Category Archives: Taxation

Capital Project Sales Tax Info & Empowerment That Voters Must Understand

Empowering voters to make better informed decisions on the Aiken County Capital Project Sales Tax (CPST) questions on the 2024 General Election ballot.

By Vicki Simons
October 29, 2024

On the General Election 2024 ballot in Aiken County, South Carolina — and possibly other places around our state — voters will have the option to vote for or against a 1% sales tax to be used for listed capital projects.

Let’s look at this issue in some detail…

South Carolina State Law on LOST/CPST

Title 4, Chapter 10, Article 1, of the South Carolina Code of Laws allows counties within our state to:

  • establish a Local Option Sales Tax (LOST),
  • which may be called a “Capital Project Sales Tax” (CPST), and
  • which is “a sales and use tax of one percent on the gross proceeds of sales within the county area.”

Section 4-10-30 (B) of the SC Code of Laws provides this template of a question for the ballot, with options for voters to select “Yes” or “No”:
“The ballot must read substantially as follows: 
‘Must a one percent sales and use tax be levied in __________ County for the purpose of allowing a credit against a taxpayer’s county and municipal ad valorem tax liability and for the purpose of funding county and municipal operations in the __________ County area?’”

Part of Paragraph (D) in that same section reads, in part:
“The notice must show the anticipated credit on the following classes of property: 
(1) a primary residence; 
(2) personal property including, but not limited to, an automobile; 
(3) a commercial facility; 
(4) an industrial facility.”

Paragraph (D) is most likely the reason why a LOST/CPST question on the 2024 General Election ballot may be extremely long, because it lists every single project that will be tackled if a majority of electors so desire passage.

CPST: New vs. Existing Tax

In some counties, a Capital Project Sales Tax is not a new tax but rather the continuation, renewal, or “reimposition” of an existing tax.

For example, in Aiken County, the CPST question on the 2024 General Election ballot is the fifth time that this tax issue has come before the voters (nicknamed “CPST V” or “CPST5”), each rendition of the CPST covering different projects.

In Aiken County, the projects under CPST V were determined by members appointed to a “Capital Sales Tax V Commission,” the “Project List” being shown on page 87 of their 99-page CC Docs document for their May 7, 2024, meeting.

You may also see it listed on the county’s website, under Ordinances > 2024, listed as: “ORD Reimpose & Continue a One percent Sales Tax (CPST5).”

CPST: What Gets Funded and By Whom?

While general classes of projects paid for with CPST funds may vary from county to county, Aiken County’s project classes include:

  • All vehicles;
  • All dirt road paving;
  • All park acquisitions and improvements;
  • All capital support for the volunteer fire departments; and
  • All building and facility additions, expansions, and improvements.

According to one online resource regarding Aiken County’s CPST V proposal:

  • A substantial part of the sales tax revenues generated by the CPST may be paid by those living outside of the County;
  • Without the CPST, 100 percent of property tax revenues making up the difference will be from local property owners;
  • Most CPST-funded projects are paid in cash, requiring neither borrowing nor interest; and
  • The CPST will supposedly attract new industry and industrial expansions.

CPST: Aiken County, SC, Specifics

In Aiken County, CPST ordinances must go through 3 readings before County Council before advancing to the ballot.

One of those readings is a Public Hearing, during which members of the public may comment specifically about that.

So far in 2024, I have spoken 3 times before Aiken County Council about the CPST, once during the Public Hearing.

On February 20, 2024, I gave background about a CPST and then encouraged Aiken County Council to do these 4 specific things:

  1. Show true transparency and openness regarding the announcement and documentation of all meetings pertaining to the CPST;
  2. Make the case for the CPST to those at the top of the County’s Organizational Chart, Aiken County Voters, including using visuals for visual learners;
  3. Insist that industries invited here be in keeping with freedom, liberty, and the citizens’ values; and
  4. Carefully weigh any future “Fee in Lieu of Tax” agreements which could alter the tax landscape in Aiken County substantially.

