Legislature likely
can bank on revenue leader’s pledge Under Maybank, agency is on target to raise $90 million
as promised By JIM
DAVENPORT The Associated
Press
A year ago, state Revenue Department director Burnet Maybank was
offering legislators an odd deal.
He wanted $9 million to hire people to enforce the state’s tax
laws and promised to quit if he didn’t raise at least $90
million.
On target to raise that and more, the lanky Charleston lawyer is
credited with helping fill a hole in the state’s budget.
The Legislature raised the stakes for Maybank, saying he would
have to bring in at least $300 million in regular tax law
enforcement collections even before he could begin counting money
toward the $90 million goal.
It remained a safe bet, Maybank said.
“We looked at how far the Department of Revenue had fallen off
with the collection activity,” he said.
At the same time, he expected a recovering state economy would
make it easier for people to pay back taxes. And auditors already
had identified several taxpayers who owed the state millions.
“We had several checks from taxpayers of $2 million and up that
went into” meeting the goal, Maybank said.
Between July and January, Maybank’s effort had pulled in $56
million — about $3 million ahead of projections. The Revenue
Department had collected $216 million, well ahead of a $175 million
projection.
State budget writers aren’t expecting a repeat performance.
Estimates for the budget year that begins July 1 show Maybank’s
increased enforcement efforts will bring in only about $45
million.
The House Ways and Means Committee begins writing its version of
the budget this week. Chairman Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, says
agencies were told last year they would not have “Maybank money” in
the new fiscal year’s budget. His committee will decide whether to
fill those funding gaps or force those agencies to cut spending.
Gov. Mark Sanford tapped Maybank as revenue director in 2002 when
the Republican took office. It’s Maybank’s second stint in that
Cabinet-level office. He had served in the same job from 1994-98 for
former Republican Gov. David Beasley. In between, Maybank practiced
regulatory and tax law.
When Sanford was skeptical of Maybank’s proposal while crafting
his executive budget last year, Maybank shopped the plan to the
state’s chief budget writers.
“He sat in my office last year and said that if he couldn’t
deliver on what he was telling us that he would resign,” Harrell
said. “I thought that was a pretty strong statement.”
“I think we’ve known Burnie longer than the governor had known
him, and we had a great deal of confidence in his ability to deliver
on what he said,” Harrell said.
Besides, Maybank had done a similar program years ago under
Beasley, Harrell said.
Senate Finance Committee chairman Hugh Leatherman, R-Florence,
said he had grown to respect and trust Maybank over the years and
was more than willing to take his bet.
“I did not hesitate,” Leatherman said. “He’s the type of person
that when he tells you something, he’s got some good basis for
telling you that.”
By May, Sanford was worried that Maybank’s plan was turning into
a way to pay for day-to-day agency operations. Sanford took the
extreme step of showing up at a meeting of the Board of Economic
Advisors to ask them not to include the Maybank money in a revised
budget forecast. Sanford said Maybank’s cash should be “icing on the
cake” and not something to use in basic agency budgets.
At the time, Sanford’s relationship with the Legislature was at a
low point. His appearance at the board “was totally inappropriate”
and an effort to influence the forecasting group, Harrell said at
the time.
It’s not that Sanford didn’t support Maybank’s effort, said Will
Folks, the governor’s spokesman. But Sanford disagreed with
legislators’ plans to use the money to fill huge holes in Cabinet
and non-Cabinet agency budgets. For instance, Maybank money
accounted for a fifth — $19.7 million — of the state Department of
Social Services budget.
Programs need to be paid for with regular funding sources, Folks
said.
“It’s not an objection to the additional revenue. It’s an
objection to relying on it to fund critical needs before you’re sure
that money is going to be there,” Folks said.
Harrell said there was no doubt the money would materialize.
“We accepted him on his word, and he proved to be good to his
word. He’s proved to be more than good on his word,” Harrell
said. |