May 17, 2006
Regulatory Takings & DHEC - Poultry Farm Setbacks

1. Vote AGAINST Regulatory Takings to S.1029 and S.1031. These two
bills clarify the South Carolina law on takings as addressed in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Kehoe v. City of New London. Regulatory takings, on the other hand, would severely restrict local government's ability to enact or enforce zoning or other land use restrictions. If passed, regulating sexually-oriented businesses and other such land use regulation will be beyond the control of
county councils and residents in your community will be greatly disadvantaged.

2. OPPOSE DHEC the Authority to Regulate Poultry Farm Setbacks. (S.1205) Allowing a state agency to determine setbacks on a one-size-fits-all statewide standard will erode local control. Ultimately, your citizens will be
coming to you to fix problems you can't help them with.

Please take immediate action (today or tomorrow morning) and let your representative know how this will affect your community.
 

May 11, 2006
Eminent Domain / Takings

April 5, 2006
2006 Version of the "Hog Bill" - S. 1205

This bill has been set for Special Order
and will probably be debated next week in the Senate.

As currently configured, S.1205 will not protect or grandfather local ordinances that placed greater setbacks on agricultural operations if those exceeded State regulatory setbacks protections. Our research indicates that your county has passed such an ordinance, and if S.1205 passes in its current form, that ordinance will be rendered null and void.

Senator John Matthews has an amendment that would grandfather your local law. If you want to protect this ordinance, you need to contact your Senator and ask that they support the Matthews' or other amendments that protect prior actions by county governments....
 

March 24, 2006
Property Tax Restructuring

Thursday afternoon the Senate Finance subcommittee considering the various sales tax for property tax swap plans adopted the outline of a proposal to grant property tax relief using a statewide one half cent sales tax increase. The revenue, a little over $300 million will be split into two different property tax relief programs outlined below.

The subcommittee will meet briefly to review the draft of the plan at 2:00 pm on Tuesday, March 28 and the plan will then be before the full Senate Finance Committee at 3:00 pm that day.

IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT ANY FEATURE OF THIS PLAN, CONTACT YOUR SENATOR IMMEDIATELY. THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ARE: Senators Courson, Grooms, Hayes, Land, Matthews, Richardson, and Short. THEY SHOULD BE CONTACTED BEFORE THEY MEET ON TUESDAY.
(Click here for Sen. Fin. Roster w/ s/c members highlighted)

THE PROPOSAL:
The proposal is only a concept at this point with many undetermined features. Below is the best information we have at this point and a list of unanswered questions.

● Raise $300+ million through a one-half cent increase in the state sales tax to be placed into a trust fund.

● Place 5% of the revenue into a reserve account.

● Use approximately $100 million to fund a circuit breaker for owner occupied residential property. If the total property tax on the home (after all tax relief and exemptions) exceeds 5% of the federal income tax Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) for the household in the home, the State will pay the amount over the 5% threshold.

√ There is no set mechanism to pay that amount over the 5% threshold. The mechanism discussed in the meeting was for a taxpayer to apply with the county showing their income tax form and processing a request to the State for the payment over the 5% threshold. It is not clear if the amount over 5% would not be collected awaiting payment from the State, OR if there would be a check paid to the taxpayer to cover the amount over 5% which was paid or whether the State or county would issue any such check. There was some earlier discussion of using a refundable income tax credit for the amount over the circuit breaker threshold.

● Use approximately $200 million to create an owner occupied residential property tax EXEMPTION FROM COUNTY OPERATING PROPERTY TAXES with a mechanism similar to the $100,000 exemption from school operating taxes. This exemption would be in addition to the homestead exemption for the elderly and disabled.

√ There is no word yet as to whether there would be a fixed exemption amount or whether the exemption amount would fluctuate according to how much revenue was in the trust fund from sales tax revenue.

√ There is no word yet on the reimbursement mechanism as to whether it would be dollar for dollar reimbursement or a per capita distribution (regardless of the amount of revenue exempted), or some different formula. The discussion on Thursday seems to indicate that the subcommittee is leaning towards a per capita distribution formula.

