Printed Page 2010, Mar. 23
| Printed Page 2030, Mar. 23
|
Printed Page 2010, Mar. 23
| Printed Page 2030, Mar. 23
| Reps. HASKINS and MEACHAM spoke in favor of the amendment.
Reps. SHEHEEN and WILKES spoke against the amendment.
Rep. HASKINS spoke in favor of the amendment.
The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment.
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Cain Chamblee Cooper Cotty Dantzler Davenport Easterday Elliott Fair Fleming Fulmer Hallman Harrell Harrison Harwell Haskins Huff Hutson Kelley Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Marchbanks Mason Meacham Quinn Rhoad Richardson Riser Robinson Sandifer Seithel Shissias Smith, D. Tripp Trotter Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Wilkins Witherspoon Wofford Wright Young, A. Young, J.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Askins Bailey Baxley Beatty Boan Breeland Brown, G. Brown, T. Byrd Canty Carnell Cato Cave Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cromer Delleney Felder Gamble Govan Harris, J. Herdklotz Hines Hodges Howard Inabinett Keegan Kennedy Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Klauber Lloyd Martin McAbee McCraw McElveen McMahand McTeer Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Phillips Rice
Rogers Scott Sheheen Simrill Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stoddard Stuart Thomas Townsend Tucker Vaughn Whipper, L. Whipper, S. White Wilder Wilkes Worley
So, the amendment was rejected.
Rep. SIMRILL moved to reconsider the vote whereby Amendment No. 17 was adopted.
Rep. LANFORD spoke in favor of the motion to reconsider.
Rep. KIRSH spoke against the motion to reconsider.
Rep. KIRSH moved to table the motion to reconsider and demanded the yeas and
nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Anderson Bailey Baxley Boan Breeland Brown, G. Brown, T. Byrd Canty Carnell Cave Chamblee Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Dantzler Delleney Elliott Felder Gamble Govan Harris, J. Hodges Howard Inabinett Kelley Kennedy Keyserling Kirsh Klauber Law Limbaugh Littlejohn Lloyd McCraw McElveen McMahand McTeer Moody-Lawrence Neal Phillips Rhoad Richardson Robinson Rogers Scott Sharpe Sheheen Spearman Stille Stoddard Stuart Waldrop Walker
Wells Whipper, L. Whipper, S. White Wilder Wilkes Wofford Young, A.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Askins Brown, H. Cain Cato Cooper Cotty Davenport Easterday Fair Fleming Fulmer Hallman Harrell Harris, P. Harrison Harwell Haskins Herdklotz Hines Huff Hutson Keegan Kinon Knotts Koon Lanford Limehouse Marchbanks Martin Mason McKay Meacham Neilson Quinn Rice Riser Sandifer Seithel Shissias Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R. Thomas Tripp Trotter Tucker Vaughn Whatley Wilkins Worley Wright Young, J.
So, the motion to reconsider was tabled.
Reps. HODGES and RICHARDSON spoke in favor of the Bill.
Rep. KEYSERLING spoke against the Bill.
Reps. CANTY, G. BROWN, CAVE, COBB-HUNTER, McELVEEN and SCOTT spoke against the Bill.
Reps. WRIGHT, MARTIN, KIRSH, WILKINS and KENNEDY spoke in favor of the Bill.
The question then recurred to the passage of the Bill on second reading.
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Askins Bailey Baxley Beatty Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, T. Cain Cato Chamblee Clyburn Cooper Cotty Cromer Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Elliott Fair Felder Fleming Fulmer Gamble Govan Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Harwell Haskins Herdklotz Hines Hodges Huff Hutson Inabinett Keegan Kelley Kennedy Kinon Kirsh Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Marchbanks Martin Mason McAbee McCraw McKay McTeer Meacham Neilson Phillips Quinn Rhoad Rice Richardson Riser Robinson Rogers Sandifer Seithel Sharpe Sheheen Shissias Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stoddard Stuart Thomas Townsend Tripp Trotter Tucker Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Witherspoon Wofford Worley Wright Young, A. Young, J.
