Thank you for your service. This looks good. I have a few questions. 1) While I agree the county needs to be responsible and transparent with county funds, why does this “put pressure on Columbia to deliver the state-funded improvements”? I would think they should be fixing state roads in our county regardless of our use of county money. But maybe there is something I don’t know. 2) Why is a single-family home impact fee ($2,825) higher than a multifamily unit ($2,157)? Is the $2,157 the whole apartment building, one apartment in the building, per 1,000 sq ft (as you refer to in the 3rd bullet point), or something else? 3) Are these impact fees retroactive to businesses who have received FILOTs? Or only for new businesses? Will existing single-family homes pay impact fees? Thank you Councilman Blount!
State-Funded Improvements: They should be, but they are behind by around 60 years. This came straight to my ears from SCDOT. So any money we collect from this could simply go into holding while they continue to say it’s a timeline issue. This sales tax has State Roads on it that will be funded by the money and the majority of paving miles in the list are State road miles. With no way to guarantee we will get that money back from the State, we are essentially paying for those roads twice!
Impact Fees Structure: The difference in impact fees between single-family homes and multifamily units is determined by several factors, including the average traffic generated per unit and the overall impact on county resources. The $2,157 fee typically applies per multifamily unit, not the entire building. This approach aims to accurately reflect the different demands that single-family homes and multifamily developments place on infrastructure.
Impact fees are generally applied to new developments and would not be retroactive to businesses that have already received Fee-in-Lieu of Taxes (FILOTs). Existing single-family homes would not be subject to these impact fees unless there are specific changes to the property that trigger a new assessment. This is only for new development, as its purpose is to address the future infrastructure needs of those developments.
Excellent questions and I really appreciate them. This is a LOT to take in and unlike with the current process, I want all citizens to be informed and have a part in the process! Please let me know if that clarified and if not, I am happen to answer any further questions!:)
So TST would go into holding to put pressure on the state? But CPST would pay for the many state roads immediately (and ultimately twice through state and county taxes)? Am I understanding your 1st paragraph correctly, or am I confusing the 2 taxes?
The TST would not require that we address ANY State funded roads. We can compile the list for the County roads based on need, with a Constiuent led initiate. The State roads in the CPST would not be addressed at all. Once we fulfill the County paving needs, we can use that to work with our State reps to get SCDOT to catch up our much needed State repairs with the money they have already collected for it.
If we go with the CPST, we are collecting for the State roads that have already been collected on, which will still simply go to the State. There is no guarantee in the CPST that says giving the money to the State will move us up on the already 60 yr behind timeline.
Basically the collection of the taxes doesn’t guarantee that the State has to address the repairs in any specific timeline. We are just handing them the money.
Whatever the outcome, I will be forever grateful for your intellectual honesty and steadfast determination to execute your sworn duties per the oath you swore!!
Sadly, your outstanding example of proper public service is lost on your counterparts!
Their conduct is, and consistently has been, disgraceful!!!!
Thank you for devoting so much time to “transparency”!!!
The transportation sales tax you have proposed is exactly what is on the ballot. It does not tax groceries, fuel or prescriptions. And the project list was created by public input from many public meetings and online comments.
Impact fees cannot generate the needed funding. Additionally, developers will just add the cost of impact fees into the cost of the house, thus driving up home costs even more.
There are significant differences in the two in that the Transportation sales tax does not require a commission and can be amended to remove specific projects that are found not to be needed. The current is an “all or nothing” vote to get approved.
Your argument about impact fees goes against your current argument on my Facebook page with a constituent about roads and the sales tax. You argued that the reason the roads are bad is because we do not have a sales tax like all the other counties. In the same context, out of the top five counties in South Carolina, we are the only one that doesn’t implement impact fees to address immediate infrastructure needs.
Regardless, I’m not saying that I have the absolute answer. I’m not even saying that all of these together are necessary. I’m simply saying that there are other answers that were not explored.
Where I used to work (N. Illinois), any new development required the developer to meet with the school district to discuss impact. If the project was to build a number of homes in a new development, sometimes an ENTIRE NEW SCHOOL had to be built. Roads were improved, traffic lights put in, etc. This ensured no additional burden on the towns people who already lived there in terms of crowded schools! I was floored when I came to Gville County and didn't see any of this. Also, people here DRIVE their kids to and from school ( since the bus issues are horrendous) so transportation issues are immense here. I cannot get into/out of my driveway during certain times of the day because I live near a school.Wake up Greenville County! Let the developers pay!
