George's Information and Comments

www.giac2002.org

Observations and Comments on the January 12 (second) Impact Fee Task Force Meeting

                        -- George Edwards

Impact Fee Task Force meetings are open to the public and held in the second floor Horry County Council conference room of the Administration Building of the Horry County Government and Justice Center at 1301 Second Avenue  -- directly behind the old courthouse.   At the initial, December, task force meeting, subsequent meetings were set for 3 p.m. the second Monday  of every month.  But, at this writing county council administration does not have the February meeting listed on its schedule.  Should you wish to attend, call County Council administration at 91-5120 to verify meeting dates.

If you wish to go to a particular section on this page, click its title in the table menu below.

Introduction

The Horry County Council Impact Fee Task Force and observers crowded the county conference room at its January 12 (second) meeting.  Some of the attendees are listed near the end of this report.  The purpose of this report is to offer  non-attendees the opportunity to appreciate the dire situation faced by Horry County due to its rapid population growth, and to  more fully understand impact fees -- including what they can and can not accomplish.

Mr. Tischler, the impact fee expert hired as a consultant, opened the main portion of the meeting with a presentation supported with a handout.

He differentiated between economic impact studies which refer to the overall economy and fiscal impact studies which refer to costs to the public sector.  He said his discussion would involve fiscal impact analysis.

Summary: Selected Issues and Quotes

This section is more concise but it only provides selections from the more complete report of the main body in a more logical order, in some cases, than the meeting proceedings. You will miss nothing if you read only the main body.

If you wish to move to the top of this page, click here.

Summary: Horry County Property Tax Situation

“In a Tischler Associates, Inc. previous study, it found that most land uses as taxed in Horry County generate deficits.  This implies that Horry County --

·         Must generate more revenues

·         Must lower the levels of service, or

·         Must monitor growth, e.g., impose a moratorium”

Mr. Tischler “made the point that new growth is not the sole culprit, but new growth adds to the problem.  Of course, constructing or expanding new facilities is enormously more expensive than maintaining the facilities not needed except for new growth.”

If you wish to return to the top of this page, click here.

Summary: Impact Fees

“Impact fees represent new growth’s fair share of capital facility costs.  They are to be collected for new capital costs not operating expenses.”

Mr. Tischler’s “handout points out the need to ‘educate the electorate on what impact fees do and do not accomplish,’ and ‘educate elected officials on impact fees.’  This report is designed  to, at least, make it possible for those who did not attend the meeting to become informed.”

If you wish to return to the top of this page, click here

Summary: Review of the South Carolina Development Impact Fee Act

“Mr. Tischler said:

·         South Carolina is the only state that he knows of that requires a capital improvement to be above $100,000 before impact fees are allowed to be imposed;

·         Administrative requirements imposed  by South Carolina are extremely onerous; for instance, he has never seen another statute that imposes such stringent requirements as those imposed by the capital improvements plan that South Carolina requires before an impact fee can be imposed;

·         South Carolina does not allow impact fees to be imposed for county government facilities; this is usually allowed in impact fee statutes;

·         South Carolina does not allow impact fees to be imposed for new or expanded school facilities; this is allowed in some impact fee statutes, but not all;

·          No state allows impact fees to be charged for services. “

The handout with Mr. Tischler’s accompanying remarks included the following:

• Public Facilities Means (for which impact fees can be imposed according to South Carolina law):

-- Water (only needs a capital improvement plan [CIP], impact fee report, and adoption procedures followed)

-- Wastewater (only needs a capital improvement plan [CIP], impact fee report, and adoption procedures followed)

-- Solid Waste

-- Roads

-- Stormwater

-- Public Safety (police, fire, EMS and street lighting)

-- Capital Equipment and Vehicles with unit purchase price of not less than $100,000

-- Parks, Libraries and Recreational Facilities

·         System Improvements – capital improvement to public facilities designed to provide service to a service area

·         System Improvement Costs Exclude:

