Regional growth workshop proposal draws debate over cost sharing and scope

A regional committee met to vet a proposal for a two‑phase workshop and consultant engagement to create a coordinated growth framework for the Lowcountry. The chair opened the discussion by summarizing a task‑force report outlining a mission to align transportation, workforce, stormwater, public safety and housing priorities across jurisdictions.

Rob Merchant, introduced to the committee as the staff presenter, outlined a not‑to‑exceed cost estimate for consultant work and two half‑day workshops. "We're being told that a maximum $75,000 is reasonable," Merchant said, describing phase‑one tasks such as gathering existing policies and conducting stakeholder workshops.

Board members questioned how to divide the cost. One member suggested allocating shares by land area — "how many acres, how many square miles" — to account for potential future growth, arguing that raw population figures reflect the past rather than future development. Merchant and other members cautioned that a land‑area approach could unduly burden largely rural jurisdictions and proposed either using the American Community Survey population estimates or a hybrid formula.

Several members also questioned whether the workshop would add material value where jurisdictions already possess comprehensive plans or shared visions. "We all have good policies," Merchant replied, arguing an outside facilitator could assemble fragmented local plans and identify shared priorities or gaps that warrant regional agreements.

Public commentators urged participation but emphasized financial prudence. Patsy Bridal, a Hilton Head Island council member, suggested tapping local retired experts or universities to reduce cost while retaining a neutral facilitator. Jesse White of the Coastal Conservation League called on decision‑makers to consider "the true costs of growth," pointing to a map Merchant showed that lists more than 53,000 entitled housing units as a scenario the region must plan for.

The committee did not approve funding. Instead, members agreed to ask each jurisdiction to appoint a representative to refine a recommended cost‑sharing formula (for example, blending population and land mass or proposing other caveats) and report back in two months with a council "temperature" on participation. The chair emphasized the committee is advisory and that each council will make the final decision.

Next steps include gathering revised cost‑sharing proposals from jurisdictions, clarifying deliverables for the consultant scope, and scheduling a follow‑up discussion at the committee’s next meeting.