Very big news this month was the school board referendum for Bft Co. For months, there have been countless pages 6 & articles on the pros and cons–especially with the election being held on a Saturday (April 26) As it turned out only 12% of the voters cast a vote (which the school board was hoping for – which is why they chose a Sat election date?). They got approval of the $162.Million school bond ref which will pay for 2 new schools & early learning centers in Bluffton & upgrades & renovations thru-out the district. It passed by only a 52%-Yes. Of the 82,000 registered voters – only about 10,000 voted. For the majority of owners on Fripp, (2nd home owners) this translates to $24/yr more in taxes for EACH $200,000 assmt – or perhaps $100 more a year for most of us -even if we haven’t got kids or grandchildren in the schools! A good part of the problem is because of the way the law was written in Columbia (our capitol). To quote the Gazette 3/12, “The Beaufort Co School District is the only one (out of 85 in the state) forecast to receive nothing from this pot of state money which is governed by a complex formula laid out in the Education Finance Act of 1977. This disbursement formula is based in part on how much property tax a district can collect & pupil populations; districts with a lot of quickly appreciating, high-value 2nd homes like Bft Co are hurt by the formula.” We know that the schools here need the money (especially for maintenance) but the regular school tax money we send to the state is actually spent to educate children in other districts – because we are one of the wealthiest counties (having Fripp and Hilton Head high price homes (mostly 2nd) averaging into our formulas). This bond is money to be spent on OUR county schools since the state has doled out nothing for our growth needs. However, it is truly my belief that most of this money should be collected from ‘school impact fees’ which developers should pay for - when they plan on putting up thousands of new homes! As of 2000, over 20 States were using school impact fees for this purpose – but not in Bft... so all this new development & increased population and need for new schools falls on the shoulders of those presently owning property in the county… per the referendum just passed. There are pros & cons for ‘school impact fees’ (fought against mainly by the developers!), but if you go onto Google you’ll find hundreds of thousands of articles on the subject. Those against say, “It’s taxation without represent-ation” because the new-construction buyers aren’t even here yet! But, how about those non-residents with 2nd homes or rental properties - not allowed to vote, but being given the obligation to pay – isn’t that “taxation without representation????” On the same subject of taxation, our Columbia representatives have recklessly been spending tax $s like they are going out of style. In the past 3 years alone, they have increased state spending by more than 40% ... and that may have once been fine - since the economy in 2005 was doing so great. However, they are presently facing a huge deficit in incoming revenue – because those associated with all phases of the real estate market (sales & construction & mortgage) have much less to spend (contributing to tax revenue). Also, their yearly state income taxes are substantially less… Also, there are many other tax payers & businesses doing less volume– leaving a HUGE deficit for state spending! On taxation, here’s what’s happening with the county referendum for the new Bft buildings under construction. The Gazette, 4/25, headlines read, “Municipal complex bonds will boost taxes 40%.” If the city’s operating expenses remain stable, tax bills will grow about 40% in fiscal 2010 (till 2027) as we begin to pay off the bonds ($15M) to finance the 3 city building projects…(a new 27,000 sqft city hall, a 33,000 sqft bldg for the city’s courts & police dept and renovation to the fire station). In 2010, we (the people) all will pay $594 for each $200,000 assmt BUT for secondary owners that would be 50% more (or % $891 for each $200,000 assmt)....
Oh, there’s a ‘temporary fix’ for the slumping housing market…there’s a plan to delay the property tax increase (new value) for purchases…until the county’s reassessment. They did this because thousands of contracts in SC have fallen through as an unintended consequence of that property tax law approved 2 years ago making the assessed value of a home based on the SOLD price (& large construction projects have gone to other states!).
As for SC–I was extremely disappointed to read in the Gazette, 4/18, that 18 states had committed to take action on climate change & signed a declaration committing themselves to action & we were NOT included. Among other things, these states recommitted themselves to the effort to stop global warming & to call on congressional leaders & presidential candidates to work with them to establish a comprehensive national climate policy.
