By Andrew Smith

Few issues related to South Carolina politics and government over the past few years have received as much attention and debate as the role of the property tax in the funding of basic services. Property taxes are the revenue mainstay for local governments in South Carolina, more so than in most other states. More importantly, this debate has focused attention towards larger, more comprehensive questions: What should be the appropriate role of local government in the lives of South Carolinians? How much flexibility should local governments have in providing services and paying for those services? How strong and effective are South Carolina's local governments compared to their counterparts in neighboring states and throughout the country?

South Carolina’s system of local governments is multifaceted, consisting of 46 counties, over 270 municipalities, 91 school districts, and over 300 special purpose districts. Relationships among these governments are complex and often confusing even to practitioners and long-time students of government. Adding to this complexity is the relationship between the state and local governments. In comparison to other states, South Carolina’s local governments have traditionally been limited in their powers to provide services and to generate revenue to support those activities. In fact, until 1975, no general law existed to grant powers, duties, and responsibilities to most of the state’s local governments. Each local government’s role was established through individual special acts of the legislature.

This dependency of local governments on the General Assembly was addressed to a degree by the Local Government Act of 1975, more commonly known as the Home Rule Act. This legislation was enacted in response to the findings and recommendations of a Constitutional Study Committee and the General Assembly’s ratification, in 1973, of Article VIII to the State Constitution which mandated substantial changes for local government in the state. The Home Rule Act provided for changes in the structure, organization, powers, duties and operation of South Carolina’s counties, and to a lesser degree, of the state’s municipalities.

The Home Rule Act established local government on the basis of "general law" rather than "special law," producing a more viable role for counties and cities as policy makers. In practice, counties were clearly the principal beneficiaries of the new law, while most cities operated much as they did previously. This was due largely to the fact that county governments had traditionally been more restricted by the state in their ability to function as distinct governments. Before the passage of Home Rule, counties were viewed predominantly as operational arms of state government, with their scope of services limited to "traditional" functions such as roads, prisons, and court operations. Counties were mostly extensions of state government. Local legislative delegations, led by a single senator in each county, administered all substantive affairs of the county, even constructing the annual budget in most counties. The county budget, called a "supply" bill, was subsequently approved as special legislation in the General Assembly. True local county government was nonexistent. The Home Rule Act changed this by providing the opportunity for locally controlled county governments to be created on a statewide basis. Counties were granted the self-governing authority to elect governing bodies, enact ordinances, organize departments, and to adopt their own budgets.

The effect of this legislation was not nearly as great for municipalities, but nonetheless was significant. While few changes were made in the structure and powers of municipal governments, the law provided for an increased scope of authority and responsibility for all local officials. By placing all local governments on an equal statutory footing, the law greatly enhanced the ability of local governments to implement interlocal agreements for the joint provision of services. The Act provided for forms of government from which both counties and municipalities could choose, establishing viable, local government structures. Prior to this Act, municipalities were granted powers largely on the basis of population. Special state legislation applied to some municipalities, but not to others. Although, in practice, the Home Rule Act did not significantly alter the powers of cities, it did provide a uniform level of authority and responsibility to all municipalities.

It is important to note that the Home Rule Act did not apply to school districts or special purpose districts. These local governments continued to function largely under the auspices of specific legislation, rather than by a general grant of authority.

Twenty years after the passage of Home Rule in South Carolina, local governments face the formidable challenges of meeting the service demands of a growing, predominantly metropolitan population. South Carolina’s population has increased by over one-third in the last twenty years and local officials are pressed to provide a wider range of services for this growing population with fewer and fewer fiscal resources, largely due to the diminished role of federal funds in the local financial picture. Simultaneously, cities and counties throughout the nation struggle to fund services mandated by the federal and state governments. In short, local governments are required by the federal government to do more than ever before with relatively less federal support.

As South Carolina looks towards the new century, these challenges facing local governments will not diminish. Cities and counties will not be called on to provide fewer services in the future. The state’s growth trend simply will not be reversed. If South Carolina’s local governments are to meet the challenges inherently associated with growth, they must be strengthened and afforded adequate flexibility in the provision of basic services, and most importantly, in the funding of those services. Strong, dynamic local governments are the building blocks of a strong, dynamic state. Basic services such as public safety, fire protection, solid waste management, and infrastructure-based services such as water and sewer are critical components of the successful economic development of South Carolina as a whole. Effective local governments must be in place to provide these services.

