In addition to the approval of funding for a new judicial center in downtown, Florence County Council approved several capital project sales tax projects, refinanced some outstanding debt and extended an economic development agreement Thursday.

The second penny sales tax allocated $18.4 million for fire services; $2.4 million was earmarked for a new Johnsonville main station and a new Kingsburg station.

Read the full article here: http://www.scnow.com/news/local/article_3635cbdc-00af-11e5-ab1b-73a69eff3f26.html

Senator Tom Davis:

“As a threshold matter, I reject the premise — wrongly considered gospel by many — that insufficient funds are being appropriated.

Yes, our roads and bridges are in bad condition, but that’s because spending decisions are made by a politically motivated and legislatively controlled state agency.

Existing revenues are sufficient if we have the political will to spend them wisely.

For example, the Senate recently passed a budget appropriating an additional $69 million for roads and bridges. In addition, that budget includes a supplemental section (which appropriates tax revenue anticipated but not yet certified) providing an additional estimated $100 million.

In other words, instead of simply spending the additional revenue on special projects (as we usually do), we prioritized this year and spent taxpayers’ money on actual needs. And we will have opportunity to do the same in future budgets since the state Board of Economic Advisors projects that the average amount of recurring annual growth in General Fund revenues over the next 10 years will be $355 million. If just 30 percent of this annual growth is dedicated to roads and bridges, then after four years we will have increased transportation spending to the level targeted by Gov. Nikki Haley — without raising taxes.

County Council voted unanimously at its May 12 meeting to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with South Carolina Department of Transportation to resurface roads throughout the county.

There are a total of 104 roads to be resurfaced, equaling about 45 miles and costing about $8.9 million.

That would include all project areas to be funded via the tax, including roads,” Broach said. “The agreement approved last night simply formalizes SCDOT’s involvement as administrators, makes it clear that SCDOT funds aren’t paying for these projects (even though state roads are on the list) and gets the process started to begin road resurfacing.”

By state law, the sales tax will last four years, from May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2019. The sales tax increase will raise about $28 million.

The other projects for this sales tax increase are dredging to an approved 27 feet for the Georgetown port, which will cost approximately $6 million to be added to state and federal funds in the works, totalling $33 million; dredging and spoil site preparation for Murrells Inlet, costing about $10.3 million; an Andrews fire/police complex, costing about $1.5 million; and fire substations throughout the county, costing about $1.5 million.

More can be read about this project here:

http://www.southstrandnews.com/article/20150515/GTT06/150519916/1126/SSN

Last fall, Charleston County voters agreed by almost a 3-1 margin to increase property taxes to raise $108 million for constructing five new libraries and renovating 14 others.

While that ultimately might lead to about $11.20 more in taxes on a $100,000 home, County Council will decide how quickly it needs to borrow the money — and raise the tax rate — to get the work going.

And in Berkeley, the sales tax rate won’t be dropping this year, after voters agreed last November to extend their 1-cent transportation sales tax that first took effect in 2008. Charleston County voters also agreed last fall to continue its 1-cent sales tax for school improvements.

In Dorchester County, the owner of a $100,000 home might pay $22 more on their next tax bill to pay for detention officers and personnel for the county’s emergency medical services. If approved, it would be the county’s first increase in about a decade.

The Charleston County School District is considering property tax increases for both its operations and debt. Since owner-occupied homes don’t pay school operating taxes, the former would raise the bill on a $100,000 rental home by $60, while an owner-occupied home would be charged $8 more this fall to help pay off $6.2 million in new debt to buy school buses.

Read the full article to see other localities that will be raising, or intend to raise taxes here:

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150517/PC16/150519502/for-many-local-governments-timing-is-right-to-raise-taxes

GSA Business surveyed online readers about whether they supported an increase to the state gas tax. Out of 130 respondents, 97, or 74.62%, answered “Yes,” while 33, or 25.38%, replied “No.”

We then presented readers seven potential pros and cons about the tax increase with options to write in a response and select more than one answer. For this part, 124 people responded. Here’s how they selected:

• 37.90% said “Even 12 cents per gallon is still not enough to meet state Department of Transportation needs.”
• 28.23% said “The income tax cuts are too much and would take funding away from essential services such as education.”
• 20.97% said “Another 10 or 12 cents per gallon should be enough to fix our roads.”
• 20.97% said “How do we know the money won’t go toward local mass transit systems instead of fixing state roads?”
• 20.16% said “The income tax cuts will even out the higher gas tax.”
• 8.87% said “A 10-cent increase is too much to pay.”
• 8.87% said “The income tax cuts will not be enough to offset a higher gas tax.”

Read the full article by clicking on the link below:

http://gsabusiness.com/news/54508-readers-overwhelmingly-favor-hiking-gas-tax-to-fix-roads

The good news for those who want to see a debate on how to fix South Carolina’s roads: it looks like the sloth-like Senate will have one. The bad news: it’s unclear whether even a compromise plan has a chance.

At least one Senate Republican who stood at a press conference to get behind a plan is having second thoughts. Sen. Tom Davis took to Facebook to question the need for a gas tax hike, part of a compromise proposal cobbled together by the Senate Majority Caucus. Davis didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment late Tuesday.

“The drumbeat in Columbia for a massive gas-tax increase in SC is now deafening; all the major lobbying groups are crying in a single chorus: ‘Higher taxes to fix our roads!’” Davis wrote on his Facebook page. “Enough. No more talk about increasing gas taxes. We already take enough money from South Carolinians to do the job; we just lack the political will to spend it wisely.”