Thank you for laying a detailed alternative for consideration and discussion. I strongly agree that any alternative should include a thorough independent audit for spending waste misuse as well as include new development impact fees
I strongly support your general roadmap. The County Audit should have happened a year ago. What happened? The impact fees should have been imposed 10 years ago. Long overdue. Short-sighted County Administration? However, I don't understand the Transportation Sales Tax (tst) as described in this post. I did a search and found this description of the tax: https://ansaritax.com/south-carolina-sales-use-taxes-transportation-tax/. I also found this summary: https://scfor.org/education/local-option-sales-taxes/. Both of these, as well as the description you have given, read like word salad to me. There is no explanation of how local control and transparency is implemented with tst. You say it is, but I don't see that as a feature in the various state and legal descriptions of the tst. I do understand how the proposed tax gives control to the state on scheduling road upgrades, rather than local control- for state roads. We've already paid for our road improvements through the increased tax on fuel, which promised everything would be fixed. And the state has "found" $1.8 billion and where is that going to go? Anyway, l don't understand how the tst can be used for schools. And overall, I have to laugh at the characterization of the proposed tax as a penny tax. So I buy something and have to pay a penny extra for it?
Thank you for the response. I actually updated the newsletter today after reading several articles, including the ones you shared and realized that I had listed the transportation sales tax improperly. The information that I was reading was in reference to several other penny sales taxes that are available in the state of South Carolina, and for some reason had been mixed in with the transportation sales tax. The transportation sales tax must be spent specifically on road infrastructure projects as you already mentioned, and I did not reflect that in my newsletter. I have corrected the newsletter, but will also be issuing this acknowledgment in a note on my page to alert anyone who had already read the newsletter. My hope is that by the time we get to the point where we know where our financials truly are and have implemented impact fees, there will be many other revenue, streams to pull from rather than even bringing up the sales tax, but I thought it important to include it in the discussion to offer as a solution to the proposed sales tax! Thank you again for reaching out about this. I really appreciate it and it helped me clarify something that was desperately needed.
Why must we choose between different versions of a tax? In either case, residents will be paying more in taxes. This appears to be a version of the Bait and Switch con job. First, a new tax is offered. Then, to make it look more appealing, another type of tax is offered. Inasmuch as we are all suffering from an economy that requires increasingly more of our income just to survive, the last thing taxpayers need is another tax!
I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns, and I want to address them directly. My goal with the newsletter was to convince citizens why the proposed tax was not right for Greenville County, while also providing solutions to the challenges we’re facing, particularly in addressing our local infrastructure needs.
Let me be clear: the sales tax is not my preferred solution, and I’ve consistently said it should be the last tool we use, only if it’s absolutely necessary. That said, simply opposing the tax without offering an alternative leaves myself just as open to criticism as the proposal itself. Simply saying “no tax” will not change the mind of a voter who is thinking about voting for the proposed tax. That’s why I felt there was a need to work through a better solution.
I understand how frustrating it can seem, but there is no “bait and switch” here. I don’t operate that way. What I’m advocating for is transparency and making sure that, if taxes are to be considered, they are justified and spent efficiently. It doesn’t mean I am advocating for an alternative tax.
I hope this clarifies where I’m coming from, and I appreciate your vigilance in holding elected officials accountable. Happy to discuss further if you like.
Incidentally, I didn't mean to suggest that you are using bait and switch. I was merely saying that is a tactic often used to get another tax increase passed.
While a large group of citizens share our opposition to higher taxes, many are currently leaning toward voting in favor of this particular sales tax, driven primarily by the poor condition of our roads. Simply saying “No new taxes” without providing a clear solution leaves these voters feeling they have no other choice but to support the tax to see their concerns addressed. We can’t ignore that if we don’t offer a credible alternative, voters will feel compelled to back a tax they otherwise wouldn’t support.
My position remains firm—I oppose tax increases and have consistently done so. However, the ultimate goal is to defeat this worse version of the tax at the ballot box in November. To achieve that, we need to convince those who are undecided or leaning toward a “yes” vote that there are viable solutions outside of a sales tax increase. We can pursue funding for road improvements through steps that should be taken before any tax proposal, such as reprioritizing budget allocations, improving government efficiency, or exploring other revenue sources already available to the county.
