Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aviation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aviation groups tell House subcommittee SB436 would cut State Aviation Fund without replacement revenue
Summary
Representatives of South Carolina aviation interests told the House Ways and Means Revenue Policy Subcommittee that Senate Bill 436’s aircraft property tax exemption would reduce revenue to the State Aviation Fund unless replacement language or airport reimbursement agreements are provided; the subcommittee gave the bill a favorable report, 5–0.
James Stevens, who identified himself as representing the South Carolina Aviation Association and formerly the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission, told the Revenue Policy Subcommittee that Senate Bill 436 would reduce receipts to the State Aviation Fund and urged lawmakers to require replacement revenue or airport reimbursement agreements. "We're averaging $7,000,000 to $8,000,000 a year in airline property taxes," Stevens said, noting that aircraft fuel sales taxes bring the fund to roughly $13,000,000 to $15,000,000 annually.
The association voiced support for being competitive in airline recruitment but warned the exemption in SB436 would cut aviation-fund revenue "without some sort of a replacement," Stevens said. He described a one-year sunset in the bill and said airports that are actively recruiting airline business development projects might agree to reimburse the fund through an agreement with the Aeronautics Commission; the association would support that if it were written into the bill.
Gary Siegfried of the South Carolina Aeronautics office agreed with Stevens and urged a longer-term, comprehensive approach to airline property tax reform. "We do need comprehensive airline property tax reform," Siegfried said, and reported he is working with the Department of Revenue to assemble data for a comprehensive proposal.
The chair summarized Stevens’s condition of support—replacement of reduced fund revenue by general fund or other revenue and future work on comprehensive funding—and Stevens confirmed that summary. The subcommittee took a roll-call vote and returned a favorable report on SB436 by a 5–0 tally.
The subcommittee did not adopt formal replacement language during this meeting; proponents signaled they will continue negotiating language and pursue broader reform in the coming year.
