Printed Page 1180, Feb. 29
| Printed Page 1200, Feb. 29
|
Printed Page 1180, Feb. 29
| Printed Page 1200, Feb. 29
| (2) The revenues of the charges authorized by this subsection may be used only for:
(a) tourism-related buildings including, but not limited to, civic centers, coliseums, and aquariums;
(b) cultural, recreational, or historical facilities;
(c) beach access and renourishment;
(d) highways, roads, streets, and bridges providing access to tourist destinations;
(e) advertisements and promotions related to tourism development.
(3) Nothing in this subsection may be construed as authorizing additional charges on accommodations and food and beverages when the governing body of the municipality enacted before 1996 taxes, fees, or uniform service charges on these items measured substantially in the same manner. To the extent that the maximum charge rates authorized in this subsection have not been exceeded in cumulative local impositions occurring before 1996, any rate increases are allowed only as provided in this subsection.
(E) For the tax year of implementation of the values determined by a countywide equalization and reassessment program, the millage rate for all real and personal property must not exceed the rollback millage, as defined in this subsection, except that the rollback millage may be increased by the percentage increase in the consumer price index, based on the southeastern average, for the year immediately preceding the year the reassessed values are implemented. The millage rate may be further increased during the year of implementation of reassessment values upon a two-thirds vote of the governing body. However, if the governing body has fewer than six members, a three-fifths vote is required. For purposes of this subsection, the rollback millage rate is computed by dividing the prior year property tax revenues by the budget year property tax assessment base.
(F) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no reimbursement otherwise due a municipality pursuant to Section 12-37-270 may be paid unless the governing body of the municipality certifies in writing to the
C. A. Chapter 1, Title 6 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 6-1-85. Municipalities and counties, may not impose any fee or tax of any nature or description on the transfer of real property unless the General Assembly has expressly authorized by general law the imposition of the fee or tax."
B. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6-1-85 of the 1976 Code as added by this section, the governing body of any municipality, county, school district, or special purpose district which has enacted and collected any fee or tax which is charged on the transfer of real estate may continue to collect the fees or taxes until the earlier of:
(1) the end of the entity's current fiscal year as of the effective date of this section; or
(2) January 1, 1997.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no reimbursement otherwise due any jurisdiction pursuant to Section 12-37-270 of the 1976 Code which is affected by the phase-out provisions of this subsection may be paid unless the governing body of the jurisdiction certifies in writing to the Comptroller General that the jurisdiction shall comply with the requirements of this section."
D. Section 11-11-440(A) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(A) The General Assembly may not provide for any general tax increase or enact new general taxes in the permanent provisions of the State General Appropriation Act or acts supplemental thereto., and any such Any general tax increases or new general taxes must be enacted only by separate act passed by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members of each house."
E. This section takes effect January 1, 1997./
Renumber sections & amend totals/title to conform.
Rep. WILKINS explained the amendment.
Reps. HODGES, G. BROWN, WILKES and RICHARDSON spoke against the amendment.
Rep. G. BROWN spoke against the amendment.
Rep. HODGES raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 210 was out of order in compliance with Rule 5.3 which requires that every amendment to the General Appropriations Bill and Supplemental Appropriations Bill include provisions appropriating funds affecting
Rep. WILKINS stated that the amendment had a $65 million substantial effect. He further stated that at the end of each subsection, there was language which stated not withstanding any provision of the law, no reimbursement otherwise due a county pursuant to Section 12-37-270 may be paid unless the governing body of the county certifies in writing to the Comptroller General that the county shall comply with the requirements of the section. He further stated that the same language was there in dealing with municipalities. He further stated that it required the governing bodies to verify in writing to the Comptroller General that they will comply with the requirement of the amendment before they can get reimbursement. He further stated that it was germane because of the provision regarding the Homestead Exemption Reimbursement Statute and again, they would have to verify that they would comply. He further cited Section 68 on Page 381 of the Bill.
Rep. HODGES stated that a certification provision could be added to any provision of the Bill and make it germane under that argument. He further stated that under the provisions of the amendment, the counties and cities have no power to do the things that the amendment required them to certify. He further stated that the substantial effect was simply to impose the limits and had nothing to do with certification.
Rep. McELVEEN stated that the certification proposal did not require the state to expend any money and it did require the county to spend money. He further stated he had an amendment earlier requiring $500 to be spent from a line item and that had been ruled out of order because it did not have substantial impact on an appropriation in Part I. He further stated that this amendment did not state how much of an impact and it did not require the state to spend any money.
Rep. WILKINS stated that in reference to Part I, the precedents over the last ten years clearly showed that you did not have to cite the chapter and verse in the amendment as long as you could point out where it had an impact or effect on Part I appropriations or revenues. He further stated that Part IA of the Bill was affected by the amendment in Section 68A on Page 381, Line 9, $15.6 million and Section 68A on Page 381, Lines 4 and 16, $43.7 million and $6.1 million, respectively.
