Greenville County study recommends exploring impact fees for public safety and parks, advises caution on stormwater and solid waste

A consultant presenting a feasibility study to the Greenville County Planning Commission recommended the county explore impact fees for sheriff services, fire districts, emergency medical services and parks and recreation, while advising against stormwater and solid‑waste fees at this time and urging caution on transportation fees.

The consultant said impact fees are distinct from taxes: "It's not a tax, but an agreement to build infrastructure," and that fees must meet a three‑prong legal test requiring nexus between new development and infrastructure demand, demonstrable benefit to those who pay, and proportionality among land uses. He warned that under South Carolina law, fee revenue must be spent within three years of the planned expenditure date in the capital improvements program, not three years after the funds are collected.

Why it matters: Greenville County has substantial growth in unincorporated areas — the presenter cited an average of about 3,300 new homes annually from 2021 to September 2025 — and officials are weighing how to fund added infrastructure without overrelying on property tax. The consultant noted that impact fees can help "free up" operating millage for maintenance while providing "found money" for capital items, but they rarely cover full project costs and credits often must be given to avoid double payment.

Recommendations and limits
- Sheriff, fire and EMS: The study recommends exploring fees to fund facility space, consoles for e‑911, apparatus and ambulances (many items cited exceed $100,000 and therefore qualify under the statute). For fire, the presenter noted the county's 32 fire districts have varying service levels and would likely require separate calculations plus interlocal agreements for collection.

- Parks and recreation: The presenter recommended preparing a parks fee to pay for land acquisition and improvements to maintain service levels. He gave a hypothetical example applying a consumption approach to 10,000 new homes over 10 years and noted fee revenue could be substantial but the county's share depends on credits and whether a fee is correcting an existing deficiency.

- Stormwater and solid waste: The consultant recommended against stormwater impact fees now, saying much stormwater need stems from historical deficiencies and that a stormwater master plan and watershed hydrologic modeling are needed first; he suggested a stormwater utility may be a better tool. He also recommended against a solid‑waste fee because the county landfill accepts out‑of‑county waste, complicating proportionality calculations, and because no new convenience centers were anticipated.

- Transportation: The presenter cautioned that a transportation fee is premature because the county does not own large portions of the road network or traffic signals, lacks a growth‑related CIP for road projects and therefore has no clear level‑of‑service framework; he said a study could still quantify a 10‑year revenue “nut,” but legal and ownership issues (and potential need for intergovernmental agreements or leases) must be resolved.

Affordability, credits and next steps
Commissioners pressed on affordability and distributional effects. One commissioner said first‑time buyers might be harmed; the presenter responded that South Carolina law requires the study to evaluate impacts on affordable housing (but does not prescribe how) and that some jurisdictions use progressive residential schedules keyed to home size to reduce burdens on smaller homes. The presenter noted: "we really can't discriminate against land use" but that waived fees for affordable housing require replacement funding so the program remains whole.

The consultant said credits — for existing debt service or dedicated revenues and for site‑specific developer contributions such as land or on‑site improvements — are typically included in methodologies to prevent new development from paying twice.

The planning commission did not take formal action at the meeting. Commissioners indicated the next step is for the planning commission to decide which fee categories to pursue and, if they choose, to commission targeted studies for those categories and return the revised feasibility study to the commission for further review.

Attributions: Quotes and technical explanations are attributed to the meeting presenter (identified in the transcript as S1) and to planning commissioners who asked questions during the session. The study referenced South Carolina impact‑fee statutes generally and drew on examples from other counties, including Beaufort, Horry, Dorchester and York.