Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances fee-in-lieu and incentive ordinances amid debate over subsidies to large companies
Summary
Charleston County advanced and passed multiple economic-development measures — including fee-in-lieu agreements for AVM Group (Project Clean) and Center Capital (Southrail) and authorization for special source credits — while council members and public commenters debated whether the subsidies provide net benefits over other affordable-housing tools.
Charleston County Council advanced several economic-development ordinances and approved fee-in-lieu arrangements at third reading while members debated subsidy size, company scale and affordable-housing trade-offs.
Council approved a third-reading ordinance allowing Charleston County Park and Recreation District to issue up to $70 million in general obligation bonds (8 ayes, 1 absent). The council also approved a fee-in-lieu of taxes arrangement with AVM Group LLC (Project Clean) at third reading (7 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent) and a similar fee-in-lieu agreement for Center Capital Partners d/b/a Charleston Southrail SPV LLC (7 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent). A second-reading ordinance for special source revenue credits tied to the Rivers Landing multifamily rental project advanced as well.
Planning/finance staff described the Project Clean arrangement as a 15-year abatement with a 15-year affordability period; staff said the abatement begins at roughly 73% in year one and tapers evenly to full taxes by year 15. Staff reported the developer would receive "just over $4,700,000" in savings over the 15-year period and that the aggregate tax benefit to all taxing entities would be about $6,800,000.
Public commenters and some council members questioned whether such incentives, particularly for large companies, are the best use of public subsidy. "Here we have yet another tax giveaway to a multinational corporation... we're getting a $4,700,000 tax break to a company that is worth $1,100,000,000," a public commenter (David Quick) said, urging a moratorium. Council members asked staff to prepare deeper cost-benefit analyses comparing subsidy per unit and the alternative uses of trust-fund dollars for affordable housing. One council member noted the average current tax revenue from the site was low (quoted figures ranged from $10,000 to $35,000) while projected fee payments under the agreement would be about $450,000 per year, producing a net gain in annual revenue in staff's illustration.
Supporters of the incentives argued the projects create taxable development and high-paying local jobs and stressed that some affordable units would not be built without the incentives. A council member noted this is an emerging program and suggested staff provide more data on subsidy per unit and household tax impacts; staff agreed to follow up with a cost-benefit presentation.
The council's recorded tallies for the incentive-related ordinances were read into the record during third and second readings; exact contract terms and effective dates will be contained in the final executed agreements and fee schedules.
