January - Municipal Association of South Carolina

Creating safe business communities
This is the first in a series of articles exploring methods South Carolina cities and towns are using to create
harmonious communities for residents and businesses.
Cities look to businesses to provide community leadership,
spur the local economy and keep downtown
areas active. But sometimes businesses’ operations conflict
with a community’s ideals -- bringing in unsavory clientele,
creating loud noise or disturbances, or not following codes.
Business licensing officials have several options for creating
safe business communities for their residents.
One option is enforcing the codes on businesses to the
point of demanding severe fines and court costs to get
them to comply. Another option is using the nuisance
statute to close down businesses. A third, more extreme,
option is revoking the establishment’s business license.
When codes are strictly enforced on businesses, police
and code enforcement officers are heavily involved. Most
municipalities have building and zoning codes in place
to help regulate businesses. Sometimes, however, there
are problems with having enough manpower or the desire
to enforce the codes, especially in small towns where
everyone knows each other, said Danny Crowe, attorney
with Turner Padget Graham and Laney, P.A. and former
Municipal Association of SC general counsel.
The Town of Irmo recently was involved in a court case
with a nightclub. The club attracted a large number of
people until early in the morning, creating a disturbance in
the nearby residential area. Officers from the Irmo police
department were outnumbered by the crowds and had to
JAN 07
get assistance from other law enforcement agencies to
respond to problems at the club. Faced with heavy fines
and court costs, the business owners agreed to shut down
in exchange for the town dropping the case against them.
A second option is use of the nuisance statute. This is a
quicker process that allows the county solicitor to bring
action in circuit court to close down businesses that are
public nuisances. Many business license ordinances allow
license revocation for a nuisance business, and municipal
and county councils have the power to deal with public
nuisances under the Home Rule Act.
Horry County, for example, is using the nuisance statute
to close the doors on adult entertainment businesses. A
municipal ordinance needs to be specific on actions constituting
a nuisance, Crowe said. State case law provides a
definition of nuisance that is used by most communities,
he said. Before resorting to business license revocation to
deal with nuisance businesses, most officials recommend
getting an injunction or prosecuting for operation of a common
law nuisance.
Business license revocation is a rare and lengthy process
-- involving the circuit court -- that is used only when other
options have failed. This was the case in Cayce, where
the city revoked the license of a motel. A large number of
arrests for illegal drug sales at the motel drew the attention
Communities continued on page 8
In
This
Issue...
Letter from the president 2
Legislative recap 3
State appeals court upholds
Beaufort’s business license
ordinance 4
Did you know? 4
BLOA members receive
designations 6

Letter from the BLOA president
This year BLOA celebrated its 20th year of providing outstanding training, advocacy,
networking and professional development for our members! We commemorated this
milestone at the 2006 BLOA Annual Meeting in Hilton Head Island, SC. The meeting was
a GREAT success. It takes a lot to orchestrate an annual meeting—site location, food
to serve, training to teach, schedules to follow, not to mention a lot of behind the scenes
work. There’s a lot that goes into it! But, the BLOA board and I had a great time planning
and hosting it.
At the 20th anniversary celebration, we recognized the pioneers—those individuals who
have served us since BLOA’s inception. A photo of them preparing to serve the BLOA
20th anniversary cake is featured below. We also recognized several BLOA groups for
their hard work, dedication and achievements—some of which are highlighted on page 6. I want to personally thank
and recognize the BLOA boards past and present, ABL/MBL committee, COG leaders, License Examiner newsletter
committee, and all speakers for their hard work and dedication to this great association. Without them and you,
BLOA would not exist.
I also want to take the time to thank our membership for allowing me the privilege of serving as president of our
association. As past presidents have stated, this is “Your Board and Your Association: Get Involved!” If you haven’t
yet, I highly recommend you take that step beyond just being a member. Step out and lead a COG, teach a training
class, accept a board position, and give ideas about the future of BLOA and the direction it takes. One of my main
objectives during my presidency is to find some new faces and fresh ideas for all aspects of participation in the
various areas of our association to ensure our continued progress in the future.
There are various projects the board will be working on this year in an attempt to better the association and ensure it
stays at the cutting edge for the future. Stay tuned, I will keep you updated in each edition of the License Examiner.
If you have any concerns, questions or suggested topics, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 864.467.4504 or
bowmanj@greatergreenville.com.
Look out for membership renewals this month and become a member of BLOA. We have built a strong foundation
… join us in building an even stronger future. Happy
20th anniversary BLOA! I am looking forward to many more
productive years to come!
I wish you all a happy holiday season.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bowman, MBL
City of Greenville
2
BLOA pioneers cut the 20th anniversary cake during the Annual Meeting.
(L-R: Brenda Kyzer, MBL, MASC; Dianne Bitzer, MMC, City of
Clemson; Roy Bates, Attorney; GC Robinett of Columbia; Janet
LaSchuma, MBL, City of Columbia and Betsy Richardson, MBL, City of
Greenville.)

