Consultant outlines draft impact fees; council asks for peer comparisons and housing analyses

A consultant on Monday presented a draft impact-fee program for North Augusta that would assess new development for city capital needs in parks, sanitation, transportation, water and wastewater.

Carson Bice, the consultant, told the City Council the package includes a mixture of fee methodologies: a consumption-based (or “incremental expansion”) approach for most categories and a plan-based approach for transportation. Under the draft, a representative single-family home would pay roughly $5,100 in total impact fees (about $4,602 for parks/transportation/sanitation and about $516 for water and wastewater, the report shows). Draft per-unit fees listed in the presentation include about $1,607 for parks and $193 for sanitation; transportation fees are higher under the plan-based calculation.

The consultant said the transportation portion relies on the city’s draft master transportation plan and a 10‑year capital improvement program (CIP) that totals about $51.8 million. Of that total, he said, only about $8.8 million is attributable to new growth under the allocation method used — leaving a $43.0 million shortfall the city would need to fund from other sources if it adopts the plan-based fee level.

Why it matters: council members pressed the administration on the practical effects of the draft fees — how they would be collected, how credits would be applied, whether they would worsen housing affordability and how much of the CIP the city would be expected to fund if impact-fee revenue falls short.

Bice explained South Carolina law requires (among other things) that fee revenue be maintained in an interest-bearing account, that the city prepare an annual report, that money be spent within three years of the scheduled construction date identified in the CIP, and that the impact of fees on affordable housing be analyzed. “If you adopt the fee as drafted and commit to a $51.8 million transportation CIP, you have a legal exposure if the city does not build that CIP,” Bice said, describing the risk of refunds or challenges if the city collects fees but does not deliver the identified work.

Council members asked technical and policy questions. Councilmember Kevin asked when fees are collected; Bice said fees are typically collected at the time a building permit is issued. Councilmember David asked whether the draft amounts are “set in stone”; Bice said the methodology constrains upward deviations — the city could adopt a lower percentage of the calculated fee, but doing so does not remove the city’s obligation to fund the infrastructure.

Council direction and follow-up: Council members asked staff to return with several items before any action: (1) a slide comparing North Augusta’s proposed fees to fees in other South Carolina jurisdictions; (2) an analysis of a “progressive” residential fee schedule (fees that rise with house size) as an option for affordability/equity; and (3) clarifications on credits for existing or dedicated funding streams. Bice said he would add a comparison slide and a list of clients that have used progressive fee schedules and circulate those to staff within days. Several council members said they were not ready to adopt the draft and requested another study session.

What the draft contains (selected details from the consultant’s slides): parks — a citywide service area; 10‑year demand estimated at roughly 31 acres, with acquisition and improvements that Bice estimated would equate to a draft park fee of $1,607 for a single-family unit; sanitation — vehicle/equipment needs above $100,000 included, draft fee about $193 per single-family unit; water/wastewater — “buy-in” (cost recovery) approach based on existing capacity and meter sizes (example: a 3/4‑inch meter equates to a water fee of about $406 and a wastewater fee of about $109 in the draft); transportation — plan-based allocation using the ARTS draft master transportation plan and a total CIP of approximately $51.8 million that produced a transportation draft fee of roughly $2,802 per single-family home under the consultant’s calculations.

Quotes: “South Carolina is a little different — you have to spend the money within three years of the scheduled date of construction,” Carson Bice said, explaining a statutory timing requirement. Councilmember David said he was concerned about housing costs and noted: “The price of homes keep going up and up — take on another $5,000, I mean, I’m pretty sure the builder’s gonna pass $5,000 onto the homeowner.” Bice: “At the proposed fees right now at a 6% interest rate [the fee] is $31 on a typical mortgage; at 7% it’s $34 — just to give you order of magnitude.”

Ending: Staff and the consultant will supply the comparative jurisdiction slide and options for progressive residential scheduling ahead of the next study session; council members signaled they are not ready to adopt an ordinance at this time.