A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 6-1-920, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES FOR PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENTAL IMPACT FEES, SO AS TO INCLUDE ROAD RESURFACING; AND BY AMENDING SECTION 6-1-1020, RELATING TO REFUNDS OF IMPACT FEES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE TIME A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY HAS TO EXPEND IMPACT FEE REVENUES.
Summary
H5088 amends South Carolina’s impact fee law in two main ways. First, it expands the definition of “public facilities” for which developmental impact fees may be used to expressly include road resurfacing, in addition to roads, streets, bridges, rights-of-way, and traffic signals. Second, it changes the refund/expenditure timing rule for impact fee revenues by extending the deadline for a governmental entity to spend those fees from three years to seven years after the date they were scheduled to be expended, using a first-in, first-out basis.
The bill is a targeted update to Title 6, Chapter 1 of the South Carolina Code governing development impact fees. Its practical effect is to give local governments more flexibility and time to use collected impact fee revenue, while also clarifying that resurfacing projects are an eligible transportation-related use of those funds. The bill includes a standard savings clause preserving pending rights and liabilities, and it would take effect upon gubernatorial approval.
Impact
If enacted, H5088 would amend Sections 6-1-920 and 6-1-1020 of the South Carolina Code. Local governments that levy developmental impact fees would be able to apply those fees to road resurfacing projects and would have a longer period—seven years instead of three—to expend scheduled impact fee revenues before refund obligations are triggered. The bill primarily affects counties, municipalities, developers, and property owners subject to impact fee programs, and it may reduce the likelihood of refunds by allowing more time for project implementation.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be a technical, pro-administration adjustment intended to improve flexibility in the use of impact fee revenues rather than a broad policy overhaul. The absence of recorded controversy suggests the measure may be relatively noncontroversial, though that cannot be confirmed from the provided record.
Contention
The main policy issue is the extension of the expenditure window from three years to seven years, which benefits governmental entities by giving them more time to deploy impact fee funds but could be viewed by developers or fee payers as delaying refunds and reducing pressure to spend funds promptly. A second point of interest is the explicit inclusion of road resurfacing as an eligible public facility use, which broadens permissible spending but may raise questions about whether impact fees should support maintenance-like work as well as new infrastructure. No specific opponents or supporters are identified in the available materials.