Richland County Council tables impact-fee prioritization after extended discussion

Richland County Administrator Brown asked County Council on Oct. 21, 2025, to identify which categories the county should prioritize for an upcoming impact-fee study funded by council, saying the $125,000 allocated for FY2026 may not cover studies for all candidate categories. Council members debated priorities, raised concerns about coordination with school districts and stormwater planning, and ultimately voted to table the item for further discussion.

Brown told council that staff needs direction to prepare a solicitation and scope of work for consultants. The categories presented for possible impact fees were sheriff (public safety), fire, emergency medical services (EMS), solid waste, water and sewer, and transportation. Stormwater was discussed as a potential category, but Brown said staff does not yet have the master-plan detail required to support a stormwater impact fee.

Council members described different priorities. Several members said public-safety related categories — sheriff, fire and EMS — should rank high because capital needs exist for facilities and equipment. Other members emphasized transportation and water/sewer as typical capital infrastructure appropriate for impact fees. Several council members urged staff to coordinate with Richland County School District 2 and other independent entities that have expressed interest in impact fees, noting those entities are separate legal jurisdictions and could not be controlled by the county if fees were collected by Richland County alone.

Council discussion also flagged practical constraints: impact fees under state law can fund capital infrastructure but generally cannot be used for ongoing operations or maintenance. Members noted that stormwater, while a pressing problem in some districts, would require a master plan before it could be evaluated as a legally defensible impact-fee category.

After discussion, a substitute motion to table the item was made and seconded; the motion to table carried. Council did not approve an ordered priority list at the Oct. 21 meeting. Several members said they wanted more time to review data and to consult internally and with staff before giving a ranked list; staff said the $125,000 budgeted is intended to fund work on the impact-fee ordinance but the amount may not stretch to detailed studies for every category depending on required data and analyses.

No consultant contract, ordinance, or fee schedule was adopted at the meeting. Councilmembers and staff said a future meeting (the next regular meeting, Nov. 4, 2025, was discussed) would be an opportunity for follow-up; tabling the item means a councilmember must bring it back to the agenda for action. Staff said consultants will need clear direction on which categories to study if council wants to expend the allocated funds for a prioritized set of impact-fee analyses.