Printed Page 3540, May 17
| Printed Page 3560, May 17
|
Printed Page 3540, May 17
| Printed Page 3560, May 17
| The following Bill was taken up.
H. 4136 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-29-250 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO COLLECTS AND SUBMITS AN ANONYMOUS SAMPLE OF THE PERSON'S OWN BODY FLUID OR TISSUE FOR HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS (HIV) TESTING IS NOT REQUIRED TO REPORT A POSITIVE TEST RESULT AND THAT THE RESULTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL; AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE THAT A POSITIVE RESULT MUST BE REPORTED BY THE LABORATORY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL WITHOUT IDENTIFYING INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE REPORT.
Reps. G. BROWN and FAIR proposed the following Amendment No. 5 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\JIC\5982AC.95), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/SECTION ___. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 20-1-225. (A) A person who applies for a marriage license shall present to the judge of the probate court a certificate signed by a physician licensed pursuant to Chapter 47 of Title 40 or licensed in a state or United States territory to practice medicine and surgery which states that the applicant has been given a standard serologic test for sexually transmitted diseases including, but not limited to, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection and signed by the person the applicant desires to marry. The test must be made within thirty days before the application for a license.
(B) The certificate of the physician must be on a form provided and distributed by the Department of Health and Environmental Control or by the state health departments of other states having laws requiring a blood test before marriage.
(C) The certificates must be filed with the judge of the probate court. A judge of the probate court who issues a marriage license to a person who fails to present a certificate as required by this section and an applicant for a marriage license or a physician who knowingly and wilfully makes a false statement in a certificate is guilty of a misdemeanor triable
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. FAIR explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
Pursuant to Rule 7.7 the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Askins Bailey Baxley Boan Brown, G. Brown, J. Byrd Cain Carnell Cato Cave Chamblee Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cotty Cromer Dantzler Delleney Fleming Fulmer Gamble Govan Hallman Harris, J. Harrison Hines Huff Hutson Inabinett Jaskwhich Jennings Kelley Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Lloyd Marchbanks Martin McAbee McCraw McTeer Meacham Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Quinn Rhoad Rice Richardson Riser Robinson Sandifer Scott Seithel Sharpe Sheheen Shissias Simrill Smith, R. Spearman Stoddard Stuart Thomas Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Wilder Wilkes
Wilkins Williams Wofford Wright Young, A. Young, J.
Those who voted in the negative are:
Davenport Easterday Fair Haskins Herdklotz Phillips Tripp Trotter Whipper, S.
So, the Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3203 -- Rep. Stuart: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-19-45 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY PERSON ELECTED TO A SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OR APPOINTED OR ELECTED TO A COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AFTER JULY 1, 1995, WHO PREVIOUSLY HAS NOT SERVED IN SUCH OFFICE, SHALL SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE AN ORIENTATION PROGRAM WITHIN ONE YEAR OF TAKING OFFICE, TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL REIMBURSE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND BOARDS OF EDUCATION FOR THE COST OF THESE ORIENTATIONS UP TO A MAXIMUM AMOUNT PER YEAR.
Rep. SIMRILL moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill.
Rep. TOWNSEND moved to table the motion.
Rep. HUFF moved to continue the Bill, which was agreed to by a division vote
of 40 to 22.
Rep. McTEER moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, May 18, which was adopted.
H. 3841 -- Reps. Sheheen, Quinn, Harrison, Delleney, Baxley, Wilkins and Thomas: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 14-8-10, 14-8-20, 14-8-80, AND 14-8-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THREE ADDITIONAL JUDGES FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS, FOR AN ADDITIONAL PANEL OF THE COURT, AND FOR OTHER PROCEDURES NECESSARY TO REFLECT A NINE MEMBER COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 14-5-610, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL CIRCUITS OF THIS STATE AND JUDGES FOR THE CIRCUIT COURTS, SO AS TO ADD THREE ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES FROM SPECIFIED CIRCUITS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1410, RELATING TO FAMILY COURT JUDGES, SO AS TO ADD THREE ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT JUDGES FROM SPECIFIED CIRCUITS.
Rep. HARRISON moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Tuesday, May 23, which was adopted.
