Beaufort County voters will see 4 ballot questions this November. What they are about
Beaufort County voters will see four questions at the bottom of their ballots on election day, the two biggest of which concern the county’s request for an increase in sales tax to buy land to preserve as green space. Here’s a breakdown of the Green Space tax referendum and two other unrelated constitutional amendments.
Green Space sales tax
If passed by voters, Beaufort County’s Green Space Program will allow the county to buy development rights or total ownership of land it believes is threatened by development and could lead to issues with land use, traffic, public safety, stormwater runoff, water quality or other conservation objectives.
While the Green Space Program has a similar goal as the Rural and Critical Land Preservation Program, a land preservation program that has passed in the county five times since 2000, it is much larger in scope and the money comes from a different source.
Where Rural and Critical is a property tax, the Green Space program is a sales tax. The Green Space program as set forth would collect nearly as much money as the five Rural and Critical programs put together.
Two local questions will be on the ballots for voters in Beaufort County regarding the Green Space referendum.
The wording and what it means:
Question 1A reads:
“Shall a special one percent (1%) sales and use tax be imposed in Beaufort County for not more than two (2) years to raise up to $100,000,000 for preservation procurement for the purpose of procuring open lands and green space by and through the acquisition of interests in real property, located within or outside the boundaries of Beaufort County, such interests to include:
(a)the acquisition of fee simple titles;
(b)conservation easements;
(c)development rights;
(d)rights of first refusal;
(e)options;
(f)leases with options to purchase; or
(g)any other interests in real property?”
A “Yes” vote means you will pay an extra one cent per dollar on purchases for two years or until $100 million is raised for the county program. Purchases on groceries, gas and medicine are excluded from the tax.
Question 1B reads:
“I approve the issuance of not exceeding $100,000,000 in principal amount of general obligation bonds of Beaufort County maturing over a period of not to exceed two (2) years to fund the procurement of open lands and green space identified in Beaufort County Local Referendum Question lA? lf the Sales and Use Tax revenues are inadequate for the payment of the bonds, the County intends to pledge its full faith, credit and taxing power for the payment thereof.”
A “Yes” vote will allow the county to move more quickly, issuing bonds to raise the money and then using the tax money that will come in to pay back those bonds. If question 1A passes but 1B fails, the county could still move forward with the program, just more slowly. If question 1A fails, then 1B becomes moot.
The argument for voting Yes:
Nowhere is land conservation as important as it is in Beaufort County, a growing area that sells its natural beauty as a main attraction for newcomers and visitors. About 50 percent of the county is water, which leaves a limited amount of land to split between development and conservation.
The South Coast Office of the Coastal Conservation League supports the program. “It’s really important that we are growing in the right places and that we’re also balancing that with protecting some of our most sensitive ecosystems,” said its director, Jessie White.
Supporters also like to point out estimates that nearly 40 percent of the money raised would come from part-time residents and tourists, so all of the burden does not fall on full-time residents.
The argument for voting No:
Any tax increase is hard to swallow, but given the current state of inflation and possible worsening conditions, the timing for the request could be better.
Too, the size of the goal — $100 million — might cause people to hesitate supporting a program they might otherwise be willing to support. That hesitation might be exacerbated by the uncertainty around which properties will be bought and protected, although the county has said the Beaufort County Greenprint Plan and the 2040 Beaufort County Comprehensive Plan will be used as “critical documents.” The former maps out areas of the county that are critical for preservation and the latter seeks to create a plan to “balance economic development, resource protection, and growth in a form that creates quality places.”
“The Beaufort County Rural and Critical Lands program has existed since 2002, and they’ve only spent $141 million,” said Councilwoman Alice Howard during the Aug. 8 County Council meeting. “Now we’re proposing to spend $100 million in two years.”
When County Council passed the referendum, Howard was the only one to vote against it. Despite Howard supporting past conservation initiatives, she disapproved of the county buying development rights for projects that may already be approved by municipalities.
“I don’t think this is the right referendum at the right time for Beaufort County residents,” Howard said during the Aug. 8 meeting.
Constitutional Amendments
Two statewide constitutional amendment questions seek voters’ permission to move more money into two of the state’s reserve funds.
The wording and what it means:
Amendment 1 reads:
“Must Section 36(A), Article lll of the Constitution of this State, relating to the General Reserve Fund, be amended so as to provide that the General Reserve Fund of five percent of general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year must be increased each year by one-half of one percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year until it equals seven percent of such revenues?”
The state’s general reserve fund functions as a “rainy day fund,” meaning the money in the reserve is available to cover any budget shortfalls at the end of each fiscal year.
Each fiscal year, which ends in June, 5% of the previous fiscal year’s revenue is put into the general reserve fund.
A ‘Yes’ vote will allow lawmakers to increase the general reserve fund from 5% to 7% of the previous fiscal year’s revenue.
Amendment 2 reads:
“Must Section 36(B), Article lll of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to provide that the Capital Reserve Fund of two percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year be increased to three percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year and to provide that the first use of the Capital Reserve Fund must be to offset midyear budget reductions?”
If the general reserve fund is used to cover a fiscal year-end shortfall, the capital reserve fund will be used to replenish the general reserve fund. If the general reserve fund is not used to cover a shortfall, then the capital reserve fund can be used for capital improvements like renovating, repairing and expanding state-owned properties.
The capital reserve fund is 2% of the general revenue from the previous fiscal year.
A “Yes” vote will allow lawmakers to increase the capital reserve fund from 2% to 3% of the previous fiscal year’s revenue.