Rep. McTEER inquired whether the Bill had stated that any municipalities that raised the fees would be ineligible to receive the
SPEAKER Pro Tempore HASKINS stated that there were three different provisions which referred to line items in Section 68A and set up a procedure whereby local government would receive property tax money and the homestead exemption money and the substantial effect of the amendment was setting up the procedure.
Rep. McTEER inquired whether or not they were allowed not to comply.
Rep. WILKINS stated that on Page 19, Paragraph F, it stated that no reimbursement otherwise viewed as a municipality pursuant to Section 12-37-270, which is the Homestead Exemption Statute, through which property tax relief also flows, may be paid unless the governing body certifies in writing that it has complied with the requirements of the section. He further stated that it was a penalty and that they would not get the money if they did not comply.
Rep. McTEER inquired if they could opt not to comply and not to receive the money.
Rep. WILKINS stated that certain requirements had been imposed in the Bill and there was an added penalty for noncompliance within the 1996-97 fiscal year and that made it germane.
Rep. McELVEEN stated that none of the arguments showed that the amendment had the substantial effect of affecting revenue, rules and regulations, directives and procedures relative to the appropriation of funds or raising of revenue. He further stated that there was more strict rule for putting a permanent part of the Appropriations Bill in that it must apply directly with an appropriation being made or revenue provided for the fiscal year in the Bill.
Rep. ROGERS stated that if the Rep. Wilkins' argument that the matter may be made germane by the inclusion of the requirement of the certification to the Comptroller General of adherence to the directive to local government to comply with certain provisions included, then it would give the Body the right to regulate or to manage or to prescribe or to direct any matter relating to local government and require that as a condition of receiving their entitlement under Homestead Exemption or under Aid to Subdivisions that there be a certification of compliance. He further stated that it was clearly violative of the substantial effect requirement of Rule 5.3.
Rep. HODGES further stated that the amendment did nothing more than simply certify the existing law. He further stated that to rule in favor of
SPEAKER Pro Tempore HASKINS stated that the substantial effect of the amendment set out a procedure whereby cities and counties and local governments can comply with certain terms within the fiscal year in order to receive the homestead exemption and their share of the property tax relief that is funneled through the same section and that the precedents did not require that an amendment state specifically what line item in Part I it affects. He further stated that the Rule requires that it directly affect a line item and there were several line items that had been pointed out in Section 68A on Page 381 which were directly affected by the provisions of the amendment and he overruled the Point of Order.
The SPEAKER Pro Tempore granted Rep. McELVEEN a leave of absence for the day.
Reps. ROGERS and SCOTT spoke against the amendment.
Rep. HUTSON spoke upon the amendment.
The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment.
Rep. WILKINS demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Boan Brown, H. Cain Cato Chamblee Cotty Cromer Davenport Delleney Easterday Fleming Gamble Harrison Haskins Keegan Kelley Kinon Kirsh Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limbaugh Littlejohn Loftis Marchbanks Mason McKay Meacham Quinn Rice Riser Robinson Sandifer Seithel Sharpe Shissias
Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R. Spearman Stuart Thomas Tripp Trotter Vaughn Walker Wells Wilkins Witherspoon Wofford Worley Wright Young Young-Brickell
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Askins Bailey Baxley Breeland Brown, G. Brown, T. Byrd Canty Cave Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Dantzler Felder Fulmer Govan Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Harris, P. Herdklotz Hines, J. Hodges Howard Inabinett Jaskwhich Jennings Keyserling Lee Limehouse Lloyd McAbee McCraw McMahand McTeer Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Phillips Rhoad Richardson Rogers Scott Sheheen Stille Stoddard Townsend Tucker Waldrop Whatley Whipper, L. Whipper, S. White Wilder Wilkes
So, the amendment was adopted.
I was off of the floor with a constituent when the vote was taken. I have consistently voted against this in the past in bill form and would have voted against it if I had been present.
Rep. C. ALEX HARVIN III
I feel a need to explain my frustration over this issue, the conflict between tax caps and home rule. I am as much an advocate of limiting taxes as anyone in the General Assembly. In fact, I have gone on record at home as an advocate of reducing property tax and ultimately eliminating property tax because we need to avoid taxing people out of their homes, especially those on fixed incomes. We also need to continue to make our State appealing for economic development and investment and to promote the retirement industry and tourism. I am also a strong advocate of home rule. This amendment and H. 4492 are perceived as being anti-home rule. Perception is reality. In any community, county and city councils have been responsible. I have helped to elect many of them and this looks like we are slapping them in the face. I maintain that the tax cap and home rule issues should be separated. We are hypocrites in the General Assembly. Look at the growth we have seen in the State Budget. We should be taking a different approach and curbing our spending. We should be leaving more dollars to be spent at home. I want to address another aspect of this amendment that adversely affects my community. We are one of three counties that have a transfer fee. I am not an advocate of transfer fees. I was one of the first to have to pay a transfer fee. However, when we eliminate the transfer fee, our county council will have to look elsewhere to replace that revenue. Where do you think that revenue will come from to cover the costs of these transfers - all property owner? I ask unanimous consent to insert my remarks in the Journal to explain my position on this amendment.