-- Capital Improvements not in CIP

-- Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements

-- Administrative and operating costs

• Exemptions:

-- Replacing a residential unit

-- Credits (to avoid exceeding the proportionate share requirements)

e.g. if the developer has already provided system improvements, say a park, that will also serve the new development, the developer gets credits against the impact fees he would otherwise have to pay

-- Developer builds system improvements

-- Reflect non local funding sources

(that is, can’t impose impact fees on already state or federal funded developments)

-- Required contribution to existing system improvements in the future

• Refunds:

      -- Fees not spent within 3 years of when scheduled

      -- Refunded, with interest to owner of record within 90 days

• Affordable housing – family income not more than 89% median income

The following important fact associated with affordable housing was not detailed in the presentation but are  politically crucial and authenticated in the full section herein entitled “Review of the South Carolina Development Impact Fee Act:”

“[C]urrent state law allows the exemption of impact fees on affordable housing, so defined.”

There is also a link to the full text of the South Carolina Impact Fee Statute near the end of the “Impact Fee” page on this GIAC site.

If you wish to return to the top of this page, click here

Abbreviated Remarks after the Presentation

This summary is provided for your convenience, but the remarks included here are not all in the order of the actual discussion.  If you want to view them in context, read the section that is entitled in bold “Remarks after the Presentation.”

“Mr. Tischler:

• Impact fees on non-residential units are based on square footage (e.g., to cover the additional need for fire and police protection)

• What does the task force want on residential –

-- Impact fees based on the square footage of the residence with a maximum?

-- Impact fees based on the value of the residence with a maximum?

-- Both of the above may be attributable to such as the number of people likely in a household, but ‘beware of faulty data.’

• The general fund must come up with the difference attributable to any credit for, for instance, a partial or complete exemption for low priced housing.  For example, if without such an allowance the total chargeable impact fees would be, say, $1 Million, but only $600,000 were charged, because of the credits, the extra $400,000 would have to come out of the general fund.

• Note: Impact fees are to be based on land use, not the particular buyer  -- for instance, a senior exemption could not be provided because a senior citizen has no children requiring additional public facilities -- because the land use would be adequate to serve a later buyer who had children.”

• In any case, he said, “impact fees will never pay 100% of the costs [of new growth].”

“Ms. Gilland expressed appreciation for the effort she was seeing and said “the consensus on council is that the current legislation will simply not work for us.”  She said she would hate to see a decrease in services.  She asked Mr. Tischler: “as we are already behind are we locked into where we are?”  She asked how we get where we should be from where we are.”

“Mr. Tischler replied that if Horry County’s level of services is down, it is stuck unless it raised property taxes.”

“Mr. Tischler said that North Carolina’s impact fees include provisions for new schools and roads and noted that the level of service in North Carolina was already higher than here.  He said that impact fees charged there probably typically ranges from $2,000 to $7,000 and get as high as $8,000 or $9,000.  He did not say whether he was referring to single family homes, commercial property or both.”

Midway through the discussion following the presentation, Mr. Wendell said: “I really want to compliment you for bringing us all together.  There is no doubt in my mind – the devil is in the details.  If you look at impact fees from a theoretical viewpoint, they make good sense.

“From my perspective, the things that are important are -- not as a developer, but as a resident –

• We don’t want to decrease services

• We don’t want to have exorbitant taxes

• What needs to be in there, from my perspective is a CIP.  We need that.  We need to tell the people what the money is going for, so it’s not just a slush fund.

• Some people can’t afford it.  They need to be subsidized.

• They [impact fees] need to be fair . . .

• If senior citizen restricted, that should be taken into account (not four or five children)

• Proportional is crucial.

• Fairness is crucial.

• Be sure we have a credit in there for debt service for people who have not paid an impact fee so that we are not charging them twice.

• And there needs to be a cap

“If you come up with that, obviously the details are where the rubber hits the road.  I think you have something that can be sold.  It makes good common logical sense.”

Mr. Lazarus asked Mr. Wendell: “What are your thoughts on commercial.”