Has South Carolina’s twenty-year experience with home rule produced local governments that are able to meet these challenges of growth? Are there elements of home rule that must be strengthened? What improvements must be made in the relationship between the state and local governments so that the challenges of growth can be addressed? The South Carolina Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (SCACIR) has examined these questions recently as part of a comprehensive study of the role of local governments in the state. Home Rule in South Carolina: An Examination of the State-Local Relationship represents an opportunity, two decades after passage of home rule legislation, to assess the role that local governments presently play in the intergovernmental landscape and to identify the types of roles that they must possess in the future. Since 1979, the SCACIR has examined critical aspects of the relationship between South Carolina and its local governments. The Commission has issued numerous recommendations to strengthen the fiscal, structural, and functional abilities of local governments and to improve the relationship between the state and its localities. The Commission has consistently acknowledged the importance of having strong local governments as building blocks for a strong South Carolina.

It is important to recognize that local governments, as creatures of the state, operate under legislative and constitutional guidelines established for them. State statutes establish the basic powers and duties of cities and counties, serving as the blueprint under which they must operate.

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has recommended that states undergo intergovernmental study efforts similar to that of SCACIR’s Home Rule study. The NCSL Task Force on State-Local Relations published recommendations in 1989 to improve state-local relationships, noting that "...states ought to reconsider their policies toward local governments because of fundamental changes taking place in our federal system."¹ The Task Force noted that the changing role of the federal government in relation to states and localities has also resulted in a changing role for states in relation to local governments in the federal system. Hence, states should reconsider their policies affecting local governments for the following reasons: ²

This Task Force also identified specific issues that should be included in such an examination, offering the following recommendations to strengthen Home Rule and local governance: ³

Other policy organizations have also called for the reexamination of the role of local governments in the intergovernmental system. In 1993, the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (USACIR), a Commission with representation from all levels of government, called for further clarification of home rule policies by states as a means to enhance the role of local governments in the federal system: ⁴

"The development of American local self-government is inextricably linked to an expansive concept of citizenship. Local government is a key institutional mechanism for securing citizen participation in designing the instrumentalities for making public policy decisions. State constitutions and statutes reveal that citizenship encompasses empowering local citizens to create structures of governance to define and solve common problems. Each state must clarify its state-local government relationship. If states enact unfunded mandates and regulatory restrictions on local governments, they impose a serious restraint on the ability of those governments to exercise even a modicum of autonomy."

The Commission recommended that states review the local government articles in their constitutions and their statutes pertaining to local government powers, examining and clarifying the following:

These principles have served as somewhat of a measuring stick in SCACIR’s efforts to evaluate the status of local home rule in South Carolina and the overall relationship between the state and local governments. Let’s examine some of the basic components of this relationship. This discussion is divided into two segments: (1) fiscal aspects of the home rule relationship; and (2) structural aspects of this relationship.

No home rule issue is more important for city and county government than the issue of having the power to raise sufficient revenue to meet service demands and public expectations. Local governance is a markedly different process today than it was twenty or thirty years ago, posing financial challenges that were once unimaginable. The New Federalism of the 1980's gave birth to other terms such as "fend for yourself federalism," characterizing the fiscal challenges faced by both state and local officials. States and localities play a more prominent role in the federal system, as federal funding of state and local operations, projects and activities has decreased in relative terms. Local governments are especially forced to operate more and more with funds they can raise themselves, while simultaneously, they must meet the challenges of paying for activities that are often mandated by the federal government.

In light of this changing federalism, the SCACIR has examined the fiscal powers available to South Carolina’s local governments in order to determine if they have the sufficient tools to meet these challenges of growth, increased costs, and federal retrenchment.

