[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6265812,"mediaKeyId","3088631-1713bce4f16b4826b2a63e97069f184f","parentId",3088631,"title","Committee pauses debate on H.4050 after competing testimony on concurrency, infrastructure and fees","audioSeconds",3202,"startMs",2972000,"endMs",6174000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3088631-1713bce4f16b4826b2a63e97069f184f&start=2972&end=6174","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3088631-1713bce4f16b4826b2a63e97069f184f/thumbnail_2972000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6265812/South-Carolina/Committee-pauses-debate-on-H4050-after-competing-testimony-on-concurrency-infrastructure-and-fees","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6265812-952f528188c2151e5332dc4849458936/orig.mp4?Expires=1771201140&Signature=gbdx3JBpZz3TU1APTuv0NHr0zH1tjEir2BYsreoZYI~IfEWvSJ0N4jMJk87ZZNT7G30z9Wc2p3qXvFS~YgpqfsAIEN2mn8oBOZatQ7Y8~dMIb9~iI4x0nazEF8-j6CXFnfyPlqRv~v6PWTh-5fwk8BfjTn6Dqza0ssozOfgZT-CuLUsijH3E0GtGwmnQTAhyAjwsED85X~woIH0gKSBmADpt9qRrC8DFPfTeCsBNP~-UvH4KjtXCtmB-06LEPV-Q4~bgTRqxfqA32o9DQCT6uFqXXwlo7b4EyyMa-TXhAfsFKpqX6Nc-OLzTzFf0DNf3I9LSW98TScjvBkU3uGeVnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","South Carolina Legislature","date","2025-04-22T00:00:00Z","article","The House subcommittee adjourned debate on House Bill 4050 after a daylong hearing that featured testimony from the bill’s sponsor, municipal and county officials, conservation and legal advocates, and builders’ groups. H.4050 would expressly permit local zoning ordinances to include concurrency programs that condition land-development approvals on public facilities and service adequacy and allow local planning commissions to recommend concurrency-based regulations.

Why it matters: Supporters say the bill adds a permissive planning tool that helps local governments coordinate growth and infrastructure (roads, water, schools, emergency services) and can prevent ad hoc moratoria by providing a framework for developers and governments to agree on timing and funding for public facilities. Opponents — including builders and some chambers of commerce — warned the bill, as drafted, could be used as a de facto moratorium, create additional fees or duplicate existing review processes.

What the bill would do

Representative Wetmore, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee the measure is permissive — an additional tool local governments may adopt — and that it is intended to align development timing with infrastructure provision. “What this bill does is guides the timing of development. In other words, infrastructure first,” Wetmore said.

The bill requires jurisdictions to adopt a capital improvements plan in order to use concurrency and specifies that development will be limited to a developer’s proportionate share of required improvements; it also includes an explicit prohibition on “double-dipping” (offsetting proportionate share with existing impact fees).

Supporters’ arguments and examples

Local officials and conservation groups backed the bill in testimony. David Chenis, chairman of the Dorchester County Council, said concurrency provides local governments “tools in the toolbox” to require developers to participate in infrastructure needed to support growth and avoid last-minute development agreements that become drawn out. Zach Bier of Conservation Voters of South Carolina supported the bill as permissive and said it can help direct growth to areas with existing capacity.

Emily Poole, staff attorney for the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, said concurrency is a “critical addition” to local policy tools, can be applied in zoned and unzoned areas, and can reduce litigation by enabling negotiated, documented agreements on infrastructure obligations rather than repeated denials and subsequent lawsuits.

Opponents’ concerns

Adrian Kane, CEO of the Charleston-Hilton Head Home Builders Association and speaking for the Home Builders Association of South Carolina, offered strong opposition. Kane said local governments already require capacity checks for utilities, schools and roads before issuing permits, and added that the bill could duplicate reviews, increase delays and invite unregulated fee systems. Kane cited local examples where capacity fees rose substantially, saying Jasper County’s Buford Water & Sewer Authority increased a capacity fee from $6,200 to $22,000 per home and referring to local impact-fee programs such as York County’s.

The Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce likewise opposed the bill as drafted, saying it risks creating de facto moratoria and asking for guardrails such as timelines and commitments by local governments to deliver infrastructure.

Clarifications from the hearing

Committee members and witnesses agreed the bill is permissive rather than mandatory; it adds concurrency to a list of optional planning techniques localities may use. Witnesses described practical features that would typically appear in local concurrency programs: capital improvement plans tied to comprehensive plans, proportional-share calculations for developers, thresholds for applicability (often applied to larger developments), and protections against double-charging when impact fees are already assessed.

Committee action

Representative Celeste Davis moved to adjourn debate on H.4050 to allow additional stakeholder work; the subcommittee adopted the motion by roll call with all members present voting Aye. Roll call as recorded: Joe Bustos (Aye), Celeste Davis (Aye), Sarita Edgerton (Aye), Representative Jones (Aye), Magnuson (Aye), Blake Sanders (Aye), Courtney Waters (Aye).