Mr. Wendell: “commercial, square footage makes sense --- with a cap.”

The following exchanges occurred in the same general time frame thereafter –

“Mr. Hardee asked about agricultural buildings.

“Mr. Tischler replied that the statute allowed you to make provisions for impact fees on them to be lower.

“Somebody noted that agricultural buildings would require fire protection.

“Mr. Tischler, in response to questions asked by Mr. Boyd (chairman of the county council public safety committee): if the statute were altered to allow an impact fee for capital expenses less than $100,000, it might pay for a police car but only the first one, not the replacements needed later

“Mr. Boyd said that being able to charge an impact fee for $30,000 to $35,000 would at least be a help in buying the initial police car

“Ms. Gilland said she wanted to find out what changes could be made to the statute without a law suit. 

“Ms. Gilland said that when it comes to changing the state law in Columbia, the worst thing about the CIP requirements is [statute section 6-1-960 (1) “general description of all existing public facilities” existing deficiencies and how existing deficiencies will be cured.  {To Mr. Tischler] “As you said, ‘only in South Carolina.’  That is a very difficult and costly thing to do.  And I wish they would delete that from the requirements.”

Near the end of the meeting, “Ms. Gilland said [to Mr. Tischler]:  “You know what our state law says and you have heard our conversations and concerns today.  If you could, specify what amendments have to be made [to state law] and why.  It seems to me it would be easier if lawmakers in Columbia would put impact fees in that list of things that local counties make up their own minds on and let each county go by what they believe will hold up in court, common sense and everything else.  We need to know what has to be changed to do what we want to do.  Is there any way we can find a compromise so there will not be a law suit?” 

“Ms. Gilland asked if anyone else had ideas on putting impact fees under home rule “in order to cut through the year and a half that lies ahead of us before we can do anything.”

“Mr. Worley said that he had spoken with representative Edge and that he [Mr. Edge] is interested in doing what Horry County wants.”  But Mr. Worley gave no indication that he had raised the question concerning the prospect of the state putting impact fees under home rule. 

Mr. Worley  “asked Mr. Tischler: to go back and formulate for the next meeting:

·         What we can do [in line with all the things discussed in the meeting]

·         How much it would cost for Mr. Tischler to do it.” 

Of course, read the unabridged sections of this report if you want to get more details of the task force meeting and to better get the flavor of the meeting in context.

If you wish to return to the top of this page, click here.

Horry County Property Tax Situation

In a Tischler Associates, Inc. previous study, it found that most land uses as taxed in Horry County generate deficits.  This implies that Horry County --

·         Must generate more revenues

·         Must lower the levels of service, or

·         Must monitor growth, e.g., impose a moratorium

The early pages of his handout use bar graphs to show that, in the unincorporated areas, low and median value single family homes generate a substantial deficit per unit (apparently a nominal $160 to $350 per year), manufactured homes even more (apparently a nominal $310 to more than $400 per year), as do office and retail spaces -- itinerant rental units show a net income.

He said that the reasons for these deficits include unfunded mandates by higher levels of government and increased levels of services: examples including more automobiles on the roads, increased daily trips and mileage per automobile, and such things as police now requiring rubber gloves.

He made the point that new growth is not the sole culprit, but new growth adds to the problem.  Of course, constructing or expanding new facilities is enormously more expensive than maintaining the facilities not needed except for new growth.

He noted that Horry County doesn’t have the capital improvement program required by the current state impact fee statute.[1]   And many jurisdictions would ask why go through the scores of hours of new material that has to be produced, according to the current statute, when they don’t have the dollars to do it.

The bottom line, he said is “obviously more money is needed.”  If there is no intervention strategy, the level of services will go down, and it will be less appealing for people to come here. This implies controlled growth; there are several ways this can be addressed, he repeated:

1. Raise revenues

2. Lower levels of service

3. Monitor growth (e.g. moratoriums)

If you wish to return to the top of this page, click here

Impact Fees

Impact fees represent new growth’s fair share of capital facility costs.  They are to be collected for new capital costs not operating expenses. -- Unfortunately, operating expenses represent 80% to 90% of the overall costs.

