Committee recommends $30,000 to reactivate affordable‑housing impact‑fee subsidy; sends proposal to full council

The Beaufort County Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 3 voted to send a recommendation to full county council to create a special-revenue fund and amend the current fiscal-year budget by $30,000 to reactivate a program that subsidizes development impact fees for qualifying affordable-housing projects.

Deputy County Attorney Dylan Kidd told the committee that state law allows exemptions or subsidies for impact fees when a development is determined to create affordable housing and the exempt portion’s share of system improvements is funded from a revenue source other than impact fees. "It's not a discount for the individual payor. It is the county, choosing to subsidize the impact fees by paying it for that individual," Kidd said, explaining that the county must pay the fee on the resident’s behalf rather than simply waive it.

Staff said the Affordable Housing fund was created in 2015–16 but subsequently lost funding in the budget process and cannot now be used to process subsidy applications. County staff estimated subsidy costs of roughly $4,000–$5,000 per home, depending on unit size and location. Under the existing ordinance table discussed in the packet, households at or below 60% of area median income (AMI) would qualify for a 100% subsidy; households between 60% and 80% AMI would receive a partial subsidy (staff noted the county pays 60% on behalf of those households), and subsidies for higher AMI bands would require additional eligibility tracking.

Councilmember Passamont made the motion to send a $30,000 request to full council; the motion was seconded and carried after a roll-call vote recorded as: Passamont—yes; McAllen—yes; Dawson—yes; Glover—yes; Chair Howard—yes; Reitz—no; Tabernick—no. The committee’s action is a recommendation; full council must consider and approve any budget amendment. Staff said that if council funds the program, staff will process applications under the existing ordinance; any expansion (for example, broader workforce‑housing eligibility over 80% AMI) would require additional criteria and likely a return to council.

Next steps: the recommendation will go to full county council for consideration; staff noted that a budget‑amendment ordinance generally requires three readings at council.