Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and other
Growth Impact Control Tools
As discussed elsewhere, an As Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance includes some ideas incorporated into the Proportionate Share Ordinance that supersedes it, primarily because it is evident that it is not really possible for a developer to make all public facilities as adequate after development as prior to development -- only a development’s negative fiscal impact on the county government and on the taxes paid by previous residents can be mitigated.
The PowerPoint presentation given at the October 3 county council meeting, published below, describes legal, political and administrative problems associated with several growth management tools. The aim is to exhibit the problems faced by the county council in implementing tools that could try to overcome the problems occasioned by our county's out-of-control growth. As so eloquently presented by councilman Ryan at that council meeting, the current council has made great strides in other areas as to its consideration of fairness to homeowners
The PowerPoint presentation culminates by touting the advantages of an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, APFO, and failing that an AS Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, AAPFO, (now superseded by a Proportionate Share ordinance as discussed earlier) that would have no apparent problems except for the administration required by a staff already overburdened with rezoning and development requests.
It presents these primary newer ideas:
1. An AS Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (now superseded by a Proportionate Share ordinance as discussed earlier) does not require a capital improvement plan that would increase the taxes on existing homeowners to make the public facilities in place adequate before development, as county attorneys believe is required for an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.*
2. An AS Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (now superseded by a Proportionate Share ordinance as discussed earlier) provides a regulatory tool so that a new development will simply not be allowed unless it either occurs in an area where adequate facilities exist, will exist with already budgeted public facilities, or the developers through dedication, construction or gifts will keep all public facilities at least as adequate as they were or were already funded to be, after development as before development. The developer should be required to include any such promised contribution into a written and signed development agreement in exchange for development approval.
3. An AS Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (now superseded by a Proportionate Share ordinance as discussed earlier), as an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, is legal and at least has the capability of preventing or limiting the impact of growth.
4. As opposed to S.C. impact fees, either an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance or an An AS Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (now superseded by a Proportionate Share ordinance as discussed earlier)--
a. can include provisions for needed new school construction or expansion,
b. can provide for any needed facilities without dollar minimums (such as police
cars), and
c. can, in accordance with their primary purpose, differentiate between smaller
developments for which adequate public facilities already exist or can be
provided/kept-adequate at smaller costs to the developer than larger
developments (as opposed to impact fees that, as fees, must be charged
equally to all regardless of the value of the construction).
One objection that I have heard, so far, to an AS Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (now superseded by a Proportionate Share ordinance as discussed earlier) is the extra administrative work that it would require from an already overburdened staff (although I don't off-hand see where it would require more so than that required with an APFO). Drastically reducing the number of building permits per month would give staff more time to meet its other legitimately required duties, but I saw Janet Carter's impassioned plea to the planning commission that was necessitated for it to go along with limiting the number of monthly rezoning requests to even twenty-five.
A second objection made to the AAPFO outline (now superseded by a Proportionate Share ordinance as discussed earlier) here is its apparent lack of flexibility. The ordinance could be so written as to allow incomplete performance in specific cases if the county council deemed such desirable. The AAPFO concept is meant to be a tool to control growth, not a non-negotiable edict.
A copy of the PowerPoint presentation given to county council follows (please scroll down through it until it ends with a slide preceded by the words: "Supplementary Slide.") Note: The first two slides regarding the taxes required for new school construction were transferred from real property taxes to sales taxes with the referendum passed earlier this month. Will Garland, the current Horry County School Board chairman pledged that with that tax swap, there would be no school taxes on real property due to new school construction for the ten year duration of the swap. The "Everyone should still vote for the cap" page on this site referenced in the second slide is archived and is no longer available here
(an As Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is now superseded by a Proportionate Share ordinance as discussed earlier)
(an As Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is now superseded by a Proportionate Share ordinance as discussed earlier)
(an As Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is now superseded by a Proportionate Share ordinance as discussed earlier)
Supplementary "Slide"
The planning attorney, at least, believes an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance requires taxes on existing taxpayers to bring facilities up to adequacy before a developer could be required to make them adequate. That seems fair if unpalatable to current taxpayers even though the end result would be less total accumulated taxes to them. However, the inadequacies of public facilities are not true everywhere throughout the county and if they are not in some areas a developer can make them adequate or pay his/her proportionate share in dedications, construction and/or cash to make them so -- or wait. I won't get into this meaning we can not build more schools other than to note that public facilities may need upgrading or replacement in the normal course of things with or without development.
Click here if you want to return to the "Growth Management Tools" page.