Fort Mill to vote on impact fees Monday; 2 council members opposed, 1 undecided

Stakeholders have one last chance Monday to speak out on proposed impact fees before Town Council takes a first reading vote.

A proposed ordinance to begin charging impact fees on new construction is on the agenda for the 7 p.m. Aug. 10 meeting at Town Hall. Anyone who wants to make a public comment needs to sign up to speak before the meeting begins.

If approved – a second reading is required if the first reading is passed – the town would charge fees for municipal use, fire protection, transportation and parks and recreation. Because only new residences impact park and recreation services, that fee only would apply to residential construction. Included are churches, schools and other nonprofits, along with businesses and new homes, though S.C. House Dist. 26 Rep. Raye Felder (R-Fort Mill) put an impact fee exemption for schools in the new state budget through a proviso.

That will insulate the Fort Mill School district for the next year, but there is no permanent fix to keep schools from paying.

The town could adjust the percentage of the fees anywhere from zero to 100 at will. Before it can impose the impact fees, the town will need to approve a capital improvement plan that spells out how the extra revenue would be spent.

Some Council members shared how they plan to vote Monday.

“I have been strongly in favor of impact fees from the beginning,” said Councilman Tom Adams, who is also running for mayor. “They are the only practical way to truly make growth pay for growth. They are in place in several other rapidly growing municipalities in South Carolina, and have had only positive effects.”

Councilwoman Guynn Savage, who has been openly skeptical since debate on the issue began nearly a year ago, said she plans to vote no.

“I have been consistent in indicating that while an impact fee is is an option and direction for assisting the town in finding a way for growth to pay for growth, it can curb the commercial and business growth I think the town needs for its long-term tax needs.”

Savage said she’s also voting against the ordinance because the town’s not ready to implement it.

“I do not believe we are prepared to staff and implement some of the impact fees that would be collected on the transportation side.”

Also planning to vote no is councilwoman Lisa McCarley.

“First, I feel this will place a burden on commercial business, especially the small business/entrepreneurs, which could limit commercial growth inside town limits,” she said. Second, the need for the revenue from impact fees are based on a capital improvement plan that hasn’t been approved by the council.”

Not having the state-required capital plan in place is another reason Savage, a realtor, cited for voting against the ordinance.

“To apply for for a loan to buy a house, you have to have a contract to buy the house,” she said.

“If you have a bond (issue), you have to be specific about how the money will be spent. We have a draft capital improvement plan, but it has not been approved.”

One council member, James Shirey, said he’s still making up his, but “leaning” toward voting yes.

“I’m still trying to get all the numbers and everything squared in my head,” Shirey said Friday.

“Nothing has been OK’d, so basically all the (numbers) are place holders at this point. This is probably one of the largest votes we’ll have in this town and the last thing we want to do is kill the project. There are no alternatives to find the money just to maintain the services we have and this is just one small piece of the puzzle.”

“I listened (during a public hearing) last Monday (July 27) and I’ll listen again this Monday and I’ll probably make my final decision when it comes time to vote. I’m probably leaning for it, but if someone comes in (Monday) with a good argument to sway me to the other side, I’ll vote (against it).”

Neither Mayor Danny Funderburk, nor Councilmen Ronnie Helms responded to voice mails, emails or a text message Friday morning. Councilman Larry Huntley declined to comment.

At the July 27 hearing, of the 14 people who spoke, nine urged Council not to charge the fees, at least on commercial development. Two supported the fees, while two more called for a building moratorium or regional council to manage growth.

Rob Youngblood, president of the York County Regional Chamber of Commerce, said he’s opposed to the fees.

“The Chamber plans to be present (Monday) to reiterate our position that the impact fees – as proposed – will immediately begin stifling business growth, especially for small companies and retailers, in the town limits of Fort Mill,” he said. “It is also our belief that the fees will have longer-term negative effects on the town’s economy.”

This story was originally published August 7, 2015 at 2:10 PM with the headline "Fort Mill to vote on impact fees Monday; 2 council members opposed, 1 undecided."