Attorney General Issues Opinion in District's Favor
On October 27, the Office of the South Carolina Attorney General issued an opinion favoring Richland School District Two in a dispute between the district and Richland County Auditor Paul Brawley regarding the recalculation of the millage rate. The opinion states, "it is our opinion that the Legislature intended for County Council to determine the millage rate cap applicable to District Two pursuant to this provision."
In a press release dated October 12, 2009, Richland County Auditor Paul Brawley contends Richland County Council exceeded the tax cap when it decided to recalculate Richland School District Two’s tax rate. As a result, the auditor requested the South Carolina Attorney General’s opinion to determine whether county council can “lawfully set a millage rate that raises county taxes above the millage cap prescribed in Act 388.” The district had previously requested the Attorney General’s opinion on this issue.
1
Richland Two’s only disagreement with the auditor has been on the rollback millage calculation. The auditor used only 41 percent of the growth assessment in vehicles. He should have used 100 percent in his calculation. The only difference in the cap determination was the auditor’s error and failure to include 100 percent of the vehicles as prescribed by statute (§12-37-251E). Again, county council agreed with the district on this point.
The increase in millage approved by Richland County Council is necessary for the district to avoid a more than $3 million shortfall in current year funding, plus additional losses in coming years.
SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES IN AUDITOR’S CALCULATIONS AND DISTRICT’S CALCULATION
Description
|
Auditor’s Calculation
|
District’s Calculation
|
Variance
|
A) Total Taxable Assessed Value
|
288,664,951
|
288,664,951
|
0
|
B) Growth in Other Properties
|
13,410,831
|
13,410,831
|
0
|
C) Growth in Vehicles
|
5,271,921
|
12,858,344
|
7,586,423
|
D) Assessed Value for Rollback
(A-B-C=D)
|
269,982,199
|
262,395,776
|
7,586,423
|
E) Prior Year Collections
|
61,161,866
|
61,161,866
|
0
|
F) Rollback Millage (E/D=F)
|
226.5
|
233.1
|
6.6
|
G) Cap of 7.4% (F*.074=G)
|
16.8
|
17.2
|
.4
|
H) Rollback Millage + Growth/CPI (F+G=H)
|
243.3
|
250.3
|
7.0
|
On three separate occasions, Richland Two staff met face to face with the auditor in an attempt to resolve this disagreement. The district’s calculation was prepared by an unpaid independent consultant, Mrs. Johnette Connelley, who developed the worksheet used by county auditors across the state for calculating rollback millage. Mrs. Connelley reviewed her calculations and the auditor’s calculations in a two hour, face to face meeting on September 9, 2009.
Richland Two is most grateful to Richland County Council for correcting the auditor’s error by voting in favor of the district’s calculation and providing us with our fair share of much needed funding.
Updated October 28, 2009
For more information contact triley@richland2.org or itate@richland2.org