H. 3427 -- Reps. Harrison and Hodges: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-610, RELATING TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE PROCEDURES FOR SUCH A REVIEW AND FOR WHEN SUCH A JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AUTHORIZED.
The following Bill was taken up.
S. 46 -- Senators Jackson, Elliott, Rose and Washington: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-7-2730, 20-7-2740, 20-7-2800, 20-7-2810, 20-7-2850, AND 20-7-2900, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES FOR PRIVATE DAY CARE CENTERS AND RENEWAL THEREOF, APPROVAL OF PUBLIC DAY CARE CENTERS AND RENEWAL THEREOF, THE REGISTRATION OF OPERATORS OF FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES, AND THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES FOR OR THE REGISTERING
Rep. TRIPP moved to continue the Bill.
Rep. CROMER demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as
follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Carnell Cato Chamblee Davenport Delleney Elliott Haskins Herdklotz Huff Kelley Law Limehouse Littlejohn Marchbanks Meacham Robinson Seithel Sharpe Smith, R. Stoddard Thomas Tripp Vaughn Waldrop Walker Whatley Wilkins
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Askins Bailey Baxley Boan Brown, G. Brown, J. Byrd Cain Canty Cave Clyburn Cotty Cromer Dantzler Easterday Fair Gamble Govan Harris, J. Harrison Hines Hodges Howard
Hutson Jennings Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Limbaugh Lloyd Martin McAbee McKay McMahand McTeer Moody-Lawrence Neal Phillips Quinn Rhoad Rice Richardson Riser Rogers Sandifer Scott Sheheen Shissias Simrill Smith, D. Spearman Stuart Townsend Trotter Whipper, S. White Wilder Wilkes Witherspoon Wofford Wright Young, A. Young, J.
So, the House refused to continue the Bill.
Rep. HASKINS moved that the House recur to the morning hour, which was agreed to by a division vote of 52 to 39.
Further proceedings were interrupted by the House recurring to the morning hour the pending question being consideration of the Bill.
The following was introduced:
H. 4225 -- Reps. Neal, Cromer, J. Brown, Byrd, Cotty, Harrison, Howard, Quinn, Rogers, Scott, Shissias, Allison, Anderson, Askins, Bailey, Baxley, Beatty, Boan, Breeland, G. Brown, H. Brown, T. Brown, Cain, Canty, Carnell, Cato, Cave, Chamblee, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cooper, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Easterday, Elliott, Fair, Felder, Fleming, Fulmer, Gamble, Govan, Hallman, Harrell, J. Harris, P. Harris, Harvin, Harwell, Haskins, Herdklotz, Hines, Hodges, Huff, Hutson, Inabinett, Jaskwhich, Jennings, Keegan, Kelley, Kennedy, Keyserling, Kinon, Kirsh, Klauber, Knotts, Koon, Lanford, Law, Limbaugh, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Marchbanks, Martin, Mason, McAbee, McCraw, McElveen, McKay, McMahand, McTeer, Meacham,
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following Bill was introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committee:
H. 4226 -- Reps. Stuart, Cobb-Hunter, Sharpe, Felder and Govan: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE MEMBERS OF THE ORANGEBURG COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO BE REIMBURSED MILEAGE FROM FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF THE COMMITTEE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALLOWABLE RATE.
On motion of Rep. STUART, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
Debate was resumed on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of amendments.
S. 533 -- Finance Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-220, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO ALLOW A GOVERNING BODY OF A MUNICIPALITY BY ORDINANCE TO EXEMPT FROM MUNICIPAL AD VALOREM TAX FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE MUNICIPALITY RECEIVING THE FIVE-YEAR EXEMPTION FROM COUNTY AD VALOREM TAXES AS NEW CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, CORPORATE OFFICE FACILITIES,
Rep. HARRELL proposed the following Amendment No. 4, which was ruled out of order.
Amend title to conform.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Title 4 is amended by adding the following chapter:
SECTION 4-12-10. The following term shall be given the following meanings in this chapter:
(1) "Project" means any land and any buildings and other improvements on the land including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, water, sewage treatment and disposal facilities, air pollution control facilities, and all other machinery, apparatus, equipment, office facilities, and furnishings which are considered necessary, suitable or useful.
