Effingham County is asking for the sales tax distribution to remain the same as it has been for the last 10 years.
Rincon and Guyton are asking for a slightly larger share of the 1-cent-per-dollar local-option sales tax, as is Springfield.
The deadline for best and final offers was March 1 in Effingham County Superior Court.
Distribution of the tax is renegotiated every decade, based on Census data. The debate is an important one, determining the fate of about $8.4 million a year countywide.
How much people pay in property taxes could be affected by the way the money is distributed.
The county’s offer asks for the distribution to remain the same as it is currently: Effingham County 77.50 percent; Rincon 13.84 percent; Springfield 5.76 percent; and Guyton 2.90 percent.
Rincon and Guyton worked together to come up with these numbers: Effingham County 76 percent; Rincon, 15.16 percent; Springfield, 5.82 percent; and Guyton 3.02 percent.
That’s for 2013. Their proposal calls for the percentages for the cities to increase in stages over the 10-year life of the sales tax.
In 2014, they call for: Effingham County 74 percent; Rincon 16.83 percent; Springfield, 6.05 percent; and Guyton, 3.12 percent.
In 2015, the numbers would change to: Effingham County, 72 percent; Rincon, 18.5 percent; Springfield, 6.27 percent; and Guyton, 3.23 percent.
In 2017 and through the end of the sales tax, in 2022, the Rincon and Guyton proposal calls for: Effingham County, 71 percent; Rincon, 19.16 percent; Springfield, 6.60 percent and Guyton 3.24 percent.
Springfield’s proposal is for: Effingham County, 75.84 percent; Rincon 13.84 percent; Springfield, 7.42 percent; and Guyton, 2.90 percent.
Rincon has argued that it has most of the retail business and should get a larger share of the tax. Springfield has said it hasn’t been getting enough to compensate for having so much property that doesn’t pay taxes, such as county buildings, schools and the hospital.
The county argued that it really should receive all of the LOST money because service delivery agreements, entered into in April 2011, compensate the cities for the services that they provide.
The sales tax provides revenue for local government services while reducing the tax burden to property owners.
The governments couldn’t agree how to distribute the money, after six months of debate that included work with a mediator. The question then headed to court.
Senior Superior Court Judge Albert Rahn III will choose one of the three offers, in “baseball mediation” that is called for by state law.
Deadlines have been pushed back repeatedly in the case. A timetable filed with the clerk of court’s office hasn’t been updated.
Originally, Rahn said a trial in the matter would be held March 28 and 29 and that he would rule by April 30. He hasn’t indicated, in court filings, if he’ll stick to those dates.
The county argues in its 49-page brief that the current distribution should be continued “because it has enabled each of the local governments to alleviate the tax burden imposed on property owners while delivering necessary services.”
“Any proposal that shifts LOST revenue from the county to one or more cities is likely to require the county to increase property taxes, as the county is the only local government that has had to increase its millage rate since 2009,” the brief says.
The county also argues that changes in population and commerce have been “more than offset” by changes in service delivery agreements. “If any change is justified, it would be to increase, not decrease, the county’s allocation of LOST revenue,” the brief reads.
Rincon said in its 46-page brief that “the City of Rincon’s population, growth, intense commercial development relative to its population, and sales have provided a robust employment center and daytime population that should be considered as important factors in determining the LOST distribution formula.”
Rincon argues that under its proposal, the county would collect $331,400 more each year because of a 4-percent growth in LOST receipts.
Springfield’s 21-page brief focuses on the eight criteria listed in the state statute.
Its offer reflects a shift in the tax digest distribution, population shift and Springfield’s “significant increase in tax-exempt property.”