On June 4 and July 16, 2024, I pointed out to Aiken County Council that the information on their website showed:

  • Poor execution of CPST III (2013 – 2020) projects, with 86 of the 175 projects either not having been started or the information not being updated; and
  • No project information under CPST IV at all.

I asked for accountability for these projects being completed in a timely manner, especially since inflation has eroded the value of the U.S. dollar over the 4 years between April 2020 and April 2024 by an estimated 22%.

Prior to writing this article, I was of the opinion that Aiken County Council made a poor case for passage of CPST V for the following reasons:

  • Poor accountability on their website; and
  • No reporting during regular meetings on CPST project status updates, even if by a County staff member.

Since I started writing this article:

  • I have found that the CPST information on AikenCountySC.gov has been updated; and
  • I have come to believe that my speeches helped to spur at least one person within Aiken County government into taking that action.

I have challenged Aiken County Council regarding CPST projects to ensure:

  • Transparency;
  • Openness;
  • Accountability; and
  • Visibility.

In the future, I plan to address the need for CPST project status updates to be made during Aiken County Council’s regular meetings, not just during their Work Sessions or Committee meetings.

I also suggested that Council create a committee of non-conflicted people from around Aiken County to meet on a quarterly basis regarding CPST project oversight.

Because Aiken County’s CPST V project list includes non-county projects for 2 cities and 8 smaller municipalities, I know someone who believes that CPST money represents a “slush fund” that is poorly managed.

I would love to see groups of people around South Carolina — who are concerned about a Local Option Sales Tax in their areas — to hold their elected officials accountable.

Misleading Info and An Objection Regarding CPST

One popular but misleading nickname for the LOST or CPST — at least in Aiken County — is “Penny Tax.”

The “Penny Tax” nickname leads people to the erroneous belief that:

  • The amount being collected is only one cent ($0.01) per transaction on the total cost of goods and services;
  • When, in fact, the amount being collected is 1% of the “gross proceeds of sales.”

So, on a $1,000 purchase, a 1% sales tax amounts to $10 being added to the bill, not $0.01.

Some people may object to a LOST or CPST because sales taxes tend to affect lower-income folks disproportionately, making them pay a larger percentage of their income on taxed goods and services.

Voter Empowerment Regarding 2024 CPST Ballot Questions

Having written that, now let me take a step back and provide you with some empowering information in order to encourage you to vote — whether yes or no — on any LOST/CPST question on the 2024 General Election ballot.

First, we read in The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

If you are a U.S. citizen, you are part of “the governed.”

Second, Article I, Section 1, of The Constitution of the State of South Carolina reads:

“All political power is vested in and derived from the people only, therefore, they have the right at all times to modify their form of government.”

If you are a South Carolina citizen, you are one of “the people.”

Third, every year, the Comptroller General of South Carolina prepares an Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), the 307-page document for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023, being online here.

On page 15 of the 2023 ACFR, there is an organizational chart showing [South Carolina] Voters at the top over all branches of South Carolina Government:

  • Executive Branch;
  • Legislative Branch; and
  • Judicial Branch (which currently is “under” the Legislative Branch).

If you are registered to vote in South Carolina, you are one of “the voters.”

Fourth, Aiken County’s 2024 Organizational Chart shows that “Aiken County Voters” are at the top, over all county-level government bodies, judicial officials, constitutional officers, elected officials, and others.

If you live in Aiken County and you are registered to vote, you are one of the “Aiken County Voters.”

Other counties may have similar organizational charts that show their voters at the top.

Sixth, in order to familiarize yourself with what will be on your ballot before you get to your polling location (in part, so that you aren’t freaked out about the length of a CPST question on your ballot):

Finally, now that you know the power that you have, you may be better equipped to go forth and vote on any Local Option Sales Tax or Capital Project Sales Tax question that comes before you on the 2024 General Election ballot.

______________________

This article first appeared at Palmetto State Watch

Other stories regarding Capital Project Sales Tax:

More than Pennies. The 2024 Confluence of One-Percent Sales Tax Referendums.

