Note to Council: Saluda County Land Belongs to Its People

Why Saluda County needs a fair-market-value ordinance

Last year Saluda County sold 4.12 acres on Batesburg Highway (Hwy 178) for $15,000. The ordinance authorizing the sale described an approximate three-acre split from the parent tract. The executed contract and plat fixed the acreage at 4.12. The parcel had highway frontage, water and sewer, and sat near the county recreational complex, Midlands Technical College, the Sheriff’s Department, an EMS station, and the detention center.

During the three readings and the public hearing required by state law, the sale price was not disclosed, despite citizen inquiries. No independent written determination of fair market value was obtained before the final vote.

Chairman Jim Moore has since acknowledged — privately and again in public at the livestreamed September 14, 2026 County Council meeting — that no one involved in that decision had special expertise in valuing land and that the County made a mistake by not getting a clear idea of what the property was worth. He has also noted, correctly, that the County handled the sale according to South Carolina law.

Both statements can be true at once. That is exactly why the Saluda County Republican Party spent months studying how other South Carolina counties handle the sale of county-owned land and then presented Council with a practical proposal.

In August we delivered a packet, unanimously approved by our Executive Committee, that included research on other counties, a sample ordinance, and a letter asking Council to work with the County Attorney to craft language that fits Saluda County.

We did not ask Council to adopt our sample word-for-word. We asked them, along with their attorney, to craft their own ordinance incorporating the basic components of our proposal.

What the proposal actually does

It applies to sales, transfers, and conveyances of county-owned real-property interests, with reasonable exceptions for easements, minor boundary adjustments, court-ordered transfers, and certain no-cash transfers between public entities.

It provides that:

• The valuation can come from a licensed or certified appraiser, a comparative market analysis or broker price opinion from a licensed South Carolina broker, or a written valuation by a qualified independent consultant using a recognized method. It must be dated within 12 months of the final vote.
• The valuation, or a clear summary of the determined value, must be available for public inspection at least seven days before the hearing.
• Council must make findings that a valuation was obtained and that the consideration is fair and reasonable in light of that valuation and any public purpose served.
• If Council chooses to sell below the determined value, the ordinance or resolution must say so and state the public-purpose or other reasons. A short post-execution statement identifying the property, parties, valuation, price, and reasons would then be filed and posted.

The proposal does not require sealed bids, a public auction, an RFP, or acceptance of the highest offer. It does not freeze negotiations or prevent Council from approving a below-market sale when a legitimate public purpose or economic-development opportunity justifies it. It only requires that Council have current information and that the public be able to see the value and the stated reasons.

In short: transparency without tying Council’s hands.

What happened when the idea came before Council

At the September 14 meeting — the first since the proposal was presented — Chairman Moore raised the issue for preliminary discussion. He pointed out the earlier mistake with the Highway 178 sale and said it would be in Council’s best interest to develop a policy for future sales. He also noted that state regulations do not require the establishment of fair market value.

The response from the other councilmen was thin. One member suggested looking into it further, even though a packet had already been in members’ hands for a month.

Compliance with state law is a floor, not a ceiling

The Highway 178 sale did comply with state law. Three readings were held. A public hearing was held. An ordinance was enacted. Nobody has alleged otherwise, and this article does not. And yet the County still sold the land for $15,000 without anyone in the room knowing what it was worth, and without the public being able to learn the price before the vote. Every legal requirement was satisfied, and the outcome was still a mistake the Chairman himself has acknowledged.

That is not an indictment of Council. It is a description of the standard Council is working under.

South Carolina counties operate under Home Rule. Section 4-9-30(2) of the South Carolina Code empowers a county “to lease, sell or otherwise dispose of real and personal property,” and says nothing about determining what that property is worth. Section 4-9-130 requires a public hearing with at least fifteen days’ published notice before Council acts to sell county real property, but does not require that any value, or even any price, be placed before the public at that hearing.

