A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 12-10-88, RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT FEES REMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SO AS TO REMOVE AN ANNUAL MAXIMUM AND TO REMOVE A SUNSET PROVISION; AND BY AMENDING ACT 356 OF 2002 SO AS TO DELETE A PROVISION REQUIRING THE SHARING OF CERTAIN REVENUE.
Summary
H3853 amends South Carolina law governing redevelopment fees tied to closed or realigned federal installations. Under current law, a portion of South Carolina individual income tax withholding from employees at qualifying federal sites is remitted to the local redevelopment authority overseeing the installation. The bill keeps that basic framework in place but removes the annual cap that limited payments to the amount remitted in Fiscal Year 2014-2015 and extends the definition of a qualifying closed or realigned federal installation from January 1, 2028 to June 30, 2043. It also preserves the requirement that redevelopment authorities provide quarterly wage and withholding information to receive the funds.
Impact
The bill would extend and potentially increase the flow of redevelopment fee revenue to eligible redevelopment authorities by eliminating the fiscal-year cap and lengthening the program’s availability. It affects Section 12-10-88 of the South Carolina Code and would continue directing a share of withholding from employees at qualifying federal sites to redevelopment authorities without requiring compliance with certain other withholding provisions. The bill also amends Act 356 of 2002 to remove a provision requiring the sharing of certain state revenue related to the Charleston Naval Complex redevelopment, while leaving in place the property conveyance framework and related protections for leases, tax increment financing status, grants, and other revenues tied to the North Charleston/Charleston Naval Complex area.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the limited available context, the measure appears generally supportive of redevelopment and local economic development efforts, especially for communities affected by federal base closures or realignments. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or support from hearings or floor action in the available materials. The bill’s structure suggests a pragmatic, revenue-preserving approach rather than a controversial policy shift.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the removal of the annual maximum on redevelopment fee remittances, which could increase state revenue transfers to redevelopment authorities and reduce predictability in the amount retained by the state. Another possible issue is the extension of the program’s sunset date, which effectively prolongs a special revenue-sharing arrangement for decades. The amendment to Act 356 of 2002 deleting a requirement to share certain revenue related to the Charleston Naval Complex could also draw attention from parties concerned about how redevelopment proceeds and state-generated revenues are allocated among the City of North Charleston, the Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority, and the South Carolina State Ports Authority.