County hears ethics briefing on ballots and debates transportation sales-tax ballot language

Beaufort County Council on June 8 heard a detailed presentation on the ethics rules that apply when a local government places a measure before voters, then spent substantial time debating an amended transportation sales-tax ordinance that would list specific projects and include a separate bonding authorization.

Neutral education vs. advocacy: ethics presentation Megan Dason (presenter) briefed council on two state statutory sections that apply when a county puts a measure on the ballot, explaining that once council votes to place an issue before voters, government employees and officials may not use government resources or their positions to advocate for or against the measure; neutral, uniform public education about the measure is allowed, including fact sheets, information sessions and neutral social-media posts produced with public resources. Dason told council members they retain private First Amendment rights to advocate on their own time but cautioned against using county email, county facilities during official business hours, county vehicles or county staff time for advocacy.

Council Q&A emphasized details: targeted mailers and social-media geotargeting are problematic if they use government resources; public employees may not advocate while on the clock; the county can provide a neutral description of how funds will be used but must include costs and potential downsides in the same communications.

Transportation referendum debate Council then debated an ordinance to place a transportation sales-tax proposal before voters. Council member Joe Passimmit moved to replace the broad project language with a detailed project list (resurfacing, intersections/safety, several corridor projects including SR 170 and SR 278 references and municipal resurfacing packages) and to add a second ballot question authorizing up to $450 million of bonds to accelerate delivery. Staff said the $450 million figure reflects the large set of county and municipal projects staff compiled and noted the bonding authorization is a ceiling; actual bond issuance would be matched to project delivery timelines. Council amended the ordinance to include the specific project list and the bond-authorization question; that amendment passed on the council floor.

What council members asked: several asked how quickly revenue could be spent if voters approve a ballot measure and how the county would sequence high-impact corridor projects (like SC-170/SC-278) vs. resurfacing lists; staff said resurfacing could be started quickly, while major corridor work would be staged and matched to bond proceeds and state coordination. Council also requested a public explanation of expected early-year projects so voters can evaluate timing.

Why it matters: The measure would add a temporary county sales tax to fund transportation projects identified in the ordinance and the project list. Council debated the tradeoffs between a broad flexible fund and a specific project list; residents in the public comment period had urged a tighter list to prevent funds from becoming a general slush fund while others raised concerns about double-taxing motorists who already pay gasoline taxes.

Speakers (first reference): Megan Dason (ethics presentation); Robert Priest (public comment earlier urged a rightsized package); Councilman Joe Passimmit (sponsor of the project-list amendment).

Next steps: Council advanced the amended ordinance language on the floor; staff will publish the specific project list and a timeline and prepare voter materials that explain the bond authorization and expected early-year priorities.