Subcommittee advances SB 227 after debate over 36‑month deadline and water funding

Chairman Davis said the subcommittee would consider Senate Bill 227, a bill to authorize local concurrency programs and set procedures local governments should follow to defend denials in court, and introduced a circulated draft amendment intended as a light touch.

Residents and stakeholders told the panel the measure could help manage growth but flagged specific risks. Linda Franklin Moore of Camden urged passage to prevent “development and run,” saying that when large subdivisions are approved without matching water, sewer, roads and schools, local taxpayers pay higher taxes later. ‘‘When megasubdivisions are built without regard to water and sewer capacity, roads and school capacity, who picks up the tab? The county citizens must pay the tab,’’ Moore said.

Lynn Canto, also of Camden, described repeated large proposals that local elected officials and planning bodies had denied or paused after public concern. She warned that regional water transfers by Charlotte Water—she cited testimony that Charlotte planned a large inter‑basin transfer of 63,000,000 gallons per day—could reduce local water available for Kershaw County and constrain future growth.

Municipal officials said they generally support a framework encouraging concurrency but objected to a specific subsection of the amendment that would trigger a 36‑month window for local governments to remedy a service‑level deficiency tied to a denial of development. ‘‘Expecting a wastewater treatment plant…to be funded in 36 months just feels unreasonable and it feels like a significant preemption for our municipal elected officials,’’ said Sarah Weathers, deputy general counsel for the Municipal Association, citing an example in which a small municipality faced multi‑million‑dollar wastewater costs that could not be financed by a single development alone.

Weathers and Erica Wright of the Association urged flexibility for especially large capital projects and proposed additional options beyond the amendment’s three remedies (amend the capital improvements program, revise standards, or temporary moratorium). Lawmakers and witnesses discussed alternatives including phasing, negotiated reimbursements or a targeted moratorium tied to an explicit legislative plan. ‘‘Perhaps a fourth option, some sort of ripcord, could be introduced,’’ Weathers said, offering to work with the committee on draft language.

Debbie Elmore, representing the South Carolina School Boards Association, asked that school districts be notified and included in assessments of how residential development would affect capital needs, stressing she was not seeking veto power but wanted districts at the table to quantify potential enrollment and construction impacts.

After discussion, Senator Johnson moved for a favorable report on the bill as amended. The committee adopted the amendment and voted to report SB 227 favorably; members voiced ‘‘aye’’ and proxies were recorded for Senators Matthews and Kimbrell. Chairman Davis said he will continue to work with stakeholders and that the bill will go to the full Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (LCI) with opportunities for further amendments.

The committee’s action signals progress for a measure aimed at giving local governments tools to manage growth while highlighting continuing disagreements over how to handle very large, long‑lead capital projects and the timing for remedying service shortfalls.