Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Congestion Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate subcommittee debates $2,500 congestion fee as builders and realtors clash over housing costs
Summary
A Senate transportation subcommittee heard hours of testimony on Bill 8‑31’s proposed statewide congestion mitigation fee — $2,500 per single‑family home and $1,100 per multifamily unit — with home builders framing it as a planning tool and realtors warning it would raise costs for first‑time buyers.
A Senate transportation subcommittee on Feb. 4 heard competing views on a proposed statewide congestion mitigation fee that would charge $2,500 per single‑family home at certificate of occupancy and $1,100 per multifamily unit.
Mark Nicks, speaking for the Home Builders Association of South Carolina, told senators the fee is intended to fund planning and off‑site congestion mitigation and to prevent the "last developer" from shouldering large bills when cumulative growth exceeds local road capacity. "If we can have a fee that goes back and helps us with future growth, basically, it has better planning between the DOT and the COGS and the local government," Nicks said.
Nicks argued South Carolina has underbuilt housing for years, that supply increases affordability and that proactive planning is needed to avoid costly retrofits. He described the fee as county‑based and collected at the certificate of occupancy (CO), and said the money would be directed back to the area where it was generated for use in DOT‑led planning and projects.
But Corwin Millett, identified as president of South Carolina Realtors, urged the panel to remove the flat fees from the bill. "Congestion mitigation fees will place a growing financial burden on housing and economic development while failing to provide a stable, equitable, or long term approach to transportation funding," Millett said, warning the charge would be passed on to buyers and disproportionately affect moderate‑ and lower‑income families.
Committee members pressed witnesses on the difference between the proposal and local impact fees and on how the money would be used. Senators raised supply‑versus‑congestion tradeoffs; one senator said dense, well‑designed housing can reduce vehicle miles traveled, while others cautioned that rezoning denials and local opposition already constrain new supply in some counties.
Witnesses and senators cited examples of existing local impact fees as high as $48,000 in parts of York County and said the proposed statewide fee would layer on top of those local charges unless counties had preexisting programs. Nicks and others said the legislation includes a county allocation mechanism and that in places with robust local funding — such as jurisdictions that have passed a local sales tax for transportation — the new fee might be unnecessary.
No formal vote on Bill 8‑31 or the congestion fee was taken during the hearing. The subcommittee closed the day after agreeing to resume the discussion at a future meeting.
The subcommittee asked staff to compile a list of existing local impact and transportation fees so members could compare current local practice and potential state‑level impacts.
