Lefora Free Forum
686 views

Capital Projects Sales Tax - Redux

Page 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8
< older posts 141–143 of 143
member
1094 posts


String, you seem to know everything there is to know about this form of raising money for projects. I have some questions.

-petunia1



Nope, I just read the newspaper articles, the enabling legislation, the comments here, and the information at the county goodcents website.


If this referendum had passed I was told that bond would be issued for the first ten projects. Would the County taxpayers secure these bonds and pay additional taxes if the sales tax did not cover expenses?

-petunia1


The referendum authorized $100 million in bonds to be issued, which is only about 66% of the estimated revenue generated by the sales tax. These would be general obligation bonds that the county would be obligated to pay off if the sales tax didn't. Here's what the referendum said about that:

Must a special one percent sales and use tax be imposed in Andenon County, South Carolina (the "County") for not more than seven (7) years from the date of imposition to raise the amounts specified for the following purposes and, further, pending the receipt of such sales and use taxes, shall the County be authorized to issue and sell, either as a singlt issue or as several separate issues, general obligation bonds (the "Bonds") of the County in the aggregate principal amount of not exceeding $100,000,000.00 to pay for any costs of the purposes listed below and pledge such sales and use taxes to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds; provided, in the event such sales and use taxes are inadequate for the payment of the Bonds, the full faith, credit and taxing power of the County shall be pledged for the payment of the Bonds?

There was some question whether grants could have been obtained if this referendum had passed.

-petunia1



The legislation (Title 4 Chapter 10 Article 3) is kinda sparse on implementation details. Section 4-10-330 says this about what should be listed in the ballot question:

(3)(a) If the county proposes to issue bonds to provide for the payment of any costs of the projects, the maximum amount of bonds to be issued, whether the sales tax proceeds are to be pledged to the payment of the bonds and, if other sources of funds are to be used for the projects, specifying the other sources;
I don't see any mention of grants in the ballot question above. York County has a nice website (Pennies for Progress) that describes their experience. Here's what they say in the History section about the 1997 tax:

The first Capital Projects Sales and Use Tax Program also known as the 1997 Pennies for Progress Program consisted of 14 projects and was approved by the voters in 1997. Click 1997 Project List for a list of the projects in the 1997 Pennies for Progress Program. The program original budget of $99.255 million was funded by the sales tax. The County has been able to acquire additional funds to finish these projects which have cost more than the original estimates due to rising costs of construction. These additional funds included State and Federal funds that would not have been available to York County without the 1997 Pennies for Progress Program.
So it's certainly possible.


 At this point Anderson County will have to show that they can spend money wisely on the most needed projects and search out grants to defray the costs.

-petunia1


How in the heck do you do something like that? How could a councilman look at that sentence and decide what "spend money wisely" means, or which ones are the "most needed projects"? Really, we can't micromanage the people we elect and expect them to do their jobs effectively.


 I believe that this referendum was a good idea that became an elitists dream. All projects could have been completed (if the economy did not effect the amount collected) and everyone would have been pleased with the results. Pay as you go is the fiscally responsible way. To have agreed to the referendum as the final project list stated would have been a betrayal of the tax payers trust.

-petunia1


I'm not sure what you're saying here. The CPST act requires you to list all the projects to be paid for in the ballot question. You don't have a choice. You even have to list them in the order to be started. The only way to change the list is to cancel a project completely, and that money can't be used for another project, it just reduces the amount to be collected in 7 years.
__________________
Elwood: It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses. Jake: Hit it.
?
799 posts

The above post is in danger of being hidden for making too much sense and being entirely too civil. Step it up, String, or get run over.

member
1065 posts

Yes String, good job.  I would hope that all officials elected will spend taxplayers money wisely.  I would not begin to select the projects for them. I believe I have said repeatedly that had the list be in better order of "need" that the referendum would have passed and possibly all would have been completed.

We may be sheep but no one is going to pull the wool over our eyes. Laughing
Page 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8
< older posts 141–143 of 143

This Topic Is Locked To Guest Posts

It's been a while since this topic was active, if you'd like to get it going again, please post as a registered member

join now