Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District plans county request to review impact fee, aims to seek maximum allowable reinstatement
Summary
Staff proposed asking York County to review Clover's impact fee under state law, delivering a step-by-step timeline to the planning commission and county council so the district can seek reinstatement of the maximum allowable fee before the fee's January 2026 sunset.
Dr. Quinn and staff briefed the board on the five-year impact-fee review required by state law and proposed a timeline to work with York County so the district can ask the planning commission and county council to restore the district's maximum allowable impact fee. Dr. Quinn cited the Impact Fee Act and the Comprehensive Plan Act (both in Title 6 of the South Carolina code) as governing the review process and noted the planning commission's recommendation is a statutory first step before county council action.
"It's called the Impact Fee Act, and you can see it's title 6, chapter 1, article 9, as well as the Comprehensive Plan Act," Dr. Quinn said while explaining legal requirements and the review cycle. Staff proposed sending a letter to the county council and county manager by the end of the month, completing updates to enrollment and capacity analyses by July 2025, submitting the plan to the county planning commission in August, and seeking council approval by December 2025 because the district's fee sunsets in January 2026.
Staff noted the district's current approved fee schedule is below the theoretical maximums the statute allows and said the district has collected just over $5 million in impact fees in the past five years; staff estimated (based on the maximums) that the pool could have been as large as roughly $20 million if the maximum allowances had been adopted earlier. Dr. Quinn said the district prefers to use the current Tishler/Weiss impact-fee study and request county acceptance of the maximum allowable rather than commissioning a full, new impact-fee study because a new study would be costly and may not meet the timeline.
Board members questioned whether the county might require a new study; staff acknowledged that risk and agreed that if the county requires a full study the board may need to commission one later. Members agreed staff should proceed and bring a formal proposal for board action on March 25.