In comparison to local governments in other states, South Carolina’s cities and counties have few options for generating revenue. Historically, the state’s local governments have been legislatively restricted in the types of taxes that may be levied for general purposes. As a result, when additional revenue is needed to meet growing demands for services, to pay for mandated expenses, or to pursue capital improvements, raising property taxes is often the only available alternative. Garbage must be picked up. Water service must continue uninterrupted. Police and fire services must be responsive. Public demands to "simply cut" spending do not always provide a feasible solution at the local level.

Property taxes account for over 38% of total municipal revenue in the state and 49% of county revenue. In comparison to other states, South Carolinians do not pay a disproportionate amount of their personal income in property taxes. However, the unpopularity of the property tax as a primary local revenue source has been widely documented. Furthermore, South Carolina’s local governments depend on the property tax to supply a greater portion of total revenue than other Southeastern states.

Most importantly, South Carolina differs from other states in that the local property tax has been the basic local funding source not only for cities and counties, but also for school districts. Schools are funded heavily through the property tax in almost every other state in the nation. However, most other states have relieved the dependence on this source by providing other general revenue options for city and county governments.

This past Session, the General Assembly acted to reduce reliance on the property tax by funding a $100,000 homestead exemption, affecting only property taxes for school operating purposes. Future efforts to reduce property tax dependence will be addressed on a year to year basis.

In the minds of many observers further diversification of local government revenue is necessary. They argue the time has come for additional revenue options to be available to county and municipal governments. The SCACIR study examined three major causes of recent increases in property tax revenue in the state: federal assistance reductions, population growth and associated service demands, and federal and state mandates to localities. There is no sign that these factors will subside in the near future.

Federal assistance to cities and counties may be largely characterized as a thing of the past. In 1976, over 26% of all municipal revenue in South Carolina came from the federal government, primarily in the form of General Revenue Sharing. In 1991, only 6.1% of all municipal funds were federal. Federal revenue accounted for 11.2% of all county revenue in 1976 compared with 3.9% in 1991. Each year federal revenue comprises a smaller percentage of total local funds.

In addition to the reduction in federal funding, South Carolina’s population has increased by over one-third in the last two decades, exerting demands for local, typically urban services. The SCACIR conducted a capital projects needs survey of county and municipal governments in 1991. Over $2.1 billion in infrastructure needs were identified that must be met to address this growth. These needs will require creativity in funding that exceeds the scope of present revenue options.

The issue of mandated expenditures by cities and counties is discussed below. It is important to note that this is a nationwide problem. Although legislation has passed at both the state and the federal levels, focusing primarily on avoiding the passage of future mandates, mandates already in effect must be continually funded.

These fiscal challenges will not be successfully met through dependence on the property tax. Diversification of revenue sources is the benchmark of a strong governmental system. Several years ago, the SCACIR recommended that the General Assembly provide other fiscal options in the form of a Local Government Finance Act. This Act would have provided a menu of options available to local governments to be used as they so desired. (sales tax, income tax, occupational [payroll] tax, motor vehicle tax, coin operated device tax, admissions tax) This approach would provide property tax relief while recognizing that different local governments have different needs that require varied funding approaches. The present "one size fits all" method of funding local governments doesn’t recognize differences among communities. Some may prefer property taxes, while others may be better served by other revenue options. Of the options examined, only the Local Option Sales Tax was adopted by the General Assembly (in 1990) and is presently used in 16 counties.

One of the most critical challenges facing local governments as they struggle to meet growth demands is the funding of capital projects. Assuming a city or a county is successful in identifying funding sources for a project, they may then face another major obstacle: their debt ceiling. This problem is not critical if a project is one that will generate revenue to pay for itself, such as a water system. Rather, debt limitations for local governments pertain to general obligation debt, debt that is backed by the full taxing power of the issuing locality. Projects typically funded by incurring this debt include city halls, county courthouses, administration buildings and recreation facilities, for example.

The local government general obligation debt limit in South Carolina is equivalent to 8 percent of the assessed value of the taxable property in the jurisdiction, less any abatements. Any general obligation debt which would exceed this limit may only be incurred by a favorable referendum of the voters, a feat that has become increasingly more difficult to achieve. This explains the increase in the use of lease purchase arrangements to meet capital needs, a practice usually costing more than conventional general obligation issues. Lease purchase commitments are often used because they do not presently apply towards city and county debt totals (this will change after December 31, 1995 as a result of legislative action).

