Today’s topic, set for special order, is S. 969. This is a mileage cap proposal. It basically does three things:
1>adds language to the constitution defining the reasons for a potential tax increase and requiring counties to enumerate them on the ballot. They include: a deficiency in the preceding year, any catastrophic event outside the control of the governing body, or compliance with a court order or decree.
2>limits the ability of school districts to increase mileage to the equivalent of the most recent three-year rolling average of personal income growth as determined by the US Department of Commerce.
3>limits all other jurisdiction to the above formula unless an ordinance passed by the governing body is approved by the voters at a general election.
Unfortunately, current and future bonded indebtedness, for all jurisdictions, is excluded from these caps. This raises two obvious questions. First, why would we limit mileage increases for operations but not buildings? Shouldn’t voters have the right to decide if their local government should build buildings? Second, if we leave capital bonds unregulated, does this perpetuate the possibility of every county in South Carolina auditing the Greenville Plan, whereby those taxpayers assumed over $1 billion in bonded debt without even as much as a chance to vote on it? There are amendments addressing these. Will they pass?
This is a debate for taxpayers to watch. Let me know what you think.

Bill S. 960 is a constitutional amendment to cap property assessments. The proposed ammendment to the amendmment by Senate Democrats appeared on its surface to simply cut property taxes, but in reality, it severely damages the intent of S. 960. Before we talk about a swap, lets put in a series of safeguards for the remaining property taxes.

S. 960 is the first safeguard and should not be “mucked” up and here’s why:
First, the amendment removes the funding for school operations. It does not, however, give any indication of how that funding would be re-supplied. This method of legislating reflects the height of fiscal irresponsibility Democrats are so famous for. South Carolina has only recently emerged from several years of budget deficits caused by creating recurring programs without a recurring source of spending. Furthermore, if the citizens of South Carolina want to send the responsibility of school funding to the state level, they deserve to understand how that responsibility will be met. South Carolinians deserve better from their government than empty promises, and this amendment amounted to nothing more than that.

Second, the amendment actually opens the door for future tax increases on the local level. While it does prevent taxing property for school operating funds, it specifically endorses taxing property for capital bonds, i.e. buildings. Down the road we’ll be right back where we started on property taxes except we will also have sales taxes through the roof: possibly 4 extra cents had we accepted the amendment.

Third, the amendment advocates a statewide property tax. I have said from the beginning, that I will never vote to swap taxes that are not revenue neutral. Without some indication of where the money to operate schools would come from, I cannot be sure this is revenue neutral. Fortunately Republicans tabled the amendment and the clean version of S. 960 passed the required 2/3 vote for constitutional amendments.

Today, the Senate will pass legislation freezing property reassessment at the point of sale. This goes a long way to providing the relief that property owners across South Carolina are demanding. While the legislation does not go as far as I and others might have wanted (for instance it includes an annual inflation factor of up to 3%), taxpayer advocates did score one additional victory yesterday. Before we talk about a swap, lets cap assessments.
The legislation allows for voters, by county, to decide if they prefer to move to the point of sale reassessment or stay with the status quo of reassessment every five years. Moreover, the legislation would allow voters to reverse their decision five years down the road by another ballot initiative.
Senator Greg Ryberg, and his brilliant staff, caught a sentence in the bill that would have allowed county councils to reverse the will of the voters simply by passing an ordinance to do so, whether the voters wanted it or not. Ryberg fought for an amendment that would allow county councils to pass such an ordinance but would allow it to take effect ONLY upon ratification by the voters.
I had asked a question about this in committee and was glad to vote for the amendment to ensure that voters will always control the method by which their property is reassessed.
Another victory for the folks who put the taxpayers first.

Last night in Anderson County I had the chance to meet with over 200 of my closest friends. The County Republican Party Convention had a straw poll. Below are the results:
Gov: Sanford 93.55%; Lovelace 8.06%
Lt. Gov.: Bauer 88.71%; Campbell 12.90%
Treasurer: Ryberg 69.35%; Quinn 17.74%; Willis 14.52%
Sec. Of State: Hammond 98.36%; Floyd 1.64%
Ag. Com.: Bell 50.00%; Weathers 50.00%
Sec. Of Education: Floyd 85.48%; Staton 8.06%; Wood 6.45%; Mofley 0.00%; Ryan 0.00%

I hope some of you got to see the debate yesterday. Unfortunately, I believe it was overshadowed in today’s news coverage by the House debate on property tax. As it turned out, the debate moved away from the merits of using the 2005-2006 surplus to repay our debt to the trust and reserve funds and then improve secondary roads. Instead, we ended up talking about the process.
“The process” refers to the way things really work in the South Carolina Senate. Those opposed to the amendment designed to repay the trust funds argued that it hadn’t gone through the process of sub-committee and full committee. Indeed, it hadn’t, and that was, in my eyes, one of its merits.
If a large chunk of money, such as the estimated $275,000,000 plus we’re talking about here, goes through the process, the outcome is unknown. It may be spent as we proposed, or it may be divided up in to numerous local projects. Thus the debate yesterday was really about whether we were going to do the fiscally responsible thing and repay our debts or whether we were going to submit to the process and use the budget as a grab-bag. There are many legitimate needs, but I would prefer to pay off the debts, then channel the money to either our deteriorating roads and/or to the taxpayer.
This is where you folks need to weigh in. Let me know what you think of this debate and the way the SC Senate treats your money. I look forward to hearing from you.