By offering an alternative, we show that there is a better option, one that doesn’t involve burdening taxpayers. This is how we steer those undecided voters away from voting for this tax. If you look back over my other articles, tax increases are not a topic of conversation. This was simply an attempt to reach those who don’t feel as strongly about not increasing taxes as you and I do.
I understand that is your interpretation of it, but as the person who decided to take a chance and reach people before they make the mistake of voting for this sales tax, we will just have to agree to disagree on that. My constituents understand my fight against taxes. I can assure you they don’t think I support tax increases of any kind. But I do appreciate the opinion and welcome it anytime.
Councilman, this is not about you. I don't even know anything about your stance on taxes. This is merely an opinion about the way taxes are often foisted upon a public that may think they're forced to vote for either one tax increase, or another. Offering an alternative tax is still offering a tax. In my opinion, we're better off to just vote NO on any new taxes.
Is there a site where the public can discover who is in charge of the governmental departments involved in deciding what projects are addressed? I'm pretty sure state legislature doesn't dictate each project, although they do influence funding streams. Could their seeming anonymity be a contributing factor?
These projects are time consuming and expensive because of bureaucratic largesse. Maybe we should require some Six Sigma sessions before projects are started.
The undefined Transportation Sales Tax will be used by politicians to fund pet projects in their districts, a tactic used to get reelected. Impact fees are a good idea but need more detail (e.g., stormwater drainage fee for impervious surfaces).
The impact fees involve MUCH more than should what be included in a simple conversation about them. As far as pet projects, I encourage to go look for mine. I have none. My only campaign promise was building a bridge over West Blue Ridge Drive. That funding has already been secured along with additional bridges and infrastructure enhancements. We received a 20 Million dollar grant to achieve this, rather than County tax dollars.
Thank you for your service. This looks good. I have a few questions. 1) While I agree the county needs to be responsible and transparent with county funds, why does this “put pressure on Columbia to deliver the state-funded improvements”? I would think they should be fixing state roads in our county regardless of our use of county money. But maybe there is something I don’t know. 2) Why is a single-family home impact fee ($2,825) higher than a multifamily unit ($2,157)? Is the $2,157 the whole apartment building, one apartment in the building, per 1,000 sq ft (as you refer to in the 3rd bullet point), or something else? 3) Are these impact fees retroactive to businesses who have received FILOTs? Or only for new businesses? Will existing single-family homes pay impact fees? Thank you Councilman Blount!
State-Funded Improvements: They should be, but they are behind by around 60 years. This came straight to my ears from SCDOT. So any money we collect from this could simply go into holding while they continue to say it’s a timeline issue. This sales tax has State Roads on it that will be funded by the money and the majority of paving miles in the list are State road miles. With no way to guarantee we will get that money back from the State, we are essentially paying for those roads twice!
Impact Fees Structure: The difference in impact fees between single-family homes and multifamily units is determined by several factors, including the average traffic generated per unit and the overall impact on county resources. The $2,157 fee typically applies per multifamily unit, not the entire building. This approach aims to accurately reflect the different demands that single-family homes and multifamily developments place on infrastructure.
Impact fees are generally applied to new developments and would not be retroactive to businesses that have already received Fee-in-Lieu of Taxes (FILOTs). Existing single-family homes would not be subject to these impact fees unless there are specific changes to the property that trigger a new assessment. This is only for new development, as its purpose is to address the future infrastructure needs of those developments.
Excellent questions and I really appreciate them. This is a LOT to take in and unlike with the current process, I want all citizens to be informed and have a part in the process! Please let me know if that clarified and if not, I am happen to answer any further questions!:)
So TST would go into holding to put pressure on the state? But CPST would pay for the many state roads immediately (and ultimately twice through state and county taxes)? Am I understanding your 1st paragraph correctly, or am I confusing the 2 taxes?
The TST would not require that we address ANY State funded roads. We can compile the list for the County roads based on need, with a Constiuent led initiate. The State roads in the CPST would not be addressed at all. Once we fulfill the County paving needs, we can use that to work with our State reps to get SCDOT to catch up our much needed State repairs with the money they have already collected for it.
If we go with the CPST, we are collecting for the State roads that have already been collected on, which will still simply go to the State. There is no guarantee in the CPST that says giving the money to the State will move us up on the already 60 yr behind timeline.
