FCIA News Release -April 10th, 2008- 11,000 Citizens Sign Fee Reduction Petition
Ladies and gentlemen and members of The Florence County Citizens In Action, thank you for being here today.
On March 20, 2008 petitions signed by over 11,000 citizens of Florence County were delivered to the Clerk of Florence County Council. That was three weeks ago and as far as we know, this mandate from the public has not been acknowledged or discussed by the members of council at an open meeting
I am here today on behalf of the Florence County Citizens In Action and over 11,000 citizens of Florence County who signed the petition to lower the $30 Road Maintenance Fee to the original $15. This fee is extremely unpopular and 11,000 citizens signed the petition, not because they are against road maintenance, but because they feel that the roads are not being adequately maintained and because they resent that a portion (currently fourteen percent) of this fee is being diverted to the nine separate Road System Maintenance Funds of the individual councilmen and that over a million dollars has accumulated in these nine discretionary funds.
This fee is imposed on all vehicles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, and commercial vehicles owned by an individual regardless of the number of vehicles the individual owns and regardless of the value of the vehicle. Often the $30 fee totals more than the property tax on older vehicles, which are often owned by elderly and low income persons. This money is a fee, not a tax and cannot be deducted as a tax expense by the taxpayers. 
In 2003 there was a budget shortfall. In order to balance the budget, County Council first proposed a countywide business tax. When there was an organized outcry from the business community, County Council instead voted on June 3, 2003 to double the Road Maintenance Fee to $30.
Prior to 2006, the monies collected via the Road Maintenance Fee were deposited in the General Fund. Beginning with the 2006/2007 county budget and continuing with the 2007/2008 county budget these monies have been used to fund the Public Works Department. Previously the Public Works Department was funded through the General Fund, but beginning with the 2006/2007 budget it was changed to a special fund called Fund 30. Almost the entire budget of the Public Works Department (Fund 30) is now funded via the Road Maintenance Fee.
In reviewing the 2007/2008 Fund 30 (Public Works) budget, we find that it contains a high degree of detail. It includes four pages of explanation, more than any other entry in the budget. We applauded these efforts to lend disclosure. A pie chart (Attachment #1), that is included on page 137, indicates that $3,145,696 will be collected from the Road Maintenance fee. Of this amount, the pie chart shows 70% or 2.2 million of the Road Maintenance Fee will be used for maintenance of county dirt and county paved roads. 14% or $440,000 is allocated from the nine individual council members’ RSM Funds and is to be used for maintenance of county dirt and paved roads. Based on this information, outlined in the pie chart, on March 12, 2008, I delivered a FOI request (Attachment #2.1) to the County Administrator, Richard Starks asking for a list by street name of the dirt roads and a list by street name of paved roads on which maintenance was done in the fiscal year 2006/2007 when 3.2 m was budgeted to Public Works. I asked for the type of maintenance and the cost. I asked for the same information pertaining to the council members’ RSM Funds.
I received a reply on April 2, 2008 ,three weeks later, (Attachment #2.2, Attachment #2.3) informing me that this information was not available in the
format I requested; however, for an estimated $1,059.13 I could receive 505 pages of information concerning my request. I was warned that additional cost could occur. I am afraid FCCIA does
not have the funds or the time to wade through 500 pages to extract information.
A copy of my letter and the reply is included in your packet of information.
Unfortunately, there appears to be no systematic records for specific road maintenance and for this reason we can’t give you this list of roads and the cost of maintenance for the past fiscal year. However, we do have a pie chart (Attachment #3) that we have compiled. This chart is very enlightening as to how the current 3.6 million budgeted to the Public Works Department is allocated to be spent. The information comes from the 2007/2008 budget, beginning on page 138.
48% or $1,732,596 goes to salaries and benefits for 49 employees.
33% or $1,188,780 goes to capital outlay. This includes the purchase of 13 vehicles.
Only 19% or $704,493 goes to operational expenses.
Of this amount nearly half goes towards fuel charges. Items, such as insurance, consulting, and telephone charges, also consume substantial amounts of the operating expenses. Only $10,000 or less than 1% of the total budget is budgeted to be spent on road maintenance materials. We recognize the need to upgrade equipment and to ensure that all is in proper working order. However, given the state of our roads, we ask if this money could not be better spent on actual road maintenance, making use of existing equipment?