• Impact fees can not be used to change the level of services unless there is a plan to address existing deficiencies – if there is such, correcting the deficiencies must be paid jointly with proportionate payments from the general fund

• There must be a rational connection between the geographical service area upon which impact fees are charged and the services to be paid for by impact fees.

• Impact fees pertain only to new capital expenses which directly benefit the payer

• Impact fee payer must receive a “roughly proportional” benefit

• Impact fees will not pay for all new capital facilities, so new taxes will also have to be paid (but it is better that the newly required taxes on everyone only have to pay a percentage of the costs rather than all of them).

• The community should be growing – not an Horry County problem

• Impact fees must be spent within a reasonable time period – not an Horry County concern

He said to beware of granting credits, because the difference between what is paid by impact fees and the costs of new facilities must be made up by the general fund – not by imposing additional impact fees on other payers.

His handout points out the need to ‘educate the electorate on what impact fees do and do not accomplish,” and “educate elected officials on impact fees.”  This report is designed to, at least, make it possible for those who did not attend the meeting to become informed.

If you wish to return to the top of this page, click here.

Review of the South Carolina Development Impact Fee Act

Among other comments on the South Carolina Development Impact Fee Act, Mr. Tischler said:

·         South Carolina is the only state that he knows of that requires a capital improvement to be above $100,000 before impact fees are allowed to be imposed;

·         Administrative requirements imposed  by South Carolina are extremely onerous; for instance, he has never seen another statute that imposes such stringent requirements as those imposed by the capital improvements plan that South Carolina requires before an impact fee can be imposed;

·         South Carolina does not allow impact fees to be imposed for county government facilities; this is usually allowed in impact fee statutes;

·         South Carolina does not allow impact fees to be imposed for new or expanded school facilities; this is allowed in some impact fee statutes, but not all;

·          No state allows impact fees to be charged for services. 

Mr. Tischler spent little time on the three pages of his handout titled “Review of the South Carolina Development Impact Fee Act.”  I’m inclined to reproduce the ones of, possibly, the most interest with some of his comments, and mine.

• Affordable Housing – family income not more than 80% median income

Elaboration:

South Carolina Code of Laws: S.C. Code Ann. Section 6-1-920 (Cum. Supp. 2002), http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/code/t06c001.htm. “Definitions.

As used in this article:

(1) ‘Affordable housing’ means housing affordable to families whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent of the median income for the service area or areas within the jurisdiction of the governmental entity.”

The importance of this is that current state law allows the exemption of impact fees on affordable housing, so defined:

South Carolina Code of Laws: S.C. Code Ann. Section 6-1-970 (Cum. Supp. 2002), http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/code/t06c001.htm.“Exemptions from impact fees.

The following structures . . . are exempt from impact fees:  . . .

(7) all or part of a particular development project if:

(a) the project is determined to create affordable housing; and

(b) the exempt development's proportionate share of system improvements is funded through a revenue source other than development impact fees. “

Ms. Janet Carter, head of the Horry County Planning Department and legal counsel to the Infrastructure and Regulations committee points out that (7) (b) above makes the exemption optional to Horry County unless a benefactor such as the state or nation pays for the affordable housing’s impact fees.  Horry County can choose to be such a benefactor by effectively paying them or a portion of them out of its general fund, thereby making the affordable housing development exempt for all or that portion that Horry County pays.  However, Horry County can not impose impact fees on someone else to pay the affordable housing developments proportionate share.

• A Capital Improvements Plan – plan that identifies capital improvements (a CIP)

Mr. Tischler says the requirements listed in this plan which is required by our state law for impact fees to be imposed are “very onerous.”  No other acts he has ever seen have such stringent requirements.  (Salient requirements are bulleted later)

• A development impact fee excludes plan review or inspection costs and connection or hook up charges

• Land Use Assumptions – over at least a 10 year period

.

