Planning commission recommends sending impact‑fee study to council; raises timing concerns for ongoing developments

The North Augusta Planning Commission voted 5–1 on Feb. 19 to recommend that city council consider an impact‑fee program based on a consultant’s capital improvement plan and fee analysis, while urging council to take special care in drafting the ordinance to address developments already underway.

Planning staff summarized the consultant’s study and the legal constraints for impact fees in South Carolina: fees are one‑time charges collected at the time of building permits to fund growth‑related capital improvements (not operations), must be kept in a separate interest‑bearing account, spent within three years of the scheduled construction date in the CIP or refunded, are uniform (no categorical exemptions), and require an annual fiscal report and an analysis of impacts on affordable housing. Tommy Paradise told the commission, “If the city does not expend those funds within 3 years of the date on the CIP, they have to refund the money.”

The consultant’s draft figures presented to the commission show a proposed combined fee (for water, wastewater, parks and recreation, transportation, and sanitation) that would be about $5,100 per single‑family detached home and roughly $2,500 per multifamily unit if the city adopted all five fee components. Staff and the consultant highlighted larger capital needs in the transportation program, including a $28 million estimate for widening 5 Notch Road from two to four lanes and roughly $51 million in transportation projects listed in the CIP; the consultant’s growth‑share calculation produced an $88.7 million transportation funding need with an existing taxpayer share of about $43 million.

During the public hearing builders and developers urged caution. Jason Wingter of IAB Development listed existing fees and development costs and warned that additional impact fees are typically passed through in house prices and construction costs: “It’s not really $5,100 because that’s a cost that goes into the cost of that house,” he said, and cautioned that amortizing an impact fee can increase total long‑term consumer costs.

Commissioners asked whether the proposed fees would be charged at the building‑permit stage (staff: yes) and whether in‑fill rehabilitation (gut‑and‑renovation) would trigger fees (staff: only new construction with a new building permit). Commissioners also discussed whether the commission should recommend all fee categories or a subset; staff and the consultant noted council could adopt portions of the study or select different unit‑cost inputs, but cautioned that undercollecting risks not having funds available when CIP projects are scheduled and could trigger refunds.

After public comment the commission made a motion to forward the study and recommended ordinance to council while specifically calling for council attention to how the ordinance would affect developments already under way; that motion passed with one commissioner opposed.

Next steps: the planning commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to city council, which may adopt, modify or reject components of the consultant’s fee schedule and may set an effective date in the ordinance. Staff said implementation details — including the timing of the fee relative to building permits and any crediting for site‑specific improvements — will be spelled out in the ordinance and are subject to council decision.