Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would bar municipal annexation of ag‑assessed land without owner consent; municipalities seek limits to avoid shielding vacant parcels
Summary
S.264 would prevent municipalities from annexing property that is taxed under the state’s agricultural assessments without the written consent of the owner; municipal officials urged the subcommittee to add an affidavit requirement to ensure the protection applies only to active farms.
The subcommittee reviewed S.264, a bill described by staff as prohibiting annexation of properties assessed or exempt under certain agricultural property tax provisions without the owner’s written consent.
Bill text and intent: committee staff summarized S.264 as an amendment affecting sections identified in testimony as "12 37 2 20 b 14" and "12 43 2 20 d" (statutory cross references used in testimony). In plain terms, the bill would require a property owner’s explicit written agreement before a municipality could annex land that is assessed under the ag‑related property tax rules or that receives an ag assessment.
Municipal concerns: Todd Glover, executive director of the Municipal Association of South Carolina (representing 271 cities and towns), told the committee the association supports farmers but warned the proposed language would likely extend annexation protections to many parcels that are not active farms. "It’s been my experience that the overwhelming majority of properties in this state that are classified as ag properties are not working farms," Glover said, noting that vacant parcels larger than 10 acres often receive the ag designation for tax purposes.
Glover proposed a compromise amendment: require owners to file an affidavit at the time of annexation stating they derive income from the property from agricultural pursuits, to distinguish active farms from vacant parcels taking advantage of the ag assessment.
Discussion vs. decision: committee members asked for clarification on how the ag designation is granted locally (tax assessor review was noted) and about whether the bill intended to protect only active farm operations. The sponsor and municipal representatives agreed more testimony and refined language were warranted.
Outcome: the subcommittee carried S.264 over for additional testimony and drafting. A subcommittee voice vote to carry the item over was taken and recorded on the transcript as "Ayes have it"; no roll‑call tally of individual senators was recorded in the hearing transcript.
Ending: lawmakers directed staff to solicit additional stakeholder testimony, including from the farm bureau and county assessors, and to circulate potential compromise language for the next subcommittee meeting.
