AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY REPEALING SECTION 2 OF ACT 201 OF 2024 RELATING TO THE SUNSET PROVISION CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS TO OWN, DISPOSE, ACQUIRE, PURCHASE, HOLD, USE, LEASE, CONVEY, SELL, TRANSFER, OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF PROPERTY.
H. 3731 repeals Section 2 of Act 201 of 2024, which had imposed a sunset provision on special purpose districts’ authority to own, dispose, acquire, purchase, hold, use, lease, convey, sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of property. In practical terms, the bill makes that property-handling authority permanent rather than temporary, preserving the ability of special purpose districts to manage real and personal property without the prior expiration date.
The bill does not create a new regulatory program; instead, it amends existing law by removing a scheduled expiration from a prior act. Its effect is to maintain continuity in the statutory powers of special purpose districts and avoid any lapse in their property-related authority. The act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
By repealing the sunset clause in Act 201 of 2024, the bill changes South Carolina law so that special purpose districts retain ongoing authority over property transactions and management. This affects special purpose districts directly, as well as any local government entities, boards, or stakeholders that rely on those districts’ ability to hold, lease, sell, or transfer property. The bill preserves the legal framework established in 2024 and prevents those powers from ending automatically.
The available voting history suggests broad, noncontroversial support for the bill. It passed the House 96-0 and later passed Senate second reading 45-0, indicating unanimous or near-unanimous approval in both chambers. There are no committee transcript excerpts showing opposition or debate, and the committee report recommended passage.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided materials. Because the bill simply removes a sunset provision, any disagreement would likely center on broader policy questions about the scope of special purpose districts’ property powers or whether those powers should remain temporary, but no such objections appear in the available record. The absence of recorded dissent suggests the measure was viewed as a technical or housekeeping change rather than a major policy dispute.