Council advances impact-fee plan on first reading after consultant briefing; critics raise implementation questions

Kershaw County Council voted on first reading to advance an ordinance that would allow the county to charge development impact fees on new construction in unincorporated areas to offset costs for specified capital improvements.

What the ordinance would do: The proposed ordinance—based on the South Carolina Development Impact Fee Act—would authorize county collection of impact fees for defined service categories. At first reading the council considered two categories for immediate adoption: parks and recreation, and municipal facilities and equipment (convenience centers, county administrative facilities and similar assets). The analysis and ordinance materials presented to the council also included completed studies for fire/EMS and water/sewer so the county could add those categories later without commissioning a new baseline study.

Key points from the consultant’s report - Legal framework and defensibility: Consultant Matt Noonkester explained the work followed the state’s requirements and produced a “justification report,” a capital improvements plan (CIP) listing eligible projects, an affordability analysis, and the ordinance text required by state law. He described how a maximum-allowable fee is calculated and how the council can set a discount rate (a policy choice) below that maximum for competitiveness and conservatism. - Service area and collection: The proposed service area for the fee is the entire unincorporated area of Kershaw County. Fees would be charged at building permit issuance and typically passed through to buyers of new homes; existing homes would not be charged. - Spending and timing limits: State law requires impact-fee revenues be assigned to projects that expand capacity and (with limited exceptions) be spent within three years of a project’s scheduled construction date in the CIP; the consultant said that requirement influenced how projects were sequenced in the plan to avoid refund obligations. - Housing affordability analysis: The consultant said the recommended fees would have a “very small” effect on housing affordability in the county (roughly a fraction of one percentage point change in housing-cost metrics in the study).

Debate and concerns Council members generally expressed support for a defensible fee study but raised practical concerns: that fees for fire/EMS and water/sewer often produce small collections when credits are required and that narrow service-area fees can create administrative complexity and unfunded obligations if collections fall short of projected project costs. Councilors also discussed market-competitiveness (how fees compare with neighboring jurisdictions) and the timing of an effective date so staff can implement fund accounting and avoid confusion.

Vote and next steps - First reading vote: passed 6–1 (Shoemake, Tucker, Connell, Cato, Tomlinson, Jones — yes; Bridal — no). - The consultant and staff told the council they completed the state-required reports and the next steps are second reading with public comment and, if adopted, an effective date that gives staff time to establish accounts and systems.

What to watch If adopted, the ordinance will require annual monitoring reports and five‑year updates; project funds must be tracked and spent according to the CIP’s schedule to remain compliant with state law. Councilors flagged that, for service categories with limited collections, the county must avoid committing to projects it cannot fund without other revenue sources.

Ending Council members said the first reading gives them sufficient information to continue deliberations and that the second reading will include a formal public-comment period before any final adoption.