2003 Legislative Alerts
Dec. 29, 2003
Legislation Needing Action Prior to the Start of the Legislative Session
March 27, 2003
H. 3555 — Hog Bill
March 26, 2003
Hog Farm Bill Up for Second Reading Tomorrow
Feb. 13, 2003
Budget Proviso — Counties to Hold Persons Sentenced to One Year or Less
Feb. 4, 2003
H. 3497 — Limit on Spending of Property Tax Revenues
Dec. 29, 2003
Legislation Needing Action Prior to the Start of the Legislative Session
This is the second year of the two-year session of the General Assembly. All bills that were filed last year remain eligible for adoption. Several bills which were on the verge of final passage, or in other key points in the legislative process, need your attention and effort prior to the General Assembly reconvening on Jan.13, 2004. Please contact your legislators regarding the bills discussed below.
The SCAC legislative program is only as effective as the county officials who actively involve themselves in the program. Please make contact with your legislators on the following legislation, and call SCAC's staff at 1-800-922-6081 to let us know their response. Please call the SCAC staff, if you need further background information on these or any other issues.
Uniform Ballot Machine Statewide — H. 3777
This bill is eligible for a final vote on the first day the Senate reconvenes. H. 3777 has passed both the House and Senate in different forms and is now back in the Senate. The Senate may either go along with the House version of the bill or insist on its version of the bill. If the Senate insists on its version, H. 3777 will go to a conference committee to work out the differences.
SCAC supports having multiple approved balloting machines (which is allowed in the Senate bill only) and clear language delaying implementation until any required voting machine changes are fully funded, as the federal government has promised.
There is no requirement in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to have just one uniform voting machine statewide. If the federal government supplies 95 percent of the funds necessary to purchase new machines and the state supplies the required 5 percent match, the local cost would be training and disposing of existing non-conforming voting machines. However, there is considerable doubt that the promised federal funding will be forthcoming, according to reports from state and federal elections officials.
ACTION REQUEST: Contact your Senate delegation and ask that they vote to insist on the Senate version of H. 3777, so that multiple approved voting machines can be retained in this bill and recent federal funding questions can be investigated further.
Super Majority Vote on Taxes and Fees — H. 3649
H. 3649 would require a two-thirds vote by either the General Assembly or a local government governing body to increase or impose a new tax or fee. This bill is pending second reading on the contested House calendar. The House could easily reach this bill in the first week of the session. H. 3649 would require a two-thirds vote to pass the House, so any opposition to this bill would be critical to stopping it.
At the state level, the two-thirds requirement is actually two-thirds of the body. As applied to local government, the two-thirds vote requirement would actually be a much higher 80 percent rule in many cases, depending upon the size of the council. It could allow one or two members of council to hold everyone else hostage. Periodic increases in routine fees, such as copy costs or recreation program fees, could require the entire county budget to need a two-thirds vote to pass.
ACTION REQUEST: Ask your House delegation to oppose H. 3649 by voting against its passage or to send it back to committee for further study of its disproportionate impact upon local government.
Hog Bill — H. 3555
The Hog Bill is on the Senate Calendar with objections. H. 3555 in its current form forbids local regulations that impose a more stringent standard for swine, poultry and livestock operations. The Senate Judiciary Committee is proposing an amendment that would allow counties to impose more restrictive requirements for hog operations, but not for other livestock or poultry. The measure would still dilute the ability of counties to hear and, where possible, address concerns of their citizens regarding health and environmental issues that were not hog-related. Any version which passes the Senate allows the House to insist upon its version of H. 3555, and the House leaders on H. 3555 stated that they would not compromise.
Sen. Ralph Anderson of Greenville put a minority report on the bill, and Sens. Gerald Malloy and Scott Richardson placed their names on the bill objecting to it. SCAC opposes legislation which would restrict the authority of local governments to enhance the protections provided in general law in addressing issues concerning health, protection of property values and the quality of life of their citizens.
ACTION REQUEST: Contact your Senators, and ask that they oppose H. 3555 — the Hog Bill.
School Bond Sales Tax — H. 3612
H. 3612 is pending second reading on the contested House calendar. It would authorize the school districts in a county area to trigger a referendum to impose a 1 cent sales tax for capital projects. This particular proposal has not had the technical glitches worked out, much less been given a critical look at the overarching policy issues involved in the bill.