CPST Requests: 264,066,386

The One-Percent Sales Tax Referendum Public Hearing

The DOE/SRS Payment in Lieu of Taxes:

In 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) paid Aiken County $1.62 million in lieu of taxes for its 72,471-acre portion of the Savannah River Site (SRS) that is in the County.

DOE has been paying this same nominal amount since 2009.

The SRS Payment in Lieu of Taxes is considerably higher than the tax payments that would be levied if the entire property were used strictly for agricultural purposes, including timber production, but appear substantially lower relative to other large industrial enterprises in Aiken County.

For example, Bridgestone paid nearly $3.0 million in 2023, and five other companies paid at least $0.25 million.

by Don Moniak
July 24, 2024

The recent debate over the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant shed public light on the concept of “Fee in Lieu of Taxes”, wherein counties negotiate tax incentives to attract larger industries and employers. (1)

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) occupies 198,344 acres of land across three counties (Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale), of which 72,471 acres are in Aiken county. The total captial investments across the site easily exceed $100 billion.

If it were privately owned, DOE/SRS would, like Bridgestone, Kimberly Clark, Autoneum, and numerous other major local employers, be paying a negotiated Fee in Lieu of Taxes. (FILOT).

However, since federal property is exempt from taxes, the best and only deal since ~1969 for Aiken County to recoup lost revenue from the land has been to arrange for a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PiLT) with DOE.

In his June 2024 newsletter, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) described a portion of an exchange he had with one of DOE’s highest-ranking officials:  

With the (Department of Energy’s) Savannah River Site transitioning from an Environment Management to a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) site, there were concerns about PiLT being impacted. During a House Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby if there would be any changes and she testified that everything would remain the same. I am also grateful to have language included in the FY25 NDAA that reaffirms NNSA’s commitment to fund PiLT.” (2) 

Congressman Wilson’s lob-ball question had a self-congratulatory air to it. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was already one of many DOE program offices involved in the PiLT program; there was no reason to believe it would not be at SRS.

In fact, DOE had already paid $1.62 million to Aiken County for Calendar Year 2023, or $22.35 per acre. On April 16, 2024, Aiken County Council approved a Resolution, as part of its Consent Agenda, to accept the 2023 Payment in Lieu of Taxes from DOE (Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Resolution to accept Payment in Lieu of Taxes for Calendar Year 2023. Click to enlarge.


The questions that were not asked by Congressman Wilson, or at least not reported, were “How much should DOE be paying,” and “Why is DOE paying the same Payment in Lieu of Taxes today that it has paid since 2009?” 

The PiLT at SRS

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PiLT) are generally defined as “payments that help local governments offset losses in property taxes due to the existence of nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries.”  The Savannah River Site (SRS) is is one of twelve Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities sites that require a Payment in Lieu of Taxes to the local communities in which they are located.

The calculation of this payment is based in large part upon acreage, estimated value, the assessment ratio, and the property tax rate; which in turn is dependent upon what the land use classification would be if the lands were privately owned. In the case of SRS, the question of whether that classification would be commercial, residential, industrial, and/or agricultural/forestry is much more challenging because of the enormity of the site.

According to a 2020 General Accounting Office report that assessed inequities and inconsistencies in the program, PiLT payments have always been calculated to “reflect the revenues communities would have received had the property remained on the tax rolls in the condition in which it was acquired.” (In the case of most of the DOE nuclear weapons production complex, “acquired” also involved the forced relocation of entire existing communities.)

The conditions in which the SRS properties were acquired (or seized, depending on one’s outlook) in the early 1950’s included the basis of “highest and best use” at the time of the acquisition, defined as the “highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed in the reasonably near future” in the year before the properties were seized. Though that may all sound confusing, it all boils down to “what were the uses of the land before being acquired” and “what would be the near-future potential of the land if it had not been acquired.”

