GREENVILLE — As officials weigh whether developers building new homes should be charged to help pay for the cost of continued growth, a national consultant met with Greenville County Council and planning commissioners to educate them on how the new mechanism would work.
The July 8 joint workshop was a nuts-and-bolts tutorial on what officials should consider and expect while exploring the new revenue source, known as impact fees, that would help pay for road improvements. But it also served as an impromptu debate stage as local leaders pushed competing views on whether to move forward with the fees at all.
The meeting came as County Council is poised to instruct the Planning Commission to conduct a study on the feasibility of impact fees, the first statutory step to implementing them.
As Greenville County's population rises at an unprecedented clip, with 130,000 more residents projected to move here by 2040, proponents point to the proposed fees as a way to have growth pay for itself, at least in part. Detractors, meanwhile, have voiced concerns about the additional costs to developers, chief among them that they will drive up housing costs as the area grapples with an affordability crisis.
The speaker at the July 8 meeting, Carson Bise of Idaho-based TischlerBise, is not new to Greenville County. Greer officials contracted with his firm to implement impact fees, as did Fountain Inn, which just instituted its first phase last week. TischlerBise has worked across the state, as well, including in Horry and Lancaster counties.
The fees, he said, can vary greatly in size. Forth Mill charges developers $30,000 per single-family unit to fund the local school district, while Lancaster County's fee comes out to about $2,200. The revenue raised can be used to cover growth-related costs, such as increased demand on public safety services, parks and recreation facilities, and roads.
Bise said the fees can be useful in dealing with growth, pointing out other cities that have had success with one-time payments from new developments, while emphasizing the mechanism would not be a "silver bullet" for the county's infrastructure needs. They have multiple statutory limitations and would raise just a small fraction of the $1.2 billion a recently defeated penny sales tax would have generated for roads over eight years.
Before Bise could even begin speaking, however, Councilman Steve Shaw interjected to question why the county was pursuing impact fees before addressing its unified development ordinance, a roughly 700-page overhaul of land-use regulations that has languished in committee since it was repealed earlier this year.
The exchange set the tone for a meeting in which officials on both sides of the issue advanced their own positions on the proposed fees, particularly during the question-and-answer portion.
Councilman Ennis Fant, an opponent of the measure, said developers would pass the charges on to homebuyers, driving up costs not just for people purchasing new homes, but across the local housing market.
Planning Commission Vice Chair Deborah Manning, on the other hand, argued that the additional costs, spread out over a 30-year mortgage, would not be sizable enough to have a meaningful impact on someone's ability to buy a home in the county.
Greenville County remains in the early stages of developing what form any proposed fees would take, though Council Chairman Benton Blount, the most outspoken supporter, said he hopes to keep them relatively low.
In Fountain Inn, the town's required study found its eventual $3,100 fee on a single-family home — supposing a 6-percent interest rate — would add roughly $19 a month to a 30-year mortgage, or about $224 a year.
That's compared to a controversial 2023 property tax increase in Greenville County that came out to roughly $58 more a year for a $200,000 house. That levy bump, which Blount opposed, prompted upheaval on council, with three incumbents who supported it losing their seats to primary challengers.
Blount, however, told The Post and Courier last week the additional costs of any fees would be more palatable because they would apply only to newly built homes, taking some of the burden off established taxpayers as anxiety and infrastructure challenges brought on by growth continue to ramp up.
At the July 8 workshop, he argued the fees would be a common sense way to fix roads without raising taxes on established property owners. Councilman Curt McGahhey agreed, characterizing the potential fees as a "tool in the toolbox" to help address the county's deepening infrastructure needs.
Meanwhile, Planning Commissioner Frank Hammond seemed less convinced about the virtues of the proposed fees, saying, in essence, they amount to a tax increase.
Shaw, who until a recent political split was a consistent ally of Blount's, told The Post and Courier after the workshop he opposed implementing new fees, saying the geographic restrictions on how they could be spent made them the wrong choice for addressing a countywide issue. Instead, he said he would now support a scaled-down version of the penny sales tax that voters narrowly rejected last year, marking a political shift for a councilman who voiced staunch opposition to the levy in the lead up to the referendum.
County Council could direct the Planning Commission to begin the study in the coming weeks, and it would likely take six months to complete. After that, the commission would have to vote to pass a recommendation for the fees along to council to vote on.