The bill creates a method for the school districts to skirt the 8 percent bonded indebtedness limitation. The sales tax sunsets in seven years, when most school construction bonds are for terms of 20-30 years. In Georgia, almost every bond issue has been used for additional projects, not property tax relief. There is also no provision for the additional operating expense of the new schools that would be built with the sales tax proceeds. SCAC opposes legislation to authorize a 1 cent sales tax for new or existing school bonds. The legislation does nothing to correct the most significant cause of spiraling school district operating costs—the EIA/EFA millage drivers, and does not provide real property tax relief to the taxpayers.
ACTION REQUEST: Contact your House member. Ask them to oppose H. 3612.
March 27, 2003
H. 3555 — Hog Bill
STATUS: Pending second reading—to be taken up again next Tuesday.
ACTION REQUEST:
- Call your House members to educate them about the effect of the current version of this bill upon your county.
- Contact your local newspaper editorial department to explain H. 3555 and what it potentially does to your community.
- Plan to come to the Statehouse beginning at noon on Tuesday, if at all possible.
The House of Representatives' debate on H. 3555 has become a debate on Home Rule itself and whether county councils should be allowed the authority to make regulations on hog and chicken farms. Enclosed is the current version of the bill. On Wednesday, the House refused to adopt H. 3555 on second reading on a vote of 52-49. A procedural vote to prevent further consideration then failed on a 48-48 vote. On Thursday, another procedural vote to prevent further debate on the bill failed on a vote of 41-67. The votes on either side of this issue are very fluid, and the bill is back up for a second reading with about seven amendments pending on the bill.
Enclosed are the roll call votes for the failed second reading and the procedural vote to cut off further consideration of this bill. Please note how your representatives voted on these votes, and respond accordingly.
Points to consider about H. 3555
Why do city residents deserve additional protection above state standards, while residents in the unincorporated area do not? An amendment exempted municipalities from the bill.
Why do residents of some counties deserve additional protection above state standards, and other county residents not? County ordinances adopted prior to 2003 are grandfathered.
Don't the citizens not given the additional protection of more stringent local regulation have a claim that this legislation is unconstitutional as a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
Why is it that residents are not allowed to bring a common law suit for nuisance, when the factory farms could bring a suit against their neighbors? In 1996, the General Assembly prohibited private nuisance suits in Code Section 46-45-30, which reads "No established agricultural facility or any agricultural operation at an established agricultural facility is or may become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality of the facility or operation. This section does not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent, improper or illegal operation of an agricultural facility or operation."
Why are DHEC standards for hog farms held as such wonderful models of public protection, when the standards promulgated by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers contain setback distance approximately twice as long as DHEC standards?
If these factory hog farms are ideal economic development projects, why is it that most of the counties which are said to be the ideal spots for these farms adopted more stringent protections than the state standards?
Why is "one size fits all" legislation needed in this area? The 1996 Act and the DHEC regulations adopted as a result both allowed more stringent local regulation and specifically state that local zoning must be observed.
Why is it that locally-elected leaders should not be allowed to address citizen concerns and complaints?
SCAC will be supporting:
- Amendment #15 to state that counties may adopt standards in excess of state standards, if the state standards do not meet the standards promulgated by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
- Amendment #17 to exempt zoning ordinances from the operation of the bill.
- Amendment #18 to exempt zoning ordinances, which apply to agriculture and livestock operations.
- Amendment #20 to delete the statutory prohibition on nuisance suits against agriculture and livestock operations.
H. 3555 — HOG BILL
As of March 27, 2003
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 4-9-31 AND 5-7-31 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES MAY NOT ENACT ANY ORDINANCE THAT SUPERSEDES OR IMPOSES A MORE STRINGENT STANDARD THAN THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY ACT 460 OF 1996.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Article 1, Chapter 9, Title 4 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
Section 4-9-31. Notwithstanding another provision of law, when exercising the enumerated powers granted by this chapter or another provision of law, a county beginning January 1, 2003, may not enact an ordinance that supersedes or imposes a more stringent standard than standards established by the General Assembly relating to the production of livestock or poultry, as defined in Section 47-4-20. Any such ordinance enacted on or after January 1, 2003, in violation of this section is null and void.