Legislative recap of the 116th session
of the SC General Assembly
The General Assembly adjourned on June 1 to end its 116th Session. The following is a brief summary of the
key legislative issues of interest to business license officials and other municipal officials.
Taxicabs
Legislation regarding certification of taxicabs was signed
into law on April 5, 2006, and amended Section 58-23-
1240. The law calls for a sticker or metal plate to be affixed
to the rear of a taxi. The dimensions of the plate or sticker
must be approved by the municipality where the taxi principally
operates. The law eliminates
the requirement to change
the color of the sticker annually. A
taxi owner who qualifies as a self
insurer must issue to the taxi operator
a certificate of insurance.
The certificate must remain in the
taxi while it is in operation.
Property Tax Reform
Property tax reform was a hot issue last session. After debate
lasting the length of the session followed by a constitutional
amendment vote in November, the final result was
a sales tax/property tax swap and a limit on property value
increases during reassessment years.
The tax swap involves exchanging a reduction in the property
tax for school operations for an increase in the sales
tax. Any surplus revenues could replace property taxes
on owner- occupied homes for county operations. While
municipal governments are not directly affected by the
sales tax/property tax revenue swap, the increase in sales
tax will increase operation costs, and the millage rate limits
will create additional pressures for finding other revenue
sources to fund the municipal services required by the
local citizens. Local governments and school districts are
not allowed to increase their millage rates more than the
previous year’s Consumer Price Increase plus the percentage
increase in population.
A new property tax reassessment method limits property
value increases during the years of reassessment to 15
percent unless the property has been sold, transferred
or had major improvements. If any of these events take
place, the property values increase to the appraised value.
Property tax reform was a hot issue
last session ... the final result was a
sales tax/property tax swap and a limit
on property value increases during
reassessment years.
New construction must now be placed on the tax rolls
upon receipt of a certificate of occupancy. Previously, new
construction was not placed on the tax rolls until January
1 each year. In some cases, properties are occupied and
receive the benefit of local government services for almost
two years before the property tax is due.
Counties may impose an additional
sales tax if approved
by a county-wide referendum.
The additional revenues must
replace property taxes on other
classes of properties. During the
property tax debate this year,
legislators spent considerable
time on the sales tax exemptions
and caps, such as the $300 tax cap on automobile
sales. A Sales Tax Exemptions Review Committee will look
at all of the sales tax exemptions and provide a report to
the General Assembly in 2007.
Local Accommodations and Hospitality Taxes
Legislation passed allowing municipalities and counties to
use 20 percent of the local accommodations and hospitality
tax revenues for operating costs of the tourism-related
facilities. Approved uses include tourism-related buildings;
tourism-related cultural, recreational, or historic facilities;
beach access and re-nourishment, tourism-related lands
and water access; highways, roads, streets and bridges
providing access to tourism-related destinations; advertisements
and promotions related to tourism development; or
water and sewer infrastructure to serve tourism-related demand.
Previously, only municipalities in counties collecting
more than $900,000 in state accommodations tax funds
were allowed to use any of the local accommodations and
local hospitality taxes for operating and maintaining these
tourism facilities and activities.
Legislative continued on page 5
3

In City of Beaufort v. Holcombe, a decision issued in
July 2006, the state Court of Appeals rejected an equal
protection challenge to the business license ordinance’s
different treatment of owner-occupiers of commercial buildings
and owners of commercial buildings who rent to third
parties. The court ruled the business license ordinance did
not violate equal protection rights by requiring a business
license for a building owner who rented to third parties
while exempting from the licensing requirement a building
owner who occupied the commercial property for his own
business or paid rent to himself.
In a good review of equal protection law, the Appeals Court
determined the circumstance of differing treatment alone
did not result in a constitutional violation. Although the two
types of building owners are treated differently, the different
treatment had a rational and reasonable basis and was
not arbitrary or unconstitutional. The appeals court agreed
State appeals court upholds
Beaufort’s business license ordinance
By Danny Crowe, Attorney, Turner Padget Graham & Laney, P.A.
with the circuit court. Two types of building owners were
“not similarly situated” because the building owner who
rents commercial property to third parties is in the “business”
of renting commercial property while the building
owner who rents to himself is not.
The building owner in this case used one of two offices in
his building for his own optometry business and rented the
other office to an unrelated commercial tenant. He failed to
obtain a business license as required for “lessors of nonresidential
buildings (with gross rental income of $12,000
or more).” The building owner was charged and convicted
in municipal court of failing to obtain a business license.
The legal citation for the City of Beaufort case is 369 S.C.
643, 632 S.E.2d 894 (Ct. App. 2006).
Does federal law preempt a business
Q. license tax on income for the business activities
of (1) the sale and leasing of satellite television
equipment and (2) the installation of satellite
television equipment for subscribers?
No. Federal law (Section 602 of the 1996
A. Telecommunications Act) only preempts
business license taxes by municipalities and
counties on a provider for “direct-to-home satellite
service,” a term specifically defined as “only
programming transmitted or broadcast by satellite
directly to the subscribers’ premises without the
use of ground receiving or distribution equipment,
except at the subscribers’ premises or in the uplink
process to the satellite.”
This federal law exempts the satellite service
from a license tax on income from charges for
Did you know?
programming transmitted directly from satellite to
the subscriber’s premises. However, other revenue-producing
activities of the satellite service
provider (such as equipment sales and rentals,
equipment service and equipment installation)
are not addressed by this federal law and are not
preempted.
Additionally, this federal law does not protect
from taxation the activity of distributing satellite
programming from a master antenna by cable to
subscribers.
(Thanks to Roy Bates for providing this explanation
on the BLOA listserve.)
4

