Agenda Package - 01-22-08 (Finance)

Home Browse Search

NCACC Page 2 of4 "At budget hearings over the last four to five years, citizens would ask, 'why can't you give some relief to the property tax? There's never been a doubt that any additional ® revenue source or Medicaid cost avoidance would be programmed into our debt service," Sauer said. Catawba County asked for a 1-cent local-option tax earlier this summer after the county identified a series of capital projects that would have resulted in a 9-cent property tax increase. The quarter-cent sales tax is estimated to generate more than $5 million for the county, the equivalent of a 3.6 cent property tax increase. A citizens group, Catawba County Citizens for Tax Fairness, raised some funds and hired a consultant to lead a public information campaign. The committee raised public awareness of the needs for the new revenue by sending out a series of mailings to likely voters explaining how the money would be used and what are the alternatives for generating the necessary revenue (i.e. higher property taxes). The initiative passed by almost a 3-1 margin. "We knew it was going to take an educational campaign," said Catawba County Chair Kitty Barnes. "There were three mailings that went out, and they were very targeted. They didn't go to every single citizen. They went to those who were most likely to vote. We were also good to get out to any group who would have any one of us come speak" Pitt County leaders had been advocating for a local-option sales tax for education for three years, said County Manager Scott Elliott. So when the General Assembly's budget included the sales tax option, the county swung into high gear. Elliott said that when the county first considered the idea three years ago, it reached out to the school board, the community college board and the chamber of commerce. All three entities supported the need for a local-option sales tax and formed a group ® called STAC - Sales Tax Advocacy Committee. That group was eventually transformed into a citizens group called CFEC - Citizens For Education Construction. This group raised more than $13,000 between the time the state budget was adopted and the Nov. 6 election, Elliott said. The group purchased ads in local media, distributed yard signs, put up a Web site (www.cfec.info) and formed a speaker's bureau that sent representatives to speak to any citizens group that requested one. Martin County took a different approach, said County Manager Russell Overman. County commissioners did not specify how the funds would be used, but focused on the overall needs of the county, including education. Citizens trusted the commissioners to use the extra funds wisely and passed the measure with nearly 60 percent voting for. It was a white-knuckle affair in Surry County, as the final results were not announced until two days after the election. Surry County Manager Macon Sammons went to bed Tuesday night thinking the county had a comfortable lead of 66 votes. But when he awakened on Wednesday, he was greeted with the news that a tabulating error had occurred and the county's margin was down to 16 votes, with the status of 47 provisional votes still yet to be determined. The Board of Elections met on Friday to review the provisional votes and wound up disqualifying nine. Of the remaining 38, 24 were for the sales tax and only 14 against, giving the county a final lead of 26 votes. Eleven counties exclusively pursued the land transfer tax option but none were successful. Five counties put both options on the ballot, and voters rejected both in all five counties. "This is going to be an ongoing process," Thompson said. "It is difficult to educate the voters about the needs in a local community in such a short time frame, but this was