The House and Senate have different versions of the online expense registry in their respective budgets (the text of the House proviso is contained in Item 2 of the May 9 Friday Report, Issue 18-08).

Both of these provisos require the posting of every expense of $100 or more—from whatever source or for whatever purpose, paid by check or credit card—to be posted to a website. The requirement excludes wages and compensation paid to individuals.

The budget will go back to the Senate next week for action on the House amendments and a conference committee consisting of three members of the Senate and three members of the House. When those members are named, SCAC will forward that information to you.

Many counties have no website at all, or the website they have is inadequate to maintain this type of labor-intensive activity. Even if a county has a website, or the Comptroller General provides the site, it may involve entering expenses twice.

The SCAC Board adopted no position on the point of sale/assessable transfer of interest (ATI) issue contained in H. 4942. SCAC staff will not advocate any position on this issue. If you have thoughts or concerns on this issue, you should communicate them directly to your House member and to the members of the subcommittee listed below.

On Tuesday, April 8 at 3 p.m. in Blatt Building Room 523, the House Ways and Means Property Tax subcommittee will take up H. 4942 which revises the recognition of full fair market value for real property subject to the valuation cap once it is transferred. The subcommittee members are: Reps. Bill Cotty, Chairman; Bill Clyburn; Annette Young; Joe Neal and Jim Merrill.

The House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to meet Wednesday, 1½ hours after the House adjourns, in Room 521 of the Blatt Building. This will probably be no earlier than 1:30 p.m., and most likely in the 2 to 2:30 p.m. timeframe. If the subcommittee passes this bill on Tuesday, it will be up for debate in the Ways and Means Com-mittee on Wednesday.

How is Point of Sale/ATI Currently Handled Under Act 388?

When real property subject to the 15 percent valuation cap is sold or otherwise transferred—called an "assessable transfer of interest" (ATI) in Act 388—the property is reassessed then, and the full fair market value becomes the value subject to property taxation and the 15 percent cap going forward in time.

How does H. 4942 Change Point of Sale/ATI?

H. 4942 allows the recognition of full fair market value of a property when it is sold, but delays that recognition until implementation of the next reassessment program. If the property is improved or built on before the next reassessment program, the property is reassessed at that time to include the value of both the addition and the previously capped value which was exempted from taxation.

H. 4942 does not explicitly address how implementing the point of sale as part of the scheduled reassessment affects the rollback millage calculation. It may be that the rollback millage calculation would treat the increase in value from the ATI/point of sale adjustment in the same manner as it does increases in value which result from ordinary reassessment. The result would be no net revenue increase when the value of the parcel was changed to reflect the ATI/point of sale change.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ALL AVAILABLE COUNTY OFFICIALS COME TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON S. 1105:

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12

9:30 A.M.

GRESSETTE BUILDING, ROOM 307

The Proposed Constitutional Amendment

S. 1105 proposes to replace the prohibition on laws for a specific county found in Article VIII, §7, with another provision allowing local acts of the General Assembly addressing a single county for "traditional state functions."

S. 1105 would reverse one of the cornerstones of the Home Rule Act. Without the constitutional prohibition on local acts, virtually no decision made by a local council would be exempt from reversal by a legislative delegation.

S. 1105 is a Trojan Horse

The explanation as to the need for S. 1105 is to address certain specific examples, such as voter registration and election boards or the devolution of the appointment authority for other boards or commissions—many of which have been combined or altered in some other way in conflict with the constitutional prohibition on single county local acts.

However, "traditional state functions," as used in item 1 of S. 1105, is extremely broad. Upon examination, the local acts adopted by the General Assembly prior to the Home Rule Act included: adoption of the county budget (then referred to as the county supply bill), setting hours of operation of county offices, providing which services the county would offer, providing for zoning, and any number of other topics commonly thought of as local decisions.

S. 1105 would allow a reversal of virtually any decision made at the local level by the county council, if the legislative delegation passes a bill addressing that service or decision.

Item 2 in the amendment clearly relates to special purpose districts (SPDs).

S. 1105 is Not Necessary

It is not necessary to enact a constitutional amendment to reach the same stated goal in either of these areas. The alternative is to create a statewide mechanism in general law addressing all SPDs or boards and commissions in the same manner. The difference would be that a specific board in a single county or SPD could not be singled out with a process specific to it.

Where is S. 1105 in the Legislative Process?

S. 1105 is in a Senate Judiciary subcommittee including Sens. Larry Martin, Chairman; Gerald Malloy; Chip Campsen; Kent Williams and Shane Massey. A copy of the Senate Judiciary Committee roster is attached with the subcommittee members noted.

• Call your senator, and ask them to work to defeat S. 1105.
   
• Come to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee meeting Wednesday, March 12, at 9:30 a.m. in the Gressette Building, Room 307.

S. 1105 proposes to amend one of the constitutional cornerstones of the Home Rule Act. It replaces the prohibition on all laws for a specific county found in Article VIII, §7, with another provision allowing acts of the General Assembly addressing a specific for traditional state functions.

The Proposed Amendment

S. 1105 amends Article VIII, §7 of the South Carolina Constitution by striking the prohibition on passage of laws for a specific county. The amendment then adds the following two provisions to the constitution:

Except as provided in Article III, Section 34, no laws for a specific county shall be enacted. (Art. VIII, §7)

Provided further that, special laws may be enacted if those laws:

(1) are necessary to implement traditional state functions as determined by the General Assembly, or

(2) concern entities created by legislative enactments passed prior to March 7, 1973, and provide for a change in the boundaries or service area of the entity, change in the membership or composition of the board governing the entity, dissolution of the entity, or devolution of all powers, duties, and responsibilities that affect the entity upon the local governing body of a county or municipality. (Art. III, §34)

"Traditional state functions," as used in item 1, is very broad and upon examining the local acts of the General Assembly prior to the Home Rule Act included: adoption of the county budget (then referred to as the county supply bill), setting hours of operation of county offices, providing which services the county would offer, providing for zoning, and any number of other decisions that may commonly be thought of as local decisions.

S. 1105 would allow a reversal of virtually any decision made at the local level by county council, if the legislative delegation passes a bill addressing that service or decision.

Item 2 clearly relates to special purpose districts (SPDs). It is not necessary to enact a constitutional amendment to achieve the same result as the constitutional amendment. The alternative is to create a statewide mechanism addressing all SPDs in the same manner. The difference would be that a specific SPD could not be singled out with a process specific to it.

Where is S. 1105 in the Legislative Process?

S. 1105 is in a Senate Judiciary subcommittee including Sens. Larry Martin, Chairman; Gerald Malloy; Chip Campsen; Kent Williams and Shane Massey. A copy of the Senate Judiciary Committee roster is attached with the subcommittee members noted. No meet-ing has been scheduled at this time.

What Action to Take? 

Now is the time to begin having conversations with all members of the Senate, whether they are on the subcommittee or not.

There are only a handful of members in the General Assembly who were present when the Home Rule Act was adopted. Most members of the General Assembly have never served as a member of a local governing body and may not know the extent to which basic county operations have become very complex as a result of federal law, court decisions and the overall fiscal restrictions and conditions under which the county operates.

When you have conversations, please let the SCAC staff know the feedback you receive.