Much is at stake when rural Greene County voters consider a ballot proposition to change the allowable use of the local option sales and service tax (LOSST) allocated to the county on their behalf.
The proposition – Public Measure IM – is on the Nov. 5 ballot for voters in the unincorporated areas of the counties. Those who live in any of the county’s towns will not see the proposition. However, if the measure fails, all county taxpayers will see the impact.
Currently, proceeds of the 1-cent LOSST can be used for “100% rural property tax relief and any other lawful purpose of the county, exclusively in the unincorporated area of the county.” Proceeds are budgeted to the secondary roads department, the purchase of sheriff’s patrol vehicles, and property tax relief.
If the measure is approved, LOSST funds could be used “100% for any lawful purpose.” That would include paying debt.
The county supervisors and auditor Billie Jo Hoskins say rural taxpayers would see no change in their property tax bill if the measure is approved.
According to Hoskins, during the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2023, the county received $542,000 in LOSST funds. Of that, $425,000 was obligated to secondary roads and patrol vehicles, leaving an excess of $117,000. That excess has been banked every year, with $655,000 set aside over the years.
If the proposition is approved, the allocation to secondary roads and patrol vehicles would not change, according to Hoskins and supervisor Dawn Rudolph. What would change would be that rather than banking the excess, it would be used to pay on general obligation bonds to cover part of the cost of work on the HVAC system at the courthouse.
Total cost of the HVAC project is pegged at $3.4 million.
The county received $1.8 million from the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Infrastructure projects like HVAC are allowable uses for ARPA funds. But, ARPA funds must be used, or under contract to be used, by Dec. 31, 2025. After that time, they revert back to the federal government.
The supervisors plan to bond for $1.6 to $1.7 million for the project. They anticipate paying $200,000 per year on the bond. If rural voters approve Public Measure IM, the excess LOSST funds would go toward the bond payment rather than going in the bank. The rest of the bond payment would come from that LOSST “savings” fund.
Hoskins, the supervisors, and county engineer Wade Weiss all say the rural levy will not increase if the measure is approved. Rural taxpayers will still see property tax relief in the $425,000 of LOSST revenues going to secondary roads and patrol vehicles, rather than that amount being part of the rural levy.
They also agree that if Public Measure IM fails, the general basic levy – the levy paid by all taxpayers, including rural taxpayers – will need to be increased to pay for the project. If the measure is approved, no property owner’s levy will increase because of it. It the measure fails, all property owner’s levy will increase.
The public measure needs a simple majority to pass.
