Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the S264 Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee backs measure barring annexation of agricultural property without owner consent
Summary
Senate Bill 264, which would bar municipalities from annexing agricultural property without the owner’s written consent and would require a majority of both landowners and acreage, was reported favorably out of the Property Tax Subcommittee after farmer testimony and debate, passing on a 5-0 roll call.
The Property Tax Subcommittee voted 5‑0 to report Senate Bill 264 favorably after testimony from multiple farmers and an explanation of municipal concerns from the Municipal Association of South Carolina.
Staff introduced S264, which stipulates that agricultural property may not be annexed by a municipality without the express written consent of the property owner. The Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office told the committee the bill would have a minimal fiscal impact for municipalities because most annexations in the state occur under the 100% petition method, which requires all affected property owners to petition for annexation.
Farmers John Long of Overbridge Farm (Newberry County) and Christopher LeMaster of Lemaster Grain and Cattle (near Gaffney) testified that the bill protects property owners and family farms from forced or non‑consensual annexation. Long described the bill’s operation as requiring both a majority of landowners and a majority of acreage to approve annexation, saying, "That's what the ... senate bill says," and argued the current 25% petition method can leave a large landowner vulnerable to forcible annexation by many smaller owners.
Dana Phillips, testifying for the Municipal Association of South Carolina, said the association opposed the bill as written but could support targeted amendments. Todd Glover, MASC’s executive director, explained that many parcels taxed as agricultural are not working farms and proposed narrowing exemptions to properties that can demonstrate farm income (for example, a Schedule F) or freezing municipal taxes on annexed ag properties until the property's use changes to address tax concerns. Glover warned the bill as written could create planning “donut holes” around cities and urged solutions that protect true farms while preserving municipal planning authority.
Without amendments before the panel, members moved and seconded a motion to approve S264; the committee then took a roll call, and Representatives Collins, Clyburn, Moss, Hewitt and Hyatt recorded aye votes. The bill was reported favorably 5‑0.
