Beaufort County Council weighs process, timeline and project list for proposed capital-project "penny" sales tax

Beaufort County Council met to discuss how the county would develop a potential capital-project sales tax (an up-to-eight-year, one-cent sales tax commonly called a "capital penny") and how to sequence project solicitation, a citizen commission and public education ahead of any ballot question.

The discussion focused on process more than on final decisions: staff and an outside consultant described a proposed timeline to form a six-member commission by August, to solicit and score projects from municipalities and the county from September through February, and to present a final, itemized ballot question for council review in May. Consultant Hank said the intent was to “foster discussion,” and warned the county must define projects with granularity so a ballot lists specific roads and sites rather than generic buckets of work.

Why it matters: a capital-project sales tax requires a clearly defined list of projects on the ballot, legal compliance about how proceeds are used, and broad municipality buy-in. Officials and speakers repeatedly cited the 2018 referendum and the $80,000,000 collected then as context for public skepticism and the need for transparent accounting of prior funds.

County staff outlined recommended action steps and design principles. They recommended: using 2020 U.S. Census population data to allocate portions of revenue to municipalities (to give small towns a stake in the process); creating a single outside advocacy/education partner to develop consistent messaging; and requiring projects be clear in scope and executable within the tax time horizon. The consultant said, “If we talk later about resurfacing, it's not gonna say resurfacing for x amount of dollars. It'll say resurfacing of this road, that road, this road, specifically where that happens.”

Potential projects presented as examples included a consolidated public-safety campus with centralized emergency operations and evidence storage, a phased detention center expansion, targeted improvements on the U.S. 170 corridor (listed as discrete intersection and widening work), and recreation or boat-launch projects. Staff estimated a conservative yield of about $650 million over eight years at one cent; they also noted municipalities would propose projects within their allocations and a county commission would determine eligibility and ranking.

Public commenters and municipal representatives urged a longer public education timeline and clear, limited lists of projects. Joe Bridal, chair of a regional citizens committee that advocated in 2018, said advocacy “is a big thing,” describing volunteer and paid outreach the prior campaign used. Realtor and community organizer Jocelyn Steiger cautioned that “people in your audience are not always representative of what the citizens want,” urging officials to weigh precinct-level voting data and broader outreach when planning communications.

Council reactions and next steps: members agreed to continue staff work on the proposed approach. The council amended the meeting agenda to permit the discussion and then heard the presentation; no binding vote to place a question on the ballot was taken. Council members asked staff to return with more analysis on allocation mechanics, a pro–con one-sheet comparing a single capital penny to a split approach (for example, separate transportation and capital pennies), and updated, precinct-level voting data from the November 2024 referendum to inform outreach.

The meeting closed with general agreement to keep developing the process, with several council members and attendees emphasizing the need for tight cost estimates, short and executable project lists, and an external advocacy group to coordinate messaging.