Kershaw County passes first reading of impact fee ordinance, consultant says fees won't materially harm affordability

Kershaw County Council approved first reading of an ordinance to charge development impact fees on new construction in unincorporated parts of the county after a two-hour presentation from the county's consultant and follow-up questions from council members.

The council voted to approve the ordinance on first reading after discussing which service categories to include, how service areas would be defined and how collected fees would be spent. The ordinance passed after a recorded vote: Shoemake, Tucker, Connell, Cato, Tomlinson and Jones voted in favor; Councilman Bridal opposed.

Why it matters: the impact fees are intended to require new development to contribute a proportionate share toward expanded public facilities rather than increasing property taxes across the entire existing taxpayer base. The consultant's study followed South Carolina's Development Impact Fee Act and produced a justification report, a capital improvements plan and an affordable-housing analysis.

Key details from the presentation: consultant Matt Newkester of City Explained told council that the study measured existing capital assets, replacement costs and how many residents and employees those assets serve, then computed a maximum justifiable fee. The county's draft ordinance covers two categories now'parks and recreation, and municipal facilities and services (convenience centers, public works equipment). The consultant said fire and EMS fees are legally possible but could be small and administratively complex because the law requires credits and geographically specific service areas.

"Impact fees are financial payments by developers to help offset the additional people they bring to the county," the consultant said. He added his analysis showed an impact fee would change the affordability of a typical new home in the county by about 0.25 percentage points, a small effect.

Council members asked how the fees would be collected and spent, whether the county could end up refunding money if projects were not scheduled within the three-year window required by state law, and whether the fee structure would be administratively feasible to manage in small districts for EMS and fire. County staff and the consultant said fees must be tracked in separate accounts and spent on specified capacity-increasing projects; if funds are not spent within statutory limits the county can be obliged to refund payers.

What's next: the council set the ordinance for second reading and public comment; staff will prepare the administrative implementation steps, and council asked the administration to be ready to make an effective date shortly after third reading if the council approves.

Speakers quoted include the consultant (Matt Newkester), County Administrator Danny DeBose and several council members.