As I read my barely legible note, it says “not an Horry County problem;” I don’t have any further information on why this is not a problem.

He noted that impact fees can not be imposed on county governmental facilities which are usually allowed in impact fee statutes, nor can they be imposed on new school facilities – this, he said,  is not atypical.

·         Public Facilities Means (for which impact fees can be imposed according to South Carolina law):

-- Water (only needs a capital improvement plan [CIP], impact fee report, and adoption procedures followed)

-- Wastewater (only needs a capital improvement plan [CIP], impact fee report, and adoption procedures followed)

-- Solid Waste

-- Roads

-- Stormwater

-- Public Safety (police, fire, EMS and street lighting)

-- Capital Equipment and Vehicles with unit purchase price of not less than $100,000

-- Parks, Libraries and Recreational Facilities

·         System Improvements – capital improvement to public facilities designed to provide service to a service area

·         System Improvement Costs Exclude:

-- Capital Improvements not in CIP

-- Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements

-- Administrative and operating costs

• Governmental/Plan Requirements:

-- Comprehensive Plan

-- Capital Improvement Plan adopted (see its required elements in the following bulleted item)

-- Estimate the effect of impact fees on the availability of affordable -- Ordinance passed which, among other features, has right of appeal

-- Annual report

-- Government body (Horry County Council in our case) enacts resolution directing local planning commission to conduct studies and recommend an impact fee ordinance.

• Capital Improvements Plan must contain:

-- A general description of all existing public facilities and their existing deficiencies and how the existing deficiencies will be cured (This is when Mr. Mr. Tischler commented that this is very onerous, beyond any other act he has seen.)

-- The analysis must be prepared by a qualified professional

-- Description of the land use assumptions

-- Define a level of service (LOS) not to exceed the current LOS unless a higher level of service is required by law, court order, or safety consideration.

                   -- Project system improvement demands not to exceed 20 years

                   -- Identify sources/levels of financing available for financing system

improvements

-- Changes in CIP must be approved in same manner as approval of original CIP

• Exemptions:

-- Replacing a residential unit

-- Credits (to avoid exceeding the proportionate share requirements)

e.g. if the developer has already provided system improvements, say a park, that will also serve the new development, the developer gets credits against the impact fees he would otherwise have to pay

-- Developer builds system improvements

-- Reflect non local funding sources

(that is, can’t impose impact fees on already state or federal funded developments)

-- Required contribution to existing system improvements in the future

• Refunds:

      -- Fees not spent within 3 years of when scheduled

      -- Refunded, with interest to owner of record within 90 days

If you wish or prefer to view the entire impact fee act click here and scroll down to section 6-1-910.  Note: There have been instances in which an angelfire (our Web host) ad has totally covered off-site links such as this; simply clicking the "x" in the upper right hand corner of the page has removed the ad so you can see the site itself if it is up and has finished loading.  If the site will not load, click the back arrow in your browser. Angelfire provides free web hosting on the condition that their ads are allowed on the site, but I will complain about this.

If you wish to return to the top of this page, click here.

Remarks after the Presentation

Mr. Tischler:

• Impact fees on non-residential units are based on square footage (e.g.., to cover the additional need for fire and police protection)

• What does the task force want on residential –

-- Impact fees based on the square footage of the residence with a maximum?

-- Impact fees based on the value of the residence with a maximum?

-- Both of the above may be attributable to such as the number of people likely in a household, but “beware of faulty data”

• The general fund must come up with the difference attributable to any credit for, for instance, a partial or complete exemption for low priced housing.  For example, if without such an allowance the total chargeable impact fees would be, say, $1 Million, but only $600,000 were charged, because of the credits, the extra $400,000 would have to come out of the general fund

• Note: Impact fees are to be based on land use, not the particular buyer  -- for instance, a senior exemption could not be provided because a senior citizen has no children requiring additional public facilities because the land use would be adequate to serve a later buyer who had children

Mr. Worley said that he and Mr. Lazarus had met and talked to Mr. Tischler before the meeting

Mr. Wendell had some question on the extent impact fees would give existing owners in tax breaks.