Fund 30 (Public Works Department) is now funded by the Road Maintenance Fee, which is expected to generate $3.1m in revenue, yet the Public Works Department is budgeted to spend $3.6m. This difference is made up by revenue from Capital Leases, of which a portion goes to benefit Fund 30, a portion is used for debt servicing, and a portion is transferred to Fund 65, which is the discretionary RSM Fund of individual council members. At the end of January 2007, Fund 65 had over 1.3m in unspent rolled over funds, and with the next budget transfer of $420,000, there will be close to 1.7m available. This is over twice the Operational Expense budget available to the Public Works Department.
Why are these council members’ discretionary RSM Funds rolled over year after year? Given the state of our roads, and the low amount in Public Works’ operational budget, this money should be transferred over for actual road maintenance.
If these discretionary funds are being held for a specific usage, the people have a right to know what it is. However, this is not the case. The discretionary RSM Funds are rolled over year after year without a specific plan. The councilmen seem to have forgotten that this money belongs to the people and not to them.
We urge them to release this money so it can be utilized by the public works department, not to hire staff or buy equipment, but to maintain the roads, which is the usage for which it was intended. 11,000 people have petitioned that they do this very thing. This is a clear mandate from the public asking that the money be freed from the council members’ funds and to be used for road maintenance as it was intended.
The ordinances pertaining to the Road Maintenance Fee indicate that the guidelines and intent of this fee was not to give property tax relief, balance the budget, or to fund the Public Works Department, but to supplement the County’s funding of the maintenance of county roads. The funds were intended 
to be used for specific expenses to specific road projects. The money was not intended to fund expenses of the Public Works Department such as salaries and staffing expenses. The fee was not intended for capital outlay expenses, but was intended to give assistance to the financial mechanism already in place.
As we mentioned earlier, we applauded the high degree of detail provided with four pages of supplemental material include with Fund 30. On page 137, the page with the pie chart, (Attachment #1) the next to the last paragraph states that approximately 3 million
in revenue is generated by this fee and this translates into 8 mills of taxes. Based on this, I assume that reducing the fee to $15 would equate to 4 mills in taxes. The disclaimer goes on to state that partial reduction of this fee would result in reduction of services or an increase in taxes (4 mills).
We disagree. First of all, the over 1.3 million in rolled over discretionary RSM Funds
should be applied to road maintenance along with the elimination of future annual allocations of $420,000. I have received copies of the latest County balance sheets. It appears that the County is operating with increasing surplus funds. The June 30, 2007 Statement of Net Assets shows an unrestricted surpluses of over 30.9 million. We think this is good business practice for the county to have a surplus and applaud this success. With the budget surplus and with the application of 1.3 million in discretionary RSM Funds, a tax increase appears not to be necessary. 
The Annual Financial Report of 2006/2007 reinforces the above opinion. I am quoting from page 21 of the 2006/2007 Annual Financial Report, “The fund balance of Florence County’s general fund increased by $4,945,628 during the current fiscal year. The key factor in this reduction is as follows: Revenues exceeded expenditures by over $3,900,000 due to property taxes and investments earnings exceeding what was budgeted and expenditures being controlled throughout the year.” The county should certainly be commended for this excellent stewardship of the tax payers’ money. With this surplus it appears, that at this time, there would be no need to raise taxes to replace a reduction to $15 of the Road Maintenance Fee.
Does this mean that if there is another budget shortfall, that the $15 should be added back on? No! Fees are for a specific purpose and should not be used to balance the budget as a one time fix and then be left on permanently.
If a tax increase (of 4 mills) is imposed, it appears that the people will still be better off, especially those with older vehicles or multiple vehicles. Over 11,000 people have petitioned, not just for a reduction of this fee, but for reform of the system. County Council needs to address this mandate from the public as soon as possible. A copy of the law referring to submission of petitions is included for your review (Attachment #4).
We are asking council to act on this petition as quickly as possible and are hoping that they will accept this mandate from the public. Under South Carolina law, if this petition with 15% of signatures of the electorate is not acted upon by council, it must be placed on the ballot as a referendum to be voted on by the public. The law states that this action must take place not less than thirty days nor more than one year from the date council take its final vote. Three weeks have already passed without public discussion of this urgent matter. We urge Florence County Council to acknowledge this mandate from the people and to take appropriate action.
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
From the reaction of County Council to this petition it’s clear they don’t want to consider the views of their constituents; not by petition and certainly not by referandum. They consider themselves the final authority for how county funding should be collected and spent and apparently are appalled that the citizens of Florence County might question their decisions. They seem to forget they are elected to serve and not to dictate. I hope their constituents take note of little they value our opinions.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Never before, in the history of Florence County, has there been an outcry by 11,000 people for change. Councilman Schofield may label the FCCIA as having “perverted logic” by assuming the councilmen think it is their money. The money belongs to the taxpayers – let the people decide by voting in a referendum.