Rep. HEYWARD G. HUTSON
Reps. GAMBLE, KNOTTS, WRIGHT, RISER, SPEARMAN and KOON proposed the following Amendment No. 223 (Doc Name P:\amend\GJK\22430SD.96), which was ruled out of order.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Part II, the SECTION added by the amendment of Representative Wilkins, #210, et al, by adding an appropriately lettered subsection to read:
/( )(A) Title 6, Chapter 1 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 6-1-120. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no municipality may impose a tax, fee, or uniform service charge on accommodations provided for transients or food or beverages served in establishments located in an area of a county that has been annexed by the municipality if:
(1) the annexed area of the county was unincorporated as of January 1, 1996, and subsequently annexed by the municipality;
(3) the majority of the geographical area of the municipality is in a county other than the county in which the annexed area is located."
(B) This section takes effect July 1, 1996./
Renumber sections & amend totals/title to conform.
Rep. GAMBLE explained the amendment.
Rep. SHEHEEN raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 223 was out of order as it was not germane.
Rep. GAMBLE argued contra the Point in stating that it was another provision which stipulated the effect of the accommodations tax.
SPEAKER Pro Tempore HASKINS stated that it added a new section and it did not show any connection to the Bill and he sustained the Point of Order and ruled the amendment out of order.
Rep. RICHARDSON proposed the following Amendment No. 230 (Doc Name P:\amend\230), which was adopted.
Amend the amendment, #210, as and if amended, by adding a section F on page 10, line 15, inserting the words /"operation and maintenance of items in sections A-E, including police, fire protection, emergency medical service and emergency preparedness operations directly attendant to these facilities"/
Rep. RICHARDSON explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
Rep. KOON moved to reconsider the vote whereby Amendment No. 176 was tabled and the motion was noted.
Rep. RICHARDSON proposed the following Amendment No. 231 (Doc Name P:\amend\231), which was tabled.
Amend the Amendment #210, as and if amended, by adding on page 20, Section 6-1-85, after the word unless, /"Passed by a referendum gaining a two-thirds majority. In addition the transfer fee may not exceed one-fourth of one percent and must be paid by the seller."/
Rep. RICHARDSON explained the amendment.
Rep. RICHARDSON continued speaking.
Rep. D. SMITH spoke against the amendment.
Rep. RICHARDSON spoke in favor of the amendment.
Rep. FELDER spoke against the amendment.
Rep. D. SMITH moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.
Rep. KLAUBER moved to reconsider the vote whereby Amendment No. 230 was adopted.
Rep. RICHARDSON moved to table the motion to reconsider.
Rep. KEYSERLING demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anderson Askins Bailey Baxley Breeland Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Canty Cave Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Dantzler Delleney Govan Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Harris, P. Hines, J. Hodges Howard Hutson Inabinett Jennings Keyserling Lee Limehouse Lloyd McAbee McCraw McMahand McTeer Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Phillips Rhoad Richardson Rogers Scott Seithel Sheheen Stille Stoddard Stuart Townsend Tucker Whatley Whipper, L. Whipper, S. White Wilder Wilkes Young-Brickell
Allison Brown, H. Cain Cato Chamblee Cotty Cromer Davenport Easterday Felder Fleming Fulmer Gamble Harrison Haskins Keegan Kelley Kirsh Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limbaugh Littlejohn Loftis Marchbanks Mason McKay Meacham Quinn Rice Riser Robinson Sandifer Sharpe Shissias Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R. Thomas Tripp Trotter Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Wilkins Witherspoon Worley Wright Young
So, the motion to reconsider was tabled.
Rep. ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 236 (Doc Name P:\amend\PFM\8063HTC.96), which was tabled.
Amend the amendment offered by Representative Wilkins, et al, dated February 29, 1996, document number P\AMEND\DKA\3577HTC.96, designated amendment number 210, as and if amended, page 5, line 16, and page 14, line 8, by striking /with/ and inserting /with unfunded mandates imposed by state or federal law or/.
Renumber sections & amend totals/title to conform.
Rep. ROGERS explained the amendment.
Rep. WILKINS spoke against the amendment.
Rep. ROGERS spoke in favor of the amendment.
Printed Page 1180, Feb. 29
| Printed Page 1200, Feb. 29
|