When SRS was developed in the early 1950’s, the dominant land uses were of agricultural and timberland purposes; with scattered commercial enterprises, including a veneer plant and some small sawmills. Although “reasonably near future potential” would undoubtedly have included some private industrial facilities similar to those in Augusta, whether was this factored into the early Payment in Lieu of Taxes is not evidenced.

In 2007, DOE and Aiken County adjusted the per-acre value for Aiken and Barnwell Counties, establishing a property value of $1,641 per acre and $712 per acre, respectively. The GAO reported that:

According to county officials, the counties and DOE agreed to use a negotiated rate rather than a rate based on current assessment values partly because of the difficulty of conducting appraisals because of the large amount of land, lack of comparable properties, and the high expense of an appraisal. Because of this reliance on a negotiated, rather than assessed value, it is unclear whether these payments reflect the revenues the counties would have received had the property remained on the tax rolls in the condition in which it was acquired. Had DOE required independent review of key determinants of PILT payments, this deviation from using assessed values might have been avoided.

The $1.6 Million Aiken County PiLT payment.

In 2023, the Aiken County Assessor’s Office (3) determined that the 72,471 acres of SRS property in the County had a market land value of $217.4 million, or $3,000 per acre; an 83-percent increase over the 2007 negotiated PiLT rate that involves a mix of agricultural and industrial taxation values.

Agricultural and forest lands taxation values vary according to soil productivity.

As a few points of reference, the owner of a 1,663-acre managed forestland a few miles southwest of SRS had a tax bill in 2023 of $2,169; or $1.31/acre. The owner of a second, more productive site closer to the Savannah River paid $2.05/acre. And the owner of a 98-acre forested parcel closer to the SRS boundary paid $113 in property taxes in 2023; or $1.15/acre. 

Northeast and downwind of SRS, Walther Farms paid $15,525 on its 3,748-acre farm along Oak Ridge Road northeast of downtown Windsor; or $4.14/acre.

Since the SRS property is composed primarily of forested lands that are largely managed for timber production, their PiLT of $22.35/acre could be viewed as quite a reasonable deal for Aiken County.

But the SRS landscape also includes dangerous nuclear facilities and some of the most toxic radiochemical waste stews in the nation; including ~34 million gallons of unstable “tank waste” composed of highly radioactive “sludge” and “low-level saltcake.” From this perspective, a $1.62 million a year payment could seem very insufficient; as it does little to pay for the advance planning for emergency contingencies in the case of a major nuclear accident at SRS; and certainly not the reduced property value, real or perceived, of nearby lands in such an event. 

For example, the $600 million SRS/Plutonium Settlement of 2020 was obtained by arguing, in part, that the risks of long-term plutonium storage posed unnecessary risks to local communities. While plutonium storage in K-Area poses substantial dangers, the hazards are relatively benign compared to the high-curie contents of the radioactive sludges in F and H area, the irradiated fuel stored in L-Area, and ongoing tritium processing operations.

Even if there was an absence of existing radiochemical hazards at SRS, the PiLT is relatively meager compared to the Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) paid by other large industrial enterprises in Aiken County (Table 1).

CompanyFILOT/PiLT
($ Million)
AcreageBuilding Footprints (Square Ft)
DOE/SRS$1.62 72,471Unavailable*
Bridgestone**$2.901,0784,200,000
Kimberly Clark$1.65***3842,600,000
MTU$0.4550320,000
Ambiopharm$0.293282,566
Autoneum$0.2524315,000
Table 1: Department of Energy Payment in Lieu of Taxes compared to five highest Fee in Lieu of Taxes payments to Aiken County for Fiscal Year 2024. FILOT data provided by Aiken County Finance Department. FILOT is primarily based on industrial developments and existing equipment depreciation; not on acreage or building footprint. The latter are provided only for a sense of scale. *The SRS industrial footprint dwarfs that of other local industries. The new Plutonium Pit Fabrication Plant and H-Canyon alone combine for nearly a million square feet. Savannah River National Laboratory has another 0.75 million square feet across 59 buildings onsite.**Bridgestone figures are for the two plants combined.
***The Kimberly Clark line item “includes the general fund portion of the FILOT for Kimberly Clark and Shaw, as well as the 1% multi-county park payments from Edgefield, Saluda, and Barnwell.” DOE/SRS building space is estimated.