Basically the collection of the taxes doesn’t guarantee that the State has to address the repairs in any specific timeline. We are just handing them the money.
Thank you! I hope we are putting a bug in SCDOT's ear regularly to not forget about Greenville in their timeline!
Whatever the outcome, I will be forever grateful for your intellectual honesty and steadfast determination to execute your sworn duties per the oath you swore!!
Sadly, your outstanding example of proper public service is lost on your counterparts!
Their conduct is, and consistently has been, disgraceful!!!!
Thank you for devoting so much time to “transparency”!!!
God Bless you and your beautiful family!!!🙏
Much appreciated brother! At the end of the day, all I can do is try to inform. I trust that whatever happens, citizens at least made the decision.
Mr Blount is a breath of fresh air! Finally someone that offers solutions.
The transportation sales tax you have proposed is exactly what is on the ballot. It does not tax groceries, fuel or prescriptions. And the project list was created by public input from many public meetings and online comments.
Impact fees cannot generate the needed funding. Additionally, developers will just add the cost of impact fees into the cost of the house, thus driving up home costs even more.
There are significant differences in the two in that the Transportation sales tax does not require a commission and can be amended to remove specific projects that are found not to be needed. The current is an “all or nothing” vote to get approved.
Your argument about impact fees goes against your current argument on my Facebook page with a constituent about roads and the sales tax. You argued that the reason the roads are bad is because we do not have a sales tax like all the other counties. In the same context, out of the top five counties in South Carolina, we are the only one that doesn’t implement impact fees to address immediate infrastructure needs.
Regardless, I’m not saying that I have the absolute answer. I’m not even saying that all of these together are necessary. I’m simply saying that there are other answers that were not explored.
Where I used to work (N. Illinois), any new development required the developer to meet with the school district to discuss impact. If the project was to build a number of homes in a new development, sometimes an ENTIRE NEW SCHOOL had to be built. Roads were improved, traffic lights put in, etc. This ensured no additional burden on the towns people who already lived there in terms of crowded schools! I was floored when I came to Gville County and didn't see any of this. Also, people here DRIVE their kids to and from school ( since the bus issues are horrendous) so transportation issues are immense here. I cannot get into/out of my driveway during certain times of the day because I live near a school.Wake up Greenville County! Let the developers pay!
Thank you for laying a detailed alternative for consideration and discussion. I strongly agree that any alternative should include a thorough independent audit for spending waste misuse as well as include new development impact fees
I strongly support your general roadmap. The County Audit should have happened a year ago. What happened? The impact fees should have been imposed 10 years ago. Long overdue. Short-sighted County Administration? However, I don't understand the Transportation Sales Tax (tst) as described in this post. I did a search and found this description of the tax: https://ansaritax.com/south-carolina-sales-use-taxes-transportation-tax/. I also found this summary: https://scfor.org/education/local-option-sales-taxes/. Both of these, as well as the description you have given, read like word salad to me. There is no explanation of how local control and transparency is implemented with tst. You say it is, but I don't see that as a feature in the various state and legal descriptions of the tst. I do understand how the proposed tax gives control to the state on scheduling road upgrades, rather than local control- for state roads. We've already paid for our road improvements through the increased tax on fuel, which promised everything would be fixed. And the state has "found" $1.8 billion and where is that going to go? Anyway, l don't understand how the tst can be used for schools. And overall, I have to laugh at the characterization of the proposed tax as a penny tax. So I buy something and have to pay a penny extra for it?
Thank you for the response. I actually updated the newsletter today after reading several articles, including the ones you shared and realized that I had listed the transportation sales tax improperly. The information that I was reading was in reference to several other penny sales taxes that are available in the state of South Carolina, and for some reason had been mixed in with the transportation sales tax. The transportation sales tax must be spent specifically on road infrastructure projects as you already mentioned, and I did not reflect that in my newsletter. I have corrected the newsletter, but will also be issuing this acknowledgment in a note on my page to alert anyone who had already read the newsletter. My hope is that by the time we get to the point where we know where our financials truly are and have implemented impact fees, there will be many other revenue, streams to pull from rather than even bringing up the sales tax, but I thought it important to include it in the discussion to offer as a solution to the proposed sales tax! Thank you again for reaching out about this. I really appreciate it and it helped me clarify something that was desperately needed.
