Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
In accordance with the Proclamation of the Governor, the House assembled at 12:00 Noon.
The SPEAKER took the Chair and deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain as follows:
Our schedules may change and our interests are not always the same, but one thing remains, Lord: the constancy of Your care and concern for Your children. We come now to claim Your presence and to ask for Your guidance. Lead and direct us as we go about the business of this day that our every thought, word and action may conform to Your gracious and Fatherly will. As we serve our fellowbeings, forbid that we should do it while looking down our noses, but instead while holding out a helping hand.
Thank You for favoring us by hearing us in this our noonday prayer. Amen.
Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.
The following was received.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 90-14
WHEREAS, the South Carolina House of Representatives has adjourned sine die pursuant to Section 2-1-180 Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976 (1989 Cum. Supp.); and
WHEREAS, the South Carolina State Senate has voted to recede until a date no later than June 21, 1990; and
WHEREAS, one house of the General Assembly has adjourned and the other House receded, "subject to the call of the Chair"; and
WHEREAS, in view of the above cited facts and other conditions, I find that there is a disagreement between the two houses with respect to the time of adjournment; and
WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 19 of the South Carolina Constitution provides that in case of disagreement between the two houses during any session with respect to the time of adjournment, the Governor may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper, not beyond the time of the annual session then next ensuing; and
WHEREAS, I am mindful of the duties and responsibilities placed on me by the Constitution and laws of this state; and
WHEREAS, a majority of the Senate and the House of Representatives has indicated its support for a concurrent resolution setting a specific agenda for consideration of matters currently before the General Assembly and an adjournment time of 5:00 p.m. on June 19, 1990.
NOW, THEREFORE, I hereby order that both houses of the General Assembly are adjourned until June 19, 1990 at 12:00 noon, and at which time the regular session shall be resumed to complete the work of the General Assembly.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND
THE GREAT SEAL OF THE STATE
OF SOUTH CAROLINA, THIS
14TH DAY OF JUNE, 1990.
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
John T. Campbell
Secretary of State
After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, June 7, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
Rep. WILKINS moved that the Committee of Conference on the following Concurrent Resolution be resolved into a Committee of Free Conference and briefly explained the Conference Committee's reasons for this request.
H. 5072 -- Reps. Sheheen, J. Rogers, Beasley, Bennett, R. Brown, McLellan, McTeer, Moss and Wilkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADJOURN ON THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1990, AT 5:00 P.M THEY SHALL STAND ADJOURNED TO MEET AT 10:00 A.M. ON JUNE 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, AND 15, 1990, FOR CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL UNCONTESTED MATTERS HAVING UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE MEMBERS OF AFFECTED DELEGATIONS AND FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF CONGRATULATORY OR SYMPATHY RESOLUTIONS AND TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADJOURN ON FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1990, THEY SHALL STAND ADJOURNED TO MEET IN REGULAR STATEWIDE SESSION AT 11:30 A.M. ON MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1990, TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE ITEMS OF LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS IN ORDER ON JUNE 18, 1990, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL STAND ADJOURNED SINE DIE ON THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 1990 NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M.
The yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barber Barfield Baxley Beasley Bennett Blackwell Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, R. Bruce Burriss, T.M. Carnell Clyborne Cole Cooper Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Fair Farr Felder Gordon Hallman Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Haskins Hayes Hendricks Hodges Holt Huff Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Keegan Keesley Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Klapman Kohn Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Manly Mappus Martin, L. McAbee McCain McEachin McGinnis McLellan McTeer Moss Nesbitt Nettles Phillips Quinn Rama Rhoad Rogers, J. Sheheen Short Simpson Smith Stoddard Sturkie Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waites Waldrop Wells White Wilder Wilkins Williams, D. Williams, J. Winstead Wofford Wright
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the motion to resolve the Committee of Conference into a Committee of Free Conference was agreed to.
The Committee of Conference was thereby resolved into a Committee of Free Conference, the SPEAKER appointed Reps. WILKINS, J. ROGERS and WASHINGTON to the Committee of Free Conference and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
The COMMITTEE OF FREE CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
H. 5072 -- Reps. Sheheen, J. Rogers, Beasley, Bennett, R. Brown, McLellan, McTeer, Moss and Wilkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADJOURN ON THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1990, AT 5:00 P.M THEY SHALL STAND ADJOURNED TO MEET AT 10:00 A.M. ON JUNE 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, AND 15, 1990, FOR CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL UNCONTESTED MATTERS HAVING UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE MEMBERS OF AFFECTED DELEGATIONS AND FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF CONGRATULATORY OR SYMPATHY RESOLUTIONS AND TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADJOURN ON FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1990, THEY SHALL STAND ADJOURNED TO MEET IN REGULAR STATEWIDE SESSION AT 11:30 A.M. ON MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1990, TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE ITEMS OF LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS IN ORDER ON JUNE 18, 1990, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL STAND ADJOURNED SINE DIE ON THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 1990 NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
That the same do pass with the following amendments:
Amend the resolution, as and if amended, by striking all after the resolving words and inserting therein:
/That the mandatory sine die adjournment date for the General Assembly prescribed in Section 2-1-180 of the 1976 Code is extended, as authorized by that code section, to permit the General Assembly to continue in session under the following terms and conditions:
The respective Houses shall meet on Tuesday, June 19, 1990, at 12:00 Noon, and may continue in session until 5:00 p.m. on that day for consideration of the following items of business which may be taken up only in the specific order in which they are enumerated:
(a) the setting of a time or times for the ratification of acts;
(b) receipt and confirmation of appointments;
(c) gubernatorial vetoes; and
(d) the receipt of and action on conference and free conference reports.
The provisions of this resolution are deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of Article III, Section 21 of the South Carolina Constitution. When the General Assembly adjourns on Tuesday, June 19, 1990, no later than 5:00 p.m., and it may stay in session no later than 5:00 p.m., it shall stand adjourned sine die./
Amend title to conform.
Marshall B. Williams David H. Wilkins Donald H. Holland John I. Rogers, III H. Samuel Stilwell McKinley Washington, Jr. On Part of the Senate On Part of the House
The yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, G. Barfield Baxley Beasley Blackwell Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Bruce Burriss, T.M. Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Faber Fair Farr Felder Foster Gordon Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Haskins Hayes Hendricks Hodges Huff Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Keegan Keesley Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Klapman Kohn Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Manly Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McCain McEachin McGinnis McLellan McTeer Nesbitt Nettles Phillips Quinn Rama Rhoad Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sharpe Sheheen Short Simpson Smith Stoddard Sturkie Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waites Waldrop Washington Wells Wilder Wilkins Williams, D. Williams, J. Winstead Wofford Wright
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, having received the necessary vote of two-thirds of the members present and voting, but not less than three-fifths of the total membership, the Free Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows.
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barber Barfield Baxley Beasley Bennett Blackwell Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Bruce Burriss, T.M. Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Faber Fair Farr Felder Foster Gordon Gregory Hallman Harris, P. Harvin Harwell Haskins Hayes Hendricks Hodges Holt Huff Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Keegan Keesley Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Klapman Kohn Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Manly Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McBride McCain McEachin McGinnis McKay McLellan McTeer Moss Nesbitt Nettles Phillips Quinn Rama Rhoad Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sharpe Sheheen Short Simpson Smith Snow Stoddard Sturkie Taylor Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waites Waldrop Washington Wells Wilder Wilkins Williams, D. Williams, J. Winstead Wofford Wright
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on June 19, 1990.
Jean Harris Marion P. Carnell Juanita M. White Jennings G. McAbee Irene K. Rudnick Tim Wilkes Ennis Fant Ken Corbett Larry Gentry Paul M. Burch Dick Elliott Denny W. Neilson E.B. McLeod Maggie W. Glover Dell Baker Joseph McElveen James Harrison Larry Blanding
LEAVES OF ABSENCE
The SPEAKER granted Reps. WHIPPER, KAY and M.D. BURRISS a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.
Announcement was made that Dr. Beverly Simons of Eastover is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.
Rep. BLANDING moved to reconsider the vote whereby the following Bill was given unanimous consent, to receive an automatic third reading, which was agreed to.
S. 1630 -- Senators Leventis and Land: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 22-2-190, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MAGISTRATES' JURY AREAS, SO AS TO REVISE THE MAGISTRATES' JURY AREAS IN SUMTER COUNTY.
The following Bill was taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate.
H. 5184 -- Reps. Koon, Derrick, Klapman, Sharpe, Wright, Felder and Sturkie: A BILL TO PROHIBIT A PORTION OF LEAPHART ROAD IN LEXINGTON COUNTY FROM BEING CLOSED.
The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments.
S. 762 -- Senator Waddell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-110, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE THE BLUFFTON AND HILTON HEAD PRECINCTS.
S. 1451 -- Senators Drummond, Long, Lee, Bryan, Hinds and O'Dell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 13 TO CHAPTER 13, TITLE 24 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; TO REPEAL SECTION 24-21-475, RELATING TO THE SHOCK PROBATION PROGRAM; AND TO AMEND SECTION 14-1-210, RELATING TO A COURT FEE TO FUND CERTAIN PROGRAMS, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM.
The following was received.
June 13, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H.5089, R-707, an Act:
TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF PARKRITE CAROLINA, INC., AND TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF LIN WOOD DEVELOPERS, INC.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office dated March 28, 1990, which states:
"Section 33-14-220 provides that procedure under which a charter revoked under Section 33-14-200 may be reinstated. The application must be made to the Secretary of State within two years after the effective date of dissolution. If the application is not timely made, there can be no special legislation to restore that charter. (See OAG, April 15, 1955)."
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
March 28, 1990
Opinion No.
SUBJECT: Corporations - Reinstatement of
Forfeiture Charter.
SYLLABUS: The General Assembly cannot by special legislation authorize the reinstatement of a corporate charter that was forfeited under Section 33-14-200, et seq.
TO: Honorable Ryan C. Shealy
Senator, District No. 24
FROM: Joe L. Allen, Jr.
Chief Deputy Attorney General
QUESTION: Can the General Assembly by special legislation reinstate the charter of a corporation that has been forfeited under Section 33-14-200, et seq., for more than two years?
APPLICABLE LAW: Section 33-14-220, South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976.
DISCUSSION:
Section 33-14-220 provides the procedure under which a charter revoked under Section 33-14-200 may be reinstated. The application must be made to the Secretary of State within two years after the effective date of dissolution.1 If the application is not timely made, there can be no special legislation to restore that charter. (See OAG, April 1, 1955).
------------
1The two year period could be different for some corporations because of the savings clause set forth in Section 33-20-105. In example, the period was five years under Section 33-21-120 which was repealed in 1988. See 89-125, November 7, 1989.
Special legislation to reinstate a revoked charter for specific corporation is proscribed by Article IX, Section 2 of our Constitution. It there provides:
"The General Assembly shall provide by general law for the formation, organization, and regulation of corporations and shall prescribe their powers, rights, duties, and liabilities, including the powers, rights, duties, and liabilities of their officers and stockholders or members."
Section 33-14-220 is a general law. A general law was defined in McKiever v. City of Sumter, 137 S.C. 266, 135 S.E. 60, to be:
"'A law is general in the constitutional sense which applies to and operates uniformly on all members of any class of persons, places, or things requiring legislation peculiar to itself in matters covered by the law.'"
An act that would authorize the reinstatement of a revoked corporate charter beyond the limitation of Section 33-14-220 must be by general law applicable to all similar corporations.
CONCLUSION:
The General Assembly cannot by special legislation authorize the reinstatement of a corporate charter that was forfeited under Section 33-14-220, et seq.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Brown, J. Faber McBride Rogers, T. Taylor Waites
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Blackwell Burriss, T.M. Clyborne Corning Fair Harrison Haskins Hendricks Jaskwhich Mattos Quinn Simpson Waldrop
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
June 13, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 5098, R-708, an Act:
TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF SOUTHERN APARTMENTS, INC., OF BISHOPVILLE, S. C., IN LEE COUNTY.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office dated March 28, 1990, which states:
"Section 33-14-220 provides the procedure under which a charter revoked under Section 33-14-220 may be reinstated. The application must be made to the Secretary of State within two years after the effective date of dissolution. If the application is not timely made, there can be no special legislation to restore that charter. (See OAG, April 15, 1955.)"
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
March 28, 1990
Opinion No.
SUBJECT: Corporations - Reinstatement of Forfeited Charter.
SYLLABUS: The General Assembly cannot by special legislation authorize the reinstatement of a corporate charter that was forfeited under Section 33-14-200, et seq.
TO: Honorable Ryan C. Shealy
Senator, District No. 24
FROM: Joe L. Allen, Jr.
Chief Deputy Attorney General
QUESTION: Can the General Assembly by special legislation reinstate the charter of a corporation that has been forfeited under Section 33-14-200, et seq., for more than two years?
APPLICABLE LAW: Section 33-14-220, South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976.
DISCUSSION:
Section 33-14-220 provides the procedure under which a charter revoked under Section 33-14-200 may be reinstated. The application must be made to the Secretary of State within two years after the effective date of dissolution.1 If the application is not timely made, there can be no special legislation to restore that charter. (See OAG, April 1, 1955).
------------
1The two year period could be different for some corporations because of the savings clause set forth in Section 33-20-105. In example, the period was five years under Section 33-21-120 which was repealed in 1988. See 89-125, November 7, 1989.
Special legislation to reinstate a revoked charter for specific corporation is proscribed by Article IX, Section 2 of our Constitution. It there provides:
"The General Assembly shall provide by general law for the formation, organization, and regulation of corporations and shall prescribe their powers, rights, duties, and liabilities, including the powers, rights, duties, and liabilities of their officers and stockholders or members."
Section 33-14-220 is a general law. A general law was defined in McKiever v. City of Sumter, 137 S.C. 266, 135 S.E. 60, to be:
"'A law is general in the constitutional sense which applies to and operates uniformly on all members of any class of persons, places, or things requiring legislation peculiar to itself in matters covered by the law.'"
An act that would authorize the reinstatement of a revoked corporate charter beyond the limitation of Section 33-14-220 must be by general law applicable to all similar corporations.
CONCLUSION:
The General Assembly cannot by special legislation authorize the reinstatement of a corporate charter that was forfeited under Section 33-14-220, et seq.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Baxley Brown, G.
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
June 12, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 5157, R-711, an Act:
TO AMEND SECTION 4 OF ACT 199 OF 1971, RELATING TO THE TERMS OF THE BOARD OF FIRE CONTROL FOR THE NORTH GREENVILLE FIRE DISTRICT, SO AS TO REDUCE THE TERMS FROM SIX YEARS TO FOUR YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE SUCCESSORS OF THE CURRENT BOARD AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE BOARD TO HEAR PETITIONS AND PUBLIC CONCERNS ON A PERIODIC BASIS.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office dated June 11, 1990, which states in concluding:
"A review of Act No. 199 of 1971 makes it clear that the North Greenville Fire District is located wholly within Greenville County. Thus, H. 5157, R-711 of 1990 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to H. 5157, R-711, have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7...."
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
June 11, 1990
Mark R. Elam, Esquire
Senior Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11369
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Dear Mr. Elam:
By your letter of June 8, 1990, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of H. 5157, R-711, an act amending Act No. 199 of 1971, relating to the North Greenville Fire District. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality.
In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E.2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.
The act bearing ratification number 711 of 1990 amends Act No. 199 of 1971, to reduce the terms of office of the members of the Board of Fire Control of the North Greenville Fire District from six years to four years and to require the Board to hear petitions and public concerns on a periodic basis. A review of Act No. 199 of 1971 makes it clear that the North Greenville Fire District is located wholly within Greenville County. Thus, H. 5157, R-711 of 1990 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to H. 5157, R-711 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974). See also Article III, Section 34 of the State Constitution for other constitutional concerns presented by this act.
Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 5157, R-711 would be of doubtful constitutionality. Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.
Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Blackwell Fair Fant Haskins Jaskwhich Manly Mattos Vaughn
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
June 8, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 5133, R-684, an Act:
TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN COMPENSATION FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE ANDERSON COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION COMMISSION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE MILLAGE WHICH IS AUTHORIZED TO BE LEVIED FOR THE OPERATIONS OF THE COMMISSION, TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE SERVICE AREA OF THE COMMISSION EFFECTIVE WITH THE YEAR 1991, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH MONIES COLLECTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE COMMISSION MAY BE EXPENDED.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office dated June 8, 1990, which states in concluding:
"A review of Act No. 294 of 1961, which created the fire district, as well as subsequent acts, shows that the fire district, is located wholly within Anderson County. Thus, H. 5133, R-684 of 1990 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to H. 5133, R-684, have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7..."
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
June 8, 1990
Mark R. Elam, Esquire
Senior Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11369
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Dear Mr. Elam:
By your letter of June 6, 1990, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of H. 5133, R-684, an act pertaining to the Anderson County Fire Protection Commission. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality.
In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.C. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E.2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.
The act bearing ratification number 684 of 1990 authorizes certain compensation for members of the Anderson County Fire Protection Commission, sets the millage to be levied on behalf of the Commission, further defines the service area, and so forth. A review of Act No. 294 of 1961, which created the fire district, as well as subsequent acts, shows that the fire district is located wholly within Anderson County. Thus, H. 5133, R-684 of 1990 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to H. 5133, R-684 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979; Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974).
Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 5133, R-684 would be of doubtful constitutionality. Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.
Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Chamblee Cooper Harris, P. Townsend Tucker
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
June 11, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 3104, R-674, an Act:
TO AMEND SECTION 7-15-320, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PERSONS QUALIFIED TO VOTE BY ABSENTEE BALLOT, SO AS TO REVISE THE LIST OF PERSONS BY PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTORS PERMITTED TO VOTE BY ABSENTEE BALLOT WHETHER OR NOT ABSENT FROM HIS COUNTY OF RESIDENCE AS WELL AS THE ELECTORS PERMITTED TO VOTE BY ABSENTEE BALLOT WHEN ABSENT; SECTION 7-15-340, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE FORM OF APPLICATION FOR AN ABSENTEE BALLOT, SO AS TO DELETE THE DETAILED REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FORM AND PROVIDE FOR THE FORM TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION; AND SECTION 7-9-100, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO STATE CONVENTIONS FOR POLITICAL PARTIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR EACH MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO BE AN ADDITIONAL DELEGATE TO THE APPROPRIATE CONVENTION.
