Beaufort County officials and community press for answers on plan to use MCIP to help finance USC Beaufort facility

At a Beaufort County School Board meeting, board members and council representatives pressed for independent analysis and clearer revenue protections after a presentation about using a multi‑county industrial park (MCIP) to help finance a proposed multipurpose facility at the University of South Carolina Beaufort (USCB).

Attorney Bob Coble, the former mayor of Columbia, told the board that under state law counties create MCIPs and may accept fees in lieu of taxes (FILO) from property inside the district. "State law gives control of the creation of the Multi County Industrial Park and the distribution of fee in lieu of taxes to the county," Coble said, explaining that the county — not the school district — typically decides how collected fees are allocated and that counties can use FILO receipts to support special‑source revenue bonds.

Why it matters: board members warned that converting taxable property into fee revenue for an MCIP can divert money that would otherwise go to schools. That could force higher millage rates or cuts to services, they said, and it could undermine public trust needed to pass future infrastructure referendums.

Dr. Panu, president of the University of South Carolina Beaufort, told the board the state has accumulated roughly $47 million in tranches toward the initiative and that USCB is asking the county to consider matching those funds. "Over the past five years, the state in tranches has now accumulated for us toward this initiative a total of $47,000,000 and we are asking the county to match that," Dr. Panu said, while also describing the proposed building as a multipurpose facility that could serve community needs beyond athletics.

Public commenter Anne Eubelis, introduced by the chair, urged caution and said labeling the campus as an MCIP risks avoiding a referendum. "By mislabeling the state campus as an MCIP, you infer that we do not need a referendum," she said, and urged the board to seek alternatives that would benefit all parts of the county.

Board members and council representatives cited example figures from staff handouts and asked for independent verification. The board discussed a spreadsheet that showed estimated first‑year MCIP revenues of about $2.1 million, a property‑tax share near $3.5 million and a projected first‑year impact to the school district of about $1.5 million. Chair said the school district's operating budget is roughly $376 million with about $108 million in debt service; the board said it has held debt mills at 36.3 mils through 2028 and expressed concern about adding a new uncertain revenue stream into long‑range budgeting.

Several board members urged a collaborative, transparent approach involving county staff, school district staff and bond counsel to model the project's fiscal impacts in detail before any county ordinance or county council action. "I would insist or ask for an in‑depth analysis by your staff and their staff to make sure that, you know, those numbers are correct," Coble said.

Opponents cautioned against proceeding in ways that would appear to circumvent voter approval. One board member summarized the concern succinctly: diverting education dollars to subsidize private development would be "a corporate giveaway dressed up as economic development," and if the project cannot stand on its own merits it should be financed by other mechanisms or a separate public vote.

What was not decided: the meeting produced no formal vote to commit school district funds or to support a county match. Coble outlined the county process (public hearings and multiple readings at the county level), but the board stopped short of any formal action and asked staff to continue analysis and coordination with county officials.

Next steps: board members requested independent financial modeling and fuller project disclosure, public hearings, and closer coordination with county council and bond counsel. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent with no recorded action on matching the state contribution or on a specific MCIP ordinance.