What’s next

Committee members asked for more specific guardrails and timelines, including a required capital improvements plan and clearer documentation of proportional-share calculations, before the bill advances. Supporters and opponents agreed to continue negotiations during the interim.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee -- 3-M Municipal and Public Affairs on H.3861 and H.4050 - April 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 4050, which would permit local governments to adopt concurrency programs linking development approvals to infrastructure capacity, was adjourned after supporters said it gives localities a needed tool and opponents warned it could create fees and delays without guardrails.","taxTitle","Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, Standing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, South Carolina","taxId",17510,"location","South Carolina","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6265817,"Debate on House Bill 3861 paused after hours of testimony over local control, housing and enforcement",2804,151000,2955000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3088631-1713bce4f16b4826b2a63e97069f184f&start=151&end=2955","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3088631-1713bce4f16b4826b2a63e97069f184f/thumbnail_151000.jpg","/articles/6265817/South-Carolina/Debate-on-House-Bill-3861-paused-after-hours-of-testimony-over-local-control-housing-and-enforcement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6265817-af5b983d25826e3feb4ec05a54848cd8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771201140&Signature=X1zf1Z5oDcJuxgU9c1Xp3iw~gu25tEg6J3fm3DACoS2Foy6my~A5hzgUBFn~dO-DT1YULOgrlVPqkhyjpk1pRTkYMgXY9UY9IHJXCYNwlgn-LroTJMx5n04UYcxAFy0QhQj-hpUk2ydAsJh3XIno8giOZ9PmVH4QDPdMd-9OYJZKRXB-zkY-WcCdZnuhh14fNGmf8la6i2inzS2sjk9I6bm-WyYzJRLWoENCSfCDeqyOrylHlyx70zyErtSEuqB5QTrrOR~hLioEYjWiNOzkHaT3mtMHO4~XBhBGWlzHXqZTpUl61LfY6-f4MBQlhKHdIdBlwrMP9VgEzQ2g5CuHeg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House debate on House Bill 3861, a proposed law that would prohibit municipalities and counties from banning short-term rentals, was adjourned after a multi-hour hearing that brought hotel operators, municipal leaders, neighborhood representatives and short-term rental managers to testify.

The measure, carried by Representative Lee Hewitt and explained to the committee as a prohibition on local ordinances, originally contained a penalty provision that would have denied affected jurisdictions their 6% property tax distributions and allowed the state treasurer to withhold state aid until offending local policies were repealed; Representative Celeste Davis presented an amendment that would strike that penalty provision. Committee members agreed to adjourn debate and take up the bill later.

Why it matters: The bill pits local home-rule authority and municipalities’ efforts to manage neighborhood character and housing supply against statewide interests in tourism and uniform rules for short-term rental operators. Witnesses said the proposal raises practical enforcement questions, potential impacts to affordable housing, and concerns about vesting and grandfathering of existing rental businesses.

Supporters and opponents

Crystal Hendrickson, vice president of sales and public relations for Pinnacle Partnership, testified in opposition and said short-term rentals often do not meet the same safety, zoning and tax compliance standards as hotels. “Short term rentals are not made to abide by many of our stringent safety, health, zoning, and tax compliance standards,” Hendrickson said. She also told the committee the state is facing a “drastic shortage of quality affordable housing” and said short-term rentals can remove long-term housing units from the market.

Todd Glover, executive director of the Municipal Association of South Carolina, likewise urged the committee to oppose the bill, saying it would strip local leaders of a tool to preserve neighborhood stability. “Whether it's a college town, a resort destination, or a quiet residential neighborhood, communities differ and their policies should too,” Glover said.

Mayor Will Haney of Mount Pleasant described that town’s local licensing and cap system — including a 400-permit cap he said the town uses — and argued municipalities are best positioned to balance tourism and resident needs. Haney told the committee Mount Pleasant’s ordinance (No. 23010) includes grandfathering and legacy protections for households that rely on short-term rental income.

At the same time, testimony from the short-term rental industry offered mixed positions. Rick Elliott, who runs a small short-term rental company in North Myrtle Beach, said the industry supports regulation and urged consideration of a state licensing or registration system to ensure tax remittance and consumer protections. Lindsay Hutto of the South Carolina Association of Realtors said short-term rentals generate significant economic activity statewide (she cited about $4.2 billion in annual revenue as of 2023) and urged continued stakeholder negotiations to craft balanced rules.

County officials and neighborhood representatives emphasized different concerns. Avery Upchurch of the Association of Counties warned that the bill’s wording could expose counties that enforce land-use plans to the proposed penalty (the 6% property tax withholding) and said that penalty would be “untenable.” A neighborhood representative said unrestricted short-term rentals “allow an adverse impact on our housing inventory” and asked lawmakers to leave zoning authority with local governments.

Enforcement questions and the amendment

Committee members pressed witnesses on how a statewide ban on local prohibitions would be enforced, particularly after Representative Davis presented an amendment to remove the penalty provision that would have withheld state aid and the 6% property tax from jurisdictions that enacted bans. Several members asked whether local licensing and registration systems — business licenses, caps, registration software to match online listings to licenses — would be sufficient to enforce local rules. Witnesses described business-license and registration regimes and multi-step enforcement processes used in some municipalities, but admitted approaches vary by jurisdiction.

Action taken

Representative Sarita Edgerton moved to adjourn debate on H.3861; the committee seconded and adopted the motion by roll call, 6–1. Roll call as recorded: Joe Bustos (Aye), Celeste Davis (Aye), Sarita Edgerton (Aye), Representative Jones (Aye), Magnuson (Nay), Blake Sanders (Aye), Courtney Waters (Aye). The committee did not vote on the amendment striking the penalty provision before adjourning debate.

What’s next

The subcommittee adjourned debate on H.3861 and said it will take the bill up again after further stakeholder work. Committee members asked for clearer enforcement language and for the bill’s author or designee to be present to explain outstanding questions about the amendment and enforcement mechanics.","The House subcommittee adjourned debate on H.3861, a bill that would bar local governments from prohibiting short-term rentals, after testimony from hoteliers, municipal officials, mayors, realtors, neighbors and operators raised questions about enforcement, housing supply and local control.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee pauses debate on H.4050 after competing testimony on concurrency, infrastructure and fees

Debate on House Bill 3861 paused after hours of testimony over local control, housing and enforcement