LCI subcommittee hears S.227 concurrency bill; members schedule follow-ups

The Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry subcommittee on Wednesday held an initial hearing on S.227, a bill that would authorize permissive local ‘concurrency’ programs permitting counties and municipalities to require that public facilities and services necessary to support development be in place or funded on a proportionate-share basis as development occurs.

The measure, as described to the subcommittee, would let local governing authorities define level-of-service standards, adopt proportionate-share methodologies, accept excess-capacity contributions and enter written agreements with property owners to implement those requirements. Committee members said they will hold additional hearings to gather planners, local officials and other stakeholders before advancing the bill.

Nut graf: Proponents told the committee S.227 is a tool to help local governments manage rapid growth—by aligning the timing of development with the timing or funding of infrastructure such as roads, schools, water and emergency services—while opponents warned the bill could duplicate or weaken safeguards in South Carolina’s existing impact-fee framework.

Representative Wetmore, sponsor of a companion House bill, told the panel the measure is intended to relieve pressure on communities coping with fast growth. Representative Wetmore said, "I really see this as a safety valve that gives local governments both incentive and the tools to really have a robust capital plan and really identify the plan with growth and, and a mechanism for, you know, if I'm a developer... this creates a mechanism for a proportional share." She said many constituents are reporting strained services and that about "20 moratoriums across the state right now," a fact she cited as evidence local governments are overwhelmed.

Local government associations gave cautious, mixed responses. Erica Wright of the Municipal Association of South Carolina said membership feedback is "mixed, leading us to a neutral position on this bill," noting some municipalities view it as a useful tool while others fear it could be used to limit development outside municipal boundaries. A representative of the Association of Counties described the bill as a "tool in the toolbox" and committed to convening local planners for further input.

Conservation groups and environmental attorneys testified in favor. Zach Buhrer of Conservation Voters of South Carolina said concurrency can be applied to multiple infrastructure categories and includes a timing element that, in his view, differs from existing instruments such as traffic-impact analyses. Emily Poole, an attorney with the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, said concurrency could help local governments avoid litigation by creating a transparent process for conditioning approvals on infrastructure improvements.

Developers and builders expressed concern about the bill’s treatment of fees. Alex James, government affairs director for the Home Builders Association of South Carolina, said his group is "opposed to this bill as written" because it lacks several explicit guardrails that appear in the state’s current impact-fee statute, including requirements that studies be prepared by qualified outside consultants, limits on eligible uses of fees, and statutory timing and refund provisions.

Tyson Smith, the land-use attorney who drafted the bill, told the subcommittee the intent is to clarify authorities planners already use and to reduce the legal uncertainty that leads local planning commissions or councils to approve projects rather than risk litigation. Smith said the bill is permissive, not mandatory, and "all concurrency is, very simply put, is a rejection of the idea that you have to approve every development that comes in despite a concern about capacity." He stressed the draft includes proportionality requirements, a clear definition of level-of-service standards, and an express ability to enter written proportionate-share or cost-sharing agreements.

Committee members pressed witnesses on overlap with existing tools. Senators asked whether traffic-impact analyses, unified development ordinances or existing development-agreement authority already permit the same results. Witnesses acknowledged some tools exist but said local officials often lack confidence about their legal footing; proponents argued codifying the framework would give lay elected officials and planning commissioners clearer standards and reduce litigation risk. Emily Poole cited an Edgefield County case in which a development approval was litigated and said concurrency programs could have produced a negotiated outcome instead of a court fight.

On specific points raised during testimony: witnesses pointed to North Augusta and Berkeley County as local governments that have used concurrency-like approaches; Florida was cited as having mandatory concurrency since the mid-1980s for several facility categories; York County was used as a local example where school impact fees of roughly $18,000 per unit were discussed during questioning; and speakers described common implementation details such as documentation of level-of-service, proportionate-share calculations and written agreements to apportion large up-front infrastructure costs across multiple developments.

The subcommittee did not take any votes on S.227. Members and witnesses agreed to multiple follow-up steps: the Association of Counties said it would organize additional meetings with planners and county staff, the committee chair signaled more hearings to solicit technical input, and staff were asked to bring detailed ordinance and impact-fee comparisons to a future session.

Ending: The subcommittee recessed the hearing without action and scheduled additional meetings to resolve technical questions about interaction with existing impact-fee law, the definition and documentation of level-of-service, and the protections proponents say are needed to give local officials confidence to use the tool.