SECTION 2. (A) Notwithstanding another provision of law, the provisions contained in this section allow an ordinance in existence on January 1, 2003, to be amended without affecting the validity of the ordinance.
(B) If an ordinance authorized hereunder is found to be unconstitutional, a county is not prohibited from adopting another ordinance with more stringent standards than the standards established by Act 460 of 1996, amendments to that act, or regulations promulgated pursuant to that act."
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
March 26, 2003
Hog Farm Bill Up for Second Reading Tomorrow
MAKE PHONE CALLS TO YOUR HOUSE MEMBERS NOW!
If there ever was a time when one vote could make a difference, this is it! The Hog Farm Bill (H. 3555) failed to receive second reading in the House today by a 52-49 vote. A motion to clincher the bill failed on a 48-48 vote. The bill will be up for second reading again tomorrow.
Please call your House members NOW, and ask them to kill this legislation. Attached is a roll call of how House members voted.
HOUSE MEMBERS CAN BE REACHED ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AT (803) 734-2010. THE HOUSE SESSION BEGINS AT 10:00 A.M. ON THURSDAY.
Feb. 13, 2003
Budget Proviso — Counties to Hold Persons Sentenced to One Year or Less
This morning, the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee heard the budget and proviso requests of the
S.C. Department of Corrections (SCDOC). At that meeting, SCDOC Director Jon Ozmint presented his requests, which included providing that county jails hold persons sentenced to one year or less (counties currently hold persons sentenced to three months or less). The subcommittee and SCDOC agreed that reimbursement to the counties would be a key part of any package, but no numbers were provided and no actual proviso has been drafted.
Director Ozmint stated that the cost of processing one inmate through a Reception and Evaluation Center prior to being placed in the State Prison System is roughly $500 per inmate. At this time, the State Prison System is holding about 2,500 persons sentenced to one year or less. This would approximate a savings of $1.25 million per year to the state, not to mention the costs of housing, feeding and providing medical care to each of these persons over the course of their year in prison. Overall, SCDOC estimates their total cost savings per year to be $6 million.
Even if adequate reimbursements were provided, the issue of jail space becomes a more pressing concern. Jails would need to be expanded or built on an even more escalated timetable, and the costs of expansion and building would increase geometrically. The long-term repercussions of injecting 2,500 inmates into county jails would aggravate a system that is already fraught with numerous problems.
The Association's policy position on this issue has been to oppose any attempt to require counties to keep state prisoners sentenced longer than three months. The subcommittee asked SCAC to work with SCDOC in coming up with a budget proviso agreeable to all parties.
SCAC was also asked to gather current statistical information from the county jails on the status of their bed space and average daily operational costs, as well as other related issues. We will be sending a survey to county administrators and county jail administrators shortly to gather this information, and WE ASK THAT YOU GIVE IT PRIORITY ATTENTION. We also ask that you make contact with members of the House Ways and Means Committee to let them know the impact such a proposal would have on your county.
Feb. 4, 2003
H. 3497 — Limit on Spending of Property Tax Revenues
WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE HEARING TOMORROW AT 11:00 A.M.
H.3497 was introduced in the House today and passed out favorably by a subcommittee of Ways and Means. It will be heard by the full Ways and Means Committee tomorrow (Wednesday) at 11:00 a.m. This bill, sponsored by Reps. Quinn, Littlejohn, Sandifer and Toole, would provide an additional limitation on spending of property tax revenues for the operation of political subdivisions and school districts. This would be in addition to the millage rate limitations imposed in §6-1-320.
It provides that for a given fiscal year, a local governing body or school district cannot spend property tax revenues for operating purposes that exceed the LESSER of the total of the entity's property tax revenues for operations in the prior year plus 6 percent, or the total of the entire property tax revenues for operations in the prior year adjusted for inflation and population growth (appropriate percentage needed to calculate provided by the Budget and Control Board).
Where a limitation by law already exists on spending of property tax revenues for operations that provides a lower spending limit, then the lower limit applies in lieu of the above. As written, this legislation would apply to property taxes imposed in fiscal years beginning after June 30, 2005.
Please contact members of the House Ways and Means Committee IMMEDIATELY and let them know how this legislation would completely undermine the ability of counties to provide for and pay for services. You may also want to contact your school districts to let them know about the impact of this legislation.
Please call the SCAC staff, and let us know what feedback you get from your legislators.