In North Carolina, the local option sales tax accounts for the incremental difference between counties in the tax tacked on to retail sales. Unfortunately, in Lenoir County, the “option” to increase it could reside with elected officials rather than voters and taxpayers, thanks to legislation introduced last week by state Rep. George Graham.
Graham, the Kinston Democrat who spent 30 years on the Lenoir County Board of Commissioners before being elected to the state House in November, filed his first substantive piece of legislation Thursday in a bid to give his former board colleagues a way to increase the sales tax and override the opposition of voters.
The bill (HB 87) authorizes the sales tax by one-quarter of a percent, bringing the total tax on most retail goods, including the statewide levy, to 7 percent. If passed, it would leave the decision — the option — to raise it with the board of commissioners.
County voters have already been asked twice, in 2008 and last November, and each time they rejected the increase by resounding margins; the last time, nearly two-thirds of them said no. That result can’t be far from the minds of commissioners as they contemplate their response to Graham’s bill, which is almost certain to win approval barring objections from the board of commissioners itself.
They are as aware, of course, of the revenue bind the county is in, the result primarily of funding cuts by the state to all counties and by construction projects in Lenoir — schools and the jail expansion — that have added substantial debt. The county now earmarks about 13 percent of its budget for debt reduction and expects to continue doing so for at least four more years.
Few commissioners would deny the county doesn’t need the $1 million or more a year the tax increase is expected to bring. However, Graham’s attempt to help has really handed them a dilemma. If they enact the increase, they avoid some painful budget cuts, but they also anger a large segment of voters. They become the board that refused to listen.
The bill presents an image problem for Graham, too. Right out of the gate, he appears to put his friends in the courthouse ahead of his constituents. Graham’s District 12 covers a little less than half the county but nearly all of Kinston, including thousands of low-income residents who would feel the pinch of even a fractional increase in the sales tax. The regressive nature of the sales tax makes it a poor alternative to other revenue-raising avenues open to local government.
Typically, commissioners who favor the tax increase blame lack of understanding by voters for its defeat in the November referendum. We can overlook the condescension as a habit of politicians, but we can’t overlook the voters’ straightforward response to a question that essentially asks: Do you want to raise your own taxes to help pay for some things the county has already bought? Voters told county government then to make do with what it had.
This quest for a sales tax increase began nearly a year ago when Graham suggested commissioners form and consult an advisory committee of county residents on how to proceed. That never happened. Commissioners decided, without advice, to take the issue to voters. The voters said no. Refusing to take that answer at face value by supporting and acting on Graham’s bill would be more than a mistake. It would be an insult.