Level the playing field for hometown businesses

By Reba Campbell, deputy executive director

If you buy something from an online retailer, do you pay attention to whether the sales tax owed to the state where you live is included in the price you pay for the item?

Mostly likely you don’t.

Online out-of-state retailers aren’t required to collect sales tax at the point of purchase in the same way that our local brick-and-mortar businesses are. It may seem like you get a “discount” by ordering a computer online rather than from the local mom-and-pop store on Main Street. However, you are still liable for the sales tax even if the retailer doesn’t charge you for it.

But how many people actually keep their receipts from online sales and remit the tax annually? Not many.

In South Carolina alone, this amounted to more than $254 million in 2012 (the last year we have numbers available) in uncollected taxes due to our state and local governments. 

This means state and local governments are losing out on millions of dollars that could be paying for  better roads, better schools and better quality of life.

There are bills in the U.S. House and Senate that would fix this inequity. The Remote Purchase Parity Act (HR 2775) and the Marketplace Fairness Act (S698) would level the playing field between out-of-state online retailers and our hometown Main Street businesses. 

Keep in mind, these bills do not impose a new tax. Instead they level the playing field between online out-of-state companies and local brick-and-mortar stores by closing the online sales tax loophole. Sales taxes are owed on all purchases, and it is unfair for online retailers to skip collecting taxes, while the stores in our community collect all owed taxes.

Interested in helping level this playing field? Right now, it’s all about getting our Congressional delegation to support these bills. Learn more about what you can do to help.

Letting the sunshine in

By Tiger Wells, Government Affairs Liaison

All states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have laws that are popularly referred to as “Sunshine Laws,” a name that invokes the image of curtains being thrown open allowing light to enter and illuminate an otherwise dark room.

In South Carolina, the state’s sunshine law, the SC Freedom of Information Act, requires that every public body, from departments of the state to municipal governing bodies and their various committees open their meetings and records to the public.

The Municipal Association understands that there is truth in the old adage “In the absence of information, people will assume the worst.” The lost trust that can result from a lack of transparency can lead to strained relationships between city leaders and their constituents, which can in turn make governing efficiently and effectively very difficult.

With this in mind, the Association provides multiple FOIA-related training classes and articles for municipal elected officials and staff.

The Association also frequently directs its members to the SC Press Association’s great handbook explaining the Act in easy-to-understand language.

Recent actions by the General Assembly and the SC Supreme Court have resulted in changes to the way public bodies provide meeting notice, the procedure followed when adding items to meeting agendas and the procedure followed when entering executive session.

S11, signed into law in June, outlines how a public body can add items to its meeting agenda after the meeting has been called to order. It’s a somewhat complicated process, so the Association worked with the SC Press Association to create a flowchart that outlines very specifically the process a council must use. The new law also requires cities to post meeting notices and agendas on their websites, if they have one.

A recent Supreme Court ruling addresses the specific purpose requirement that a public body must satisfy when entering executive session.

Both of these actions mean councils may need to adjust their processes for posting meeting agendas and entering executive session. 

Part of the fall Regional Advocacy Meetings is focused on training about these actions. To learn more, read the Uptown articles about these two actions in the August/September issue, and look for an updated version of the Municipal Elected Officials Institute of Government FOIA class coming this fall.

Content-Based Sign Codes Unconstitutional

By Tiger Wells, Municipal Association's Government Affairs Liaison

A recent case decided by the U.S  Supreme Court speaks to First Amendment violations related to temporary signage. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Court held unanimously that Gilbert, Arizona’s sign code, which treated various categories of temporary signs differently based on the information they convey, violates the First Amendment.

According to the Court, Gilbert’s sign code treated temporary directional signs, such as those used by Pastor Reed to direct parishioners to his church, less favorably (in terms of size, location, duration, etc.) than political signs and ideological signs.

Content-based laws are only constitutional if they pass strict scrutiny—that is, if they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

Despite arguments that Gilbert’s sign categories are based on function, the Court concluded they are based on content.

Gilbert’s sign code failed strict scrutiny because its purposes —preserving aesthetic and traffic safety—were “hopelessly underinclusive,” according to the Court. Temporary directional signs are “no greater an eyesore” and pose no greater threat to public safety than ideological or political signs.

During a recent webinar discussion of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, hosted by the National League of Cities, there appeared to be a prevailing expectation that the Court’s decision would require many local governments to make modifications to existing sign laws. Nevertheless, there also appeared to be consensus among the speakers that the case should not be interpreted to overrule prior sign-related Court precedent.

While the speakers encouraged municipalities to examine their existing sign laws in light of Reed, they also cautioned against taking extreme intermediate steps such as instituting an across-the-board moratorium on temporary signs. Such a move could temporarily solve one problem only to expose the municipality to other First Amendment claims.

First week of Regional Advocacy Meetings a Success

Columbia

The Municipal Association advocacy staff hit the road this week to start the annual series of Regional Advocacy Meetings. It's our favorite time of year that gives us the chance to get out of Columbia and hear about issues important to cities and towns.
 

Rock Hill

Close to 100 local officials and staff from 34 cities and towns gathered in Columbia and Rock Hill to learn about laws that passed in the 2015 session and discuss priorities for the 2016 session.

It's always interesting when we get on the road to see how lots of issues continue to come up over the years. Specifics may change but issues like roads, dilapidated buildings, financing and annexation have been around for decades. 

Check out this old photo from the Association's recently published history book to get a glimpse of priorities in the 1970s.

One focus of the meetings is training about new provisions in the Freedom of Information Act. S11 and a SC Supreme Court ruling changes requirements for posting meeting notices and entering executive session. 

The Association worked closely with the SC Press Association to develop specific guidance on how councils should go about making changes to a meeting agenda after it's been posted. Get the easy-to-follow flow chart to use when making changes to an agenda.

Regional Advocacy Meetings resume the week of August 31 with visits to Conway and Hartsville. It's not too late to sign up!