Year in review: Three years after referendum, CPST is center of attention
As more than 200 civic and business leaders lunched on chicken and a broccoli salad medley during a late August afternoon, Greenwood County Council chairman Steve Brown ensured the meal would be a memorable one.
It was at that State of the City/County luncheon at Harris Baptist Church where Brown revealed publicly for the first time that projected revenues for a voter-approved 2016 capital project sales tax could come in below the $87.9 threshold that appeared on ballots.
“The money seems to be increasing somewhat. There’s been some changes, not that significant, but whether some of those projects are going to be funded, we’ll just see what happens a number of years from now,” Brown said. “I think for years to come, you’ll be pleased with how that money has been spent, and the positive impact it will have had on this community.”
On the heels of Brown’s announcement, the Index-Journal asked county officials to put figures behind the words, learning on Aug. 28 that revenue actuals were lagging as much as $20 million behind expectations, imperiling 10 of the 27 projects.
What went wrong? Could it really be that a third of the planned investments floated to voters in 2016 are now off the table?
The newspaper endeavored to answer those questions, devoting almost 6,000 words to the topic in an unprecedented “special report to the taxpayers of Greenwood County” that ran on Sept. 8.
While county officials have said in the past the final collection number might not match what was on the ballot, no indication was ever made public about what that would look like. As far back as the summer of 2016, County Manager Toby Chappell said projects near the bottom of the list of 27 might not come to fruition.
“The collection of the tax has to end at either the collection of the amount identified or eight years, whichever comes first,” Chappell said during a meeting of the Capital Project Sales Tax committee on June 22, 2016. “However, it is almost certain that some of the later, more involved projects will not be finalized at the end of eight years.”
Ahead of the vote, no county official gave a range of how many projects might end up zeroed out — instead only saying some might have faced that prospect.
On Sept. 16, Chappell presented to the County Council for the first time an update on capital project sales tax collection rates, emphasizing the unlikelihood of coming up with just $67.9 million over the life of the eight-year assessment.
“Is it possible that the 2016 capital project sales tax will be $20 million short in 2025? The short answer is yes. However, it’s also possible that you win the South Carolina Powerball at 1 in 292 million odds, and it’s possible that FERC may approve our fuse plug issue, but it’s not likely,” Chappell said.
So how did the county come up with the $87.9 million figure that went to referendum in November 2016?
Two dates in September 2015, plus the final year outcome of a 2007 capital project sales tax answer that question, Chappell said.
In August 2015, county leaders asked the state’s Office of Revenue and Fiscal Affairs for a projection of how much Greenwood could collect through a second penny sales tax.
On Sept. 10, the office responded with an estimate of $5.81 million in first-year collections.
But since Greenwood County brought in $8.4 million worth of sales tax dollars in 2010 through a 2007 penny tax initiative, officials asked for a second look at the numbers.
And on Sept. 30, 2015, Chappell said, the state came back with an updated projection of $9.5 million.
Extrapolating that across eight years, Chappell said, gave the county a baseline figure of $76 million.
As a hand-picked committee waded through applications, the costs of projects making the cut were recalibrated to take into account inflation and annual growth, adding about $11 million to the number, for a cap of $87.9 million.
For the county to perform at a clip that ends with only $67.9 million being realized, it would mean zero growth for the remaining life of the collection.
Soon after Chappell’s outline, the county on its website posted quarterly collection rates for the 2016 sales tax, along with updates on the status of projects.
FERC, county find
common ground on
spillway projectGreenwood County’s seemingly constant battle with federal regulators over design parameters for construction of an emergency spillway at the lake took a turn for the harmonious in 2019.
On Sept. 20, County Engineer Rob Russian said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, gave its blessing to a 60% design threshold for the project — the closet Greenwood has been in more than 10 years to finally getting the work started.
The county has $21 million earmarked for the venture — funds generated through a 2007 voter-approved capital projects sales tax initiative that can be used for no other purpose under state law.
In early December, County Manager Toby Chappell and Russian spent two days meeting with a Board of Consultants and FERC representatives to go over specs for a project that was nearly ready to launch, until federal regulators put the brakes on at the last minute.
In January 2017, the County Council learned FERC would not approve plans to build the contraption — known as a fuse plug — until local leaders either took part in the agency’s Risk Informed Decision Making process or convened another consultants’ board to evaluate the proposal for a second time since March 2012.
Russian said in January a preferred design came out of those talks — but several more rounds of negotiations will be needed until work can finally begin.
FERC mandated the spillway because diverting waters through the structure would not only protect the lake’s earthen dam but a 15-megawatt hydroelectric facility less than a mile away.
Russian said additional hydrological modeling will be needed as the design progress, and he’ll ask the county in October for a transfer from the hydro project fund to cover those costs.
Originally Published by Index-Journal on:Dec 29, 2019
By ADAM BENSON For the Index-Journal