 

Despite land values in Aiken County having increased substantially since 2007, the DOE/SRS Payment in Lieu of Taxes has remained flat for 16 years. No matter how the numbers are sliced, it is obvious that the Department of Energy is not paying a fair Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PiLT) relative to other industries and non-agricultural property owners.

(From Top Left to Bottom Left: The Defense Waste Processing Facility, the H-Area Industrial Complex, a schematic of K-Area Plutonium storage and disposition-to-waste facilities, and the Savannah River National Laboratory footprint (within red boundary lines).

Footnotes

(1) Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) 

The South Carolina Department of Revenue summarizes FILOT as: 

“Industries that invest at least $2.5 million in South Carolina may negotiate for a fee-in-lieu of property taxes. This can result in a savings of about 40% on property taxes otherwise due for a project. Certain large investments may be able to further reduce their liability by negotiating the assessment ratio from 10.5% down to 6%. For large investments, the assessment ratio can be reduced down to 4%. 

The county and the industry may agree to either set the millage rate for the entire agreement period or have the millage change every five years in step with the average millage rate for the area where the project is located. Any personal property subject to the fee in lieu of property taxes depreciates in accordance with South Carolina law, while the real property is either set at cost for the life of the agreement or can be appraised every five years.

A fee in lieu of property taxes is granted by, and at the discretion of, the county where the project is located. The industry must make the $2.5 million investment over a five-year period to qualify. Large investment projects have eight years to meet their increased investment requirements. During this period, all property that is placed in service pursuant to the agreement is subject to a fee instead of ad valorem property taxes. 

A county may give the industry an additional five years to complete the project and place new property in service subject to the fee. A single piece of property can be subject to the fee for up to 40 years with the county’s consent. The total project can be subject to the fee for up to 50 years with the county’s consent.” 

Encourages retirees to settle here, who benefit from low property taxes. Their limited retirement income isn’t greatly penalized by the high income tax.  Conversely, this tax structure is hard on businesses and manufacturing. It encourages fee-in-lieu of tax agreements and special source revenue credits to get around high property tax rates on large industrial developments. In essence, the left hand must undo the damage caused by the right.” 

(2) SRS remains a Department of Energy (DOE) site. Although DOE’s “semi-autonomous” National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) has replaced DOE’s Environmental Management (EM) division as the SRS “landlord,” the site retains a very substantial EM mission. More jobs still remain in EM than in the weapons program. (See: We Need the Space.

 The Department of Energy’s Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, as authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-703, 42 U.S.C. §2208). DOE Directive 143.1.A details the requirements of the PiLT program at DOE nuclear facilities sites.

GAO Report 20-122 provides extensive details and background of the DOE PiLT program.

(3) While the Assessor continues to list the owner as “Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), C/O Department of Energy,” in all actuality, the AEC was abolished in 1974 and divided into the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Department of Energy now owns the Savannah River Site. 

Just one year ago, the County Assessor’s SRS Parcel Summary reported the site as being in the New Holland Fire District, and listed the land type as being “Commercial 6%.” That listing has since been corrected to read “Government Property.” 

Fire district locations are not directly reported within the Parcel Summary. To determine which fire district a property falls in, a land database user must go to the mapping function and click on “fire district” in the legends list. In this case, SRS properly is shown as being in the SRS Fire District.  


(4) Complete List of the “actual general fund portion of the FILOT payments for Fiscal Year 2024” to Aiken County in 2023; provided by Aiken County Finance Department. (FY 2024 ended on June 30, 2024)

CPST Requests: $264,066,386

Part 2 of the Capital Project Sales Taxes series.