Breeland Canty Carnell Cave Cobb-Hunter Howard Keyserling Lloyd McElveen Moody-Lawrence Neal Scott Whipper, S. White
So, having received the necessary vote of two-thirds of the membership present and voting, the Bill was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
Rep. FELDER inquired about a fiscal impact statement prior to third reading in compliance with Section 2-7-76 which states that a revised estimated fiscal impact and cost statement must be prepared at the direction of the presiding officer of the House of Representatives or the Senate by the Budget Division prior to third reading of the bill or resolution, if there is a significant amendment to the bill or resolution.
The SPEAKER stated that he would comply in accordance with Section 2-7-76.
H. 3651 has many provisions that I agree with and several provisions that I don't agree with. Specifically not giving the public the right to vote for property tax relief by voting to raise the sales tax in S.C. and the Bill does nothing to stop mandates to local governments without providing the funding mechanism. My only reason for voting for the Bill is to allow some form of property tax relief.
Rep. GRADY A. BROWN
I voted against H. 3651 because it was a direct attack on Home Rule and would tie the hands of City and County Councils. They, as elected officials, should have the ability to control their budgets so they can respond to the needs of the people that they represent.
The Legislature should focus on state government and quit trying to micromanage local governments. We have approved Property Tax Relief in the State Budget Bill, one which doubles the $20,000 Homestead
Rep. MARION P. CARNELL
H. 3651, to some small extent, is a continuation of the House's progressive efforts last year to provide South Carolinians' with residential property tax relief. I supported property tax relief last year and still believe that property taxpayers want and deserve relief from an excessive tax burden. However, I cannot vote for passage of H. 3651. This Bill violates the principles of Home Rule and compromises the integrity of the Education Improvement Act. I strongly believe that local governing entities should have the flexibility and authority to govern. The tax rate caps as outlined in this Bill and the House's failure to deal with unfunded mandates inhibit local governments' ability to effectively address the needs and concerns of their citizens. Secondly, this Bill provides tax relief at the expense of both public and higher education. Education, not property tax relief, should be the State's number one priority. Those who want to reduce the size of government and provide property tax relief by cutting education are, in my opinion, misguided and short-sighted about what is in the best interest of this State.
Rep. GILDA COBB-HUNTER
I concur with Rep. HODGES. Further, I would add that while it is impractical, if not impossible, to vote against this Bill given everyone's commitment to reduce property taxes, the people need to know how this Bill proposes to reduce property taxes. As Rep. HODGES says: on the backs of school children and working families. I would add, we have endorsed a very irresponsible and liberal precedent of dipping into our set asides and savings to fund the issues of the day. Not to disclose this fact would be hypocritical for anyone who considers themselves to be a fiscal conservative.
Rep. JAMES L.M. CROMER, JR.
Although I have always been a huge supporter of eliminating unfunded mandates, I voted in opposition of Amendment No. 23 to Bill H. 3651 because of its broad nature and lack of definition of what an unfunded mandate is. The Bill in its unamended form calls for a study commission to define for those impacted by mandates from the state exactly what
Rep. MICHAEL E. EASTERDAY
I voted against Amendment No. 23 on H. 3651 because it was overly broad. I am opposed to unfunded mandates.
Rep. MICHAEL L. FAIR
I voted for H. 3651, although I have grave reservations about it. My hope is the Senate will take the appropriate action to protect education and local government. This Bill disproportionately benefits wealthier homeowners at the expense of less wealthy homeowners, and fails to provide a reasonable funding mechanism. My vote is simply to keep the issue alive. Property tax relief cannot be provided on the backs of school children and working families.
Rep. JAMES H. HODGES
Having promised the people in Beaufort relief from excessive property taxes, I regret I cannot support H-3651.
Before I proceed, I want to first express thanks to the members of the House Ways and Means Committee and especially to Chairman Henry Brown. They have worked long and hard to provide property tax relief. It is also in order to recognize Governor Beasley for his leadership in keeping property tax relief to the fore.