SECTION 4-12-20. Every agreement between a county council or county councils and another party in the form of a lease shall contain a provision requiring the industry to make payments to the county or counties, municipality or municipalities, school district or school districts, and other political units wherein the project shall be located in lieu of taxes, in such amounts as would result from taxes levied on the project by such county or counties, municipality or municipalities, school district or school districts, and other political unit or units, if the project were owned by the industry, but with appropriate reductions similar to the tax exemptions, if any, which would be afforded to the industry if it were owner of the project.
SECTION 4-12-30. (A) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4-12-20, in the case of an agreement in the form of one or more lease agreements for a project qualifying under subsection (B), the county and the investor may enter into an inducement agreement which provides for a payment in lieu of taxes as provided in this section. All references in this section to a lease agreement shall be deemed also to refer to a lease purchase agreement.
(B) In order for property to qualify for the fee as provided in subsection (D)(2):
(1) Title to the property must be held by the county or in the case of a project located in an industrial development park as defined in Section
(2) The investment must be a project which is located in a single county or an industrial development park as defined in Section 4-1-170. A project located on a contiguous tract of land in more than one county, but not in such an industrial development park, may qualify for the fee provided (a) the counties agree on the terms of the fee and the distribution of the fee payment; (b) the minimum millage rate is not lower than the millage rate applicable to the county in which the greatest amount of investment occurs; and (c) all such counties are parties to all agreements establishing the terms of the fee.
(3) The minimum level of investment must be at least $10 million and must be invested within the time period provided in subsection (C)(2).
(4)(a) Except as provided in subsection (B)(4)(b), the investment must be made by a single entity. For purposes of this section, (i) any partnership or other association which properly files its South Carolina income tax returns as a partnership for South Carolina income tax purposes will be treated as a single entity and as a partnership, (ii) any corporation or other association which properly files its South Carolina income tax returns as a corporation for South Carolina tax purposes will be treated as a single entity and as a corporation, and (iii) any limited liability companies will be treated as a single entity.
(b)(i) The members of the same controlled group of corporations can qualify
for the fee if the combined investment in the county by the members meets the
minimum investment requirements. The county and the members who are part of the
inducement agreement may agree that any investments by other members of the
controlled group within the time periods provided in subsections (C)(1) and
(C)(2) shall qualify for the payment regardless if the member was part of the
inducement agreement; provided, however, in order to qualify for the fee, such
other members of the controlled group must be specifically approved by the
county and must agree to be bound by agreements with the county relating to the
fee; provided, however, such controlled group members need not be bound by
agreements, or portions of agreements, to the extent such agreements do not
affect the county. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (B)(2), the
investments under this subsection (B)(4)(b) must be within the same county or
industrial park. Any controlled group member which is claiming the fee must
invest at least $5 million in the county or industrial park.
(iii) If at any time the controlled group or any former member (who has left the controlled group) no longer has the minimum $10 million of investment (without regard to depreciation), that group or former member no longer holding the minimum amount of investment as provided in subsection (B)(3) (without regard to depreciation) will no longer qualify for the fee.
(iv) For purposes of this section, "controlled group" or "controlled group of corporations" shall have the meaning provided under Section 1563(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as defined in Chapter 7 of Title 12 as of the date of the execution of the inducement agreement (without regard to amendments or replacements thereof), without regard to subsection (b) of such Section 1563.
(5)(a) Prior to undertaking any project, the county council or county councils shall find: That the project is anticipated to benefit the general public welfare of the locality by providing services, employment, recreation or other public benefits not otherwise provided locally; that the project will give rise to no pecuniary liability of the county or incorporated municipality or a charge against its general credit or taxing power; and, unless the terms of an agreement with respect to a project provides that the industry shall maintain the project and carry all proper insurance with respect thereto, the estimated cost of maintaining the project in good repair and keeping it properly insured must be included in the lease payment. The determinations and findings of the county council or county councils required to be made above shall be set forth in the proceedings under which the ordinance is enacted.
(b) The Coordinating Council for Economic Development shall determine that
the purposes to be accomplished by the project are proper governmental and
public purposes and that the inducement of the location or expansion of projects
within the State is of paramount importance and that the benefits of the project
are greater than the costs.
Printed Page 3540, May 17
| Printed Page 3560, May 17
|