There are few things state government needs more than an independent tax study commission with the expertise to analyze proposed changes in the state's tax structure. The good news is that such a commission now appears very much a possibility. The problem is that it comes at the 11th hour.

When the legislation was introduced by the House leadership a few days ago, the media attention naturally focused on the bill's directive that the commission make as its first order of business a study of the long, long list of tax exemptions and report back by the beginning of next year. It's important to note, however, that the commission's authority would be far broader and would include the power "to review and evaluate tax legislation ... for the specific effects the enactment of such legislation would have on the state's tax structure." In truth such a commission should already be hard at work. The most complicated tax legislation to be considered in decades is now before the Legislature under the heading of property tax relief.

The Palmetto Institute, a nonprofit research and educational group, actually proposed such a commission last fall in the wake of an extensive study on the sources of state revenue and the danger of unintended consequences resulting from changes in the tax structure. It's hard to imagine a greater potential for that to happen than during the current session.

Bills under consideration include an increase in the state sales tax to supplant portions of the property tax that would be accompanied by complicated formulas for redistributing the funds back to local governments, along with constitutional amendments that would change the basis of real property assessment across the state. Lawmakers did give up trying to recommend changes in the long list of politically hot tax exemptions, prompting the bill's directive to the proposed new commission to make that a priority.

House Speaker Bobby Harrell is candid that he doesn't think the commission can be appointed and in business in time to consider the current legislation. Neither is he willing to put off property tax relief until it can make such an analysis. He contends that the lawmakers have given the proposals months of study and do understand the implications.

The problem, of course, is that property tax relief generally is a political minefield and this is an election year. Legislators are feeling pressure from property tax groups and there is by no means a consensus yet on the best course of action. The state Chamber of Commerce already is warning about potential problems with some of the proposals. There are predictions that once debate actually begins, it will become increasingly clear that more study is needed, particularly on formulas for returning the sales tax money to local governments.

A stalemate on property tax relief clearly would increase the importance of the proposed new commission, which makes it doubly important that the membership be chosen with great care. The citizens commission, which would replace a legislatively dominated joint tax study committee, would be composed of 15 members, five appointed by the speaker of the House, five by the president of the Senate, and five by the governor. Clearly the membership should be men and women with great expertise in fiscal affairs and no obvious axes to grind.

No aspect of state government needs a more thoughtful approach or more expertise than the state's fiscal underpinning, down to the local level of government. Better to give the proposed study commission the priority of analyzing the property tax relief measures now on the table than take a chance that its biggest job next year will be looking for solutions to this year's bad tax mistakes.