The SCACIR has examined the issue of debt and the larger issue of infrastructure financing and has adopted several recommendations. In comparison with other states, cities and counties in South Carolina have few options for addressing their capital needs. Tools that would help address this problem include the following: (1) a more meaningful debt limitation, perhaps based on a jurisdiction’s total revenue, not just property values; (2) a limited time, project specific local option sales tax to be rescinded after projects are paid for; and (3) a bond bank that would allow particularly disadvantaged local governments to borrow for their needs at reduced costs.

Few intergovernmental issues have been as controversial nationally as the issue of mandates, and South Carolina has been no exception to the mandates battle. Just as the federal government mandates standards, programs and activities that states must assume, states frequently mandate activities that local governments must assume. Many mandated programs and policies, particularly those related to environmental issues, begin at the federal level and are "passed through"state governments to local officials that must implement these directives. Although most of these mandates are well intentioned, they carry substantial costs that are typically borne by cities and counties. Furthermore, mandates impede local decision making ability. Public funds that would have otherwise been invested to address local desires and needs are diverted to pay for mandated directives.

Cost estimations for mandate compliance in the Greenville area illustrates the mandates problem for local governments. In 1993, the nine primary local governments in Greenville County calculated the costs of complying with just ten onerous unfunded federal mandates over a five year period. Among those mandates were landfill regulations, the Clean Water Act, underground storage tank remediation, and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Few would argue against the good intentions of such legislation, but it was estimated that these nine local governments will have to spend about $130 million over five years for compliance. Local priorities will have to take a back seat. It was noted by a local mayor that this sum represents enough revenue to "...fund the total budgets of Greenville County and the cities of Greenville, Greer, Mauldin, Simpsonville, Fountain Inn, and Travelers Rest for 14 months." ⁵

In recent years, South Carolina has made progress in addressing the issue of mandates. In 1988, the SCACIR issued a report that defined the mandates issue and included several recommendations aimed at ameliorating many of the mandates-related problems that plague the state-local relationship. Many of these recommendations addressed the need for a stronger fiscal noting process whereby the costs of legislation to local governments is clearly calculated prior to General Assembly consideration of the legislation.

Since the issuance of that study, substantive progress has been made to address the mandates problem. Legislative fiscal notes are prepared by a neutral party. Mandates are identified by SCACIR and assembled in a catalog at the end of each legislative session, raising awareness of mandates activity. Most recently, the General Assembly enacted an "unfunded mandates" statute that requires (with several exceptions, including federal pass-through mandates) a supermajority vote to enact mandates without providing funds to localities.

Nevertheless, further progress must be made in order to improve the mandates aspect of the state-local relationship. In particular, the strongest challenge remains to be the development of strategies to fund the most costly exceptions to the unfunded mandates legislation, federal mandates. Efforts should be made at the state level to consider the impact of federal pass-through mandates on local governments. State officials should work in concert with local officials to identify creative ways to fund compliance.

Another aspect of the mandates problem that continues to hamper the state-local relationship is the existence of traditional mandates, those mandates that do not appear in statute, but have been customarily followed. Examples include the local provision of office space and supporting costs, such as telephones and copying services, for state agencies. These responsibilities should be clarified, delineating exactly what local governments must provide and at what level of cost.

Undoubtedly, debates and discussions about the role and scope of local government most often focus upon financial issues. Such questions include: "What is the best way to pay for local government?" "How much revenue is needed by local governments?" "Who should foot the bill for local services?" While the importance of these issues should not be understated, a thorough examination of home rule and the state-local relationship must also include scrutiny of structural aspects of local governance. Are South Carolina’s municipal and county governments structured and designed to be effective service providers? Do these localities have the structural tools necessary to address rapid growth? Do the available forms of local government provide for the strong and effective management of municipal and county services and functions?

This section provides a brief overview of some of the key structural home rule issues that must be addressed in order to make South Carolina’s cities and counties stronger. These components are directly related to the ability of local governments to function as dynamic service providers.

