Sorting through assessment, rollback and inflation computations, Orangeburg County Council rejected a motion to cut one mill of taxes in an uncertain economy and voted 6-1 to set the new millage rate during a special session Tuesday.

With tax bills set to go out sometime the first week of December, the impact on individual property owners during the reassessment year will depend on whether their property values increased.

“Every individual situation is different,” said County Administrator Bill Clark.

Council Chairman Harry Wimberly asked what the tax increase would be on the owner of a $100,000 house, if that property goes up in assessed value the full 15 percent allowed. He was told by Councilman Willie B. Owens that the increase in taxes, with the rollback for reassessment, would be an extra $9.60.

The concern is not so much residential taxpayers, but those businesses taxed at a higher rate, said Councilman Clyde Livingston, who voted against the millage rate.

“The problem is not going to be with folks with a $100,000 house,” he said. “It’s the commercial and business and (owners of) rental houses,” which are taxed at a higher rate.

Livingston got no support in his motion to cut that rate by one mill, a move Wimberly called “premature.”

“I don’t think it would be an overreaction to roll back one more mill,” Livingston said. “We as a county entity, as far as dealing with our taxpayers and citizens, if we don’t roll back a little more, we haven’t taken any of the pain.”

According to Livingston, the “bottom line is we’ve got 10 percent growth ... not growth, but a 10 percent increase in the value of a mill countywide. If you kept your millage the same, just hypothetically, would that give us a 10 percent increase in tax revenues?”

According to Clark, Livingston’s calculations don’t take into account the collection factor and should be a little less.

Livingston also noted that the shift in the amount of abatements shows that the county’s emphasis on economic development is working.

“Abatements are getting smaller and fee-in-lieu-of-taxes are getting larger,” he said.

Wimberly argued Livingston’s proposal would adversely impact the county budget, especially with a $357,000 cut in state revenues that were not factored in the equation. And, he said, “if the value of a mill goes down next year,” council is limited by the cap on raising taxes.

Owens said he’d “rather err with caution” and give taxpayers any extra money back next year.

“What if revenues continue to decline at the state and local level?” he asked. “I really feel the pain. It just doesn’t hurt the general public. ... Do the best we can for the citizens, but make prudent decisions, not based on people. ... I’d rather be prudent here.”

If the tax rate were dropped one mill, Wimberly questioned whether that mill could come from a one-time allowance for natural disasters and emergencies. The proposed millage calls for 2.4 mills for the unexpected hike in fuel costs (1.9 mills) and the debris clean-up after the March tornado in Branchville (0.5 mill).

Although Clark said that would be better than taking a mill from the base, Wimberly noted that the county has just recovered after running a deficit in its public works budget for years.

Councilwoman Janie Cooper reminded council that the Council of Governments has predicted $7 a gallon for gasoline.

“Doesn’t that scare you?” she asked.

Cooper also reiterated her support for any effort to allow taxpayers to pay their bills in installments. Even though they would have to pay in advance, she said, they still wouldn’t have to pay all at one time.

Wimberly also asked for reassurance that the county’s fire departments would not lose funding, when the millage rate drops from 17 to 16.5 mills. With increased values, he was told that the funds for the individual departments will either be more than the previous year or at least the same.

“I certainly want to make the statement that in the fire district we certainly have no intention of the fire departments having any less money than in the last budget,” the chairman said. “There’s no intent to cut the fire budget whatsoever.”

As explained by Clark, three factors were applied to the 2007 millage rate – 6.2 mills in rollback calculations to offset reassessment increases, the application of the 3 percent Consumer Price Index for inflation and the 2.4 mills applied to the general fund for the one-time event exceptions (unexpected fuel costs and tornado clean-up).

Applying the three factors, the general fund millage goes from 78 mills in 2007 to 77.8 mills in 2008; capital improvements stays the same at 3 mills; solid waste goes from 12 mills to 11.6 mills; education changes from 9.1 mills to 8.8 mills and debt service stays the same at 7 mills.

The fire district millage rate changes from 17 mills in 2007 to 16.5 mills in 2008. Also, in the three special purpose districts, New Brookland has a reduction from 3.1 mills to 3 mills; Brookdale lighting goes from 4.1 mills to 4 mills and Whittaker lighting is reduced from 6 mills to 5.7 mills.

Also, according to Clark, the value of a mill has increased $23,253 – from $228,235 to $251,488.

“So that’s why fewer mills are required,” said Clark, explaining that rollbacks are required during reassessment to keep revenues neutral.

T&D Government Writer Tucker Lyon can be reached at tlyon@times anddemocrat.com or by calling 803-533-5545. Discuss this and other stories at www.TheTandD.com.

You must be logged in to comment.