s term, the School District would have the funding they are requesting in 9 years. If the School District’s term went first, then the County would have to wait 16 years to receive funding for the courthouse project. Also of noteworthiness, if the County’s tax term went first and then the School District’s tax term, the total time for the extended local option sales tax would be 23 years with both organizations having their funding within 9 years. If the order was reversed it would be 16 years before both organizations would have the desired funding.
The last option I remember is what I believe is referenced in the School District’s article stating that “funding experts and lawyers found a way” essential for both the School District and the County to get the funding they needed immediately. The point here being a possibility was presented with preconditions.
The precondition for the possible joint bond funding would require SC State legislative action in the upcoming 2017 State legislative session. There was no guarantee such law changes could even be passed. The option could not even be considered as a local County referendum until after State law changes could be made in 2017. The School District was aware of this, so maybe that’s why the District moved ahead without giving it an opportunity to develop. The joint bond funding would also require the one penny local option tax to continue for 30 years, longer than the 23 years if the County and School District just took turns receiving the funds from a one penny sale tax.
Finally, as Chairman of County Council we had a joint meeting of the School Board and County Council scheduled after the School Board met and voted to place this bond referendum on the November ballot. The School District cancelled the meeting. How is that working together? I will be voting no on the School’s one-penny sales tax referendum; not because I oppose the long-term plans of the School District to build new schools, I must defend the taxpayers right to the least burdensome approach for both the Darlington County School District and Darlington County Council to meet funding needs for both new schools and a new courthouse.