After talking with colleagues and constituents over the past several weeks, I believe this measure asks the people of South Carolina to pay too much for what remains uncertain "relief."
We ask them to withstand cuts in education funding, despite our commitments
otherwise, when it is critical we expand efforts to provide the best possible
education opportunities for our young people; by spending budgeted set-asides,
mandated by Carnell-Felder, we ask the citizens to jeopardize the recovery of
our state's hard earned premier bond rating thereby increasing the cost when the
state borrows money to finance South Carolina's growth for the future;
by placing spending caps on local government (including schools) we ask the people to tie the hands of those they elect to serve them in local government, that government closest to, and most trusted by, the people to respond to their daily needs; and finally,
we ask the people to make these sacrifices without giving them any certainty of actual property tax savings.
Instead of certain and specific property tax reform, H-3651 provides, at best, modest relief and a "promise" for more. (It is only appropriate to tell those who don't know that this General Assembly has broken previous "tax promises," specifically those which assured the citizens that every penny of sales tax go to the public schools. The General Assembly has broken this promise and, accordingly, demonstrated it cannot be trusted with promises passed off from one legislative generation to the next.)
Mr Speaker, our debate on property tax reform over the past two years has
been based on invalid assumptions: that the escalation of property taxes is
related to funding our public schools; and that property tax reform requires a
statewide approach rather than a local solution.
Let me explain:
(1) The idea of tying property tax reform to funding local school districts was invented last year as a political ploy when we proposed property tax reform in the Boan Bill. (We thought,we will achieve property tax reform because "no one could have the nerve to put at risk secure funding for our schools.")
Yes, the General Assembly is constitutionally mandated to support public schools. We must honor that commitment by fully applying each of the five cents we collect in sales tax to fund schools.
(2) Contrary to underlying assumptions in H-3651, the rise in property tax is a local problem better resolved at the local level . . . if we untie the hands of local governments and stop denying them a means for raising revenue as required to address the problem.
If we disregard these false assumptions, and if we analyze the reasons for the dramatic rise in property taxes, we see that taxes have risen to finance the urbanization, or suburbanization if you will, of our historically rural state and the expense associated with implementing unfunded state and local mandates.
People living in the suburbs, today, demand services which, in the past, were
provided only to those who lived in town.
Today, most South Carolinians expect municipal and county government to: pave and maintain drainage of the road to their home; provide water and then remove their sewage; have public safety agencies, including fire, police and emergency medical technicians, respond within minutes to their public safety needs.
Given citizen demand for these local services, it is no surprise that property taxes, currently the only revenue source to pay for these services, are rising.
If the citizens think property tax is too high, then the local government must be prepared to cut services or employ alternative sources for generating the revenue necessary to fund those services. This is where the General Assembly can, and should in fact, be involved in property tax reform. We should untie the hands of local government and provide them with the option of alternative sources of revenue: county-wide sales tax; county-wide special purpose sales tax; county-wide income tax; various other fees employed by local government in other states as an alternative to property tax. Let local people decide what is best for local needs. Keep state government in Columbia out of the business of cities, towns and counties. It is time for genuine home rule, not control from Columbia.
We must also curb mandating local programs for local government for which we are not prepared to pay with state funds.
Am I just complaining . . . or do I have an alternative to H-3651? I have an alternative plan for ensuring property tax reform. Unfortunately, however, I was not able to offer it today since it would be ruled out of order because, as a replacement to the measure before us, it doesn't meet the test of germaneness.
Briefly, my four point plan for property tax reform follows.
(1) Demonstrate the State's commitment to tax reform for every South Carolinian. Initiate a referendum through which the voters may choose whether or not to phase out the sales tax on food and replace the "lost revenues" by applying up to 25% of future annual revenues resulting from growth over a period of up to four years. The current sales tax on food
Printed Page 2010, Mar. 23
| Printed Page 2030, Mar. 23
|