√ There is no word yet on the schedule which would be used to make payments of reimbursements to counties.

● There was no discussion of addressing the statutory school millage drivers (maintenance of local effort). So any relief granted through the county operating tax break will disappear as those formulas increase school millage rates each year.

● Any millage increase by the county after the exemption is in place will shift to classes of property other than residential - manufacturing, commercial and personal property.

● County budget formulation would be difficult at best because either the value of exempted property would be unknown or the amount of the reimbursement would be unknown.

● No previous property tax exemption & reimbursement program has remained unchanged.

THIS PROPOSAL WILL HAVE SERIOUS ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES FOR COUNTY OPERATIONS.
 

February 2, 2006
H.3381 – Billboards

As you learned from last week’s Friday Report, H.3381, the “billboards” legislation, was given final approval by the Senate. The differences between the House and Senate versions will probably be resolved in conference. The bill will then be ratified and sent on to the Governor for his signature. This bill is a win for special interests and a loss for local government. Our only chance now rests with the Governor.

WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU CONTACT THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE AND URGE HIM TO VETO H.3381 WHEN IT GETS TO HIS DESK (803-734-2100).

Here are a few of the reasons this legislation should be vetoed:

● THERE IS NO ESTIMATE OF THE FISCAL IMPACT: The bill provides a formula for “just compensation” that is slanted towards the billboard industry, with no incentive for a sign owner to enter the process in good faith. The result is government-financed (i.e., taxpayer-financed) “business insurance” for the billboard industry.

● IT IMPOSES A STRICTER STANDARD ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAN THE STATE: The State is only required to pay the original cost of constructing the sign as compensation, while local governments have to pay substantially more. Why impose a different, more stringent standard for local governments?

● IT CONTAINS A RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of April 14, 2005 would invalidate any local billboard ordinances or amendments enacted after that date. This is a bad legislative practice.

● REGULATION OF SIGNS IS A POLICE POWER AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A “TAKING”: This legislation ignores court rulings that have
held uniformly that the taking of private property without compensation does not apply to the legitimate exercise of police powers, which the regulation of signs certainly is.

● IT FURTHER ERODES HOME RULE: It essentially eliminates the ability of local governments to remove billboards by making it excessively expensive to
do so, furthering eroding decision-making at the local level.

● IT IS SPECIAL-INTEREST LEGISLATION: It caters to a well-financed
industry at the expense of local taxpayers and sets a dangerous precedent.

There have been numerous editorials by almost all of the daily newspapers in the state regarding why this legislation would be detrimental. A couple of these are attached. PLEASE CONTACT THE GOVERNOR NOW AND ASK HIM TO VETO H.3381 WHEN IT GETS TO HIS DESK!

The Greenville News

Disclosure forms advertise billboard industry's lobbying
Published: Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 6:00 am
By Jeanne Brooks

They eat well, down in Columbia, when somebody wants something.  At least judging by those darn disclosure forms. A pesky law requires lobbyists and those who hire lobbyists to disclose how many dollars they spend in, well, helping our elected officials grasp what really matters on a given issue.

For instance, disclosure forms filed with the South Carolina State Ethics Commission tell us that in the first six months alone of 2004, the Outdoor Advertising Association of South Carolina spent $75,250 on lobbying state legislators.

Outdoor advertising pretty much means billboards

The association's lobbying cost for the first half of 2004 included $60,500 to the lobbyists themselves. And $14,750 to the election or, usually, re-election campaigns of a raft of people.

This is completely legal. Laws set limits. And campaign contributions in legal amounts are a form of free speech.

Four candidates got $1,000. One got $200. Twenty got $250-$500. The Senate Republican Caucus and the South Carolina Transportation Policy and Research Council also each received $1,000.

To you or me $75,250 might seem like serious money.

Likewise, contributing to 25 different political races compares rather impressively to how much of the same variety of political free speech ordinary citizens who are not corporations or lobbying groups typically feel able to engage in.