This veto is based upon my concern with the provision of this act that guarantees members of the General Assembly automatic delegate status to the appropriate party convention by virtue to their membership in the General Assembly. I believe it is inappropriate for the General Assembly to dictate to political parties those members who automatically qualify as delegates to the party conventions. This act establishes a precedent that if enacted could result in a continuous barrage of legislation dictating participants in the political process. Delegations to a party convention should be chosen by the membership of the political parties, ideally based on the chosen individual's work and stature in that particular political party, not dictated by an outside body.
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Altman Bailey, K. Blanding Brown, J. Faber Holt Keyserling McBride McElveen McLeod Snow Waites Washington White Wilkes Williams, D.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, T.C. Bailey, G. Barfield Baxley Beasley Bennett Boan Brown, H. Bruce Burch Burriss, T.M. Chamblee Cole Cooper Corbett Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Elliott Fair Felder Foster Gentry Gordon Hallman Harris, J. Harrison Harvin Haskins Hayes Hendricks Huff Johnson, J.W. Keegan Keesley Kinon Kirsh Klapman Kohn Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Mappus Martin, L. McCain McGinnis Moss Neilson Nesbitt Phillips Quinn Rama Rudnick Simpson Smith Stoddard Sturkie Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waldrop Wells Wilder Winstead Wofford Wright
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
June 13, 1990
The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
Speaker
House of Representatives
State House
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am returning H. 4800, the 1990-91 Appropriations Act, with my vetoes.
I agree with the general priorities reflected in the Act, particularly our continued commitment to improve our educational system. In a year made far more difficult by Hurricane Hugo, our State has still managed to provide full funding of the Education Finance Act, significant increases for the Target 2000 program, and almost $49 million more for our institutions of higher and technical education. The start of the Governor's Teaching Scholarship Program should attract some of our best high school graduates into our public school classrooms where they will have the opportunity to affect the lives of hundreds of South Carolina students.
I am pleased that the General Assembly followed through with the commitment made last year to phase in tax relief for our taxpayers. Reducing the tax rate on our poorest citizens, indexing our tax rates to inflation, and lowering the capital gains tax on long term investments will lighten the tax burden on all South Carolinians and provide a stimulus for our economy. Moreover, this Appropriations Act contains no general tax increases.
I am also gratified that the General Assembly funded the commitment made last year for tax credits for businesses that assist employees with child care. Affordable, reliable child care is one of the most pressing needs facing working parents in South Carolina, and stimulating the private sector to expand child care support is the best way to meet this need.
I continue to be concerned about the amount of annualization built into our budget. Much of the new revenue available for FY 91-92 will be necessary to fund commitments made in this Act. This is particularly true given the General Assembly's intention to pay off the costs associated with Hurricane Hugo with next year's Capital Reserve Fund. Pressures from annualizations in last year's Appropriations Act created additional annualizations in this Act, so that for the second year in a row, the General Assembly produced virtually a two-year budget for South Carolina state government. Consequently money for new initiatives will be scarce next year, even if revenues meet the forecast.
I am relieved that we made it through a very uncertain budgetary year without any mid-year cuts in agency budgets. The $42 million shortfall included in the Board of Economic Advisor's revised forecast for this fiscal year was completely absorbed by the Capital Reserve Fund. Our experience this year demonstrates the wisdom of the two percent cushion that Fund provides against mid-year revenue shortfalls.
In addition to Hurricane Hugo, our revenue problems this year were caused by an unexpected decline in corporate income tax collections, a phenomenon being experienced by many states across the country. This is not a problem unique to South Carolina. Declines in corporate earnings, a slowdown in the textile industry, and greater reliance on debt rather than equity financing all contributed to lower corporate tax revenues.
Were it not for the Hurricane and declines in corporate tax revenue, state government would be enjoying a surplus of approximately $50 million rather than a shortfall in this fiscal year. At this time our overall economy remains strong, and other revenue sources continue to grow at healthy rates.
Nevertheless I am concerned that the FY 90-91 revenue projections in the Act may be overly ambitious. The Board of Economic Advisors projects revenue growth in FY 90-91 of 6.7 percent above the revised forecast for this fiscal year. Addition of $52 million in various fees added by the General Assembly pushes the projected growth rate even higher.
This scenario envisions a rebound in corporate tax revenue. Based on its April 9, 1990 forecast and more recent assurances, the Board of Economic Advisors expects that rebound to occur. Therefore I have decided not to veto a large amount of money in this Act. Should revenues not meet the projection, I stand ready as Chairman of the Budget and Control Board to take whatever actions are necessary to preserve the fiscal soundness and integrity of the State.
In keeping with my commitment to work with Lieutenant Governor Nick Theodore and Speaker of the House Robert Sheheen to eliminate the practice of "bobtailing" non-germane legislation onto the Appropriations Act, I have vetoed any provisos that are not germane. As I have done in the past, I have used the standard of germaneness in the House rules: "provisions for appropriating funds, provisions affecting revenue and rules, regulations, directives and procedures relative thereto".
I considered vetoing Part II, Section 45, the Medicaid nursing home administrative fee, because ambiguity in the language could have allowed the fee to apply to private paying patients in our state's nursing homes. But I have been assured by the Department of Health and Environmental Control that the fee will only be charged on Medicaid beds, not beds reserved for private paying patients. A letter from DHEC stating that interpretation is included at the end of this veto message.
Veto 1 Part I, Section 43, Proviso 43.24 AFDC Carry Forward Funds
This proviso would allow the Department of Social Services to carry forward $427,000 in lapsed Aid to Families with Dependent Children funds to help pay for higher benefits next year.
I am vetoing this proviso because I believe the funds could be better used to pay for items included in Part III of the Appropriations Act such as the Cutting Edge program in higher education. The Board of Economic Advisors has recently suggested that the revenue shortfall in the current fiscal year could be sufficient to jeapordize Part III expenditures that are funded with lapsed funds. Therefore all possible lapsed funds will be necessary to fund Part III appropriations.
Veto 2 Part II, Section 2, Water Recreational Gas Tax for Non-Water Recreational Use
I am vetoing this proviso for the same reasons that I vetoed it last year.
Section 12-27-390 of the 1976 Code allocates one-half of one cent of the gasoline tax for a water recreational resources fund to pay for improvements at water recreational facilities around the State. This proviso would allow twenty-five percent of the funds distributed to a county to be used for capital improvements for non-water recreational purposes.
I consider this gas tax to be a user fee paid by boaters who purchase gasoline. To divert this revenue to non-water recreational uses would turn a user fee into a general tax. It would also violate the original intent of the water recreational resources fund.
Veto 3 Part II, Section 9, Dean's Committee on Medical Education
I am vetoing this proviso because it is not germane to the Appropriations Act.
Veto 4 Part II, Section 16, Forest Renewal Fund
I am vetoing this proviso because it duplicates S. 1374, R. 701, signed into law on June 7, 1990.
Veto 5 Part II, Section 20, Mental Health Counseling for Crime Victims
I am vetoing this proviso because it duplicates H. 4831, R. 573, signed into law on May 14, 1990.
Veto 6 Part II, Section 31, Public Accountability Division
This proviso extends the expiration date of the Public Accountability Division in the State Department of Education from July 1, 1991 to July 1, 1992. This proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Act.
In addition, I am vetoing this proviso because I have grave concerns about the organizational structure of the Public Accountability Division. This Division is supposed to provide objective assessments of the implementation of the Educational Improvement Act. It is designed to insure that South Carolinians are getting the best possible return on our investment of an additional penny on the sales tax.
Yet the Division is located in, and reports directly to, the head of the department that is responsible for implementing the EIA. How can we reasonably expect objective, unbiased evaluations to come out of the same department that is charged with implementing those programs? We cannot, and we have not in the past.
I have no problem extending the life of the Division provided it has an organizational arrangement that will allow it to be effective. We need tough, insightful evaluation of EIA programs. But there is no need to address the deadline in the FY 90-91 Appropriations Act, since the Division's life is already extended until July 1, 1991 under current law. That allows plenty of time for the next session of the General Assembly to address the future structure and role of the Division before it is due to expire.
Veto 7 Part II, Section 35, Prison Industries Program
I strongly support the prison industries program as the best hope for giving prisoners a marketable skill and overcoming the idleness that plagues our prisons. I am vetoing this proviso, however, because I cannot justify it as germane to the Appropriations Act.
Veto 8 Part II, Section 62, Change Registration and License Dates on Motor Vehicles
I am vetoing this proviso because it is not germane to the Appropriations Act.
Veto 9 Part II, Section 66, Addition of Secondary Roads Into the State Highway System
This section increases the amount of highway mileage which local legislative delegations may require the Department of Highways and Public Transportation to accept into the state highway secondary system. Our Highway Department is already responsible for patrolling and maintaining more miles of paved roads in South Carolina than comparable departments in North Carolina or Georgia. According to the Department, this proviso would add an additional 138 miles to the highway system each year, which would require the Department's maintenance budget to be increased by $690,000 per year. The proviso would allow "C" funds to be used to pay this cost for only five years, after which the Department would have to absorb the full cost. I am vetoing this proviso because it increases the responsibilities of the Department without any long term source of funds to provide that service.
Veto 10 Part II, Section 72, Special Tax Districts for Local Governments
I am vetoing this proviso because it is not germane to the Appropriations Act. While special tax districts affect the raising of revenue for local governments, nothing in this proviso affects state government revenue.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
The following was received.
June 13, 1990
Honorable Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor of South Carolina
Box 11369
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Dear Governor Campbell:
At your request, I am providing you with the Agency's understanding of the legislative intent for implementing Section 45 of the budget bill concerning fees for medicaid days permits.
As you are aware, each July the Department, at the request of individual nursing homes, issues a permit for the number of medicaid days to be used by each home. The legislation which authorizes the permit program allows facilities to exceed or under use the number of permitted patient days by ten percent.
Per Section 45, the Agency intends to collect a fee of two dollars from each nursing home for each medicaid patient day permit issued. In that this fee is applicable to the Medicaid Program, the Department will not charge this fee for any beds reserved for private paying patients. If a facility under or over uses the number of medicaid patient days issued, there will be no adjustments in the fee collected. I feel this method of collection is in keeping with the legislative intent of the Section and is fair in that nursing homes indicate by their request the number of medicaid permit days desired.
I hope this information is of assistance. If I can provide additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Jarrett
Commissioner
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully invites your Honorable Body to attend in the Senate Chamber at 12:30, 4:30 and 4:50 P.M. if necessary today for the purpose of Ratifying Acts.
Very respectfully,
President
On motion of Rep. WHITE the invitation was accepted.
At 12:30 P.M. the House attended in the Senate Chamber, where the following Acts were duly ratified.
(R730) S. 961 -- Senator Rose: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 17-15-240 SO AS TO ALLOW BAIL BOND MONEY TO BE DEPOSITED IN INTEREST-BEARING ACCOUNTS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE INTEREST ON THESE ACCOUNTS IS PUBLIC FUNDS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE INTEREST, AND TO AUTHORIZE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT ADMINISTRATION TO PRESCRIBE PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING AND ACCOUNTING FOR BAIL BOND INTEREST.
(R731) S. 1394 -- Senator Lourie: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIFICATIONS OF LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE INTERVALS FOR ISSUING SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES AND REVALIDATION OF THE SPECIAL PLATES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-2150, RELATING TO ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO INCLUDE COUNTY CORONERS ON THE LIST OF PERSONS TO WHOM PLATES ARE ISSUED; TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-2170, RELATING TO THE RETURN OF SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE CONDITIONS FOR THE RETURN OF THE SPECIAL COUNTY CORONER LICENSE PLATES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-3710, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES BEARING AN EMBLEM, SEAL, OR OTHER SYMBOL OF A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY LOCATED IN THIS STATE, SO AS TO INCLUDE PUBLIC COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES OR INDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, REQUIRE THE PUBLIC COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY, OR INDEPENDENT INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO SUBMIT A SYMBOL, INCREASE THE FEES, AND PROVIDE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FEE TO ALUMNI ASSOCIATIONS; TO ADD ARTICLE 40 TO CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 56, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A COMMEMORATIVE "KEEP SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUTIFUL" LICENSE PLATE AND PROVIDE FOR THE BEAUTIFICATION OF ROADS AND HIGHWAYS WITH THE FEES COLLECTED; AND TO ADD ARTICLE 55 TO CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 56 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES FOR PEARL HARBOR SURVIVORS AND FEES.
(R732) S. 1238 -- Senators Drummond, Williams, Waddell, Lourie, J. Verne Smith and Lee: AN ACT TO REAUTHORIZE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF FUNERAL SERVICE FOR SIX YEARS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 40-19-90, 40-19-100, AND 40-19-170, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EMBALMERS AND FUNERAL DIRECTORS, SO AS TO REQUIRE A CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAM, TO CHANGE QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS, AND THAT MAGISTRATES HAVE JURISDICTION IN ACTIONS TO REVISE PENALTIES, TO EXEMPT BUSINESSES LICENSED TO PROVIDE FUNERAL SERVICE BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1984, FROM FACILITY REQUIREMENTS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 40-19-230 RELATING TO PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
(R733) S. 981 -- Senators Rose and Wilson: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO HEALTH, BY ADDING CHAPTER 107 SO AS TO ENACT THE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 41-1-85, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE USE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS OUTSIDE THE WORKPLACE MUST NOT BE THE BASIS OF A PERSONNEL ACTION.
(R734) S. 974 -- Senators Rose and Wilson: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 13, TITLE 24, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 15 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR HOME DETENTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON INCARCERATION.
(R735) S. 698 -- Senators Saleeby, J. Verne Smith, Horace C. Smith, Stilwell, Macaulay and Mullinax: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-59-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LICENSING OF RESIDENTIAL HOME BUILDERS, SO AS TO REDESIGNATE THE TERM "RESIDENTIAL HOME BUILDER" TO "RESIDENTIAL BUILDER" AND FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE DEFINITION OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDER; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 40-59-15 SO AS TO DEFINE THE TERM "RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CONTRACTOR"; TO AMEND SECTIONS 40-59-20, 40-59-40, AND 40-59-50, RELATING TO THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDERS COMMISSION, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION AND ITS POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 40-59-70, RELATING TO LICENSES REQUIRED OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDERS, SO AS TO REVISE THE LICENSING PROCEDURE, PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH LICENSING FEES ARE SET, AND TO DELETE CERTAIN LICENSING EXCEPTIONS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 40-59-75 SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR THE REGISTRATION OF RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 40-59-77 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDERS COMMISSION MUST BY REGULATION CLASSIFY AND DEFINE THE SCOPE OF OPERATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS; TO AMEND SECTION 40-59-80, RELATING TO APPLICATIONS FOR AND THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICATION AND LICENSING PROCEDURES; TO AMEND SECTION 40-59-90, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO REVOCATION AND REISSUANCE OF LICENSES SO AS TO REVISE THIS REVOCATION AND REISSUANCE PROCEDURE; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 40-59-95 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN LEGAL PROCEDURES AGAINST PERSONS VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 40-59-100, RELATING TO ROSTER OF LICENSES, SECTION 40-59-110, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION, SECTION 40-59-120, RELATING TO REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION, SECTION 40-59-130, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS, AND SECTION 40-59-160, RELATING TO DUTIES OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, SO AS TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS IN THESE PROVISIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 40-59-140, RELATING TO THE EXEMPTION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS, SO AS TO ALSO EXEMPT MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS WHEN ENGAGED IN CONTRACTING IN THE CLASSIFICATION IN WHICH THEY ARE LICENSED TO PERFORM MECHANICAL CONTRACTING, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO CLASSIFY OR RECLASSIFY LICENSES IN EXISTENCE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT.
(R736) H. 4283 -- Rep. Sheheen: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 56-1-390 AND 56-25-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REINSTATEMENT OF A SUSPENDED OR REVOKED DRIVER'S LICENSE, SO AS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE REINSTATEMENT FEE FROM TEN TO ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS, TO DELETE A PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE REINSTATEMENT NOT TO REQUIRE THE REINSTATEMENT FEE UNLESS DRIVER IMPROVEMENT INSTRUCTION IS PROVIDED, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE FEES COLLECTED MUST BE USED FOR MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES AND FOR THE "KEEP SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUTIFUL FUND".
(R737) H. 4276 -- Rep. Altman: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIFICATIONS OF LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NEW PLATES MAY BE PROVIDED AT TIMES DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BUT AT LEAST EVERY SIX YEARS AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY REVALIDATE ALL LICENSE PLATES EXCEPT VEHICLES EXCEEDING TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND POUNDS BY STICKER OR OTHER SUITABLE MEANS UPON PAYMENT OF THE SAME FEE PRESCRIBED FOR THE INITIAL ISSUANCE; TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1960 RELATING TO PARKING BY HANDICAPPED PERSONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR ISSUANCE OF A DISTINGUISHING LICENSE PLATE BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECTION; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING ARTICLE 55 TO CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 56 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR SPECIAL PEARL HARBOR SURVIVORS' LICENSE PLATES.