South Carolina's cities are unable to grow. The state’s municipal annexation statutes, among the most restrictive in the nation, prohibit municipal councils from initiating annexation action. At the same time that South Carolina becomes increasingly urbanized, city populations languish. In 1990, a smaller percentage of South Carolinians, 36.6 percent, resided in cities than ever before. This occurred at the same time that South Carolina became more metropolitan than ever, with over 60 percent of the total state population residing in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s). South Carolina also has a smaller percentage of its residents living in cities than any other Southeastern state.

Weak annexation laws invite fragmentation and duplication in the provision of essential services. Cities are the local governments that are specifically designed to provide urban services to an urban population, but weak annexation statutes have prevented our municipal officials from doing so. As the fringe population base around cities has developed, other service providers such as special purpose districts and county governments have been called upon to serve this urban population, a role that they are not designed to play. Daily commuters from these fringe areas place significant stress on city services, but provide no tax base to pay for these services, requiring cities to provide greater levels of service with often declining or stagnant revenue bases.

Restrictive annexation policies discourage and prevent orderly urban growth. The resulting fragmented service delivery system with its multiple players is extremely complicated for the public to understand. Most importantly, this fragmentation often makes it impossible for local governments to maximize economies of scale in delivering services. Multiple intergovernmental actors make the inherently difficult concept of regionalism and intergovernmental cooperation even more difficult to implement.

There is only one basic method for general municipal annexation in South Carolina. Presently, municipalities may only annex contiguous areas if at least 75 percent of the residents of an area that also own at least 75 percent of the assessed property value of an area request to be annexed. This is difficult to achieve and, compared to other states, unduly restrictive. Other methods that permitted annexation through election after a required number of residents signed a petition have been invalidated through court action.

The SCACIR has repeatedly issued recommendations that would strengthen the ability of cities to grow through annexation. The annexation methods that were invalidated by federal courts should be revised to pass court muster, primarily by requiring petition signatures from resident electors rather than landowners. In addition, a new method of annexation should be available in which city councils may formally initiate the process by resolution. No citizen petition would be necessary and a referendum would be held in the area targeted for annexation.

Also important to municipal growth is the issue of "enclaves", or islands that are completely surrounded by a municipality. In order to facilitate logical, orderly growth and coordinated service delivery, cities should be able to annex these areas by ordinance.

Another way to better coordinate service delivery is through the consolidation of local governments. Until 1992, the full political consolidation, or the merger of local governments on a countywide basis, was not available as an option for local governance. However, twenty years earlier, the state’s electorate approved an amendment to the state Constitution which authorized this type of merger. The amendment required the General Assembly to design the process by which consolidation could take place. Legislation passed in 1992 details the required process.

Recent experience by one county in attempting to implement the consolidation legislation has revealed several problems with the legislation, problems that must be cleaned up if it is to be a useful intergovernmental tool. Primarily, the legislation does not adequately address the issue of cities that lie in more than one county, a relatively common occurrence. Problems also are apparent with the legislation's "opt-out" provision that enables a jurisdiction within the county to decline to join the consolidated government if a majority of its residents vote against the proposal. Voters vote to approve a specific charter that is drafted by a committee. They do not simply vote "yes" or "no" on the question of consolidating. The charter serves as the blueprint for the new government and includes, among many other items, the outlined voting districts. If a municipality or special purpose district "opts-out" of the new consolidated government, the outlined voting districts in the proposed charter would be invalid, making the entire charter invalid. The legislation also does not address the question of "what government will provide the services formerly provided by the county to a jurisdiction that chooses not to be included in the consolidated government?" The consolidated government can't tax those citizens and provide those services directly when they have no representation on the consolidated governing body.

Countywide consolidation may prove to be a viable home rule tool to effectively coordinate the business of local government. However, more work must be done on the enabling statutes. Early experience in attempting to implement the statute should serve as a basis for revision.

From a structural standpoint, county government in South Carolina is extremely complicated in comparison with municipal government. In addition to electing county council members, citizens also elect a number of constitutional and statutory officers such as the sheriff, treasurer and auditor. County government structure is further complicated by the existence of various boards and commissions which operate as agents of county government, but do not always fall under the direct control of county council.