But in the second half of 2004, Outdoor Advertising got even more serious. This time it spent $98,881.22 on lobbying. Only $34,000 of that for lobbyists' fees.

This time, $63,100 went for contributions to yet another whole bunch of state senators and representatives, 45 in all. And four repeats. Ten received $1,000.

The Senate Democratic Caucus got $3,500. House Democratic Caucus: $2,500. Legislative Black Caucus: $3,500. House Republican Caucus: $2,000.

The billboard association was especially generous to the Senate Republican Caucus: $15,000.

Total expense to Outdoor Advertising in 2004 for lobbying: $174,131.22.

You might reflect here, Mr. or Ms. Ordinary Citizen, how big, in dollars, was your voice that year?

On Jan. 25, 2005, Outdoor Advertising bought lunch for 13 Democratic senators who dined with 12 lobbyists, practically a one-to-one ratio. Lunch cost $37.96 per person. Lunch.

House bill 3381 was introduced the next day. Sponsors included a goodly number of Upstate representatives.

The bill is Outdoor Advertising's dream legislation, 3381 essentially making it financially prohibitive for cities or counties to move a billboard. Therefore silencing ordinary citizens' lone recourse regarding billboards.

On Feb. 16, the billboard association bought lunch -- $23.91 per person -- for the Legislative Black Caucus. On March 9, lunch for the Senate Republican Caucus, $29.30 per person. On Mar. 30, breakfast, for the Senate Democratic Caucus, $28.55 per person.

Outdoor Advertising's lobbying expenditure for the first half of 2005: $74,970.66.  Running tab at that point: $249,101.88. Not counting anything before Jan. 2004 or since May 2005.

It's a high cost for billboard industry. But higher for us.

Billboard legislation opponents look for signs of veto

BY JOHN FRANK
The Post and Courier
This article appeared in The Post and Courier and updated online at Charleston.net on Wednesday, February 01, 2006.

COLUMBIA - As legislation making it tougher financially for local governments to remove billboards moves closer to final approval in the General Assembly, critics are beginning to look toward their last resort: Gov. Mark Sanford.

By a 2-to-1 margin, the Senate passed a bill last week that would force local governments to compensate billboard companies when they take down signs. The House approved a similar version by a 90-24 vote in March.

The overwhelming support in both chambers and the powerful lobbying coalition pushing the bill don't leave opponents with many options. While the Senate and House hammer out the differences in coming days, opponents are optimistic the governor will come to the rescue with his veto power.

"I am hoping the governor may consider stopping it," said Phil Leventis, a Sumter Democrat who delayed the bill for six days in the Senate.

In some ways, Sanford might agree with the bill's supporters, who argue that the measure protects private property rights.

"If people have a concern about property rights and property being taken without compensation they would look at this as a bill about fairness," said Scott Shockley, president of the Outdoor Advertising Association in South Carolina.

In other ways, the governor might agree with critics who say local governments should be able to protect the community's quality of life. "This should be a local decision," said Howard Duvall, executive director of the Municipal Association of South Carolina. "The governor has always been a strong supporter of home rule."

Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said the governor wouldn't comment on the legislation before it was complete.

Representatives take up the Senate's amendments this week. A key debate will focus on calculating "just compensation" to include the value of the billboard in addition to the revenue it generates.

Senators changed a few provisions and added others, including a measure that would limit billboard permits to 10 years and another that bans billboards for sexually oriented businesses within a mile of a public road.

Rep. Harry Cato, chairman of the committee that crafted the bill, said lawmakers likely would strike a compromise in a conference committee of House and Senate members.

The thorniest issue for the committee is a measure the Senate added to make the bill retroactive to April 14, 2005. Since then about 10 municipalities, including Charleston and North Charleston, passed ordinances to circumvent the legislation by further restricting where billboards can be located in their communities.

Charleston zoning administrator Lee Batchelder said the retroactive effective date could undo the city's efforts to control billboards in the future. "It would nullify some of the things we accomplished," he said.

David Slade and Warren Wise contributed to this report. Reach John Frank at (803) 799-9051 or jbfrank@postandcourier.com.