(R738) H. 4919 -- Rep. Fair: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-7-70 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO PRESENT APPROPRIATE IDENTIFICATION IMMEDIATELY UPON STOPPING A DRIVER FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 16-9-320, RELATING TO OPPOSING, RESISTING, AND ASSAULTING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN A SERVING OR ARRESTING PROCESS, SO AS TO LIMIT THE OFFENSE TO SERVICE OR ARREST BY ONE WHOM THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 4-9-145 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A COUNTY GOVERNING BODY TO APPOINT AND COMMISSION NECESSARY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 56-5-935 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TO PLACE AND MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES IN AIKEN, ALLENDALE, AND BARNWELL COUNTIES ON LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 23-7-40, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL CONSTABLES, SO AS TO DEFINE THE JURISDICTION TO APPLY WHILE HE IS IN FRESH PURSUIT OF A PERSON FOR A MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY COMMITTED IN HIS PRESENCE OR FOR A FELONY IF HE REASONABLY BELIEVES UPON PROMPT INFORMATION OR COMPLAINT THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED THE FELONY; TO AMEND SECTION 23-7-50, RELATING TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF SPECIAL CONSTABLES, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE RIGHTS AND POWERS OF DEPUTY SHERIFFS TO APPLY TO CONSTABLES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-40, RELATING TO THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIFORM ACT REGULATING TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAYS, SO AS TO DELETE THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDING FOR A MANUAL FOR A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FOR THE DEFINITION OF "ACQUIESCENCE", AND FOR RACING PENALTIES, TO INCLUDE AN EXCEPTION PROHIBITING STOP SIGNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION APPROVES, AND TO CHANGE THE REFERENCE TO ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
(R739) H. 4628 -- Rep. Taylor: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-340, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY BY A MINOR, SO AS TO PROVIDE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE STATE, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, OR ANY OTHER PERSON IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, FROM THE PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON OF A MINOR UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS AND RESIDING WITH THE PARENTS OR THE LEGAL GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON WHO MALICIOUSLY OR WILFULLY CAUSES PERSONAL INJURY TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR DESTROYS, DAMAGES, OR STEALS PROPERTY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-53-40, RELATING TO TAX COLLECTION BY THE STATE TAX COMMISSION AND COSTS AND FEES, SO AS TO INCREASE A CERTAIN SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF "ADDED COSTS" FROM TWO DOLLARS TO FIVE DOLLARS.
(R740) H. 5160 -- Rep. Carnell: AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT ONE MILL OF THE COUNTYWIDE LEVY FOR SCHOOL OPERATING PURPOSES IN GREENWOOD COUNTY MUST BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE DISTRICT WITH THE LOWEST ASSESSED VALUE BEGINNING WITH THE 1991-92 SCHOOL YEAR.
(R741) H. 4980 -- Reps. Moss and L. Martin: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-495, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO DISAPPROVE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RATE FOR A CLASSIFICATION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSIONER TO DISAPPROVE AN EXPERIENCE MODIFICATION RATE UPON A FINDING THAT IT IS EXCESSIVE, INADEQUATE, OR UNFAIRLY DISCRIMINATORY.
(R742) H. 4668 -- Rep. T. Rogers: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-7-15 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKET UNDER SECTION 56-7-10 MAY BE USED TO ARREST A PERSON FOR AN OFFENSE COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IF THE PUNISHMENT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE'S COURT AND MUNICIPAL COURT, AND REQUIRE THE FURNISHING OF CERTAIN INFORMATION TO THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION.
(R743) H. 3028 -- Rep. Gregory: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-1030, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REVOCATION OF THE DRIVER'S LICENSE OF AN HABITUAL OFFENDER SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR APPEALS OF A REVOCATION TO THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-1090, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE NONISSUANCE OF A LICENSE AND RESTRICTION OF DRIVING PRIVILEGES TO HABITUAL OFFENDERS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE REFERENCE TO COURT TO MAGISTRATE AND TO PROVIDE THAT A PETITION OR COURT ORDER IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE RESTORATION OF DRIVING PRIVILEGES; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 56-1-745 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION AND OTHER PUNISHMENT OF A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE VIOLATION AND FOR A SPECIAL RESTRICTED DRIVER'S LICENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-1320, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A PROVISIONAL DRIVER'S LICENSE, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE SECTION TO APPLY TO A PERSON WHO HAD A SOUTH CAROLINA DRIVER'S LICENSE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE REFERENCED IN THE SECTION, AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 56-1-746 AND 56-1-747 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION AND OTHER PUNISHMENT FOR OFFENSES RELATING TO POSSESSION, SALE, AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER, WINE, AND ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS.
(R744) H. 4522 -- Rep. Waldrop: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 4-9-155 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE ANNUAL AUDIT OF THE OFFICES OF THE COUNTY ASSESSOR, AUDITOR, TREASURER, AND TAX COLLECTOR TO BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS SET BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, TO PROVIDE THAT THE TAX COMMISSION'S MANUAL AND GUIDE MUST SET OUT THE ITEMS TO BE AUDITED, TO REQUIRE COPIES OF THE AUDIT TO BE PROVIDED TO THE TAX COMMISSION AND THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, AND TO PROVIDE MONETARY PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-43-220, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY AND ASSESSMENT RATIOS FOR PURPOSES OF PROPERTY TAXES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE TAX COMMISSION SHALL APPLY AN EQUALIZATION FACTOR TO REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY OR LEASED TO TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES FOR HIRE AS MANDATED BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 12-3-80, RELATING TO THE OFFICE OF CHAIRMAN OF THE TAX COMMISSION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT HE SHALL DEVOTE THE TIME REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE RATHER THAN HIS ENTIRE TIME AND TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT HE MAY NOT HOLD ANY OTHER OFFICE OF HONOR OR PROFIT; TO AMEND SECTION 12-3-145, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE TAX COMMISSION TO DECLARE THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY OF A QUALIFYING ORGANIZATION AS EXEMPT AND CERTIFY THE EXEMPTION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR; TO AMEND SECTION 12-3-140, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE TAX COMMISSION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN THE CASE OF BUSINESS PROPERTY ASSESSED BY THE COMMISSION, THE ASSESSMENT APPLIES ONLY TO PROPERTY USED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS; AND TO AMEND SECTIONS 6-21-240, 6-21-430, AND 6-21-440, RELATING TO THE REVENUE BOND ACT FOR UTILITIES, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE GOVERNING BODY TO PLEDGE EITHER GROSS OR NET REVENUES FOR BOND REDEMPTION, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PRIORITY OF APPLICATION OF REVENUES.
(R745) H. 4360 -- Rep. Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-53-392 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE WEIGHT OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IS THE WEIGHT OF THAT SUBSTANCE IN PURE FORM OR ANY COMPOUND OR MIXTURE OF IT; TO ADD SECTION 44-53-475 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO CONDUCT OR ATTEMPT TO CONDUCT A FINANCIAL TRANSACTION OR TRANSPORT, TRANSMIT, OR TRANSFER OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT, TRANSMIT, OR TRANSFER A MONETARY INSTRUMENT OR FUNDS FROM A PLACE IN THIS STATE TO OR THROUGH A PLACE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OR A PLACE IN THIS STATE FROM OR THROUGH A PLACE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES WITH THE INTENT TO PROMOTE OR CARRY ON AN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY RELATING TO NARCOTIC DRUGS OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, OR TO CONCEAL OR DISGUISE THE NATURE, LOCATION, SOURCE, OWNERSHIP, OR CONTROL OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION; TO ADD SECTION 44-53-577 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS SEVENTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY USE OR OTHERWISE EMPLOY OR CONSPIRE WITH A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF SEVENTEEN YEARS TO VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44-53-370 OR 44-53-375(B), OR RECEIVE A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FROM A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF SEVENTEEN YEARS, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-20, RELATING TO THE PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER, SO AS TO ADD DRUG TRAFFICKING TO THE LIST OF CRIMES WHICH ARE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN A MURDER IS COMMITTED DURING THE COMMISSION OF THAT CRIME; TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-110, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS USED IN CONNECTION WITH NARCOTICS AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, SO AS TO DEFINE "ICE" AND "CRANK"; TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-370, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN DRUG OFFENSES, SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO DELIVER, PURCHASE, AID, ABET, ATTEMPT, OR CONSPIRE TO MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTE, DISPENSE, DELIVER, OR PURCHASE A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING PROHIBITION, AND TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF CERTAIN NUMBERS OF MARIJUANA PLANTS AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-375, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF CRACK COCAINE, THE UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE CRACK COCAINE, AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS, SO AS TO INCLUDE ICE AND CRANK AND TO MAKE IT A CRIME FOR ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY SELLS, MANUFACTURES, DELIVERS, PURCHASES, OR BRINGS INTO THIS STATE OR PROVIDES FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO AID OR CONSPIRE TO SELL, MANUFACTURE, OR IS IN ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF ICE, CRANK, OR CRACK COCAINE IS GUILTY OF A FELONY TO BE KNOWN AS "TRAFFICKING IN ICE, CRANK, OR CRACK COCAINE" AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-520, RELATING TO FORFEITURE OF CONVEYANCES USED OR INTENDED TO UNLAWFULLY CONCEAL, CONTAIN, OR TRANSPORT CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES OR THEIR COMPOUNDS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE FORFEITURE OF THESE CONVEYANCES WHEN USED OR INTENDED FOR USE TO FACILITATE THE UNLAWFUL CONCEALMENT, CONTAINMENT, OR TRANSPORTATION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 44-53-370(a) AND (e); TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-530, RELATING TO FORFEITURE PROCEDURES AND DISPOSITION OF FORFEITED ITEMS AND PROCEEDS OF SALES OF PROPERTY FORFEITED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44-53-520, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE DIVISION OF PROCEEDS OF FORFEITED PROPERTY IF THERE IS A DISPUTE AMONG THE PARTICIPATING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, DELETE REFERENCES TO THE DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE DETERMINED BY A JUDGE, PROVIDE FOR THE DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY SEIZED BY A LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND NOT TRANSFERRED BY THE COURT TO THE AGENCY, PROVIDE FOR THE RETENTION OF FORFEITED MONEY AND PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF FORFEITED PROPERTY BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR BY THE STATE TREASURER IN THE CASE OF A STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, AND PROVIDE FOR A DIFFERENT FORMULA FOR THE DISPOSITION OF ALL PROCEEDS OF PROPERTY AND CASH FORFEITED BY CONSENT ORDER FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING JULY 1, 1990, AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1992, AND SUSPENDING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 44-53-530 DURING THAT PERIOD; TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-745, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON'S DRIVER'S LICENSE MUST BE SUSPENDED UPON A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CONVICTION, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN AGE RESTRICTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE VIOLATION AND PROVIDE THAT THE VIOLATION MUST BE ONE UNDER CHAPTER 53 OF TITLE 44; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 44-53-584 AND 44-53-588 RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO SEIZED PROPERTY BE FORWARDED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND DIVISION OF GENERAL SERVICES AND THE DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF FORFEITED ITEMS; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 44-53-520 MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY PETITION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR CIRCUIT SOLICITOR, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE ITEMS WERE SEIZED.
(R746) H. 3800 -- Reps. Hearn, Wilder and Baxley: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 35, TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REGULATION AND LICENSING OF NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 40-35-131 THROUGH 40-35-136 SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION AND LICENSING OF NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS AND FOR THE REGULATION AND LICENSING OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS, INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO RENAME AND RECONSTITUTE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS.
At 12:45 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
On motion of Rep. FOSTER, with unanimous consent, Rep. CARNELL'S remarks were ordered printed in the Journal as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, fellow members of the Ways and Means Committee and fellow members of the House of Representatives. Will Rogers once said that it seems that everytime we get a statesman serving in public office, we come along and mess it up with an election. I come before you at this time with the duty that gives me mixed feelings. On the one hand, I'm filled with sadness, on the other hand, I feel honored for the opportunity and the privilege to extend a few remarks on behalf of the Ways and Means Committee. All of us on the Ways and Means Committee, feel a tremendous void in the loss of our leader. When I say leader, I mean just that. During my 28 years as a member of this august body, I've never seen a harder working member. During off election years you could find him in Columbia as early as August or September, working on the next year's budget bill. And, there were times he was here Monday thru Friday and, during the meetings of the conference committee, he was here on Saturdays and Sundays. On any occasion that there was scheduled a meeting of the Ways and Means Committee or the Budget and Control Board, he did his homework. He always came prepared. He was a walking repository of information concerning the finances of State Government. In his focus, he was sound and conservative. He sought out the greatest needs of the people of our State and had an uncanny ability to keep priorities in order. At the same time that he determined the needs of the people, he kept foremost in his mind the ability of the taxpayer to shoulder the burden. South Carolina since colonial times, has evolved a repository of power in the legislature and it has been so because of the dynamic leadership of such men as Bob McLellan. His genius for leadership and instinctive talent for reasonable compromise are the hallmark of statesmanship when applied to the legislative process. In conjunction with the Speaker of this body, he has been in the forefront of the forces of responsibility, moderation, care for humanity, and social improvement. It is men such as he, with his unusual vigor and vision, that has directed the course of the government of this State to best serve, with available resources, the needs of the people of this State. The progress our state has made is not a happenstance, but it has been through the leadership of such accomplished statesman, as this man. Bob, if you and Doris would please come to the front at this time. Bob, on behalf of the members of the Ways and Means Committee, who personally provided the ways and means to buy the desk, it is our genuine pleasure in the midst of our sadness, to present to you as a small token of our love and respect, your desk as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Everything happened so fast that there was not enough time, but there will be a plaque presented to you which reads, 'Presented to the Honorable Robert Neil McLellan, member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, 1977-1990, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, 1986-1990, by the Ways and Means Committee, June 19, 1990.' Bob, we're going to miss you."
Reps. T.C. ALEXANDER, T.M. BURRISS, FOSTER, SIMPSON, GORDON, HARWELL and WASHINGTON made statements relative to Rep. McLELLAN'S service as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
Rep. HARWELL moved that when the House adjourns it adjourn in honor of those members who will not be returning to serve in the House, which was agreed to.
The following was introduced:
H. 5198 -- Reps. Blackwell, Blanding, Boan, H. Brown, Carnell, Elliott, Felder, Foster, Gordon, J. Harris, P. Harris, Holt, J.W. Johnson, Keyserling, Kirsh, Klapman, Mattos, McAbee, McCain, McKay, McTeer, T. Rogers, Washington, Winstead, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Alexander, Altman, G. Bailey, J. Bailey, K. Bailey, Baker, Barber, Barfield, Baxley, Beasley, Bennett, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Bruce, Burch, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Burriss, Chamblee, Clyborne, Cole, Cooper, Corbett, Cork, Corning, Davenport, Derrick, Faber, Fair, Fant, Farr, Gentry, Glover, Gregory, Hallman, Harrison, Harvin, Harwell, Haskins, Hayes, Hendricks, Hodges, Huff, Jaskwhich, J.C. Johnson, Kay, Keegan, Keesley, Kinon, Kohn, Koon, Lanford, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Manly, Mappus, D. Martin, L. Martin, McBride, McEachin, McElveen, McGinnis, McLeod, Moss, Neilson, Nesbitt, Nettles, Phillips, Quinn, Rama, Rhoad, J. Rogers, Rudnick, Sharpe, Sheheen, Short, Simpson, Smith, Snow, Stoddard, Sturkie, Taylor, Townsend, Tucker, Vaughn, Waites, Waldrop, Wells, Whipper, White, Wilder, Wilkes, Wilkins, D. Williams, J. Williams, Wofford and Wright: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE HONORABLE ROBERT N. (BOB) MCLELLAN OF SENECA FOR HIS TRULY DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, AND AS A MEMBER OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD.
Whereas, Representative Robert N. (Bob) McLellan of Seneca first became a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives from Oconee County in 1977; and
Whereas, since that time he has served his district, county, and State with distinction beginning as a member of the House, and subsequently as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and as a member of the State Budget and Control Board; and
Whereas, Bob McLellan, throughout his tenure in the House in various capacities, has earned a deserved reputation for integrity. He exemplifies the best of what a public official should be; honesty, integrity, courtesy, and hard work are bywords when one speaks of him; and
Whereas, he is a strong voice for fiscal responsibility in state government. He has helped guide our State through difficult financial times, including the devastation of Hurricane Hugo, always mindful of protecting South Carolina's reputation for sound monetary practices and creditworthiness. He brought to state government valuable experience learned in the private sector as a successful businessman and insurance consultant, and these have served him well in discharging the duties of public office; and
Whereas, the respect in which he is held is shown in many ways: the loyalty and devotion of his staff, the tremendous regard of his colleagues, the love of family and friends, and the honors bestowed by those outside the General Assembly, including an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from The Citadel in 1989 and being named 1989 Legislator of the Year by the South Carolina Association of Counties, by the Municipal Association of South Carolina, and by the State Chamber of Commerce, respectively; and
Whereas, South Carolina is a better State as a result of Bob McLellan's service to her over the past fourteen years and his friends and colleagues in the House, by this resolution, would like to commend and thank him for his exceptional service to the people of his district, of Oconee County, and of our State, as his tenure in the House comes to a close. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives hereby commend the Honorable Robert N. (Bob) McLellan of Seneca for his truly distinguished service as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and as a member of the State Budget and Control Board.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Bob McLellan.
The Resolution was adopted.
Veto 1 Part I, Section 43, Proviso 43-24, AFDC Carry Forward Funds
Rep. CARNELL moved to adjourn debate upon the veto, which was adopted.
Veto 2 Part II, Section 2, Water Recreational Gas Tax for Non-Water Recreational Use
Rep. KIRSH spoke against the veto.