Counties acquired a number of these boards and commissions before the Home Rule Act was instituted. The majority of these were created by action of the legislative delegation of each county. A county's legislative delegation includes any General Assembly members whose district contains any portion of that county. These boards and commissions were used as tools to enhance the practice of delegation rule over local government, with delegations from each county controlling the vast majority of appointments to these boards and commissions. Examples of such entities included planning commissions, library boards, hospital boards and airport commissions. Because these entities were created by local legislation at the request of each county’s delegation, it resulted in each county essentially having a different structure, with different boards and commissions in existence.

Before the enactment of home rule, this practice posed few logistical problems, as counties were legislatively controlled anyway. However, as power and responsibility was granted through the Home Rule Act, the structure of county government with regard to lines of responsibility and accountability between county councils and these boards and commissions became unclear. County governments were required by law to fund the activities of these groups, but did not control the appointments to or operations of these entities. The Home Rule Act did provide for county councils to acquire legislative and appointive powers over boards and commissions that were created by the General Assembly under local laws, laws that pertain to specific counties. However, this power was not extended to county councils with regard to boards that were created by general law, that is law that has statewide effect.

As a result, county councils do not presently have appointive or legislative control over critical segments of county government that they must fund. Many boards created by general law remain in existence. Examples include county boards of disabilities, boards governing county departments of social services, boards of registration and election boards. In these cases, appointments are made by either the legislature, the legislative delegation, or the governor.

The practice of appointments by legislative delegation is also greatly complicated by the legislative redistricting efforts of the past two decades. Senatorial districts, in particular, no longer conform to county boundaries. Legislative delegations, however, are still made up of all legislators that have any portion of a county, no matter how small or how populated, within their district. As a result, members of a county’s delegation may represent few citizens of the county, but retain the same voting privileges as members who represent a large number of county residents. Critics of the delegation system claim that this violates the basic "one-person, one-vote" principle established by the United States Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims (1964).

An important component of strong home rule is the power to structure county government in a way that clearly defines lines of authority, fiscal responsibilities, and establishes county councils as the primary legislative power within the county. Shared and fragmented responsibilities and powers instill a lack of accountability in local government. In this environment, citizens are often confused as to who exactly is "in charge." When local taxes and county funding is involved, the lines of authority between groups that receive this funding and county council must be clear. As the taxing authority for the county, council should have the power to appoint all members of county boards and commissions and oversee the activities and priorities of these groups. This is essential in order for county council to truly be accountable and responsible to the citizenry.

In the short run, counties should review their total government structures, focusing particularly on agencies, boards, and commissions. Where legally possible, primarily in those instances where boards and commissions were created by local law, counties should assume legislative and appointive authority over these entities.

One of the most important powers granted to county governments under the Home Rule Act was the power to choose their form of government. The statute makes four forms available from which counties may choose. However, these forms do not provide a strong management structure in comparison with the options available to the state's municipalities. In each of the three available municipal forms, all administrative and policy making powers are vested in some combination of the city council, the mayor, and the manager or administrator. County councils face an impediment that their city counterparts do not. There are numerous elected county officials who operate departments of county government but are independently elected and, to some degree, maintain a sovereign power base. County governing authority is decentralized with power dispersed among these officials that are not directly accountable to county council. These officials include the constitutional offices of sheriff, clerk of court, and coroner, and the statutory offices of auditor and treasurer (except in two counties that presently operate under the county manager form).

The SCACIR recommends that a fifth form of county government be made available. A Charter Form, when adopted by county voters, would enable individual county councils to assume management authority and responsibility similar to municipal councils. Under this form, policy making authority could be vested solely in the council by converting constitutional and statutory elected officials to appointive status, with some or all of these officers appointed by the council after careful consideration. These offices could, if voters desired, be abolished and their functions assigned to other county departments.

Counties that elect to reorganize their governmental structure through the adoption of a charter may be better equipped to address increases in service demands and will be more responsive to the will of the electorate. Charter forms simplify county government, leaving no doubt in the minds of citizens as to where the overall accountability for efficient and effective local governance rests.