By Don Moniak
May 6, 2024

At its Tuesday, May 7, 2024, public meeting, Aiken County Council will vote on a resolution to move forward with a County voter referendum, to be placed on the November 2024 General Election ballot, for a one-percent Capital Project Sales Tax (CPST). Title 4, Chapter 10 of South Carolina law (Title allows for the imposition of one-percent local option sales taxes (LOST); of which the CPST (Article 3) and the more cumbersome “Education Capital Improvements Sales and Use Tax Act” (Article 4) are two provisions of LOST being applied in this year’s referendums.

The CPST referendum, if passed, will provide tax revenues of up to $264,066,386 for specific capital investments projects and general capital project area; i.e. water, sewer, traffic control, and stormwater management.

As reported in More Than Pennies: The Confluence of One-Percent Sales Tax Referendums, this will be is the fifth one-percent Capital Project Sales Tax voter referendum since 2000 (thus the acronym CPST-V), the second referendum during a Presidential Election year, and the first time county voters will have both a CPST referendum and an Aiken County School District’s capital projects one-percent sales tax referendum on the same ballot.

Council’s resolution (Figure 1) includes appointment of a six-person Sales Tax Commission that “must be established to review the suggested list of projects to check for appropriateness under State law and reasonableness of need to the County.”

The members of the Commission are listed as

Mr. Andrew Marine, Mr. Brett Brannon and Mr. Shane Bagby (Aiken County representatives), Ms. Nora Sanders (Small Towns representative-collectively), Mr. Reggie Ebner (City of Aiken representative) and Mr. Austin Taylor (City of North Augusta representative).”

The resolution begins:

Aiken County and its municipalities have identified several critical capital project needs.”

In this case, “several” is equal to 166 line items ranging from projects as specific as individual new facilities to project areas as vague as “stormwater improvements.” Funding requests by jurisdiction range from $0.2 million to $127 million (Table 1). (The complete list can be found on pages 88-97 of Council’s Agenda documents and in footnote 3)

The costs per line item range from $500 for a park sign in Windsor to $14 million dollars each for City of Aiken Water system and Sewer system improvements. (1)

$14.7 million of the Aiken County funding requests are for the paving of 27 unpaved County roads ($10.7 million) and resurfacing of 50 paved County Roads ($4.7 million). (2)

JurisdictionRequested Funding# of Line Items
Aiken County $127,576,42359
City of Aiken$79,659,73318
City of North Augusta$48,633,58622
Town of Burnettown$2,397,85111
Town of Jackson$1,224,5986
Town of Monetta $210,0004
City of New Ellenton$2,031,0409
Town of Perry$256,2605
Town of Salley$270,88913
Town of Windsor$206,00012
Town of Wagener $1,600,0007
Totals $264,066,386166
Table 1: Breakdown of requested CPST funding requests by jurisdiction. Complete lists are in Footnote 3.

Figure 1: County Council CPST Resolution for May 7, 2024


Footnotes

(1) Adding the requested $8 million for replacing the existing well and septic system in the City’s Beverly D. Clyburn Generations Park brings the City’s projected utilities department funding requests to $36 million—just over 13 percent of the total CPST referendum package.

A request for an additional $5 million for Generations Park is designated for is also scheduled to receive another $5 million for “Tennis, pickleball, and volleyball courts and other features based on an updated Master Plan and community needs.”

(2) The County Road paving program identifies 27 roads on an A-List and 25 roads on a B-List that will be used in the case that any A-list road project cannot be completed.

Resurfacing includes 11 county roads outside of subdivisions, including Old Tory Trail, Powerhouse Road, Brier Patch Lane, and Anderson Pond Road; and 39 roads within four of Aiken County’s neighborhoods near the City of Aiken—Braeloch, Gem Lakes, Quail Hollow, and Foxchase—and one near North Augusta—Lakes and Streams.

Screenshot
Screenshot

Resurfacing projects include six additional Lakes and Streams subdivisions.


(3) Lists of projects and project areas funding requests by jurisdiction. (click to enlarge)

Aiken County Government. To be approved at Council’s May 7th meeting.