Rep. ALTMAN spoke in favor of the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Baxley Blanding Cooper Gentry Hayes Johnson, J.W. Keesley Kirsh Manly McElveen McLellan McTeer Nesbitt Phillips Rudnick Sheheen Short
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Barber Barfield Beasley Blackwell Boan Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Bruce Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Corbett Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Elliott Faber Fair Glover Gordon Hallman Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Harwell Haskins Hendricks Holt Huff Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Keegan Keyserling Kinon Klapman Kohn Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McCain McEachin McGinnis McLeod Moss Neilson Quinn Rama Rhoad Sharpe Simpson Smith Snow Stoddard Sturkie Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waites Waldrop Washington Wells White Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Williams, D. Williams, J. Winstead Wofford Wright
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 3 Part II, Section 9, Dean's Committee on Medical Education
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Baxley Beasley Blackwell Boan Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Bruce Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Corbett Cork Davenport Derrick Elliott Fair Felder Gentry Glover Hallman Harris, P. Harrison Harwell Haskins Hayes Hendricks Hodges Holt Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Keegan Keesley Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Kohn Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Manly Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McCain McElveen McGinnis McTeer Moss Neilson Nesbitt Quinn Rama Rhoad Rudnick Sharpe Sheheen Simpson Smith Stoddard Sturkie Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waites Waldrop Wells White Wilder Wilkes Winstead Wofford Wright
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 4 Part II, Section 16, Forest Renewal Fund
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Barfield Baxley Beasley Bennett Blackwell Boan Brown, J. Brown, R. Bruce Burch Burriss, T.M. Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Corbett Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Elliott Fair Gentry Gordon Hallman Harrison Harwell Haskins Hayes Hendricks Hodges Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Keegan Keesley Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Klapman Kohn Littlejohn Manly Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McCain McEachin McGinnis McTeer Nettles Rama Rhoad Rudnick Sharpe Sheheen Simpson Smith Stoddard Tucker Vaughn Waites Waldrop Wells Wilder Wilkins Winstead
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 5 Part II, Section 20, Mental Health Counseling for Crime Victims
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Barfield Baxley Blackwell Brown, H. Brown, J. Bruce Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Corbett Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Elliott Fair Felder Foster Gentry Glover Gordon Hallman Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Harwell Haskins Hayes Hendricks Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Keegan Keesley Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Kohn Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Manly Mappus Martin, L. McAbee McCain McEachin McGinnis McLeod McTeer Moss Neilson Nesbitt Nettles Quinn Rama Rhoad Rudnick Sharpe Short Simpson Smith Sturkie Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waites Waldrop Wells Wilder Wilkins Winstead Wofford Wright
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 6 Part II, Section 31, Public Accountability Division
Rep. J. ROGERS spoke upon the veto.
Reps. KLAPMAN and HASKINS spoke in favor of the veto.
Reps. FOSTER and WASHINGTON spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Blanding Carnell Foster Glover McBride Taylor Washington White Williams, D.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Barber Barfield Baxley Beasley Bennett Blackwell Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, R. Bruce Burriss, T.M. Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Corbett Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Elliott Fair Gentry Gordon Hallman Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Harwell Haskins Hendricks Hodges Holt Huff Jaskwhich Johnson, J.W. Keegan Keesley Kinon Klapman Kohn Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Manly Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McCain McElveen McGinnis McLellan Moss Neilson Nettles Quinn Rama Rudnick Sharpe Sheheen Short Simpson Snow Sturkie Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waites Waldrop Wells Wilder Wilkins Williams, J. Winstead Wofford Wright
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 7 Part II, Section 35, Prison Industries Program
Rep. McLELLAN spoke on the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Baxley Blanding Keesley Kirsh McAbee McElveen McLeod Rudnick Short
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Barber Barfield Beasley Bennett Blackwell Boan Brown, H. Brown, R. Bruce Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Corbett Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Elliott Faber Fair Fant Foster Gentry Gordon Gregory Hallman Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Harwell Haskins Hayes Hendricks Holt Huff Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Keegan Kinon Klapman Kohn Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Manly Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McBride McCain McEachin McGinnis McLellan McTeer Moss Neilson Nesbitt Nettles Quinn Rama Rhoad Sharpe Simpson Smith Snow Stoddard Sturkie Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waites Washington Wells White Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Winstead Wofford Wright
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 8 Part II, Section 62, Change Registration and License Dates on Motor Vehicles
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Barber Barfield Baxley Beasley Blackwell Boan Brown, H. Brown, R. Bruce Burch Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Corbett Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Elliott Fair Felder Foster Gentry Gregory Hallman Harris, J. Harris, P. Harwell Haskins Hayes Hendricks Huff Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Keegan Keesley Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Kohn Limehouse Littlejohn Manly Mappus Martin, L. McAbee McCain McElveen McLeod McTeer Moss Neilson Nettles Quinn Rama Rudnick Sheheen Short Simpson Smith Snow Stoddard Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waites Waldrop Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Winstead Wofford Wright
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 9 Part II, Section 66, Addition of Secondary Roads Into the State Highway System
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Altman Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Barber Barfield Baxley Beasley Blackwell Boan Brown, H. Brown, R. Bruce Burch Burriss, T.M. Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Corbett Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Elliott Fair Felder Foster Gentry Gregory Hallman Harris, J. Harrison Harwell Haskins Hayes Hendricks Huff Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Keegan Keesley Kinon Kirsh Klapman Kohn Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Manly Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McEachin McElveen McGinnis McLellan McTeer Moss Neilson Nettles Quinn Rama Rogers, J. Rudnick Sharpe Short Simpson Smith Snow Stoddard Sturkie Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waites Wells White Wilder Wilkins Winstead Wofford Wright
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 10 Part II, Section 72, Special Tax Districts for Local Governments
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Gentry
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Altman Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Barber Barfield Baxley Beasley Blackwell Boan Brown, H. Brown, R. Bruce Burch Carnell Clyborne Cole Corbett Cork Davenport Derrick Elliott Fair Felder Foster Glover Hallman Harris, P. Harrison Harwell Haskins Hendricks Holt Huff Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Keegan Keesley Kinon Kirsh Klapman Kohn Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Manly Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McEachin McLellan McTeer Moss Neilson Nesbitt Nettles Quinn Rama Rogers, J. Sharp Simpson Smith Snow Sturkie Tucker Vaughn Waites Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Winstead Wofford Wright
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 1 Part I, Section 43, Proviso 43.24 AFDC Carry Forward Funds
Reps. BLACKWELL and WASHINGTON spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, K. Barber Baxley Beasley Bennett Blackwell Blanding Boan Brown, J. Brown, R. Burch Carnell Chamblee Cooper Elliott Faber Fant Farr Felder Foster Glover Gregory Harris, J. Hayes Hodges Holt Huff Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Keesley Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Manly Mattos McAbee McBride McElveen McLeod McTeer Nesbitt Phillips Rhoad Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Rudnick Sheheen Short Smith Snow Stoddard Taylor Townsend Tucker Waites Washington White Wilder Wilkes Williams, D.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey, G. Baker Barfield Brown, H. Bruce Burriss, T.M. Clyborne Cole Corbett Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Fair Gentry Hallman Harrison Harwell Haskins Hendricks Keegan Klapman Kohn Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Mappus Martin, L. McCain McEachin McGinnis Moss Nettles Quinn Rama Sharpe Simpson Sturkie Vaughn Wells Wilkins Winstead Wofford Wright
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on H. 5157, R-711 by a vote of 46 to 0.
(R711) H. 5157 -- Rep. Blackwell: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 4 OF ACT 199 OF 1971, RELATING TO THE TERMS OF THE BOARD OF FIRE CONTROL FOR THE NORTH GREENVILLE FIRE DISTRICT, SO AS TO REDUCE THE TERMS FROM SIX YEARS TO FOUR YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE SUCCESSORS OF THE CURRENT BOARD AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE BOARD TO HEAR PETITIONS AND PUBLIC CONCERNS ON A PERIODIC BASIS.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 068
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on H. 5133, R-684 by a vote of 46 to 0.
(R684) H. 5133 -- Anderson Delegation: AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN COMPENSATION FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE ANDERSON COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION COMMISSION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE MILLAGE WHICH IS AUTHORIZED TO BE LEVIED FOR THE OPERATIONS OF THE COMMISSION, TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE SERVICE AREA OF THE COMMISSION EFFECTIVE WITH THE YEAR 1991, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH MONIES COLLECTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE COMMISSION MAY BE EXPENDED.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 066
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on H. 5098, R-708 by a vote of 46 to 0.
(R708) H. 5098 -- Rep. G. Brown: AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF SOUTHERN APARTMENTS, INC., OF BISHOPVILLE, S. C., IN LEE COUNTY.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 067
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Conference on H. 4423:
H. 4423 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 14-5-610, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL CIRCUITS OF THIS STATE AND THE NUMBER OF CIRCUIT JUDGES TO BE ELECTED FOR THE STATE, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL RESIDENT AND AT-LARGE CIRCUIT JUDGES; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 14-1-215 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A JUDGE OR JUSTICE RETIRED FROM THE SUPREME COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, CIRCUIT COURT, OR FAMILY COURT OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE ASSIGNED TO PRESIDE OVER ANY OFFICIAL PROCEEDING IN ANY CIRCUIT OR FAMILY COURT OF THIS STATE EXCEPT IN CASES OF AN EMERGENCY AS DETERMINED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN SCREENING OF THESE JUDGES AND JUSTICES IN ORDER TO SERVE IN THESE EMERGENCY SITUATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 9-8-120, RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR JUSTICES OR JUDGES WHO ARE RETIRED UNDER THE JUDICIAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO PERFORM JUDICIAL DUTIES IN CERTAIN COURTS, SO AS TO CONFORM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION TO THE LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 14-1-215; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 14-1-216 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO ACTIVE FAMILY COURT JUDGE MAY BE ASSIGNED TO PRESIDE OVER ANY OFFICIAL PROCEEDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.
and the Report having been adopted by both Houses has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 142
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Senators Williams, Stilwell and Holland of the Committee of Free Conference on the part of the Senate on H. 5072.
H. 5072 -- Reps. Sheheen, J. Rogers, Beasley, Bennett, R. Brown, McLellan, McTeer, Moss and Wilkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADJOURN ON THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1990, AT 5:00 P.M THEY SHALL STAND ADJOURNED TO MEET AT 10:00 A.M. ON JUNE 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, AND 15, 1990, FOR CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL UNCONTESTED MATTERS HAVING UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE MEMBERS OF AFFECTED DELEGATIONS AND FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF CONGRATULATORY OR SYMPATHY RESOLUTIONS AND TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADJOURN ON FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1990, THEY SHALL STAND ADJOURNED TO MEET IN REGULAR STATEWIDE SESSION AT 11:30 A.M. ON MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1990, TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE ITEMS OF LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS IN ORDER ON JUNE 18, 1990, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL STAND ADJOURNED SINE DIE ON THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 1990 NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 091
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Free Conference on H. 5072.
H. 5072 -- Reps. Sheheen, J. Rogers, Beasley, Bennett, R. Brown, McLellan, McTeer, Moss and Wilkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADJOURN ON THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1990, AT 5:00 P.M THEY SHALL STAND ADJOURNED TO MEET AT 10:00 A.M. ON JUNE 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, AND 15, 1990, FOR CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL UNCONTESTED MATTERS HAVING UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE MEMBERS OF AFFECTED DELEGATIONS AND FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF CONGRATULATORY OR SYMPATHY RESOLUTIONS AND TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADJOURN ON FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1990, THEY SHALL STAND ADJOURNED TO MEET IN REGULAR STATEWIDE SESSION AT 11:30 A.M. ON MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1990, TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE ITEMS OF LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS IN ORDER ON JUNE 18, 1990, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL STAND ADJOURNED SINE DIE ON THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 1990 NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 141
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Senators Hayes, McConnell and Long of the Committee of Free Conference on the part of the Senate on S. 391.
S. 391 -- Senators Waddell, Lindsay, Lourie, Leatherman and Lee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 48-39-250 AND 48-39-260 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE FINDINGS AND POLICY RELATING TO THE BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM; TO AMEND SECTION 48-39-130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO COASTAL COUNCIL PERMITS TO UTILIZE A CRITICAL AREA, SO AS TO REVISE THE PROVISIONS DETAILING WHEN A PERMIT IS NOT NECESSARY; TO AMEND SECTIONS 48-39-270 THROUGH 48-39-360, RELATING TO THE BEACH MANAGEMENT ACT, SO AS TO ADD SECTIONS 48-39-305 AND 48-39-355, REVISE DEFINITIONS, THE PROVISIONS FOR AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE BASELINE AND THE SETBACK LINE, THE DUTIES OF THE COASTAL COUNCIL, THE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, HABITABLE STRUCTURES, EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES OR DEVICES, POOLS, AND BUILDING PERMITS, AND THE EXEMPTIONS, PROVIDE FOR A PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT BY LANDOWNERS AND THE COURT'S DETERMINATION, PROVIDE FOR THE PLANTING OF VEGETATION, REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OF A DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IN A CONTRACT OF SALE OR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY, AND PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED AND FOR DOCUMENTATION; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF ACT 634 OF 1988 RELATING TO FINDINGS AND POLICY RELATING TO THE BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM; TO PROVIDE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SAND ON BEACHES; TO AMEND SECTION 48-39-40, RELATING TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COASTAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR ELECTION INSTEAD OF APPOINTMENT AND DELETE THE PROVISIONS FOR INITIAL APPOINTMENTS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE SERVICE OF THE CURRENT NONLEGISLATIVE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL; AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPLICATION OF THE ACT ON LEGAL ACTIONS.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 092
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Free Conference on S. 391:
S. 391 -- Senators Waddell, Lindsay, Lourie, Leatherman and Lee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 48-39-250 AND 48-39-260 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE FINDINGS AND POLICY RELATING TO THE BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM; TO AMEND SECTION 48-39-130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO COASTAL COUNCIL PERMITS TO UTILIZE A CRITICAL AREA, SO AS TO REVISE THE PROVISIONS DETAILING WHEN A PERMIT IS NOT NECESSARY; TO AMEND SECTIONS 48-39-270 THROUGH 48-39-360, RELATING TO THE BEACH MANAGEMENT ACT, SO AS TO ADD SECTIONS 48-39-305 AND 48-39-355, REVISE DEFINITIONS, THE PROVISIONS FOR AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE BASELINE AND THE SETBACK LINE, THE DUTIES OF THE COASTAL COUNCIL, THE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, HABITABLE STRUCTURES, EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES OR DEVICES, POOLS, AND BUILDING PERMITS, AND THE EXEMPTIONS, PROVIDE FOR A PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT BY LANDOWNERS AND THE COURT'S DETERMINATION, PROVIDE FOR THE PLANTING OF VEGETATION, REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OF A DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IN A CONTRACT OF SALE OR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY, AND PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED AND FOR DOCUMENTATION; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF ACT 634 OF 1988 RELATING TO FINDINGS AND POLICY RELATING TO THE BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM; TO PROVIDE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SAND ON BEACHES; TO AMEND SECTION 48-39-40, RELATING TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COASTAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR ELECTION INSTEAD OF APPOINTMENT AND DELETE THE PROVISIONS FOR INITIAL APPOINTMENTS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE SERVICE OF THE CURRENT NONLEGISLATIVE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL; AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPLICATION OF THE ACT ON LEGAL ACTIONS.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 143
Received as information.
Rep. STURKIE moved that the Committee of Conference on the following Bill be resolved into a Committee of Free Conference and briefly explained the Conference Committee's reasons for this request.
S. 391 -- Senators Waddell, Lindsay, Lourie, Leatherman and Lee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 48-39-270 THROUGH 48-39-360, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE BEACH MANAGEMENT ACT, SO AS TO ADD SECTIONS 48-39-305 AND 48-39-355, PROVIDE FOR A THIRTY INSTEAD OF FORTY-YEAR RETREAT POLICY, REVISE DEFINITIONS, THE PROVISIONS FOR AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE BASELINE AND THE SETBACK LINE, THE DUTIES OF THE COASTAL COUNCIL, THE PROVISIONS FOR THE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF A HABITABLE STRUCTURE OR RECREATIONAL AMENITY, EXEMPTIONS, EROSION CONTROL DEVICES, DAMAGE APPRAISALS, AND TIME LIMITATIONS, PROVIDE FOR A PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT BY LANDOWNERS AND THE COURT'S DETERMINATION, PROVIDE FOR THE PLANTING OF VEGETATION, PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION AND REVISION OF THE BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN PURSUANT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT, REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS OF A DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IN A CONTRACT OF SALE AND DEED, AND PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED AND FOR DOCUMENTATION; AMEND ACT 634 OF 1988, RELATING TO THE BEACH MANAGEMENT ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A GRADUAL RETREAT FROM THE BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM OVER A THIRTY INSTEAD OF FORTY-YEAR PERIOD; AND PROVIDE FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE.
The yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Barber Barfield Baxley Beasley Bennett Blackwell Blanding Boan Brown, H. Brown, R. Bruce Burch Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Corbett Cork Davenport Derrick Elliott Faber Fair Farr Felder Foster Gentry Gordon Hallman Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Harwell Haskins Hayes Hendricks Hodges Holt Huff Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Keegan Keesley Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Klapman Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McCain McElveen McGinnis McLellan McTeer Moss Nesbitt Nettles Phillips Quinn Rama Rhoad Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Rudnick Sharpe Sheheen Simpson Smith Snow Sturkie Taylor Townsend Tucker Vaughn Washington Wells White Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Winstead Wofford Wright
Those who voted in the negative are:
McEachin
So, the motion to resolve the Committee of Conference into a Committee of Free Conference was agreed to.
The Committee of Conference was thereby resolved into a Committee of Free Conference, the SPEAKER appointed Reps. STURKIE, BENNETT and BARBER to the Committee of Free Conference and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
The COMMITTEE OF FREE CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
S. 391 -- Senators Waddell, Lindsay, Lourie, Leatherman and Lee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 48-39-250 AND 48-39-260 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE FINDINGS AND POLICY RELATING TO THE BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM; TO AMEND SECTION 48-39-130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO COASTAL COUNCIL PERMITS TO UTILIZE A CRITICAL AREA, SO AS TO REVISE THE PROVISIONS DETAILING WHEN A PERMIT IS NOT NECESSARY; TO AMEND SECTIONS 48-39-270 THROUGH 48-39-360, RELATING TO THE BEACH MANAGEMENT ACT, SO AS TO ADD SECTIONS 48-39-305 AND 48-39-355, REVISE DEFINITIONS, THE PROVISIONS FOR AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE BASELINE AND THE SETBACK LINE, THE DUTIES OF THE COASTAL COUNCIL, THE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, HABITABLE STRUCTURES, EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES OR DEVICES, POOLS, AND BUILDING PERMITS, AND THE EXEMPTIONS, PROVIDE FOR A PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT BY LANDOWNERS AND THE COURT'S DETERMINATION, PROVIDE FOR THE PLANTING OF VEGETATION, REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OF A DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IN A CONTRACT OF SALE OR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY, AND PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED AND FOR DOCUMENTATION; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF ACT 634 OF 1988 RELATING TO FINDINGS AND POLICY RELATING TO THE BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM; TO PROVIDE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SAND ON BEACHES; TO AMEND SECTION 48-39-40, RELATING TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COASTAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR ELECTION INSTEAD OF APPOINTMENT AND DELETE THE PROVISIONS FOR INITIAL APPOINTMENTS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE SERVICE OF THE CURRENT NONLEGISLATIVE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL; AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPLICATION OF THE ACT ON LEGAL ACTIONS.