One of the most difficult challenges facing a growing South Carolina is providing services to rapidly developing metropolitan areas. Over the last two decades, the state has become increasingly urban and increasingly metropolitan, with over 71 percent of the state’s residents now living in MSA’s. Areas of the state have significant concentrations of people, reflected in the fact that over 82 percent of the state’s population resides in just 22 of the 46 counties.

In order to provide services in the most cost effective way, a new approach to local service delivery in highly urbanized areas may be needed. Historically, no comprehensive policy has been developed to address the phenomenon of urbanization. As was previously noted, much urban development has taken place on the fringe of cities, enabling the development of a fragmented system for the provision of water, sewer, fire protection, solid waste disposal, recreation, planning, and other typically urban services. The proliferation of special purpose districts, the creation of multiple small incorporated cities, and increased pressure on county governments to provide urban-type services are byproducts of this absence of an urban policy. There exists no overall mechanism to deliver urban services to the entire economic city, the metropolitan area.

A new option for local government in urbanized areas is needed. The SCACIR has recommended the Metropolitan Council approach to providing citizens of urbanized areas with a population of 50,000 or more with a vehicle to address area wide issues that are larger in scope than simply the boundaries of individual political subdivisions.

Through the development of this option, leaders of urbanized areas would be empowered to bring a Charter Commission into being which would produce a charter for approval or rejection by the voters in the area. If approved, the charter would establish a new local government, the Metropolitan Council, which would provide one or more services to the entire urbanized area, irregardless of existing political subdivision boundaries. The specific services to be provided would be approved by the voters, but could include any urban-type services.

By providing this option, the General Assembly would in essence establish another opportunity for local governments to creatively solve growth and cost related problems. As the costs of providing metropolitan services continues to increase, the fragmented service delivery systems presently in place must be addressed. Options such as the Metropolitan Council may be promising components of a developing urban strategy.

The relationship between South Carolina’s local governments and the state needs continuous attention and improvement if the intergovernmental system is to be strengthened. Since powers enjoyed by local governments emanate only from the state, it is critical that the General Assembly have a clear understanding of local government issues and problems. Ongoing debates over the issue of mandates continue to highlight the shortcomings in this relationship.

The present structure of the House of Representatives and the Senate does not encourage a strong linkage between the state and localities and fuels a lack of understanding of the appropriate role of cities and counties in the intergovernmental system. All but four states have standing committees in their legislative bodies that serve as the clearinghouses for issues that affect local governments. Through their ordinary course of work, these committees, as well as their staffs, gain insight and knowledge of local challenges and problems. Most importantly, they gain insight into the potential effects of state action on local governance.

South Carolina's General Assembly should create such committees to strengthen the state-local relationship. Only three other states do not have local government committees. Presently, bills that affect local governments are assigned to various committees, depending on the functional area addressed by each bill. Each bill, whether it concerns annexation, consolidation, or some other critical local issue, is debated separately. This prevents legislators from examining the interrelationships of issues. Most importantly, without local government committees in place, the task of addressing a comprehensive package of local government issues and needs, such as the home rule issues examined in this article, will be extremely difficult.

The strength of South Carolina as a state is directly tied to the relative strength and effectiveness of local governments. Most of the basic services that are important and visible to citizens are local in nature. The manner in which those services are delivered holds a significant impact for the successful economic development of the state as a whole. People and industries don’t just locate in states, but rather, they locate in communities. Viable, dynamic cities and counties are truly an asset in this sense. The Home Rule components examined are in no way intended to be an exhaustive list of the items that require attention in order for the state to prosper. However, they are benchmark components of a strong Home Rule system. Strong Home Rule policies certainly recognize the need for cities and counties to have a wide degree of discretion in determining how they provide services. Most importantly however, Home Rule recognizes differences among communities. Communities differ in the way that they choose to pay for services. They even differ in the types of services that they want provided. They also differ in the structure that they want their local governments to have. As a result, strong Home Rule policies provide a wide array of fiscal and structural options under which communities may operate, acknowledging that no two cities or counties are identical. By examining and strengthening Home Rule in South Carolina, the state will also acknowledge these differences. As the new century approaches, growth and change will continue to impact the state. Having flexible local governments with the options and abilities to address these challenges will serve the interest of the state as a whole.

Footnotes