It remains to be seen whether other Republicans will follow Davis’s lead in breaking ranks. The caucus plan is seen as a compromise to an original one pushed by Sens. Ray Cleary and Hugh Leatherman that would raise the gas tax and other fees with no income tax cut, a requirement laid out by Gov. Nikki Haley to win her support.

The compromise plan would increase the gas tax by 4 cents a gallon every year for three years for a total increase of 12 cents per gallon, raising $400 million initially and eventually $800 million. Increases after that would be tied to inflation with a cap so that South Carolina did not have a higher gas tax than neighbors Georgia and North Carolina.

The governor would get the income tax cut and the control of the Department of Transportation she has demanded.

Haley had sought a 2 percent cut in the income tax, from 7 percent to 5 percent in the highest bracket over 10 years. The Senate GOP plan cuts it 1 percent over five years, costing the state about $700 million. The cuts could be delayed if economic growth slows.

A proposal for South Carolina cell phone customers to help pay for phone service in rural areas is up for discussion today in a House subcommittee.

The bill, called the “South Carolina Telecom Equity in Funding Act” proposes a 1 to 2 percent fee for cell phone users to subsidize traditional landline phone services for customers in hard to reach rural areas or for customers with disabilities.

“I have been fighting tax hikes for 25 years,” said Don Weaver, president of the South Carolina Association of Taxpayers. “This has been mischaracterized as a tax increase. It is not. It simply requires cellular companies to pay their fair share into a fund that guarantees landline access to seniors, businesses and rural areas. These companies use landlines and they are trying to dodge their responsibility.”

The bill passed the Senate at the beginning of May and received bipartisan support in the chamber. Sponsors of the bill include Republican Sen. Thomas Alexander, and Democratic Sen. Brad Hutto.

Read the full article by clicking the link below:

http://www.wistv.com/story/29042293/house-to-hear-cellphone-user-fee-bill

The South Carolina Senate’s budget debate has turned into a fight about road construction and borrowing.

The Senate continued discussions Tuesday on its $7 billion spending plan for state taxes. But debate centered on the fate of other bills.

The Senate passed an amendment creating a study committee to determine borrowing needs. That further puts in question the fate of a $236 million borrowing package, which requires two-thirds approval. Of that, $15 million would go to National Guard armories while the rest would be split among all 33 public colleges and technical schools.

Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, R-Gaffney, said the package doesn’t have enough support anyway and his approach is better. The committee — made up of six legislators and three appointees of Gov. Nikki Haley — would report their findings by year’s end. Haley worked to kill a larger borrowing proposal by House leadership and is trying to scuttle the Senate package too.

“There’s still political blood in the carpet over there,” Peeler said of the House debate. “This does not negate the need for it. It may bring votes to it. This is a more reasonable approach for our bonding needs.”

Sen. Joel Lourie, D-Columbia, said the state needs to borrow while interest rates remain near historic lows. Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Camden, noted legislators tend to create a study committee if they don’t want to deal with an issue.

“I know the old ‘study committee death alternative,’ which is nothing happens,” he said.

Senators postponed voting on an amendment regarding who selects the Department of Transportation director. Opponents worry its passage would guarantee that the chamber won’t pass a road-funding plan this year.

Fruman economist Robert Arden

The poor condition of South Carolina’s roads makes traveling more hazardous and costly, and hurts the state economically. But how do the competing road plans stack up economically?

To answer that, let’s compare the plan proposed by Gov. Nikki Haley and the one passed by the House for their effects on transportation infrastructure, other government programs, economic growth and tax burdens.

The Transportation Department has said the state needs an additional $1.5 billion annually. The governor’s plan generates $3.5 billion in the next 10 years from a 10-cent per gallon tax increase that is phased in over three years. The House plan is similar but generates several hundred million dollars more in the first two years as it does not have a phase-in period. Both cut other taxes in addition to raising them.

Transportation infrastructure

The House plan initially provides more funds to repair the roads, which is the main objective.

Other government programs

The House plan would require fewer cuts in other government services to balance the budget than the governor’s plan. The House plan includes a small income tax cut, but when fully applied, in 2025, the governor’s plan would cut state income tax revenues by about a third. This large tax reduction would have substantial negative effects on other government services.

Economic growth

Spending on infrastructure under the House plan is likely to generate more economic growth than the governor’s plan due to its faster implementation and greater funding of the roads.

The South Carolina Department of Transportation has annual shortfalls estimated near $1.5 billion for the repair and maintenance of existing roadways.

On Jan. 1, 1987, the state gas tax rose to 16.75 cents per gallon which was questionably adequate even then. South Carolinians pay the same rate today which yields approximately $650 million in annual fuel tax revenues. Let’s think about what this all means.

Doubling, for example, the current South Carolina fuel tax (read user fee) to 33.5 cents per gallon (gasoline and diesel) compares to North Carolina’s current 37.7 cents and Georgia’s 27.9 cents. Only Alaska and New Jersey drivers pay less per gallon than our current rate.

A 33.5 cents per gallon fee would, for example, boost annual revenues to $1.3 billion ($200 million short of fixing our crumbling roads and bridges each year). To resolve this massive funding mess by auditing or reorganizing SCDOT seems ludicrous.

Our governor’s proposal of a meager 10 cents per gallon increase plus employing Washington’s gridlock tactic of tethering an income tax reduction to it (one-unrelated-issue-with-the-other) is worse and is lousy politics at best. Increasing gas fees is justified in lieu of benefits not paid over the last 27 years and, therefore, no new net tax.

Read the full story by clicking the link below:

http://www.wspa.com/story/28947373/major-sc-bills-still-alive-at-crossover-deadline