S. 190 amends South Carolina’s redevelopment and tax increment financing (TIF) laws to expressly include affordable housing projects within the definition of a “redevelopment project.” Under the bill, TIF-generated property tax revenues may be used to provide or support affordable housing in a district, or to fund infrastructure that supports affordable housing there. The bill defines affordable housing as housing priced for households earning no more than 80% of area median income, consistent with HUD data.
The bill also extends the deadline for issuing municipal obligations tied to a redevelopment plan from 15 years to 35 years after adoption of the ordinance concurring in the plan. In addition, it updates the definition of “closed or realigned federal installations” in the redevelopment-fee statute, which affects how redevelopment-related fees and projects are administered in that context. The act takes effect upon gubernatorial approval.
Impact
The bill would broaden the scope of projects eligible for redevelopment financing under South Carolina law, especially by allowing TIF districts to support affordable housing and related infrastructure. It also gives municipalities and redevelopment authorities a much longer window to issue obligations for approved redevelopment plans, which could make long-term financing more feasible. The updated federal-installation language would affect the statutory framework governing redevelopment fees and projects associated with former military or federal sites.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong support in the Senate, with the bill passing second reading 41-0 on March 27, 2025. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate opposition or detailed concerns. Based on the vote, the bill appears to have been viewed favorably and without significant controversy at that stage.
Contention
The main policy issue is the expansion of TIF authority to include affordable housing, which may draw scrutiny from those concerned about diverting future tax revenues from general public use or about the proper scope of redevelopment financing. The longer 35-year obligation window could also be debated by those who prefer tighter limits on municipal debt timing and project duration. No specific objections or named opponents appear in the provided materials, and the unanimous Senate vote suggests little visible contention in the chamber at second reading.