Our View: Where we stood and stand on a rather taxing matter
Thursday’s front-page story raises an opportunity to again address Greenwood County’s capital project sales tax and reinforce a couple of this newspaper’s positions.
It is true the county intended to fund the enumerated 27 projects the penny tax would pay for in consecutive order and as the money was actually banked, the county borrowed against the anticipated revenue in a leapfrog move in an emergency move to fund new vehicles in its aging fire service fleet. The county also funded new 800 MHz radios ahead of schedule, not only because they were a need, but also because they were getting a better price plan with the early purchase.
While those purchases were a bit out of step with how the projects were initially rolled out to be funded, the moves were both logical and rational. And, moving forward, there is a better plan in place for incrementally replacing emergency vehicles in an effort to avoid emergency funding measures such as this.
No argument there.
Now, back to a position taken ahead of the CPST vote, a position we still hold onto. As it was rolled out to the voters of Greenwood County, the Index-Journal fully supported the penny sales tax. It was and remains a sensible way to fund capital projects because it makes anyone and everyone who shops in the county an investor, if you will, in those projects.
Sure, we can all pick and choose, we can all argue about which projects were needs and which were wants, but at the end of the day a majority of the county’s voters were in agreement that the idea of a penny tax generating nearly $88 million in revenue during the course of eight years to fund 27 countywide projects was a good one. Far better, certainly, than floating bonds for the projects, a move that would only obligate county taxpayers to pay the debt.
Yes, we still believe the CPST concept is a good one. We wish sharper pencils had been applied to calculating the projections for how much would be collected. And we are glad the county has recognized the need for more transparency and regular public reporting of the tax’s status, both in its county council meetings and on the county website.
Originally Published by Index-Journal on:Sep 29, 2019