Legislative (continued from page 3)
Cable Franchises
Legislation changing the process for granting cable franchises
was signed into law by the governor on May 23.
The final legislation was a result of many hours of negotiations
by representatives from MASC, telecommunications
companies, cable service companies and consumer
advocacy groups.
The resulting compromise legislation is far better than the
original language introduced in the House and Senate.
The final legislation gives municipalities the right to grant
approval of the use of the rights-of-way, expands the definition
of gross revenues used in calculating the franchise
fee and allows the municipality to increase the franchise
fee to 5 percent.
Companies seeking to provide cable services must apply
the Secretary of State. The local government retains the
right to grant approval to use the public rights-of-way.
Incumbent cable service providers will continue to operate
under their existing franchise agreements until a competitor
begins to offer service in the same area.
MASC had serious concerns about the language in the
initial bills. Municipal franchise fees could have been
reduced, and municipalities could have lost the right to
grant approval for use of its public rights-of-way.
Eminent Domain - Takings
The General Assembly passed a bill on eminent domain
that called for a constitutional amendment and approved
a study committee. The constitutional amendment, which
was approved by voters in November, basically supports
South Carolina’s existing case law that requires property
taken by eminent domain is only for public use. The study
committee is currently working to evaluate all government
entities with eminent domain powers. It is also studying the
use and consequences of regulatory takings. The study
committee will make a report to the General Assembly in
April.
Other legislation
Other pieces of legislation enacted this year of interest to
MASC dealt with retail facilities revitalization, municipal
tax liens, electric and gas utilities termination of service
policies, and an increase in the daily fee from $25 to $50
charged by the Department of Juvenile Justice for pre-trial
detention of juveniles.
BLOA regional contacts
Appalachian Business License Officials
Greg Morris, City of Greenville
Phone: 864.467.4473
E-mail: gmorris@greatergreenville.com
Association of Lowcountry Licensing Officials
Kathy Barnes, Town of Hilton Head Island
Phone: 843.341.4611
E-mail: kathyB@hiltonheadislandsc.gov
Catawba Region
(Contact to be determined)
Central Midlands Area
Sonya Lee, Town of Lexington
Phone: 803.951.4631
E-mail: slee@lexsc.com
Horry/Georgetown Counties
Frankie O’Harrow, City of Myrtle Beach
Phone: 843.918.1151
E-mail: foharrow@cityofmyrtlebeach.com
Pee Dee Area
Teresa Eaton, City of Florence
Phone: 843.665.3128
E-mail: teaton@cityofflorence.com
Upper/Lower Savannah Region
Pat Fowler, Town of Williston
Phone: 803.266.7015
E-mail: pat@williston-sc.com
5