Beg leave to report that they have considered the same and recommend that the bill, as and if amended, pass amended as follows:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 48-39-250. The General Assembly finds that:
(1) The beach/dune system along the coast of South Carolina is extremely important to the people of this State and serves the following functions:
(a) protects life and property by serving as a storm barrier which dissipates wave energy and contributes to shoreline stability in an economical and effective manner;
(b) provides the basis for a tourism industry that generates approximately two-thirds of South Carolina's annual tourism industry revenue which constitutes a significant portion of the state's economy. The tourists who come to the South Carolina coast to enjoy the ocean and dry sand beach contribute significantly to state and local tax revenues;
(c) provides habitat for numerous species of plants and animals, several of which are threatened or endangered. Waters adjacent to the beach/dune system also provide habitat for many other marine species;
(d) provides a natural healthy environment for the citizens of South Carolina to spend leisure time which serves their physical and mental well-being.
(2) Beach/dune system vegetation is unique and extremely important to the vitality and preservation of the system.
(3) Many miles of South Carolina's beaches have been identified as critically eroding.
(4) Chapter 39 of Title 48, Coastal Tidelands and Wetlands, prior to 1988 did not provide adequate jurisdiction to the South Carolina Coastal Council to enable it to effectively protect the integrity of the beach/dune system.
Consequently, without adequate controls, development unwisely has been sited too close to the system. This type of development has jeopardized the stability of the beach/dune system, accelerated erosion, and endangered adjacent property. It is in both the public and private interests to protect the system from this unwise development.
(5) The use of armoring in the form of hard erosion control devices such as seawalls, bulkheads, and rip-rap to protect erosion-threatened structures adjacent to the beach has not proven effective. These armoring devices have given a false sense of security to beachfront property owners. In realty, these hard structures, in many instances, have increased the vulnerability of beachfront property to damage from wind and waves while contributing to the deterioration and loss of the dry sand beach which is so important to the tourism industry.
(6) Erosion is a natural process which becomes a significant problem for man only when structures are erected in close proximity to the beach/dune system. It is in both the public and private interests to afford the beach/dune system space to accrete and erode in its natural cycle. This space can be provided only by discouraging new construction in close proximity to the beach/dune system and encouraging those who have erected structures too close to the system to retreat from it.
(7) Inlet and harbor management practices, including the construction of jetties which have not been designed to accommodate the longshore transport of sand, may deprive downdrift beach/dune systems of their natural sand supply. Dredging practices which include disposal of beach quality sand at sea also may deprive the beach/dune system of much-needed sand.
(8) It is in the state's best interest to protect and to promote increased public access to South Carolina's beaches for out-of-state tourists and South Carolina residents alike.
(9) Present funding for the protection, management, and enhancement of the beach/dune system is inadequate.
(10) There is no coordinated state policy for post-storm emergency management of the beach/dune system.
(11) A long-range comprehensive beach management plan is needed for the entire coast of South Carolina to protect and manage effectively the beach/dune system, thus preventing unwise development and minimizing man's adverse impact on the system.
Section 48-39-260. In recognition of its stewardship responsibilities, the policy of South Carolina is to:
(1) protect, preserve, restore, and enhance the beach/dune system, the highest and best uses of which are declared to provide:
(a) protection of life and property by acting as a buffer from high tides, storm surge, hurricanes, and normal erosion;
(b) a source for the preservation of dry sand beaches which provide recreation and a major source of state and local business revenue;
(c) an environment which harbors natural beauty and enhances the well-being of the citizens of this State and its visitors;
(d) natural habitat for indigenous flora and fauna including endangered species;
(2) create a comprehensive, long-range beach management plan and require local comprehensive beach management plans for the protection, preservation, restoration, and enhancement of the beach/dune system. These plans must promote wise use of the state's beachfront to include a gradual retreat from the system over a forty-year period;
(3) severely restrict the use of hard erosion control devices to armor the beach/dune system and to encourage the replacement of hard erosion control devices with soft technologies as approved by the South Carolina Coastal Council which will provide for the protection of the shoreline without long-term adverse effects;
(4) encourage the use of erosion-inhibiting techniques which do not adversely impact the long-term well-being of the beach/dune system;
(5) promote carefully planned nourishment as a means of beach preservation and restoration where economically feasible;
(6) preserve existing public access and promote the enhancement of public access to assure full enjoyment of the beach by all our citizens including the handicapped and encourage the purchase of lands adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean to enhance public access;
(7) involve local governments in long-range comprehensive planning and management of the beach/dune system in which they have a vested interest;
(8) establish procedures and guidelines for the emergency management of the beach/dune system following a significant storm event."
SECTION 2. Section 48-39-130(D)(1) and (6) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 634 of 1988, are further amended to read:
"(1) The accomplishment of emergency orders of any duly an appointed official of a county or municipality or of the State, acting to protect the public health and safety, upon notification to the council. However, with regard to the beach/dune critical area, only the use of sandbags, or sandscraping, or renourishment, or both a combination of them, in accordance with guidelines provided by the council is allowed pursuant to this item.
(6) Emergency repairs to any an existing bank, dike, or fishing pier, or structure other than oceanfront erosion control structures or devices which has been erected in accordance with federal and state laws or provided for by general law or acts passed by the General Assembly of South Carolina, if notice is given in writing to the council within seventy-two hours from the onset of the needed repairs."
SECTION 3. Sections 48-39-270 through 48-39-360, as added by Act 634 of 1988, are amended to read:
"Section 48-39-270. As used in this chapter:
(1) Erosion control structures or devices include:
(a) seawall: a special type of retaining wall that is designed specifically to withstand normal wave forces;
(b) bulkhead: a retaining wall designed to retain fill material but not to withstand wave forces on an exposed shoreline;
(c) revetment (rip-rap): a sloping structure built along a scarp or in front of a bulkhead to protect the shoreline or bulkhead from erosion.
(2) Habitable structure includes any structure suitable for habitation or any structure used for commercial purposes. If a building, as defined in Section 27-31-20, is divided into apartments, as defined in Section 27-31-20, then the entire building, not the individual apartments, is considered as a single habitable structure for the purposes of this chapter.
(3) Council means the South Carolina Coastal Council.
(4) Beach nourishment means the artificial establishment and periodic renourishment of a beach with sand that is compatible with that beach in such a way as to create a dry sand beach at all stages of the tide.
(5) The beach/dune system delineation includes all land from the mean high-water mark of the Atlantic Ocean landward to the setback line described in Section 48-39-280.
(6) A standard erosion zone is a segment of shoreline which is subject to essentially the same set of coastal processes, has a fairly constant range of profiles and sediment characteristics, and is not directly influenced by tidal inlets or associated inlet shoals.
(7) An inlet erosion zone is a segment of shoreline along or adjacent to tidal inlets which are directly influenced by the inlet and its associated shoals.
(8) Master plan means a document or a map prepared by a developer or a city as a policy guide to decisions about the physical development of the project or community.
(9) Planned development means a development plan which has received local approval for a specified number of dwelling and other units. The siting and size of structures and amenities are specified or restricted within the approval. This term specifically references multifamily or commercial projects not otherwise referenced by the terms master plan or planned unit development.
(10) Planned unit development means a residential, commercial, and industrial development professionally designed as a unit and approved by local government.
Section 48-39-280. (A) A forty-year retreat policy must be implemented by defining, utilizing the best available information and data, a baseline along standard erosion zones and inlet erosion zones and measuring back from the baseline a distance equal to forty times the annual erosion rate to be determined as an average over the previous forty years or a comparable period of time.
(1) The baseline for each standard erosion zone is the location of the crest of an ideal primary ocean front sand dune in that zone. In standard erosion zones where the shoreline has been altered artificially by the construction of erosion control devices, groins, or any other manmade alterations, the baseline is where the crest of an ideal primary ocean front sand dune for that zone would be located if the shoreline had not been altered. A scientific study by professional geologists or registered coastal engineers is required to determine where the baseline is for each standard erosion zone.
(2) For inlets that are not stabilized by jetties, terminal groins, or other structures, the baselines within inlet erosion zones are determined as the most landward point of erosion at any time during the past forty years, unless detailed historical and scientific studies of the inlets and adjacent beaches indicate that the shorelines are unlikely to return to their former positions. The studies, to be completed as part of the State Comprehensive Beach Management Plan, must consider: historical inlet migration, inlet stability, channel and ebb tidal delta changes, the effects of sediment bypassing on shorelines adjacent to the inlets, and the effects of nearby beach restoration projects on inlet sediment budgets.
(3) For inlets that are stabilized by jetties, terminal groins, or other structures, the baselines within inlet erosion zones are determined in the same manner as those in standard erosion zones. However, the actual location of the crest of an ideal primary ocean front sand dune must be taken as the baseline, not the location had the inlet remained unstabilized.
(B) The setback line must be determined using the baseline for the zones.
(1) For standard erosion zones, the setback line is the line landward of the baseline that is established at a distance which is forty times the annual erosion rate as determined by historical and other scientific means and adopted by the council in the State Comprehensive Beach Management Plan. However, all setback lines must be established no less than twenty feet landward of the baseline, even in cases where the shoreline has been stable or has experienced net accretion over the past forty years.
(2) For inlet erosion zones, the setback line is the line that is established landward of the baseline at a distance which is forty times the annual erosion rate as determined by historical and other scientific means and adopted by the council in the State Comprehensive Beach Management Plan. However, all setback lines must be established no less than twenty feet landward of the baseline, even in cases where the shoreline has been stable or has experienced net accretion over the past forty years.
(C) An interim baseline and the setback line must be established after the evaluation of all monitoring or scientific analysis by July 1, 1988. Before July 2, 1990, the baseline and the setback line must be reestablished after the evaluation of all monitoring or scientific analysis and public input. The baseline and setback line must be reset no later than ten years after July 1, 1990, and must be revised not less than every five years after they are reset and not more than every ten years after they are reset. It is the responsibility of the council to revise the baseline and setback line for all the inlet and standard erosion zones and to transmit this information and otherwise make it readily available for all members of the public and all state and local entities. In order to plan for the revisions, the council may stagger the revision of these zones in any way considered appropriate so long as every zone is revised in accordance with the time guidelines established in this section. Nothing in this section allows the seaward movement of the baseline after July 1, 1990. However, renourishment is desirable, and it is recognized that this process may slow down or prevent the landward movement of the setback line.
(D) In order to locate the baseline and the setback line, the council shall establish monumented and controlled survey points in each county fronting the Atlantic Ocean. The council shall acquire sufficient surveyed topographic information on which to locate the baseline. Surveyed topographic data must typically be gathered at two thousand foot intervals. However, in areas subject to significant near term development and in areas currently developed, the interval, at the discretion of the council, may be more frequent. The resulting surveys must locate the crest of the frontal or ideal dune which must be used as the baseline for computing the forty-year erosion rate. In cases where no frontal dune exists, a study conducted by registered coastal engineers or professional geologists, or both, is required to determine where the upland location of the crest of the frontal dune would be located if the shoreline was not altered. The council, by regulation, may exempt specifically described portions of the coastline from the survey requirements of this section when, in its judgment, the portions of coastline are not subject to erosion or are not likely to be developed by virtue of local, state, or federal programs in effect on the coastline which would preclude any significant development, or both.
(E) Any coastal riparian landowner adversely affected who feels that the setback line, baseline, or erosion rate as adopted is in error, upon submittal of substantiating evidence, must be granted a review of the setback line, baseline, or erosion rate, or a review of all three. Any of the requests must be forwarded to the appropriate committee of the council and thereafter handled in accordance with the council's regulations on appeals.
Section 48-39-290. (A) If a habitable structure existing on the effective date of Sections 48-39-270 through 48-39-360 seaward of the setback line is damaged by natural causes or fire, it may be repaired by the owner if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The total square footage of the repaired structure does not exceed the total square footage of the original structure.
(2) The linear footage along the coast of the repaired structure does not exceed the linear footage along the coast of the original structure.
(3) The structure, as repaired, is not any further seaward than the original structure.
(4) All repairs are permitted by local zoning and building authorities.
(B) If a habitable structure existing on the effective date of Sections 48-39-270 through 48-39-360 seaward of the setback line is destroyed beyond repair by natural causes or fire, it may be replaced by the owner after notification of the council if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The total square footage of the replaced structure does not exceed the total square footage of the original structure.
(2) The linear footage along the coast of the replaced structure does not exceed the linear footage along the coast of the original structure.
(3) The structure, as replaced, is not any further seaward than the original structure.
(4) The replaced structure is permitted by local zoning and building authorities.
(5) Where possible, the replaced structure is moved behind the setback line or if not possible, then as far landward as possible.
(6) Any erosion control device protecting the replaced structure conforms to the requirements as set forth in subsection (C) of this section.
(7) The owner renourishes the beach in front of the property on a yearly basis with an amount and type of sand to be approved by the council, but which must not be less than one and one-half times the yearly volume of sand lost due to erosion. However, the provisions of this item do not apply if the structure is in an area landward of an ongoing federal, state, or local government renourishment project.
(8) The reconstruction is not seaward of the baseline.
If a habitable structure is rebuilt pursuant to this section, no recreational amenity may be built or rebuilt seaward of the setback line. Nothing in this section allows any rebuilding in the area from the baseline to twenty feet landward of the baseline. A person having a recorded interest or interest by operation of law in or registered claim to land within the area from the baseline to twenty feet landward of the baseline affected by this prohibition may petition the circuit court to determine whether the petitioner is the owner of the land in question, or has an interest in it, and in case he is adjudged the owner of the subject land, or has an interest in it, the court shall determine whether the rebuilding prohibition so restricts the use of his property as to deprive him of the practical uses of it, being not otherwise authorized by law, and is therefore an unreasonable exercise of the police power because the prohibition constitutes the equivalent of taking without compensation. The burden of proof is on the petitioner as to ownership and the burden of proof is on the State to prove that the prohibition is not an unreasonable exercise of the police power. The method provided in this subsection for the determination of the issue of whether the prohibition constitutes a taking without compensation is exclusive and the issue may not be determined in any other proceeding. The court shall enter a judgment in accordance with the issues. If the judgment is in favor of petitioner, the order shall require the State to either issue the necessary permits for reconstruction of the structure or, in the alternative, to provide reasonable compensation for the loss of use of the land. From a decision of the court either party may appeal as a matter of right. If the owner decides not to repair or rebuild the damaged habitable structure, then he is responsible for its removal. Rebuilding is only allowed when the original structure has been destroyed beyond repair. Nothing in this section prevents the performance of normal maintenance or repairs that do not alter the exterior walls of the structure nor prevents the reconstruction of walkways or other structures providing access to the beach.
(C) If an erosion control device seaward of the setback line is damaged by a natural disaster, the owner shall report it to the council. The council then shall determine if a damage appraisal is needed. If an erosion control device is determined to be less than fifty percent damaged, it may be repaired in the original location if permitted by the local zoning and building authority. If the erosion control device is determined to be damaged or destroyed fifty percent or more, it must not be repaired but may be replaced by the owner if a permit is obtained from the local governing body and a permit is obtained from the council which requires that:
(1) the replaced erosion control device is constructed according to guidelines to be developed by the council which prohibit vertical erosion control devices and which require construction according to generally accepted engineering and scientific principles;
(2) the replacement erosion control device protects a habitable structure and is moved as far landward as possible, and the most seaward point of the replaced erosion control device does not extend further seaward than the original vertical erosion control device or the landward crest of the original sloping revetment unless this requirement would result in the replaced erosion control device being located in a position which would intersect with or damage the existing habitable structure.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an erosion control device protecting undeveloped property may be replaced at its original location in order to provide a continuous structure as it existed before the damage, and the structure must conform to the guidelines as set forth in item (1) of this subsection.
If an erosion control device is replaced pursuant to this section, the owner is required to renourish the beach in front of the property on a yearly basis with an amount and type of sand to be approved by the council, but which is not less than one and one-half times the yearly volume of sand lost due to erosion. However, the provisions of this subsection do not apply if the structure is in an area landward of an ongoing federal, state, or local government renourishment project.
Any failure to comply with the requirements of this section results in the immediate removal of the erosion control device by the owner.
If the owner decides not to repair or replace the damaged erosion control device then he is responsible for its removal. Effective thirty years after the effective date of Sections 48-39-270 through 48-39-360, all vertical seawalls must be replaced with an erosion control device which is constructed according to guidelines to be developed by the council and which must comply with the requirements set forth in this subsection unless a registered structural engineer certifies to the council that the removal of the existing erosion control device would result in the immediate collapse or damage to existing habitable structures. Nothing in this paragraph requires the removal of any erosion control device protecting a public highway which existed on the effective date of Sections 48-39-270 through 48-39-360. A local governing body may, if it notifies the council before July 1, 1988, exempt from the provisions of this subsection the shoreline fronting the Atlantic Ocean under its jurisdiction where coastal erosion has been shown to be attributed to a federally authorized navigation project as documented by the findings of a Section 111 Study conducted under the authority of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1968, as amended by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and approved by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Should the local governing body exempt its shoreline pursuant to this section, the area of shoreline so exempted shall not be eligible for any state funds provided for the purposes of beach renourishment.
(D) All original damage appraisals must be conducted by a certified appraiser retained by the property owner. The council may choose to retain a second appraisal from a certified appraiser. If the second appraisal varies from the first appraisal so as to require the replacement of the erosion control device, a third certified appraiser must be selected by the previous two appraisers with the costs being shared equally by the property owner and the council. The percentage of damage determined by the third appraiser is final.
(E) However, the local zoning and building authorities shall notify the council upon the issuance of any permits required pursuant to this section. The council shall enforce the provisions of this section pursuant to Section 48-39-50(I).