Mr. Tischler said that impact fees will never pay 100% of the costs of new growth.

Mr. Wendell said that a CIP was needed whether required for impact fees or otherwise.

That is reasonable as is the bare description in Section 6-1-920 (3) of the statute saying a “’capital improvement plan’ means a plan that identifies capital improvements for which development impact fees may be used as a funding source.”  But the level of detail that the statute requires for a CIP appears unreasonable.

Mr. Tischler said that he would recommend a CIP . . .  although some jurisdictions don’t even bother with a CIP because they are cash poor.  

Mr. Tischler said there are two approaches to a capital improvement plan:

1. Fiscally constrained to dollars

2. “This is what we need.”

He noted that when there are not even enough dollars available for required maintenance, a jurisdiction’s bond rating will go down.

In response to Mr. Worley’s observations, Mr. Tischler said “clearly some of the things in the current act need to be changed.”  He cautioned that not putting some upper limit on impact fees on homes based on square footage or value “would not sell.” 

Mr. Tischler said there must be rough proportionality in impact fees -- you would lose in court without good data to support the fees charged.

Mr. Bratcher introduced Mr. Nick Kremydas, general council and vice president for the South Carolina Board of realtors.  Mr. Kremydas spoke for some time defending the current state law, saying the statute had already been negotiated at the state level and it would be very hard to change.  He felt it was a good statute.

After hearing Mr. Kremydas out, Mr. Mr. Worley said: “Thank you, next?” 

Mr. Tischler said that North Carolina’s impact fees include provisions for new schools and roads and noted that the level of service in North Carolina was already higher than here.  He said that impact fees charged there probably typically ranges from $2,000 to $7,000 and get as high as $8,000 or $9,000.  He did not say whether he was referring to single family homes, commercial property or both.

Ms. Gilland expressed appreciation for the effort she was seeing and said “the consensus on council is that the current legislation will simply not work for us.”  She said she would hate to see a decrease in services.  She asked Mr. Tischler: “as we are already behind are we locked into where we are?”  She asked how we get where we should be from where we are.

Ms. Gilland expressed appreciation for the effort she was seeing and said “the consensus on council is that the current legislation will simply not work for us.”  She said she would hate to see a decrease in services.  She asked Mr. Tischler: “as we are already behind are we locked into where we are?”  She asked how we get where we should be from where we are.

Mr. Tischler replied that if Horry County’s level of services is down, it is stuck unless it raised property taxes.

Mr. Boyd observed that developers tell him that 90% of purchases of single family homes are made by out of area buyers.

Someone observed that more people support impact fees as opposed to raising property taxes.  Someone else said he believed that impact fees have to have a cap.  Mr. Tischler said that when he was talking caps, he was talking caps on residential properties.  But he noted that a small service store, such as a 7-11 required a lot more trips per thousand square feet than a regional mall.  He said that residential properties will have to have caps if we don’t want to be challenged successfully in the courts. 

Mr. Wendell said: “I really want to compliment you for bringing us all together.  There is no doubt in my mind – the devil is in the details.  If you look at impact fees from a theoretical viewpoint, they make good sense.

“From my perspective, the things that are important are -- not as a developer, but as a resident –

• We don’t want to decrease services.

• We don’t want to have exorbitant taxes.

• What needs to be in there, from my perspective is a CIP.  We need that.  We need to tell the people what the money is going for, so it’s not just a slush fund.

• Some people can’t afford it.  They need to be subsidized.

• They [impact fees] need to be fair . . . .

• If senior citizen restricted, that should be taken into account (not four or five children)

• Proportional is crucial.

• Fairness is crucial.

• Be sure we have a credit in there for debt service for people who have not paid an impact fee so that we are not charging them twice.

• And there needs to be a cap

“If you come up with that, obviously the details are where the rubber hits the road.  I think you have something that can be sold.  It makes good common logical sense.”