A county can satisfy every word of Chapter 9 while having no idea what it just sold. Saluda County proved it.

The absence of a state valuation requirement is not a legislative judgment that value does not matter. It is a delegation. Section 4-9-30(14) authorizes counties “to enact ordinances for the implementation and enforcement of the powers granted in this section.” The tool is already in Council’s hands. Other counties have picked it up.

Site conditions do matter, of course. High-voltage lines, elevation change, or an adjacent graveyard can reduce what a parcel will bring., but they still do not tell anyone what the parcel is worth. Without a written valuation, those facts are explanations, not a determination.

Other counties already require what Saluda does not

We reviewed the codified ordinances of eleven counties in February and March of 2026. Eight require a valuation by ordinance, adopted voluntarily, because state law did not do it for them. We counted only requirements placed in a duly enacted ordinance — not administrative policies or resolutions that a later administrator or a bare majority can set aside without a hearing.

Two of those counties border Saluda. Edgefield (Sec. 2-391) requires that “at least one appraisal by a certified appraiser shall be obtained.” Lexington (Sec. 46-1) requires that property “shall be appraised either through the county tax assessment department or by private appraiser in order to determine the approximate value.” A resident of Batesburg-Leesville living on the Lexington side of the county line has protections that a neighbor on the Saluda side does not.

Anderson, Charleston, Oconee, Lancaster, Georgetown, and York have similar ordinance requirements. Several of those counties say plainly that parcels of real property are unique and that competitive bidding does not always apply. They require the appraisal precisely because they preserved Council’s discretion. The appraisal is not a substitute for that discretion. It is what makes discretion defensible.

Our proposal is, if anything, more flexible than most of these. Anderson, Charleston, Edgefield, and Oconee all require a licensed or certified appraiser. Ours would also accept a broker price opinion or comparative market analysis from a licensed South Carolina broker, or a written valuation from a qualified independent consultant.

An internal policy or a resolution would not accomplish the same thing. Council followed a procedure it was legally bound to follow, and the price still never reached the public.

Protection that can be waived quietly is not protection.

What the state’s own guidance assumes

The Municipal Association of South Carolina, which advises the state’s cities and towns, puts it plainly: a local government “must receive ‘fair market value’ when disposing of property.” That value “may be established through competitive bidding, an appraisal, the municipality’s investment or other methods,” and the government “should document the means used to establish the value of the property.” Counties are not bound by the municipal statutes. The standard still points the same direction: use a defensible method, and write down which one you used.

The Attorney General’s Office has held that any conveyance of public property must serve a public purpose, that whether a given transaction does so “is a fact-specific inquiry for determination by county council,” and that courts will not disturb Council’s determination “absent a clear showing of fraud or abuse of authority.” That deference is real. It attaches to a determination Council actually made.

A council that obtained no valuation, discussed none, and stated no reason for the price has set a number. It has not built a record a court can defer to.

That is why an ordinance of this kind does not expose Council to risk. In fact, it shields Council from it. Chairman Moore appears to understand that, which is why he raised the matter at all.

Whose land it is

County land is not Council’s land. It is the people’s land. Before it is sold, the people who own it deserve an independent look at its value and a clear public explanation if the County accepts less than that value. That is ordinary stewardship, not an attack on economic development.

“We followed the law” and “we got this right” are different claims. The first one is about Council. The second is about the land. Saluda County can satisfy the first while failing the second, and last year it did.

Eight other counties decided not to leave that gap open. Saluda still has.

What you can do

If you believe county-owned land should not be sold without a current written determination of fair market value, contact Chairman Moore and the council member who represents you. Ask them to direct the County Attorney to draft an ordinance that requires a current written valuation before final approval of a sale, public disclosure of that value, and a stated public purpose if the sale is below that value.

You do not have to endorse every line of our sample. You only have to ask that Council obtain sound information and put the reasons for any below-value sale in the public record.