Section 48-39-300. No new habitable structures are allowed to be constructed, placed, or otherwise made to appear seaward of the setback line, except for new habitable structures no larger than a total of five thousand square feet inclusive of porches, decks, patios, and garages and only on lots platted as of the effective date of Sections 48-39-270 through 48-39-360. However, no new habitable structures are allowed in the area from the baseline to twenty feet landward of the baseline. No new construction is allowed seaward of the baseline. No new recreational amenities may be constructed, placed, or otherwise made to appear seaward of the setback line. The new habitable structure must be constructed according to the local zoning and building codes and is contingent upon certification being given to the council that the habitable structure shall be no larger than five thousand square feet inclusive of porches, decks, patios, and garages and shall be located as far landward on the property as practicable. No new erosion control devices are allowed to be constructed, placed, or otherwise made to appear seaward of the setback line, except for the protection of public highways which existed on the effective date of Sections 48-39-270 through 48-39-360. No erosion control devices may be incorporated as an integral part of any new habitable structure constructed pursuant to this section. However, any person, partnership, or corporation who owns real property that is subject to the setback line as provided for in this section may proceed with the construction of a building under an issued building permit or the construction of buildings and other elements of the master plan, planned development, or planned unit development as approved notwithstanding the setback line established for the property if the person, partnership, or corporation legally has begun a use as evidenced by at least one of the following:
(1) All building permits have been issued by a local government before March 1, 1988.
(2) There is a master plan, planned development, or planned unit development:
(a) that has been approved in writing by a local government before March 1, 1988; or
(b) where work has begun pursuant to approval as evidenced by the completion of the utility and infrastructure installation designed to service the real property that is subject to the setback line and included in the approved master plan, planned development, or planned unit development.
The completed utility and infrastructure installation must be pursuant to a site development plan for utility and infrastructure installation that has been approved by the municipality or local government, and the utility and infrastructure installation must have been completed as of March 1, 1988, pursuant to the plan.
However, any repairs performed on a habitable structure built pursuant to this section is subject to the guidelines for repairs as set forth in Section 48-39-290(A).
Nothing herein prohibits the construction of fishing piers or structures, which enhance beach access, seaward of the baseline if permitted by the council.
Section 48-39-310. The destruction of any beach or dune vegetation seaward of the setback line is prohibited unless there is no feasible alternative. When there is destruction of vegetation permitted seaward of the setback line, mitigation for the destruction is required as part of the permit conditions.
Section 48-39-320. The council's responsibilities include the creation of a long-range and comprehensive beach management plan for the Atlantic Ocean shoreline in South Carolina. The plan must include all of the following:
(1) development of the data base for the state's coastal areas to provide essential information necessary to make informed and scientifically based decisions concerning the maintenance or enhancement of the beach/dune system;
(2) development of guidelines and their coordination with appropriate agencies and local governments for the accomplishment of:
(a) beach/dune restoration and nourishment, including the projected impact on coastal erosion rates, cost/benefit of the project, impact on floor flora and fauna, and funding alternatives;
(b) development of a beach access program to preserve the existing public access and enhance public access to assure full enjoyment of the beach by all residents of this State;
(c) maintenance of a dry sand and ecologically stable beach;
(d) protection of all sand dunes seaward of the setback line;
(e) protection of endangered species, threatened species, and important habitats, such as nesting grounds;
(f) regulation of vehicular traffic upon the beaches and the beach/dune system which includes the prohibition of vehicles upon public beaches for nonessential uses;
(g) development of a mitigation policy for construction allowed seaward of the setback line, which must include dedication of public access ways, nourishment, vegetation, and other appropriate means;
(3) formulation of recommendations for funding programs which may achieve the goals set forth in the State Comprehensive Beach Management Plan;
(4) development of a program on public education and awareness of the importance of the beach/dune system, the project to be coordinated with the South Carolina Educational Television Network and Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism;
(5) assistance to local governments in developing the local comprehensive beach management plans.
Section 48-39-330. Thirty days after the initial adoption by the council of setback lines, any contract of sale and any deed with respect to transfers of real property located in whole or in part seaward of the setback line must contain a disclosure statement including the location of the property in proximity to the setback line, the baseline, the velocity zone, as defined by the federal emergency management agency, the seaward corners of all habitable structures referenced to the South Carolina State Plane Coordinate System (N. A. D. - 1983), and include the local erosion rate most recently made available by the council for that particular inlet erosion zone or standard erosion zone, as applicable. Any language reasonably calculated to call attention to the existence of baselines, setback lines, the velocity zone, and the erosion rate, or reference to a plat that shows the location of the lines and zones and includes the applicable erosion rate complies to comply with this section.
Section 48-39-340. Any funding for local governments to provide for beach front management must be distributed in a fair and equitable manner. Consideration must be given to the size of the locality, the need for beach management in the area, the cost/benefits of expenditures in that area, and the best interest of the beach/dune system of the State as prioritized by the council.
Section 48-39-350. (A) The local governments shall prepare within two years of the effective date of Sections 48-39-270 through 48-39-360 in coordination with the council a local comprehensive beach management plan which must be submitted for approval to the council. The local comprehensive beach management plan, at a minimum, must contain all of the following:
(1) an inventory of beach profile data and historic erosion rate data provided by the council for each standard erosion zone and inlet erosion zone under the local jurisdiction;
(2) an inventory of public beach access and attendant parking along with a plan for enhancing public access and parking;
(3) an inventory of all structures located in the area seaward of the setback line;
(4) an inventory of turtle nesting and important habitats of the beach/dune system and a protection and restoration plan if necessary;
(5) a conventional zoning and land use plan consistent with the purposes of this chapter for the area seaward of the setback line;
(6) an analysis of beach erosion control alternatives, including renourishment for the beach under the local government's jurisdiction;
(7) a drainage plan for the area seaward of the setback zone;
(8) a post disaster plan including plans for cleanup, maintaining essential services, protecting public health, emergency building ordinances, and the establishment of priorities, all of which must be consistent with this chapter;
(9) a detailed strategy for achieving the goals of this chapter by the end of the forty-year retreat period. Consideration must be given to relocating buildings, removal of erosion control structures, and relocation of utilities;
(10) a detailed strategy for achieving the goals of preservation of existing public access and the enhancement of public access to assure full enjoyment of the beach by all residents of this State.
The plan must be updated at least every five years in coordination with the council following its approval. The local governments and the council shall work together and implement the plan within three years of the effective date of Sections 48-39-270 through 48-39-360.
(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 48-39-340, if a local government fails to act in a timely manner to establish and enforce a local coastal beach management plan, the council shall impose and implement the plan or the State Comprehensive Beach Management Plan for the local government. If a local government fails to establish and enforce a local coastal beach management plan, the government automatically loses its eligibility to receive any available state-generated or shared revenues designated for beach/dune system protection, preservation, restoration, or enhancement, except as directly applied by the council in its administrative capacities.
Section 48-39-360. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to any areas which are at least one-half mile inland from the mouth of an inlet.
Section 48-39-270. As used in this chapter:
(1) Erosion control structures or devices include:
(a) seawall: a special type of retaining wall that is designed specifically to withstand normal wave forces;
(b) bulkhead: a retaining wall designed to retain fill material but not to withstand wave forces on an exposed shoreline;
(c) revetment: a sloping structure built along an escarpment or in front of a bulkhead to protect the shoreline or bulkhead from erosion.
(2) Habitable structure means a structure suitable for human habitation including, but not limited to, single or multifamily residences, hotels, condominium buildings, and buildings for commercial purposes. Each building of a condominium regime is considered a separate habitable structure, but if a building is divided into apartments, then the entire building, not the individual apartment, is considered a single habitable structure. Additionally, a habitable structure includes porches, gazebos, and other attached improvements.
(3) Council means the South Carolina Coastal Council.
(4) Beach nourishment means the artificial establishment and periodic renourishment of a beach with sand that is compatible with the existing beach in a way so as to create a dry sand beach at all stages of the tide.
(5) The beach/dune system includes all land from the mean highwater mark of the Atlantic Ocean landward to the setback line described in Section 48-39-280.
(6) A standard erosion zone is a segment of shoreline which is subject to essentially the same set of coastal processes, has a fairly constant range of profiles and sediment characteristics, and is not influenced directly by tidal inlets or associated inlet shoals.
(7) An inlet erosion zone is a segment of shoreline along or adjacent to tidal inlets which is influenced directly by the inlet and its associated shoals.
(8) Master plan means a document or a map prepared by a developer or a city as a policy guide to decisions about the physical development of the project or community.
(9) Planned development means a development plan which has received local approval for a specified number of dwelling and other units. The siting and size of structures and amenities are specified or restricted within the approval. This term specifically references multifamily or commercial projects not otherwise referenced by the terms, master plan, or planned unit development.
(10) Planned unit development means a residential, commercial, or industrial development, or all three, designed as a unit and approved by local government.
(11) Destroyed beyond repair means that more than sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the replacement value of the habitable structure or pool has been destroyed. If the owner disagrees with the appraisal of the council, he may obtain an appraisal to evaluate the damage to the building or pool. If the appraisals differ, then the two appraisers must select a third appraiser. If the two appraisers are unable to select a third appraiser, the clerk of court of the county where the structure lies must make the selection. Nothing in this section prevents a court of competent jurisdiction from reviewing, de novo, the appraisal upon the petition of the property owner.
(12) Pool is a structure designed and used for swimming and wading.
(13) Active beach is that area seaward of the escarpment or the first line of stable natural vegetation, whichever first occurs, measured from the ocean.
Section 48-39-280. (A) A forty-year policy of retreat from the shoreline is established. The council must implement this policy and must utilize the best available scientific and historical data in the implementation. The council must establish a baseline which parallels the shoreline for each standard erosion zone and each inlet erosion zone.
(1) The baseline for each standard erosion zone is established at the location of the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dune in that zone. In standard erosion zones in which the shoreline has been altered naturally or artificially by the construction of erosion control devices, groins, or other manmade alterations, the baseline must be established by the council using the best scientific and historical data, as where the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dunes for that zone would be located if the shoreline had not been altered.
(2) The baseline for inlet erosion zones that are not stabilized by jetties, terminal groins, or other structures must be determined by the council as the most landward point of erosion at any time during the past forty years, unless the best available scientific and historical data of the inlet and adjacent beaches indicate that the shoreline is unlikely to return to its former position. In collecting and utilizing the best scientific and historical data available for the implementation of the retreat policy, the council, as part of the State Comprehensive Beach Management Plan provided for in this chapter, among other factors, must consider: historical inlet migration, inlet stability, channel and ebb tidal delta changes, the effects of sediment bypassing on shorelines adjacent to the inlets, and the effects of nearby beach restoration projects on inlet sediment budgets.
(3) The baseline within inlet erosion zones that are stabilized by jetties, terminal groins, or other structures must be determined in the same manner as provided for in item (1). However, the actual location of the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dunes of that erosion zone is the baseline of that zone, not the location if the inlet had remained unstabilized.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, where a council-approved beach nourishment project has been completed, the local government or the landowners, with notice to the local government, may petition the council to move the baseline as far seaward as the landward edge of the erosion control structure or device or if there is no existing erosion control structure or device, then as far seaward as the post project baseline as determined by the council in accordance with Section 48-39-280(A)(1) by showing that the beach has been stabilized by council-approved beach nourishment.
If the petitioner is asking that the baseline be moved seaward pursuant to this section, he must show an ongoing commitment to renourishment which will stabilize and maintain the dry sand beach at all stages of the tide for the foreseeable future.
If the council grants the petition to move the baseline seaward pursuant to this section, no new construction may occur in the area between the former baseline and the new baseline for three years after the initial beach nourishment project has been completed as determined by the council.
If the beach nourishment fails to stabilize the beach after a reasonable period of time, the council must move the baseline landward to the primary oceanfront sand dune as determined pursuant to items (1), (2), and (3) for that section of the beach.
(B) To implement the retreat policy provided for in subsection (A), a setback line must be established landward of the baseline a distance which is forty times the average annual erosion rate or not less than twenty feet from the baseline for each erosion zone based upon the best historical and scientific data adopted by the council as a part of the State Comprehensive Beach Management Plan.
(C) The council, before July 3, 1991, must establish a final baseline and setback line for each erosion zone based on the best available scientific and historical data as provided in subsection (B) and with consideration of public input. The baseline and setback line must not be revised before July 1, 1998, nor later than July 1, 2000. After that revision, the baseline and setback line must be revised not less than every eight years, but not more than every ten years after each preceding revision. In the establishment and revision of the baseline and setback line, the council must transmit and otherwise make readily available to the public all information upon which its decisions are based for the establishment of the final baseline and setback line. The council must hold one public hearing before establishing the final baseline and setback lines. Until the council establishes new baselines and setback lines, the existing baselines and setback lines must be used. The council may stagger the revision of the baselines and setback lines of the erosion zones so long as every zone is revised in accordance with the time guidelines established in this section.
(D) In order to locate the baseline and the setback line, the council must establish monumented and controlled survey points in each county fronting the Atlantic Ocean. The council must acquire sufficient surveyed topographic information on which to locate the baseline. Surveyed topographic data typically must be gathered at two thousand foot intervals. However, in areas subject to significant near term development and in areas currently developed, the interval, at the discretion of the council, may be more frequent. The resulting surveys must locate the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dunes to be used as the baseline for computing the forty-year erosion rate. In cases where no primary oceanfront sand dunes exist, a study conducted by the council is required to determine where the upland location of the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dune would be located if the shoreline had not been altered. The council, by regulation, may exempt specifically described portions of the coastline from the survey requirements of this section when, in its judgment, the portions of coastline are not subject to erosion or are not likely to be developed by virtue of local, state, or federal programs in effect on the coastline which would preclude significant development, or both.
(E) A landowner claiming ownership of property affected who feels that the final or revised setback line, baseline, or erosion rate as adopted is in error, upon submittal of substantiating evidence, must be granted a review of the setback line, baseline, or erosion rate, or a review of all three. The requests must be forwarded to the appropriate committee of the council and handled in accordance with the council's regulations on appeals.
Section 48-39-290. (A) No new construction or reconstruction is allowed seaward of the baseline except as follows:
(1) wooden walkways no larger in width than six feet;
(2) small wooden decks no larger than one hundred forty-four square feet;
(3) fishing piers which are open to the public. Those fishing piers with their associated structures including, but not limited to, baitshops, restrooms, restaurants, and arcades which existed September 21, 1989, may be rebuilt if they are constructed to the same dimensions and utilized for the same purposes and remain open to the public. In addition, those fishing piers with their associated structures which existed on September 21, 1989, that were privately owned, privately maintained, and not open to the public on this date also may be rebuilt and used for the same purposes if they are constructed to the same dimensions;
(4) golf courses;
(5) normal landscaping;
(6) structures specifically permitted by special permit as provided in subsection (D);
(7) pools may be reconstructed if they are landward of an existing, functional erosion control structure or device.
A permit must be obtained from the council for items (2) through (7).
(B) Construction, reconstruction, or alterations between the baseline and the setback line are governed as follows:
(1) Habitable structures:
(a) New habitable structures: If part of a new habitable structure is constructed seaward of the setback line, the owner must certify in writing to the council that the construction meets the following requirements:
(i) The habitable structure is no larger than five thousand square feet of heated space. The structure must be located as far landward on the property as practicable. A drawing must be submitted to the council showing a footprint of the structure on the property, a cross section of the structure, and the structure's relation to property lines and setback lines which may be in effect. No erosion control structure or device may be incorporated as an integral part of a habitable structure constructed pursuant to this section.
(ii) No part of the building is being constructed on the primary oceanfront sand dune or seaward of the baseline.
(b) Habitable structures which existed on the effective date of Act 634 of 1988 or constructed pursuant to this section:
(i) Normal maintenance and repair of habitable structures is allowed without notice to the council.
(ii) Additions to habitable structures are allowed if the additions together with the existing structure do not exceed five thousand square feet of heated space. Additions to habitable structures must comply with the conditions of new habitable structures as set forth in subitem (a).
(iii) Repair or renovation of habitable structures damaged, but not destroyed beyond repair, due to natural or manmade causes is allowed.
(iv) Replacement of habitable structures destroyed beyond repair due to natural causes is allowed after notification is provided by the owner to the council that all of the following requirements are met;
a. The total square footage of the replaced structure seaward of the setback line does not exceed the total square footage of the original structure seaward of the setback line. The linear footage of the replaced structure parallel to the coast does not exceed the original linear footage parallel to the coast.
b. The replaced structure is no farther seaward than the original structure.
c. Where possible, the replaced structure is moved landward of the setback line or if not possible, then as far landward as is practicable, considering local zoning and parking regulations.
d. The reconstruction is not seaward of the baseline unless permitted elsewhere in Sections 48-39-250 through 48-39-360.
(v) Replacement of habitable structures destroyed beyond repair due to manmade causes is allowed provided the rebuilt structure is no larger than the original structure it replaces and is constructed as far landward as possible, but the new structure must not be farther seaward than the original structure.
(2) Erosion control devices:
(a) No new erosion control structures or devices are allowed seaward of the setback line except to protect a public highway which existed on the effective date of this act.
(b) Erosion control structures or devices which existed on the effective date of this act must not be repaired or replaced if destroyed:
(i) more than eighty percent above grade through June 30, 1995;
(ii) more than sixty-six and two thirds percent above grade from July 1, 1995 through June 30, 2005;
(iii) more than fifty percent above grade after June 30, 2005.
(iv) Damage to seawalls and bulkheads must be judged on the percent of the structure remaining intact at the time of damage assessment. The portion of the structure or device above grade parallel to the shoreline must be evaluated. The length of the structure or device parallel to the shoreline still intact must be compared to the length of the structure or device parallel to the shoreline which has been destroyed. The length of the structure or device parallel to the shoreline determined to be destroyed divided by the total length of the original structure or device parallel to the shoreline yields the percent destroyed. Those portions of the structure or device standing, cracked or broken piles, whalers, and panels must be assessed on an individual basis to ascertain if these components are repairable or if replacement is required. Revetments must be judged on the extent of displacement of stone, effort required to return these stones to the prestorm event configuration of the structure or device, and ability of the revetment to retain backfill material at the time of damage assessment. If the property owner disagrees with the assessment of a registered professional engineer acting on behalf of the council, he may obtain an assessment by a registered professional engineer to evaluate, as set forth in this item, the damage to the structure or device. If the two assessments differ, then the two engineers who performed the assessments must select a registered professional engineer to perform the third assessment. If the first two engineers are unable to select an engineer to perform the third assessment, the clerk of court of the county where the structure or device lies must make the selection of a registered professional engineer. The determination of percentage of damage by the third engineer is conclusive.
