Gavin Stone | Daily Journal
                                Hamlet Councilwoman Abbie Covington reiterates her points from her presentation to the county commissioners on the sales tax distribution method on Tuesday.

Gavin Stone | Daily Journal

Hamlet Councilwoman Abbie Covington reiterates her points from her presentation to the county commissioners on the sales tax distribution method on Tuesday.

HAMLET — The Hamlet City Council were in agreement Tuesday evening that the county made a “gross miscalculation” of the impact that would result from the change to an ad valorem sales tax distribution method last year, and one council member went as far as to call it a “dereliction of duty” that the commissioners didn’t reverse it at their monthly meeting last week.

The Tuesday, March 2 meeting of the Board of Commissioners was a watershed moment in the fight over the sales tax distribution method because it was the first time the municipalities were able to make their case to the board as a whole and receive some feedback. Apart from Chair Jeff Smart allowing the conversation to take place as a part of the board’s agenda, the most significant feedback came from Vice Chair Justin Dawkins, who said that, based on his own research, the municipalities’ numbers were “spot on” and added that this will “require some concessions” — without specifying who would make the concessions and without saying whether it would necessitate changing the distribution method back to per capita — in order to reach a resolution.

“I completed my own analysis and projections and I can definitely confirm that my projections are within 1% of the ones they provided,” Dawkins said, before noting that he did disagree with the “morbidity table” included in the municipalities’ presentation which projected that, without the municipalities raising any taxes, all of them would be insolvent within seven years.

The presentation centered on County Manager Bryan Land’s assertion that the change would only net the county a “conservative estimate” of $675,000, which he said prior to the commissioners voting unanimously in favor of changing from per capita to ad valorem in April 2020. Instead, a Daily Journal analysis of data reported by the state, which was consistent with the municipalities’ own analysis, showed that the county netted exactly $1,975,879.03 in new revenue due to switching to ad valorem, which represents the revenue from May to December 2020, the most recent data available.

The municipalities further projected that the county will net $2,953,818.55 over 12 months under ad valorem. Dawkins said that his calculations were “within 1%” of the municipalities’.

Hamlet City Manager Matt Christian said Tuesday that this gap between Land’s initial projection and the actual figures are “beyond a rounding error,” and that now in the hands of the commissioners to determine the next steps.

“Total, the county projected that they were going to get $675,000 increase, and they actually are on pace to receive approximately $3 million of an increase which is absolutely substantial — I mean, it’s beyond a rounding error,” Christian said. “Overall, the point of the statement is: the facts at the time were grossly misrepresented to the people of Richmond County and that the good news is that this is fixable, we just have to change it back. And that’s in the hands of the county commissioners.”

Councilwoman Abbie Covington, who led the presentation to the commissioners last week, called the gap between Land’s projection and the actual figures a “gross miscalculation.” She also addressed the idea put forward last year by commissioners Rick Watkins and Tavares Bostic to have a third party review of “taxation” in the county, which never moved forward, based on interviews with multiple municipal officials since this was first mentioned in May 2020.

“The whole time we attempted to deal with (the previous commissioners) they kept telling us they needed numbers from an ‘objective third party’ … This was from an objective third party,” she said. “They’re audited financial numbers from Ken Anderson, who was the auditor for (all six municipalities), so the credibility for our position has been established.”

Covington said she was pleased with Dawkins’s comments about his own calculations, and described Smart as “cordial” throughout their interaction at the meeting.

“I guess you could say the ball is in their court,” she said.

Mayor Pro Tem Jesse McQueen took things a step further, expressing his frustration that the commissioners have not already acted to reverse their decision.

“This is just ridiculous, ok?” McQueen began. “Whenever you have a council member from another town come to your meeting, and you’ve got the other elected officials meeting in Hamlet, and you’ve got proof right here — whether it was on purpose, intentional, unintentional or whatever, if you’re on that Board of Commissioners and you heard that presentation and you didn’t make a motion to go back to the way it was in the next fiscal year, you’re derelict in your duty in my opinion.”

McQueen added that what “sets me on fire” is that some of those commissioners live in the cities affected by the change to ad valorem or are former city officials.

“They know the pain and the hurt that this has caused,” he said. “I’m not going to sugar coat it: somebody … on the Board of Commissioners needs to make a motion — it only takes one person to make a motion — and go on the record that they understand what was done was in error. It doesn’t matter at this point if it was intentional or unintentional, the fact is this is information that cannot be disputed and it’s time for somebody to step up and do the right thing.”

Hamlet Mayor Bill Bayless chuckled and said, “I couldn’t have put it any better.” Councilman Oscar Sellers also said of McQueen’s statement that it was “well said.”

When asked Monday what impact the presentation had on his thinking with regard to the ad valorem issue, Smart declined to comment until after the mediation between the county and the cities of Rockingham and Hamlet, which deals with the allegation that the county attempted to recoup funds for the new 911 Center by switching to ad valorem when the parties involved agreed the cities would never have to pay, is complete.

Asked to explain what he meant by the “concessions” he sees being required to resolve the issue, Dawkins, speaking for himself, declined to give specifics, but said both sides will need to make concessions.

“I think the municipalities and the county must each make concessions to have a mutually beneficial tax distribution while covering all expenses as efficiently as possible,” Dawkins said in an email Tuesday. “All parties need to be accountable in their public actions and statements and moving forward, we all need to adjust our communication to improve our working relationship.”