BLOA members receive designations
The Accreditation in Business Licensing (ABL) and
Master’s in Business Licensing (MBL) designations
demonstrate an expertise in the field of administering and
enforcing local business and professional license taxes.
Harper of Seneca, Laurie Lane of Hartsville, Patricia Fowler
of Williston, Deborah Blanton of Loris, Allen Eleazer, Jr.
of Columbia and Melvin Curtis of Sumter.
Officials seeking the designation make a threeyear
commitment to the program. They must
complete a training institute offered by the
Municipal Association of SC each spring, follow
the ABL Code
of Ethics and pass an exam.
Each year, participants complete four hours of
training on general licensing subjects and two
hours on problem areas such as alcoholic beverages,
bail bondsmen or fireworks.The exam is
based on the training explained above and the
Business Licensing Handbook, available through
MASC.
Those who want to further their professional
development can work toward the MBL. Officials
must first earn the ABL, then attain 50 experience
points within seven years immediately
preceding their application for the MBL
designation. Eligible points include work
experience and participation in training
sessions.
(L-R) Sherri Tiedemann, ABL, City of Columbia; Blake Foster, ABL, City of Belton;
Patricia Fowler, MBL, Town of Williston; and Debra Bivens, ABL, City of Georgetown
received their ABL plaques at the Annual Meeting. (Not all recipients are pictured.)
Eleven business licensing officials received
their ABL designation after completing the
three-year institute and passing an examination.
ABL recipients are Debra Bivens
of Georgetown, Jean Brunson of Mullins,
Sally Dubose of Sumter, Tiffany Smalls of
North Charleston, Derrell Blake Foster of
Belton, Patricia Fowler of Williston, Sharron
Gleaton of Columbia, Lisa Holden of
Anderson, Sherri Tiedemann of Columbia,
Kim Vargo of Barnwell and Kathy West of
Lancaster.
Six business licensing officials went on
to receive their MBL desgination. Belinda
(L-R) Belinda Harper, MBL, City of Seneca; Laurie Lane, MBL, City of Hartsville; Patricia Fowler, MBL,
Town of Williston and Deborah Blanton, MBL, City of Loris received their MBL plaques at the Annual
Meeting. (Not all recipients are pictured.)
6

2006 - 2007
BLOA board of directors
Members of the Business Licensing Officials Association elected their 2006 - 2007 board of directors during the
association’s Annual Meeting in October. Members hold seats for one-year terms.
President
Jeff Bowman, MBL, City of Greenville
Phone: 864.467.4504
E-mail: bowmanj@greatergreenville.com
Vice President
Laurie Lane, MBL, City of Hartsville
Phone: 803.383.3015
E-mail: laurie.lane@hartsville.org
Secretary/Treasurer
Benny Genwright, MBL, City of Dillon
Phone: 843.774.0040
E-mail: bennydilloncity@bellsouth.net
Members-At-Large
Patricia Jones, Town of Batesburg-Leesville
Phone: 803.532.8301
E-mail: pjones@batesburg-leesville.org
Deborah Paulson, MBL, City of Hanahan
Phone: 843.554.4221 (164)
E-mail: dpaulson@cityofhanahan.com
Blake Foster, ABL, City of Belton
Phone: 864.338.7773
E-mail: dbfoster@cityofbeltonsc.com
Immediate Past President
Pat Fowler, MBL, Town of Williston
Phone: 803.266.7015
E-mail: pat@williston-sc.com
BLOA
Published by
Business Licensing Officials
Association (BLOA) is an affiliate of
the Municipal Association of SC.
PO Box 12109
Columbia, SC 29211
803.799.9574
BLOA helps its members address
the challenges of administering and
enforcing local business and professional
license tax.
Note: You can earn points toward
your MBL designation by writing an
article for this newsletter.
Contributors
Editor: Tami Fralick, ABL
Committee: Al Cothran, MBL; Betsy Richardson, MBL;
and Kim Stanley
MASC Staff: Melanie Dozier, Michelle James, Brenda
Kyzer and Christie Zeller
Direct newsletter ideas and comments to License
Examiner editor or BLOA contact.
Editor: Tami Fralick, ABL, Charleston County
E-mail: tfralick@charlestoncounty.org
Fax: 843.202.6066
BLOA Contact: Melanie Dozier, Municipal Association of SC
E-mail: mdozier@masc.sc
Fax: 803.933.1299
7

Communities (continued from page 1)
of the police, who worked with business licensing officials
to deny the renewal of the motel’s business license.
The motel was the first business license revoked by
Cayce, but officials recently have denied a license renewal
for a bar that has had a number of incidents involving
disorderly conduct and noise violations, Crowe said.
The bar was affecting the quality of life for its residential
neighbors, said John Sharpe, Cayce administrator. A
citizen who lived directly behind the bar testified the noise
level disrupted her family’s sleep and she feared violence
from the crowds gathered in the parking lot after hours.
“The city had made every effort to help the business to understand
the citations they were receiving and get them to
‘change their ways’ to avoid this action,” Sharpe said. “But
a year later and with little change, the business license
was revoked.”
That case currently is being appealed, Crowe added.
“Revoking a license can only be done in extreme circumstances,
after officials have built an extremely strong
case,” said MASC Executive Director Howard Duvall.
“Closing down a business must be done very carefully.
The rights of a property owner need to be protected.”
Instead, municipalities need to first “bend over backwards
to make sure businesses understand if they don’t clean up
their act, we will use the full force of the law to get you to
comply,” Duvall said.
SC Business Licensing Officials Association
1411 Gervais Street ▪ PO Box 12109
Columbia, SC 29211
PRSRT STD
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
COLUMBIA, SC
PERMIT 939