Why must we choose between different versions of a tax? In either case, residents will be paying more in taxes. This appears to be a version of the Bait and Switch con job. First, a new tax is offered. Then, to make it look more appealing, another type of tax is offered. Inasmuch as we are all suffering from an economy that requires increasingly more of our income just to survive, the last thing taxpayers need is another tax!
Bob,
I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns, and I want to address them directly. My goal with the newsletter was to convince citizens why the proposed tax was not right for Greenville County, while also providing solutions to the challenges we’re facing, particularly in addressing our local infrastructure needs.
Let me be clear: the sales tax is not my preferred solution, and I’ve consistently said it should be the last tool we use, only if it’s absolutely necessary. That said, simply opposing the tax without offering an alternative leaves myself just as open to criticism as the proposal itself. Simply saying “no tax” will not change the mind of a voter who is thinking about voting for the proposed tax. That’s why I felt there was a need to work through a better solution.
I understand how frustrating it can seem, but there is no “bait and switch” here. I don’t operate that way. What I’m advocating for is transparency and making sure that, if taxes are to be considered, they are justified and spent efficiently. It doesn’t mean I am advocating for an alternative tax.
I hope this clarifies where I’m coming from, and I appreciate your vigilance in holding elected officials accountable. Happy to discuss further if you like.
My argument is that we don't have to offer an alternative to ANY NEW TAX. Why not just say No to more taxes in any form.
Incidentally, I didn't mean to suggest that you are using bait and switch. I was merely saying that is a tactic often used to get another tax increase passed.
While a large group of citizens share our opposition to higher taxes, many are currently leaning toward voting in favor of this particular sales tax, driven primarily by the poor condition of our roads. Simply saying “No new taxes” without providing a clear solution leaves these voters feeling they have no other choice but to support the tax to see their concerns addressed. We can’t ignore that if we don’t offer a credible alternative, voters will feel compelled to back a tax they otherwise wouldn’t support.
My position remains firm—I oppose tax increases and have consistently done so. However, the ultimate goal is to defeat this worse version of the tax at the ballot box in November. To achieve that, we need to convince those who are undecided or leaning toward a “yes” vote that there are viable solutions outside of a sales tax increase. We can pursue funding for road improvements through steps that should be taken before any tax proposal, such as reprioritizing budget allocations, improving government efficiency, or exploring other revenue sources already available to the county.
By offering an alternative, we show that there is a better option, one that doesn’t involve burdening taxpayers. This is how we steer those undecided voters away from voting for this tax. If you look back over my other articles, tax increases are not a topic of conversation. This was simply an attempt to reach those who don’t feel as strongly about not increasing taxes as you and I do.
On the contrary, the "ultimate goal" is to defeat all tax increases. Offering an alternative merely suggests agreement on another form of taxation.
I understand that is your interpretation of it, but as the person who decided to take a chance and reach people before they make the mistake of voting for this sales tax, we will just have to agree to disagree on that. My constituents understand my fight against taxes. I can assure you they don’t think I support tax increases of any kind. But I do appreciate the opinion and welcome it anytime.
Councilman, this is not about you. I don't even know anything about your stance on taxes. This is merely an opinion about the way taxes are often foisted upon a public that may think they're forced to vote for either one tax increase, or another. Offering an alternative tax is still offering a tax. In my opinion, we're better off to just vote NO on any new taxes.
Is there a site where the public can discover who is in charge of the governmental departments involved in deciding what projects are addressed? I'm pretty sure state legislature doesn't dictate each project, although they do influence funding streams. Could their seeming anonymity be a contributing factor?
These projects are time consuming and expensive because of bureaucratic largesse. Maybe we should require some Six Sigma sessions before projects are started.
The undefined Transportation Sales Tax will be used by politicians to fund pet projects in their districts, a tactic used to get reelected. Impact fees are a good idea but need more detail (e.g., stormwater drainage fee for impervious surfaces).
The impact fees involve MUCH more than should what be included in a simple conversation about them. As far as pet projects, I encourage to go look for mine. I have none. My only campaign promise was building a bridge over West Blue Ridge Drive. That funding has already been secured along with additional bridges and infrastructure enhancements. We received a 20 Million dollar grant to achieve this, rather than County tax dollars.
I am also not up for re election……..