Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Augusta council advances impact-fee ordinances after lengthy public debate
Summary
After an extended public-comment period and divided council discussion over priorities, North Augusta council voted to advance a multi-ordinance package creating impact-fee procedures and charge schedules on first reading; several members expressed reservations about the large share proposed for parks and recreation.
The North Augusta City Council voted on Sept. 15 to advance a package of impact-fee ordinances on first reading after extensive public comment and council debate over how revenue would be allocated.
Staff said the first ordinance establishes the procedures that would allow the city to impose impact fees on new development; separate companion ordinances set the fees and address annexation agreements. The consultant, Tischel Advisors, provided a range of options, and staff recommended excluding transportation fees that would require large matching commitments from the city.
Developers and builders who testified said impact fees add to cumulative costs that can make housing less affordable. Jason Wingter of Ivy Development cautioned that assumptions about sustained permit volumes may overstate long-term revenue, and argued that much of the infrastructure built by developers is then deeded to the city.
Several residents and civic speakers urged caution about the proposed distribution of funds, which in the current iteration directs a large share to parks and recreation. Sharon Melton and other speakers asked that more funds be targeted to public safety and capacity for older equipment, citing needs such as ladder-truck replacement and stormwater problems in some subdivisions.
Council debate reflected a split: some members, including the mayor, said impact fees place the cost of growth on new development and can help fund new sanitation trucks, parks at the city’s growth edge and other capital needs. Others said the allocation to parks felt high given maintenance and personnel costs and the prevalence of nonresidents who use city amenities. Council members repeatedly acknowledged that impact fees cannot be used for recurring operation and maintenance costs and that the law limits how some revenues may be spent.
After deliberation the council voted to advance the procedural ordinance (Ordinance 2025-13) and related ordinances (Ordinance 2025-14 establishing charges; Ordinance 2025-15 addressing annexation agreement properties; Ordinance 2025-16 rezoning related to Riverside Village parking adjustments) on first reading. Votes on the individual ordinances were recorded in session with a majority supporting first readings. The council directed that further review and outreach continue as the ordinances move toward subsequent readings and implementation.
