A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 4-10-330, RELATING TO THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH PROCEEDS OF THE CAPITAL PROJECT SALES TAX MAY BE USED SO AS TO INCLUDE OPERATIONS FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.
H5744 would amend South Carolina’s capital project sales tax statute to allow revenue from the capital project sales tax to be used not only for capital projects, but also for the operations of emergency services. The bill specifically adds emergency services operations, including police, fire, and emergency medical technician services, to the list of permissible uses for those funds.
As written, the measure changes Section 4-10-330 of the South Carolina Code of Laws by expanding the authorized purposes for capital project sales tax proceeds. If enacted, local governments or other eligible entities that levy or receive these funds would have broader flexibility to support ongoing public safety operations rather than limiting the money to capital expenditures alone. The bill takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
The bill would amend the statutory uses of capital project sales tax revenue under Section 4-10-330, adding a new authorized category for emergency services operations. This would affect how local sales tax proceeds may be budgeted and spent, potentially benefiting police, fire, and EMS agencies by creating a new funding source for operating costs. It would also represent a policy shift away from a strictly capital-focused use of these revenues.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the available materials, so no clear partisan or stakeholder sentiment can be inferred from the transcript record. The bill’s introduction and referral to the House Ways and Means Committee suggest it is being considered as a fiscal and local-government funding measure, but the available record does not show support or opposition expressed on the floor or in committee.
The main point of potential contention is whether capital project sales tax revenue should be used for ongoing operating expenses rather than only for infrastructure or other capital needs. Supporters are likely to argue that emergency services need flexible funding for day-to-day operations, while opponents may view the change as a departure from the original purpose of the tax and a possible diversion of local tax revenue away from long-term capital investment. No specific objections or endorsements are documented in the provided history.