Yet another sales tax plan introduced

Staff reports

A North Carolina Senate proposal to change the way sales tax revenues are distributed has once again been changed. Senate Bill 369 was changed to legislation that would call for a distribution of sales tax revenue based 50 percent on point of sale and 50 percent on the population of a county.

Stokes County Commissioners have repeatedly expressed their hope that the plan will come to fruition, counting on it to help reduce the need to increase local property taxes in coming budget cycles.

According to data provided by the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, Stokes County sales tax revenues, under the new plan, would increase by about $1,691,695 if the plan is implemented as proposed for the 2016-17 fiscal year.

Under the most recent plan, King, Danbury and Walnut Cove would also see increases in sales tax revenues. According to the projections Danbury’s revenues would increase from $10,542 in FY 2015-16 to $13,436 in FY 2016-17, King’s revenues would increase from $810,996 in FY 2015-16 to $1,036,782 in FY 2016-17 and Walnut Cove’s revenues would increase from $155,340 in FY 2015-16 to $198,430 in FY 2016-17.

Senate Bill 369, which was introduced in late-March, is sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Brown of Onslow, Stokes County’s Sen. Shirley Randleman and more than a dozen other Republican lawmakers. Since its introduction the bill has been a hot-ticket item all over the state.

Stiff opposition

The overall concept of the legislation is to shift sales tax revenue distribution from a point of sale system in which revenues remain where they are earned to a per capita distribution that would take funds earned in larger metropolitan and tourist areas and distribute the revenue around the state based on population.

The proposal met its first opposition from lawmakers and other public officials when those officials from larger counties with more shopping centers and other revenue-garnering businesses lined up against it. Sen. Joel Ford, who represents Mecklenburg County, went as far as to call Brown’s bill “short-sighted” and “a redistribution of wealth.”

However, opposition didn’t stop in larger counties that were destined to lose sales tax revenue under the proposal. In its initial form the bill, that had been entitled “The Sales Tax Fairness Act,” would have stripped some taxing authority from counties and municipalities and converted those sales taxes into a state sales tax.

Surry County Commissioner Larry Phillips was among the most out-spoken local officials opposing Brown’s initial plan. Phillips explained that state lawmakers had given local officials little reason to trust the actions of Raleigh when it comes to promises of funding, citing Education Lottery fund money as one example of his and others’ mistrust of the goings-on in the state capitol.

In retaliation to state lawmakers’ attempts to strip counties and municipalities of some of their taxing authority, Phillips even went as far as saying “Why elect us (county commissioners). Maybe Raleigh just ought to appoint us.”

Additionally, Surry County commissioners and three of the county’s four municipalities joined other entities across the state in passing resolutions in opposition to the proposed measure. Brown and other lawmakers went back to the drawing board, introducing a new plan in early June.

The new plan included a phased-in approach that changed the sales tax distribution system to a system based 80 percent on population and 20 percent on point of sale. The June proposal also did not strip taxing authority from counties and municipalities. However, it did expand the tax base, placing sales taxes on services such as veterinarian clinics.

Local officials like Phillips described the June plan, which would have been almost revenue-neutral for Surry County as “more palatable.” Surry County Manager Chris Knopf said that he was “OK” with the June plan.

Stokes and Rockingham county officials have repeatedly fallen on the other side of the issue, passing resolutions and sending letters to state government expressing their support of the news sales tax plan.

Gov. Pat McCrory had stated he would veto the original plan, prompting Stokes County Commissioners to request a letter be sent to him on behalf of the county at the end of July.

“This benefits about 83 counties of a hundred in the state,” said Commissioner James Booth. “It would be good for our rural county and would bring some sales tax monies back into the county.”

Commissioner Jimmy Walker questioned what impact a veto on the proposal could have in the next governor’s race.

“People you upset remember things longer than the people you please,” he said. “If he is upsetting people in 83 counties, I am wondering what kind of effect that might have for him the future. Folks in these rural counties are going to remember something like this for a long time.

Where it stands now

While the June plan may have been “OK” with Knopf, apparently it wasn’t “OK” with some lawmakers in Raleigh. According to an email from the N.C. Association of County Commissioners to county officials throughout the state, the Senate Finance Committee chose to vote its approval on Brown’s new 50-50 distribution plan last week.

The new plan, moving from an 80-20 distribution to a 50-50 distribution, would still have some negative impact on several North Carolina counties. The counties that would be hardest hit by the new proposal are Durham and Dare, which would each see more than $4 million in lost sales tax revenues as a result of Brown’s 50-50 distribution plan.

Dare County Manager Robert Outten said that he’s absolutely not opposed to helping distressed counties, but he is opposed to any form of Senate Bill 369. Outten explained that his county had a population of about 35,000 residents, though services in the county support a much larger population.

“Our economy is based on tourism. Right now we have about 300,000 people here who we provide services for,” said Outten. Outten said the financial hit that Dare County would take as a result of Brown’s proposal accounts for about 5 percent of the county’s annual operating budget.

“Since 2008 we have cut everything we can in our budget. Further cuts would be to the meat of our services. We would probably have to raise ad valorem (property) taxes to make up for the shortfall,” said Outten. “That would amount to our residents footing the bill for services provided to tourists.”

Outten called the Brown’s proposal to narrow the gap between counties that are doing well and distressed counties a “scatter-shot approach” that redistributes some funds from some counties to others. “It’s not directed where it needs to be,” commented Outten.

“This proposal removes all incentive for us to do well in every category. It removes economic development incentives, and removes the incentive for us to do a good job monitoring expenditures. We’ve kept our tax rate low here, and now we could face increasing it,” explained Outten.

In the end, Outten said the Senate’s new sales tax proposal is no different than the two prior proposals. “Any county that was a winner is still a winner, and any county that was a loser is still a loser,” said Outten.

Staff reports

Andy Winemiller is a staff writer at the Mount Airy News. Andy can be reached at (336) 415-4698 or

Andy Winemiller is a staff writer at the Mount Airy News. Andy can be reached at (336) 415-4698 or

comments powered by Disqus