STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
THE SENATE
For Immediate Release
August 6, 2008
Bryant Continues Fight for Greater Transparency
Wants Property Valuation Notices to be Mailed Prior to End of Fiscal Year
Columbia, SC - Senator Kevin Bryant (R-Anderson) continues to fight for greater transparency in state and local government. Senator Bryant wants county tax officials to send out new property value notices at least 60 days before the end of a county’s fiscal year, so taxpayers can have a better understanding of how much money is being collected due to an increase in property values.
“I am working on legislation that would require counties to send reassessment notices to taxpaying homeowners 60 days prior to the end of the county’s fiscal year,” says Senator Bryant. “Many taxpayers in Anderson County are still in the dark about the reassessed value of their property and the potential impact on their personal finances.”
Senator Bryant wants taxpayers to have a greater understanding of how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. “It is all about information. The more people understand about how government is using their money, the more likely they are to hold elected officials accountable for fiscal responsibility.”
South Carolina law (Section 12-43-217) requires counties to “appraise and equalize” property once every five years and send notice to the property owner if the value or classification increase is more than $1,000. Although the notice is required, there is no specific time frame of when notice of the increase should be provided. The legislation being drafted by Senator Bryant would put a specific time frame in place. The reassessment valuation notice differs from the annual tax notice that is sent out annually.
Senator Bryant is joined in his desire to see legislation requiring a time schedule for reassessment notices by fellow Senators Larry Grooms (R- Berkeley), Greg Ryberg (R-Aiken), and Danny Verdin (R-Laurens).
Senator Bryant expects to pre-file the legislation in December ahead of the 2009 legislative session.
###
Based on my experience with my home and car insurance company, I do believe that sending out new property value notices ahead of time, to allow taxpayers to have a better understanding of what they are expected to pay, is an excellent idea.
Since my home and car insurance company started sending me early notices of my expected premiums, I found myself more prepared financially and psychologically to make payments. In addition, my confidence in my insurance company, and their competitive rates, greatly improved.
We note that you have still not been man enough to apologize for comparing a sitting US Senator and man of deep integrity, Senator Obama, to an international terrorist.
It’s time you got down on your knees and prayed for your heart to heal. No one can remove this hatred except you.
[...] Sen. Kevin Bryant | Assessment Notice Schedule [...]
“Conservative Voice?” Nobody’s buying that screen name. But you’re right about Obama. He’s deep alright.
This sounds good as long as the State Legislature quits passing bills affecting the tax laws up until the last day of the session. There is no way to send out the notices 60 days ahead when legislation that affects reassessment, such as this years ATI bill, is still in play in early June. This sounds like the State Legislature dumping on local government when the problem lies in Columbia.
Steve, As you know, the ATI was included in the Act 388 passed in 2006 and only became in effect beginng 2007. It’s now mid 2008 and still no reassessment notice, even though the millage has be passed by council and all tax entities without the notice. Sounds like it’s not the General Assembly, but the local council(administrator) that’s playing games.
The Man, au contraire. While the original ATI was included in Act 388 from 2006, H4942 and S1313, which would have repealed ATI and directly affected the property value used for tax notices this year, were in play and died on the Senate floor on the last day of the session. Until then, no county knew which value to use for property subject to the ATI. That would have made the 60 day requirement impossible to meet. Our county is just wrapping up ATI reassessments as it was not known if they were to be used until June 5th.
Not quite, mon ami, those pending bills only amended Act 388 after 2008 with a base year of 2007. It did not affect act 388 for this year. If the local county council hesitate executing enacted law simply on the chance that law may be amended, then no law would be executed. Those bills were introduced in April, 2008, not seriously considered. Nice try, though!!