(v) The determination of the degree of destruction must be made on a lot by lot basis by reference to county tax maps.
(vi) Erosion control structures or devices must not be enlarged, strengthened, or rebuilt but may be maintained in their present condition if not destroyed more than the percentage allowed in Section 48-39-290(B)(2)(b)(i),(ii), and (iii). Repairs must be made with materials similar to those of the structure or device being repaired.
(c) Erosion control structures or devices determined to be destroyed more than the percentage allowed in Section 48-39-290(B)(2)(b)(i),(ii), and (iii) must be removed at the owner's expense. Nothing in this section requires the removal of an erosion control structure or a device protecting a public highway which existed on the effective date of Act 634 of 1988.
(d) The provisions of this section do not affect or modify the provisions of Section 48-39-120(C).
(3) Pools, as defined in Section 48-39-270(12):
(a)No new pools may be constructed seaward of the setback line unless the pool is built landward of an erosion control structure or device which was in existence or permitted on the effective date of this act and is built as far landward as practical.
(b) Normal maintenance and repair is allowed without notice to the council.
(c) If a pool, existing on July 1, 1988, is destroyed beyond repair, as determined by the council pursuant to Section 48-39-270(11), it may be replaced if the owner certifies in writing to the council that:
(i) It is moved as far landward as practical. This determination of practicality must include the consideration of local zoning requirements.
(ii) It is rebuilt no larger than the destroyed pool.
(iii) It is constructed according to acceptable standards of pool construction and cannot be reinforced in a manner so as to act as an erosion control structure or device.
(d) If a pool is not destroyed beyond repair as determined by the council pursuant to Section 48-39-270(11) but the owner wishes to replace it, the owner may do so if:
(i) The dimensions of the pool are not enlarged.
(ii) The construction conforms to sub-subitem (iii) of subitem (c).
(4) All other construction or alteration between the baseline and the setback line requires a council permit. However, the council, in its discretion, may issue general permits for construction or alterations where issuance of the general permits would advance the implementation and accomplishment of the goals and purposes of Sections 48-39-250 through 48-39-360.
(C) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions relating to new construction, a person, partnership, or corporation owning real property that is affected by the setback line as established in Section 48-39-280 may proceed with construction pursuant to a valid building permit issued as of the effective date of this section. The person, partnership, or corporation may proceed with the construction of buildings and other elements of a master plan, planned development, or planned unit development notwithstanding the setback line established in this chapter if the person, partnership, or corporation legally has begun a use as evidenced by at least one of the following:
(a) All building permits have been applied for or issued by a local government before July 1, 1988.
(b) There is a master plan, planned development, or planned unit development:
(i) that has been approved in writing by a local government before July 1, 1988; or
(ii) where work has begun pursuant to approval as evidenced by the completion of the utility and infrastructure installation designed to service the real property that is subject to the setback line and included in the approved master plan, planned development, or planned unit development.
(2) However, repairs performed on a habitable structure built pursuant to this section are subject to the guidelines for repairs as set forth in this section.
(3) Nothing in this section prohibits the construction of fishing piers or structures which enhance beach access seaward of the baseline, if permitted by the council.
(D) Special permits:
(1) If an applicant requests a permit to build or rebuild a structure other than an erosion control structure or device seaward of the baseline that is not allowed otherwise pursuant to Sections 48-39-250 through 48-39-360, the council may issue a special permit to the applicant authorizing the construction or reconstruction if the structure is not constructed or reconstructed on a primary oceanfront sand dune or on the active beach, and if the beach erodes to the extent the permitted structure becomes situated on the active beach, the permittee agrees to remove the structure from the active beach if the council orders the removal. However, the use of the property authorized under this provision, in the determination of the council, must not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
(2) The council's Permitting Committee is the committee to consider applications for special permits.
(3) In granting a special permit, the committee may impose reasonable additional conditions and safeguards as in its judgment, will fulfill the purposes of Sections 48-39-250 through 48-39-360.
(4) A party aggrieved by the committee's decision to grant or deny a special permit application, may appeal to the full council pursuant to Section 48-39-150(D).
(E) The provisions of this section and Section 48-39-280 do not apply to an area in which the erosion of the beaches located in its jurisdiction is attributed to a federally authorized navigation project as documented by the findings of a Section 111 Study conducted under the authority of the federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1968, as amended by the federal Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and approved by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Nothing contained in this subsection makes this area ineligible for beach renourishment funds.
The baseline determined by the local governing body and the council is the line of erosion control devices and structures and the council retains its jurisdiction seaward of the baseline. In addition, upon completion of a council approved beach renourishment project, including the completion of a sand transfer system if necessary for long-term stabilization, an area under a Section 111 Study becomes subject to all the provisions of this chapter.
For the purposes of this section, a beach nourishment project stabilizing the beach exists if a successful restoration project is completed consisting of at least one hundred fifty cubic yards a foot over a length of five and one-half miles, with a project design capable of withstanding a one in ten-year storm, as determined by council, and renourishment is conducted annually at a rate, agreed upon by the council and local governing body, equivalent to that which would occur naturally if the navigation project causing the erosion did not exist. If the two parties cannot agree then the council must obtain the opinion of an independent third party.
Any habitable structure located in an area in which the erosion of the beaches located in its jurisdiction is attributed to a federally authorized navigation project as documented by the findings of a Section 111 Study, which was in existence on September 21, 1989, and was over forty years old on that date and is designated by the local governing body as an historical landmark may be rebuilt seaward of the baseline if it is rebuilt to the exact specifications, dimensions, and exterior appearance of the structure as it existed on that date.
Section 48-39-300. A local governing body, if it notifies the council before July 1, 1990, may exempt from the provisions of Section 48-39-290, relating to reconstruction and removal of erosion control devices, the shorelines fronting the Atlantic Ocean under its jurisdiction where coastal erosion has been shown to be attributed to a federally authorized navigation project as documented by the findings of a Section 111 Study conducted under the authority of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1968, as amended by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and approved by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Erosion control devices exempt under this section must not be constructed seaward of their existing location, increased in dimension, or rebuilt out of materials different from that of the original structure.
Section 48-39-305. (A) A person having a recorded interest or interest by operation of law in or having registered claim to land seaward of the baseline or setback line which is affected by the prohibition of construction or reconstruction may petition the circuit court to determine whether the petitioner is the owner of the land or has an interest in it. If he is adjudged the owner of the land or to have an interest in it, the court shall determine whether the prohibition so restricts the use of the property as to deprive the owner of the practical uses of it and is an unreasonable exercise of police power and constitutes a taking without compensation. The burden of proof is on the petitioner as to ownership, and the burden of proof is on the State to prove that the prohibition is not an unreasonable exercise of police power.
(B) The method provided in this section for the determination of the issue of whether the prohibition constitutes a taking without compensation is the exclusive judicial determination of the issue, and it must not be determined in another judicial proceeding. The court shall enter a judgment in accordance with the issues. If the judgment is in favor of the petitioner, the order must require the State either to issue the necessary permits for construction or reconstruction of a structure, order that the prohibition does not apply to the property, or provide reasonable compensation for the loss of the use of the land or the payment of costs and reasonable attorney's fees, or both. Either party may appeal the court's decision.
Section 48-39-310. The destruction of beach or dune vegetation seaward of the setback line is prohibited unless there is no feasible alternative. When there is destruction of vegetation permitted seaward of the setback line, mitigation, in the form of planting of new vegetation where possible, for the destruction is required as part of the permit conditions.
Section 48-39-320. (A) The council's responsibilities include the creation of a long-range and comprehensive beach management plan for the Atlantic Ocean shoreline in South Carolina. The plan must include all of the following:
(1) development of the data base for the state's coastal areas to provide essential information necessary to make informed and scientifically based decisions concerning the maintenance or enhancement of the beach/dune system;
(2) development of guidelines and their coordination with appropriate agencies and local governments for the accomplishment of:
(a) beach/dune restoration and nourishment, including the projected impact on coastal erosion rates, cost/benefit of the project, impact on flora and fauna, and funding alternatives;
(b) development of a beach access program to preserve the existing public access and enhance public access to assure full enjoyment of the beach by all residents of this State;
(c) maintenance of a dry sand and ecologically stable beach;
(d) protection of all sand dunes seaward of the setback line;
(e) protection of endangered species, threatened species, and important habitats such as nesting grounds;
(f) regulation of vehicular traffic upon the beaches and the beach/dune system which includes the prohibition of vehicles upon public beaches for nonessential uses;
(g) development of a mitigation policy for construction allowed seaward of the setback line, which must include public access ways, nourishment, vegetation, and other appropriate means;
(3) formulation of recommendations for funding programs which may achieve the goals set forth in the State Comprehensive Beach Management Plan;
(4) development of a program on public education and awareness of the importance of the beach/dune system, the project to be coordinated with the South Carolina Educational Television Network and Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism;
(5) assistance to local governments in developing the local comprehensive beach management plans.
(B) The plan provided for in this section is to be used for planning purposes only and must not be used by the council to exercise regulatory authority not otherwise granted in this chapter, unless the plan is created and adopted pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title 1.
Section 48-39-330. Thirty days after the initial adoption by the council of setback lines, a contract of sale or transfer of real property located in whole or in part seaward of the setback line or the jurisdictional line must contain a disclosure statement that the property is or may be affected by the setback line, baseline, and the seaward corners of all habitable structures referenced to the South Carolina State Plane Coordinate System (N.A.D.-1983) and include the local erosion rate most recently made available by the council for that particular standard zone or inlet zone as applicable. Language reasonably calculated to call attention to the existence of baselines, setback lines, jurisdiction lines, and the seaward corners of all habitable structures and the erosion rate complies with this section.
The provisions of this section are regulatory in nature and do not effect the legality of an instrument violating the provisions.
Section 48-39-340. Funding for local governments to provide for beachfront management must be distributed in a fair and equitable manner. Consideration must be given to the size of the locality, the need for beach management in the area, the cost/benefits of expenditures in that area, and the best interest of the beach/dune system of the State as established by priority by the council.
Section 48-39-350. (A) The local governments must prepare by July 1, 1991, in coordination with the council, a local comprehensive beach management plan which must be submitted for approval to the council. The local comprehensive beach management plan, at a minimum, must contain all of the following:
(1) an inventory of beach profile data and historic erosion rate data provided by the council for each standard erosion zone and inlet erosion zone under the local jurisdiction;
(2) an inventory of public beach access and attendant parking along with a plan for enhancing public access and parking;
(3) an inventory of all structures located in the area seaward of the setback line;
(4) an inventory of turtle nesting and important habitats of the beach/dune system and a protection and restoration plan if necessary;
(5) a conventional zoning and land use plan consistent with the purposes of this chapter for the area seaward of the setback line;
(6) an analysis of beach erosion control alternatives, including renourishment for the beach under the local government's jurisdiction;
(7) a drainage plan for the area seaward of the setback zone;
(8) a post disaster plan including plans for cleanup, maintaining essential services, protecting public health, emergency building ordinances, and the establishment of priorities, all of which must be consistent with this chapter;
(9) a detailed strategy for achieving the goals of this chapter by the end of the forty-year retreat period. Consideration must be given to relocating buildings, removal of erosion control structures, and relocation of utilities;
(10) a detailed strategy for achieving the goals of preservation of existing public access and the enhancement of public access to assure full enjoyment of the beach by all residents of this State.
The plan must be updated at least every five years in coordination with the council following its approval. The local governments and the council must implement the plan by July 1, 1992.
(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 48-39-340, if a local government fails to act in a timely manner to establish and enforce a local coastal beach management plan, the council must impose and implement the plan or the State Comprehensive Beach Management Plan for the local government. If a local government fails to establish and enforce a local coastal beach management plan, the government automatically loses its eligibility to receive available state-generated or shared revenues designated for beach/dune system protection, preservation, restoration, or enhancement, except as directly applied by the council in its administrative capacities.
Section 48-39-355. A permit is not required for an activity specifically authorized in this chapter. However, the council may require documentation before the activity begins from a person wishing to undertake an authorized construction or reconstruction activity. The documentation must provide that the construction or reconstruction is in compliance with the terms of the exemptions or exceptions provided in Sections 48-39-280 through 48-39-360.
Section 48-39-360. The provisions of Sections 48-39-250 through 48-39-355 do not apply to an area which is at least one-half mile inland from the mouth of an inlet."
SECTION 4. Sections 1 and 2 of Act 634 of 1988 are repealed.
SECTION 5. The General Assembly hereby recognizes the need for maintaining navigation inlets to promote commercial and recreational uses of our coastal waters and their resources. The General Assembly further recognizes that inlets alter the natural drift of beach-quality sand resources, which often results in these sand resources being deposited around shallow outer-bar areas instead of providing natural nourishment to the downdrift beaches. Therefore, it is the intent of the General Assembly that:
(1) All construction and maintenance dredgings of beach-quality sand be placed on the downdrift beaches; or, if placed elsewhere, an equivalent quality and quantity of sand from an alternate location be placed on the downdrift beaches at no cost to the State and at a location acceptable to the South Carolina Coastal Council.
(2) On an average annual basis, a quantity of sand be placed on the downdrift beaches equal to the natural net annual longshore sediment transport, at no cost to the State. The placement location and quantities based on natural net annual longshore transport be established by the Council, and the sand quality be acceptable to the Council.
(3) The Council may promulgate regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this section."
SECTION 6. Section 48-39-40. Section 48-39-40 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 48-39-40. (A) There is here created the South Carolina Coastal Council which shall consist consists of eighteen members as follows: eight members, one from each coastal zone county, to be appointed elected by the local county governing body a majority vote of the members of the House of Representatives and a majority vote of the Senate members representing the county from three nominees submitted by the governing body of each coastal zone county, each House or Senate member to have one vote; six members, one from each of the congressional districts of the State, to be elected by a majority vote of the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate representing the counties in such that district, each such House or Senate member to have one vote; and the following legislative members who shall serve ex officio: two state senators, one to be appointed by the President of the Senate and one to be elected by the Senate Fish, Game and Forestry Committee; and two members of the House of Representatives to be appointed by the Speaker of the House. The council shall elect a chairman, vice-chairman and such other officers as it deems considers necessary.
(B) Terms of legislative members shall be are coterminous with their terms as members of the General Assembly. Terms of all nonlegislative members shall be are for four years and until successors are appointed and qualify, except that of those initially appointed three of the members appointed by county governing bodies and two. Members from congressional districts shall serve terms of two years only as determined by lot at the first meeting of the council. Vacancies shall must be filled in the original manner of selection for the remainder of the unexpired term."
SECTION 7. The current nonlegislative members of the South Carolina Coastal Council representing the eight coastal zone counties serve until their present terms of office expire at which time their successors elected in the manner provided in Section 48-39-40 of the 1976 Code, as amended by this act, take office.
SECTION 8. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this act, the provisions of this act shall be applied only prospectively and shall not affect any legal action commenced or any cause of action accruing as a result of an event or events which occurred before the effective date of this act. Any such action must be governed by the provisions of Sections 48-30-10 through 48-39-360, as amended by Act 634 of 1988, and in existence before the effective date of this act.
SECTION 9. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
Glenn F. McConnell C. Lenoir Sturkie J.M. Long, Jr. L. Edward Bennett John C. Hayes, III Robert A. Barber On Part of the Senate On Part of the House
The Free Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The Report of the Committee of Free Conference having been adopted by both Houses, and this Bill having been read three times in each House, it was ordered that the title thereof be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has reconsidered the vote whereby it adopted the report of the Committee of Conference on H. 4691:
H. 4691 -- Reps. McAbee and Carnell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 34-11-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF AND PENALTIES FOR FRAUDULENT CHECK CASES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO KEEP A NONPUBLIC RECORD OF THE OFFENSE AND THE DATE WHICH IS EXPUNGED TO INSURE THAT NO PERSON TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE RIGHT OF EXPUNGEMENT PERMITTED BY THIS SECTION MORE THAN ONCE.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 177
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Conference on H. 4691:
H. 4691 -- Reps. McAbee and Carnell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 34-11-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF AND PENALTIES FOR FRAUDULENT CHECK CASES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO KEEP A NONPUBLIC RECORD OF THE OFFENSE AND THE DATE WHICH IS EXPUNGED TO INSURE THAT NO PERSON TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE RIGHT OF EXPUNGEMENT PERMITTED BY THIS SECTION MORE THAN ONCE.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 178
Received as information.
The following was received.
The COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
H. 4691 -- Reps. McAbee and Carnell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 34-11-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF AND PENALTIES FOR FRAUDULENT CHECK CASES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO KEEP A NONPUBLIC RECORD OF A FIRST OFFENSE VIOLATION WHICH IS EXPUNGED TO INSURE THAT NO PERSON TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE RIGHT OF EXPUNGEMENT PERMITTED BY THIS SECTION MORE THAN ONCE.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
That the same do pass with the following amendments:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting therein:
/SECTION 1. Section 34-11-90(e) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(e) After a conviction under this section on a first offense, the defendant may, after one year from the date of the conviction, apply, or cause someone acting on his behalf, to apply to the court for an order expunging the records of the arrest and conviction. This provision shall does not apply to any crime classified as a felony. If the defendant has had no other conviction during the one-year period following the conviction under this section, the court shall issue an order expunging the records. No person shall have has any rights under this section more than one time. After the expungement, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is required to keep a nonpublic record of the offense and the date of its expungement to ensure that no person takes advantage of the rights permitted by this subsection more than once. This nonpublic record is not subject to release under Section 34-11-95, the Freedom of Information Act or any other provision of law, except to those authorized law or court officials who need to know this information in order to prevent the rights afforded by this subsection from being taken advantage of more than once."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
John Drummond Jennings G. McAbee James E. Bryan, Jr. Larry E. Gentry H. Samuel Stilwell J. Michael Baxley On Part of the Senate On Part of the House
Rep. McABEE explained the Report.
The Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The Report of the Committee of Conference having been adopted by both Houses, and this Bill having been read three times in each House, it was ordered that the title thereof be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 762:
S. 762 -- Senator Waddell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-110, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE THE BLUFFTON AND HILTON HEAD PRECINCTS.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Conference on:
H. 4771 -- Rep. Wells: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 25, TITLE 50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BOATING AND SURFING AT PARTICULAR LOCATIONS, BY ADDING ARTICLE 13 SO AS TO ESTABLISH NO WAKE ZONES AND TO RESTRICT NAVIGATION, MAST HEIGHT, WATERCRAFT ENGINE SIZE, AND WATERSKIING AND SWIMMING ON LAKES WILLIAM C. BOWEN AND H. TAYLOR BLALOCK IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, TO PROVIDE FOR OTHER REGULATIONS ON BOATING, TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO WAIVE RESTRICTIONS BY WRITTEN PERMIT IN CONSULTATION WITH THE SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY.
and having been adopted by both Houses has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 176
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R694, S. 1620 by a vote of 46 to 0:
S. 1620 -- Senator Pope: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 295 OF 1989, RELATING TO THE REPEAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH ESTABLISHED THE NEWBERRY COUNTY PARK COMMISSION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS OF THIS COMMISSION AS OF THE TIME OF ITS REPEAL ARE DEVOLVED UPON THE GOVERNING BODY OF NEWBERRY COUNTY, AND THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE COMMISSION ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF NEWBERRY COUNTY.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 69
Received as information.
The following was received.
June 12, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval S. 1620, R-694, an Act:
TO AMEND ACT 295 OF 1989, RELATING TO THE REPEAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH ESTABLISHED THE NEWBERRY COUNTY PARK COMMISSION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS OF THIS COMMISSION AS OF THE TIME OF ITS REPEAL ARE DEVOLVED UPON THE GOVERNING BODY OF NEWBERRY COUNTY, AND THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE COMMISSION ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF NEWBERRY COUNTY.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office dated June 11, 1990, which states in concluding:
"The 1990 act devolves the powers, duties, and functions of the Newberry County Park Commission upon the governing body of Newberry County, transferring the Commission's assets and liabilities to the governing body of Newberry County, on the effective date of the repeal of Act No. 735 of 1936. In an opinion of this Office dated June 6, 1985, this Office noted that the Newberry County Park Commission is located wholly within Laurens County. Thus, S. 1620, R-694 of 1990 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the the Constitution of the state of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to S. 1603, R-639, have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7..."
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
June 11, 1990
Mark R. Elam, Esquire
Senior Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11369
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Elam:
By your letter of June 8, 1990, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of S. 1620, R-694, an act amending Act No. 295 of 1989, relating to the Newberry County Park Commission. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality.
In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E.2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.
The act bearing ratification number 694 of 1990 amends Act No. 295 of 1989, which repealed Act No. 735 of 1936. The 1990 act devolves the powers, duties, and functions of the Newberry County Park Commission upon the governing body of Newberry County, transferring the Commission's assets and liabilities to the governing body of Newberry County, on the effective date of the repeal of Act No. 735 of 1936. In an opinion of this Office dated June 6, 1985, this Office noted that the Newberry County Park Commission is located only within Newberry County. Thus, S. 1620, R-694 of 1990 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the the Constitution of the state of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to S. 1620, R-694, have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974). See also Article III, Section 34 as to other potential constitutional difficulties presented by this act.
Based on the foregoing, we would advise that S. 1620, R-694 would be of doubtful constitutionality. Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.
Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Gentry
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was introduced:
H. 5199 -- Reps. Washington, Holt, D. Martin, Whipper, Winstead, Kohn, J. Bailey, Barber, Mappus, Hallman and Rama: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE MRS. BARBARA WILLIAMS OF CHARLESTON UPON HER BEING NAMED THE EDITOR OF "THE NEWS AND COURIER" OF CHARLESTON.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 5200 -- Rep. Blanding: A HOUSE RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE DESCENDANTS OF ELIAS AND SYLVIA HERRINGTON JAMES OF SUMTER AND LEE COUNTIES ON THEIR ANNUAL FAMILY REUNION.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 5201 -- Rep. Taylor: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND MR. SHERMAN LOUIS ANDERSON OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, WHO IS A NATIVE OF LAURENS, SOUTH CAROLINA, FOR HIS OUTSTANDING EFFORTS IN COORDINATING THE RICHLEX HIGH SCHOOL REUNION SPONSORED BY THE CLASS OF 1970 AND FOR HIS WORK IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE R. L. FLOYD FOUNDATION, WHICH IS A SCHOLARSHIP FUND FOR NEEDY AND DESERVING STUDENTS OF LEXINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 5.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 5202 -- Rep. Farr: A HOUSE RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF JAMES W. CHEEK, TREASURER OF UNION COUNTY FOR FORTY-THREE YEARS, AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 1451:
S. 1451 -- Senators Drummond, Long, Lee, Bryan, Hinds and O'Dell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 13 TO CHAPTER 13, TITLE 24 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; TO REPEAL SECTION 24-21-475, RELATING TO THE SHOCK PROBATION PROGRAM; AND TO AMEND SECTION 14-1-210, RELATING TO A COURT FEE TO FUND CERTAIN PROGRAMS, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
Rep. WASHINGTON moved that the House recede until 3:45, which was adopted.
At 3:45 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
The House stood at ease subject to the call of Chair.
At 4:28 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:
H. 5182 -- Rep. T. Rogers: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE SUPPORT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF SOUTH CAROLINA FOR THE UPCOMING UNITED NATIONS WORLD SUMMIT FOR CHILDREN.
The SPEAKER appointed Reps. J. ROGERS, WILKINS and WASHINGTON as a committee to notify the Governor that the House had completed its work, and pursuant to H. 5072, the Sine Die Adjournment Resolution, the House was ready to adjourn Sine Die.
The SPEAKER appointed Reps. HASKINS, WHITE and GENTRY as a committee to notify the Senate that the House had completed its work, and pursuant to H. 5072, the Sine Die Adjournment Resolution, the House was ready to adjourn Sine Die.
At 4:30 P.M. the House attended in the Senate Chamber, where the following Acts were duly ratified.
(R747) S. 762 -- Senator Waddell: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-110, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE THE BLUFFTON AND HILTON HEAD PRECINCTS.
(R748) S. 391 -- Senators Waddell, Lindsay, Lourie, Leatherman and Lee: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 48-39-250 AND 48-39-260 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE FINDINGS AND POLICY RELATING TO THE BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM; TO AMEND SECTION 48-39-130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO COASTAL COUNCIL PERMITS TO UTILIZE A CRITICAL AREA, SO AS TO REVISE THE PROVISIONS DETAILING WHEN A PERMIT IS NOT NECESSARY; TO AMEND SECTIONS 48-39-270 THROUGH 48-39-360, RELATING TO THE BEACH MANAGEMENT ACT, SO AS TO ADD SECTIONS 48-39-305 AND 48-39-355, REVISE DEFINITIONS, THE PROVISIONS FOR AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE BASELINE AND THE SETBACK LINE, THE DUTIES OF THE COASTAL COUNCIL, THE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, HABITABLE STRUCTURES, EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES OR DEVICES, POOLS, AND BUILDING PERMITS, AND THE EXEMPTIONS, PROVIDE FOR A PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT BY LANDOWNERS AND THE COURT'S DETERMINATION, PROVIDE FOR THE PLANTING OF VEGETATION, REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OF A DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IN A CONTRACT OF SALE OR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY, AND PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED AND FOR DOCUMENTATION; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF ACT 634 OF 1988 RELATING TO FINDINGS AND POLICY RELATING TO THE BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM; TO PROVIDE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SAND ON BEACHES; TO AMEND SECTION 48-39-40, RELATING TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COASTAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR ELECTION INSTEAD OF APPOINTMENT AND DELETE THE PROVISIONS FOR INITIAL APPOINTMENTS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE SERVICE OF THE CURRENT NONLEGISLATIVE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL; AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPLICATION OF THE ACT ON LEGAL ACTIONS.
(R749) S. 1451 -- Senators Drummond, Long, Lee, Bryan, Hinds and O'Dell: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 13 TO CHAPTER 13, TITLE 24 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; TO REPEAL SECTION 24-21-475, RELATING TO THE SHOCK PROBATION PROGRAM; AND TO AMEND SECTION 14-1-210, RELATING TO A COURT FEE TO FUND CERTAIN PROGRAMS, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM.
(R750) H. 4691 -- Reps. McAbee and Carnell: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 34-11-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF AND PENALTIES FOR FRAUDULENT CHECK CASES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO KEEP A NONPUBLIC RECORD OF THE OFFENSE AND THE DATE WHICH IS EXPUNGED TO INSURE THAT NO PERSON TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE RIGHT OF EXPUNGEMENT PERMITTED BY THIS SECTION MORE THAN ONCE.
(R751) H. 4771 -- Rep. Wells: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 25, TITLE 50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BOATING AND SURFING AT PARTICULAR LOCATIONS, BY ADDING ARTICLE 13 SO AS TO ESTABLISH NO WAKE ZONES AND TO RESTRICT NAVIGATION, MAST HEIGHT, WATERCRAFT ENGINE SIZE, AND WATERSKIING AND SWIMMING ON LAKES WILLIAM C. BOWEN AND H. TAYLOR BLALOCK IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, TO PROVIDE FOR OTHER REGULATIONS ON BOATING, TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO WAIVE RESTRICTIONS BY WRITTEN PERMIT IN CONSULTATION WITH THE SPARTANBURG WATER SYSTEM, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY.
(R752) H. 4423 -- Judiciary Committee: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 14-5-610, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL CIRCUITS OF THIS STATE AND THE NUMBER OF CIRCUIT JUDGES TO BE ELECTED FOR THE STATE, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL RESIDENT AND AT-LARGE CIRCUIT JUDGES; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 14-1-215 SO AS TO PERMIT RETIRED JUDGES OR JUSTICES OF THIS STATE TO BE ASSIGNED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO PRESIDE OVER OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN PARTICULAR COURTS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 9-8-120, RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR JUSTICES OR JUDGES WHO ARE RETIRED UNDER THE JUDICIAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO PERFORM JUDICIAL DUTIES IN CERTAIN COURTS, SO AS TO CONFORM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION TO THE LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 14-1-215, AND TO REQUIRE A RETIRED JUDGE OR JUSTICE TO MAKE AN ELECTION UPON RETIREMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE WISHES TO PRACTICE LAW OR BE ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT TO SERVE AS A JUDGE OR JUSTICE IN THE COURTS OF THIS STATE IN THE MANNER AUTHORIZED BY LAW; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 14-1-216 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO ACTIVE FAMILY COURT JUDGE MAY BE ASSIGNED TO PRESIDE OVER ANY OFFICIAL PROCEEDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 2-19-80 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHERE THE SCREENING COMMITTEE FINDS AN INCUMBENT JUDGE FOR A FAMILY COURT, CIRCUIT COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, OR SUPREME COURT JUDGESHIP NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE OFFICE SOUGHT OR AN INCUMBENT WITHDRAWS OR DIES BEFORE THE ELECTION, THE ELECTION FOR THAT OFFICE MAY NOT BE HELD UNTIL ADDITIONAL CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE FOR ELECTION TO THE OFFICE, HEARINGS ON THESE CANDIDATES, IF NECESSARY, HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED, AND THE COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED ITS REPORT CONCERNING THESE ADDITIONAL CANDIDATES; TO PROVIDE THAT NO CANDIDATE FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE MAY SEEK DIRECTLY THE PLEDGE OF A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S VOTE UNTIL THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ALL CANDIDATES FOR THAT OFFICE HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, NOR MAY A MEMBER OFFER THE PLEDGE UNTIL THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ALL CANDIDATES FOR THAT OFFICE HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY THE SCREENING COMMITTEE; TO PROVIDE THAT A RETIRED JUDGE OR JUSTICE MAY DRAW RETIREMENT COMPENSATION WHILE EMPLOYED BY A PUBLIC INSTITUTION OF EDUCATION UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATES OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS.
At 4:40 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
The following was received.
The COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
H. 4678 -- Reps. Gregory, Kirsh, Short, Fair, J. Brown, Wilkins, McLellan and Klapman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-20-50, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TERMINATION OF STATE AGENCIES UNLESS REAUTHORIZED, SO AS TO PROVIDE A SCHEDULE OF TERMINATION DATES THROUGH 1995.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
That the same do pass with the following amendments:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting therein:
/SECTION 1. Section 1-20-50 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 35 of 1989, is further amended to read:
"Section 1-20-50. The programs, functions, and regulations promulgated by the following state agencies must be terminated as provided in this chapter pursuant to the following schedule.
(A) JUNE 30, 1986, is the termination date for:
(1) Insurance Commission
(2) Board of Barber Examiners
(3) Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners
(4) Board of Accountancy
(5) Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators
(B) JUNE 30, 1987, is the termination date for:
(1) Board of Pharmacy
(2) Board of Medical Examiners
(3) Board of Dentistry
(4) Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
(5) Board of Nursing
(6) Board of Chiropractic Examiners
(C) JUNE 30, 1988, is the termination date for:
(1) Board of Podiatry Examiners
(2) Board of Examiners in Optometry
(3) Board of Examiners in Opticianry
(4) Board of Physical Therapy Examiners
(5) Board of Examiners in Psychology
(6) Board of Examiners in Speech Pathology and Audiology
(7) Board of Occupational Therapy
(D) JUNE 30, 1989, is the termination date for:
(1) Manufactured Housing Board
(2) Real Estate Commission
(3) Residential Home Builders Commission
(4) Licensing Board for Contractors
(5) Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors
(6) Board of Certification of Environmental Systems Operators
(7) Public Service Commission
(E)JUNE 30, 1990, is the termination date for:
(1) Board of Funeral Services
(2) State Board of Examiners for Registered Environmental Sanitarians
(3) State Board of Social Work Examiners
(4) Dairy Board
(5) State Cemetery Board
(6)(5) Board for Barrier-Free Design
(7)(6) Board of Landscape Architectural Examiners
(8)(7) Board of Architectural Examiners
(9)(8) Athletic Trainers' Advisory Committee
(F)(B) JUNE 30, 1991, is the termination date for:
(1) Commissioners of Pilotage for the Port of Charleston
(2) Polygraph Examiners
(3) Private Detective and Private Security Agencies
(4) Board of Registration for Foresters
(5) South Carolina Coordinating Council for Economic Development
(6) State Board of Examiners for Professional Counselors, Associate Counselors, and Marital and Family Therapists
(7) The South Carolina Auctioneer's Commission
(8) The Commission of Hearing Aid Dealers and Fitters.
(C) JUNE 30, 1992, is the termination date for:
(1) Insurance Commission
(2) Board of Barber Examiners
(3) Board of Cosmetology
(4) Board of Accountancy
(5) Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators
(6) Respiratory Care Committee
(7) Certification of Operators of Sources of Ionizing Radiation (Radiological Technicians)
(8) Board of Registration for Geologists
(D) JUNE 30, 1993, is the termination date for:
(1) Board of Pharmacy
(2) Board of Medical Examiners
(3) Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
(4) Board of Nursing
(5) Board of Chiropractic Examiners
(E) JUNE 30, 1994, is the termination date for:
(1) Board of Podiatry Examiners
(2) Board of Examiners in Optometry
(3) Board of Examiners in Opticianry
(4) Board of Physical Therapy Examiners
(5) Board of Examiners in Psychology
(6) Board of Examiners in Speech Pathology and Audiology
(7) Board of Occupational Therapy
(8) Board of Dentistry
(F) JUNE 30, 1995, is the termination date for:
(1) Manufactured Housing Board
(2) Real Estate Commission
(3) Residential Home Builders Commission
(4) Licensing Board for Contractors
(5) Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors
(6) Board of Certification of Environmental Systems Operators
(7) Public Service Commission."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
Donald H. Holland Jarvis R. Klapman Glenn F. McConnell Herbert Kirsh John W. Matthews, Jr. Jackson V. Gregory On Part of the Senate On Part of the House
Rep. KIRSH explained the Report.
The Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Conference on H. 4678:
H. 4678 -- Reps. Gregory, Kirsh, Short, Fair, J. Brown, Wilkins, McLellan and Klapman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-20-50, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TERMINATION OF STATE AGENCIES UNLESS REAUTHORIZED, SO AS TO PROVIDE A SCHEDULE OF TERMINATION DATES THROUGH 1995.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 179
The Report of the Committee of Conference having been adopted by both Houses, and this Bill having been read three times in each House, it was ordered that the title thereof be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1990
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully invites your Honorable Body to attend in the Senate Chamber at 4:59 P.M. today for the purpose of Ratifying Acts.
Very respectfully,
President
On motion of Rep. WILKINS the invitation was accepted.
At 4:59 P.M. the House attended in the Senate Chamber, where the following Act was duly ratified.
(R753) H. 4678 -- Reps. Gregory, Kirsh, Short, Fair, J. Brown, Wilkins, McLellan and Klapman: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 1-20-50, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TERMINATION OF STATE AGENCIES UNLESS REAUTHORIZED, SO AS TO PROVIDE A SCHEDULE OF TERMINATION DATES THROUGH 1995.
At 5:00 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
Senators Lourie, Matthews, Russell and Passailaigue of a committee from the Senate informed the House that the Senate had completed its work, and was ready to adjourn Sine Die.
Rep. J.W. JOHNSON raised the Point of Order that 5:00 P.M. having arrived, the House had reached adjournment time in accordance with the Sine Die Resolution, H. 5072.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
As God has abundantly blessed us throughout this Legislative Session now ending, may He send us forth to be a blessing to others:
Cause us, Lord, to go out into a world at peace;
Enable us to hold fast to what is good;
To return to no one evil for evil.
Make of us vehicles to strengthen the fainthearted;
To support to weak;
To honor all people;
To love the unloved;
And most of all to serve the Lord with thanksgiving, rejoicing in His power in our lives. Amen.
At 5:00 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. HARWELL adjourned Sine Die in honor of those members who will not be returning to serve in the House of Representatives.
This web page was last updated on
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 1:22 P.M.