S0853 revises South Carolina’s Abandoned Buildings Revitalization Act to broaden and clarify eligibility for the abandoned building tax credit. The bill states that a building does not need to have had a prior income-producing use before the abandonment period to qualify, and it makes conforming changes to the applicability section. It also clarifies how taxpayers must time the filing of a Notice of Intent to Rehabilitate relative to obtaining a building permit, and it specifies that the credit may be transferred in certain lease or sale transactions but may not be pledged, assigned, hypothecated, or otherwise used as collateral for debt.
The bill also updates the definitions of abandoned building, building site, rehabilitation expenses, and state-owned abandoned building. It preserves limits on what counts as rehabilitation expense, including restrictions on excessive new square footage and special treatment for historic properties on the National Register. In addition, it removes a certification requirement for certain state-owned abandoned building sites, while keeping the general municipal or county certification process for abandoned building sites. A separate section temporarily pauses final approval of most applications for a property tax exemption under Section 12-37-220(B)(11)(e) for tax years 2026 and 2027, with an exception for qualifying nonprofit housing corporations serving low- or very low-income residents; that temporary section expires June 30, 2027.
The bill’s impact is to expand and refine the state tax-credit framework for rehabilitating abandoned buildings, potentially making more properties eligible and reducing procedural barriers for developers and property owners. It affects the Department of Revenue, local governments that certify abandoned building sites, taxpayers seeking the credit, and parties involved in financing or transferring the credit. It also temporarily changes administration of a separate property tax exemption, while preserving an exception for certain nonprofit affordable-housing properties.
Overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. The Senate passed the bill on third reading with substantial support, and the House later passed it unanimously, suggesting broad bipartisan agreement on the need to encourage redevelopment of abandoned properties and clarify the credit rules. The absence of recorded committee transcripts limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting history indicates little opposition to the bill as a whole.
The main points of contention appear to have been narrower procedural or policy questions rather than the overall purpose of the bill. The recorded Senate votes on amendments show some disagreement, especially on whether to allow a third-reading amendment and whether to table another amendment, indicating that members may have differed on the exact scope or mechanics of the changes. The bill’s restrictions on using credits as collateral, the treatment of historic warehouse/storage properties, and the temporary pause on certain property tax exemption approvals are the most likely areas where stakeholders could have had differing views.
S0853 amends multiple sections of the South Carolina Code governing the Abandoned Buildings Revitalization Act, primarily in Title 12. It changes eligibility and definitional provisions in Section 12-67-120, conforming applicability language in Section 12-67-130, timing and transfer rules in Section 12-67-140, and certification procedures in Section 12-67-160. It also temporarily suspends final approval of most applications for a separate property tax exemption under Section 12-37-220(B)(11)(e) for tax years 2026 and 2027, with an exception for qualifying nonprofit housing corporations, and it states that no vested right arises from filing or preliminary approval during the suspension period.
The overall sentiment is positive and supportive of the bill’s redevelopment goals. The Senate approved the measure by wide margins at second and third reading, and the House passed it unanimously, indicating broad legislative consensus. The vote pattern suggests the bill was viewed as a practical clarification and expansion of an existing tax incentive rather than a controversial policy shift.
The most notable disagreements were about amendments and technical details rather than the bill’s core purpose. Senate votes show some members opposed allowing a third-reading amendment and others opposed tabling a separate amendment, suggesting debate over the precise wording and scope of the tax-credit changes. Potential substantive concerns include the prohibition on using credits as collateral, the treatment of historic buildings used for storage or warehouse purposes, and the temporary delay of final approval for certain property tax exemption applications, though the final votes indicate these issues did not prevent broad support.