Mr. Lazarus asked Mr. Wendell: “What are your thoughts on commercial.”

Mr. Wendell: “commercial, square footage makes sense --- with a cap.”

Mr. Lazarus said that “right now,” under his [Mr. Tischler’s?] formula a 75,000 square foot non-residential commercial property would have to pay $22,650 in impact fees,.

Mr. Wendell said that what square footage or what cap, etc. is a detail to be worked out.

Mr. Worley said that constitution-wise, not just by statute, impact fees must be proportional.

Mr. Hardee asked about agricultural buildings.

Mr. Tischler replied that the statute allowed you to make provisions for impact fees on them to be lower.

Somebody noted that agricultural buildings would require fire protection.

Mr. Tischler, in response to questions asked by Mr. Boyd (chairman of the county council public safety committee): if the statute were altered to allow an impact fee for capital expenses less than $100,000, it might pay for a police car but only the first one, not the replacements needed later

Mr. Boyd said that being able to charge an impact fee for $30,000 to $35,000 would at least be a help in buying the initial police car

Ms. Gilland said she wanted to find out what changes could be made to the statute without a law suit.  She said she would like to see the state put impact fees under home rule.

Ms. Gilland said that when it comes to changing the state law in Columbia, the worst thing about the CIP requirements is [statute section 6-1-960 (1) “general description of all existing public facilities” existing deficiencies and how existing deficiencies will be cured.  {To Mr. Tischler] “As you said, ‘only in South Carolina.’  That is a very difficult and costly thing to do.  And I wish they would delete that from the requirements.”

Mr. Prince asked “What about growth that does not impact the services of the county?”

Someone said: “Like what?”

Mr. Prince: “[Those that] don’t impact police services, they don’t need additional police services.”

Someone (Mr. Worley?):  “Give us an example.”

Mr. Prince replied with the example of a gated community -- when  records show that they have not called the police or firemen for a whole year.

Mr. Tischler said that is the reason we average because of differences throughout the county; that is the nature of a fee.

Mr. Tischler continued that he thought what he was hearing was that the threshold on affordable housing approach is probably more worth pursuing than the approach as a function of square footage.

Someone said that senior citizens are complaining today because of their taxation being the same as a couple with three or four children.

Mr. Worley asked everyone who was on the task force to identify themselves and what group they represented.  He then named the ex officio county council people on the task force and asked the others in the room to identify themselves and their affiliation. 

Then he asked Mr. Tischler: to go back and formulate for the next meeting:

·         What we can do

·         How much it would cost for Mr. Tischler to do it

He said that by May he hoped the task force would come up with a resolution to pass on to the County Council ad hoc committee on impact fees, that that committee would look at it and pass it on to the overall council, then hopefully put that answer in the form of a question to present to the voters of Horry County in an advisory referendum., and then to present that to the delegates, saying “this is what we want in Horry County.  Fix it.”

He continued, to Mr. Tischler: “[we] don’t want you to mislead us to think we are going to get here when we are not.  We need a number from you.  We have a political problem to just get through County Council.  We need to know how much you are going to charge us so we can get back to you.

Someone (Mr. Tischler?) asked at what point we would make a decision on affordable housing.

Mr. Worley said that he hoped to get a resolution by the next meeting -- for now, 80%.

Mr. Tischler said he assumed that for a family whose income was 80% of the average family income in a service area, we intended to charge full impact fees but he asked how we wanted to bring it down to 10% or whatever.  Mr. Worley suggested starting with a minimum of $300 and  as the percentage of the family income went up to charge proportionately till at the 80% amount and from that point charge fully – say $750 as the nominal estimate given before for chargeable impact fees on a single family home.  He asked Mr. Tischler to tell us if such a concept was possible and the amount of time and dollars he would charge.

Ms. Gilland said:  “You know what our state law says and you have heard our conversations and concerns today.  If you could, specify what amendments have to be made [to state law] and why.  It seems to me it would be easier if lawmakers in Columbia would put impact fees in that list of things that local counties make up their own minds on and let each county go by what they believe will hold up in court, common sense and everything else.  We need to know what has to be changed to do what we want to do.  Is there any way we can find a compromise so there will not be a law suit?”  She asked if anyone else had ideas on putting impact fees under home rule “in order to cut through the year and a half that lies ahead of us before we can do anything.”

Mr. Worley said that he had spoken with representative Edge and that he is interested in doing what Horry County wants. What they need from us is they need to know what we want.  Mr. Worley said he believed that if we get the people behind us and they understand, we can get it done.  He said that they are interested in doing what we want.

Mr. Wendell said: “I think one of the keys Chairman Worley is . . . [to] outline exactly what we want to do . . .  how sections of the community are accommodated [and] how services will be improved or enhanced.  I think if we do that and provide sufficient detail we shouldn’t have problems.”

Some one asked Mr. Worley: “Did Tracy say anything about [the] home rule approach?”  Mr. Worley did not answer.  He said he believed his approach would work.

It was said that only one community has instituted impact fees under the current statute – Summerville.[2]

Mr. Kremydas said that all jurisdictions had to come into compliance with the statute by 2000. 

The words in statute section 6-1-1060 say: “A development impact fee adopted in accordance with existing laws before the enactment of this article is not affected until termination of the development impact fee.  A subsequent change or reenactment of the development impact fee must comply with the provisions of this article.”

Before closing the meeting, Mr. Worley asked if anyone outside the task force had a question.

I asked Mr. Tischler if the impact fees that he had recommended before were in accordance with current state law.  He answered, “Yes.”  That was the only additional question allowed.

Unfortunately, I failed to ask if Mr. Tischler’s recommendations could have been implemented without a separate capital improvement plan.  It would appear not as the statute seems to require rigorous detail for the entire county.  But he should tell us whether or not he felt that data available at the time of his study would have been adequate to implement an impact fee in accordance with current state law.[3]

If you wish to return to the top of this page, click here.

Partial List of Attendees:

Mr. John Mr. Boyd**

Mr. Larry Bratcher,* Board of Realtors

Mr. Tony Cox, Horry County Planning Commission Vice Chairman (B&C)

Ms. Pam Creech

Mr. John Dawsey,* Horry County League of Cities

Mr. George Edwards

Mr. Will Garland,* Horry County School Board

Ms. Liz Gilland, Chairman of the Horry County Council

Mr. Steve Gosnell, Horry County Head of Infrastructure and Regulations staff

Mr. Shep Guyton,* Chamber of Commerce

Mr. Kevin Hardee**

Ms. Debbie Harwell,* Print Media

Mr. Ronald Ingle,* Coastal Carolina University

Mr. Danny Knight, Horry County Administrator

Mr. Nick Kremydas, California Association of Realtors, VP and General Counsel

Mr. Lawrence Langdale

Mr. Mark Lazarus**

Mr. Bob Logan

Mr. John McGarrahan

Ms.Patricia Milley

Mr. Paul Prince**

Mr. Carl Schwartzkopf, Horry County Councilman

Mr. Paul Tischler, Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Mr. Neyle Wilson,* Horry-Georgetown Technical College

Mr. John Weaver, Horry County Council Attorney

Mr. Doug Wendell,* Real Estate Developer (Burroughs & Chapin vice president)

Mr. Harold Worley,* Horry County Councilman and task force chairman

Various realtors            

Not present:

Mr. Harry Dill,* Home Builders Association

Mr. Billie Huggins,* Television Media

Mr. Thad Viers, * Horry County Legislative Delegation

Mr. James Frazier**

* Impact Fee Task Force Members       

** Ex-Officio – councilmen

 If you wish to return to the top of this page, click here.

If you want to be put on the GIAC e-mail list, click contact the GIAC web master.  Please use GIAC as the first word in your subject line, to help ensure your message is not inadvertently rejected as spam.