Official City of Beaufort, South Carolina Web Site

In order to facilitate the Northern Beaufort County Plan Steering Committee's efforts, the City has released a preliminary estimate on the number of residential units and commercial space allowable under a proposed development agreement for the annexation of Clarendon Farms.

The proposed reductions are a result of intensive reviews by City staff and negotiations with property owners at Clarendon Farms.  For more detailed information on the proposed reductions, and how they relate to the Northern Beaufort Regional Plan's growth forecasts, click here.

City Response to School Board Comments
City Response to Report by Thurmond Institute
Related Documents/Resources

On behalf of the City Council of the City of Beaufort, we wish to thank the School Board for its review of the annexation proposals for Clarendon and McLeod Farms.  The issues raised by the Board will be thoughtfully considered by City staff as we negotiate with the owner/petitioners.  However, it would be most helpful if City staff could receive clarity regarding several points raised in the School Board's memo.

With regards to school related issues, it is unclear to staff what level of additional revenues is actually needed in order to fulfill the needs of the school system caused by whatever development may go into these properties.  A range of 2% to 34% is at best a very large “moving target.”  It is worth noting here that, as a matter of record, City staff has many substantial issues with regards to the Clemson study.  This study, which uses state wide averages, is flawed to the point of uselessness. It is also unclear what role the 2005 student yield factor is, as it relates to a very flawed study.  Point in case, I believe, is the range of 2% to 34% as a cost spread, over time.

The City Council has requested this response from the school board and fully expects the owner/petitioners to work through the issues of the impact of these developments on the school system.  What is the status of this set of discussions? For example, staff can not determine whether the impacted cost spread of 2% to 34% applies to operations, capital, or to both.

The request by the school board references the fact that “without preliminary Master Development Agreements and Plans, the school board cannot provide any further recommendations of substance on the financial impact the proposed Annexations.”  Yet somehow the Board arrived at a cost spread of 2% to 34%.  On the latter point the proposed development agreements are on line at the City's website, and have been available since the first reading of the ordinance to annex in February of 2006.

Staff respectfully asks the Board to calculate the true cost of the impact of this development on its operations and/or capital costs, and provide those costs as they relate to the imposition of an impact fee.  In other words, if school impact fees were legal, and the School District could impose such a fee, what would that fee be?  Knowing this would be of great importance in the negotiations with the owners/petitioners, in that we could attempt to negotiate a development fee to mitigate impacts to the District.

We would be happy to receive this information or work together with you in the development of these costs.  Please let staff know how we can be of assistance in this matter.

City Staff has completed its review of the Thurmond Institute’s fiscal impact analysis of the proposed annexations at Clarendon and McLeod Farms.

Our analysis raises several questions concerning assumptions made by the consultants.  The discussion below outlines our concerns with the overall development analysis, as well as specific expenditure forecast issues.

Analysis Foundation

The first section of the report (pages 6 through 12) provides the foundation for revenue and expenditure analysis.  The basis for the entire analysis is the complete build-out of McLeod and Clarendon Farms within the confines of a 25 year period.  This would require the permitting and construction of over 800 residential units per year, beginning in 2007.    It is not reasonable to assume (or practical) the construction of 834 units per year.  It is even more unreasonable and impractical) to assume that the permits necessary for building, infrastructure, and sales and marketing to achieve an occupancy of 834 residential units in the first year (e.g. Palmetto Bluff).

The City of Beaufort issues fewer than 100 new home construction permits per year.  County permit data indicates that an average of fewer than 150 homes per year have been permitted on Lady’s Island since 2002. In Bluffton, the County’s fastest growing region, an average of fewer than 600 homes per year have been permitted since 2002.  While these numbers are trending upward, they represent a diverse base of properties with varying levels of infrastructure and ownership situations.

This pace of development is the crux of the entire analysis.  The report attempts to discuss alternate paces of development, but never addresses a development pace that resembles Beaufort’s general market forces, which would affect the speed at which these properties develop.

Page forty-eight of the report attempts to minimize the impact of changes in the pace of development by positing that the costs would be the same over any period of time.  This is simply not true.  Should either property not develop at the pace indicated, the resources required to serve these properties would be significantly reduced.

This foundation of the analysis impacts all other issues within the report.  However, staff has viewed the entire report, independent of this assumption.

Expenditure Analysis

The report provides a general expenditure analysis, broken out by department.  Staff reviewed the impact as presented in the report.  This seems to contemplate development that would be served solely by County departments.  Staff feels that a more realistic expenditure forecast, given services to be provided by the City, should be developed.

• General Administration:
  The report suggests that 8 general administrative staff will be required to serve growth generated by these developments.  We recommend a review of staff increases due to recent growth in Bluffton, Sun City, and other large scale developments.  How does typical growth in the City impact these departments?



• Tax Administration:
  Staff agrees that some expansion of this operation will likely be necessary, due to the addition of residential units as a result of this development.



• Judicial Administration:
  The City operates its own Municipal Court, in which many offenses occurring within corporate boundaries are heard.  We recognize that a modest increase will likely be required, due to potential increases in criminal activity, but it appears that an entirely new court is being created; which we feel is unnecessary.



• Law Enforcement:
  The bulk of all law enforcement activity within the City is conducted by our Police Department. The forecast of 28 additional patrol deputies to serve this development is excessive.  Staff questions the need for any additional investigative or administrative staff.



• Detention Center:
  The report suggests doubling the capacity of the detention center to handle the increases caused by this development.  Staff questions the rationale behind this position.  Staff recommends a review of the impacts of other large scale developments on corrections capacity.



• EMS Services:
  Staff recognizes the increases required by additional development in the area.  However, no information on how estimated increases were forecasted was provided.  Staff questions these significant increases.



• Public Works:
  As with law enforcement, the City Public Works Department provides the bulk of public works service within corporate limits.  Staff recognizes the impact on outlying roads, etc. caused by increased development, but fails to see justification for the forecasted increases.  Additionally, road improvements necessitated by this development should be paid for with impact fees.  All interior roads on these properties will be privately owned and maintained.



• Recreation and Culture:
  The County provides many of these services.  As such, staff recognizes the need for increased funding.  Many of the forecasted needs are met by land donations outlined in development agreements, as well as impact fees.

Stormwater Utility

As has been noted in previous discussions, the stormwater utility requirements, as set forth in these development agreements, are more stringent than any other development in the City of Beaufort.  Additionally, the agreements outline requirements similar to many aspects of the County’s Special Area Management Plan.

Workforce Housing

Staff and Council have indicated our willingness to work with the County to develop a unified inclusionary zoning ordinance.  This would require developers Countywide to provide set-asides or pay fees-in lieu to satisfy workforce housing needs.  Staff feels that it is unnecessary to single these developments out, as this is a regional issue.

Local Employment Impact

This section seems to contradict the previous one, as it asserts that employees in sectors experiencing growth spurred by this development will live in homes that may drain tax dollars from County coffers.  As for commuting patterns, staff feels that it is highly unlikely that individuals will commute to work retail or service positions.  However, the City is committed to working towards a unified workforce housing solution in the region.

Hurricane Evacuation

While it is true that this development will increase the number of residents evacuating during a natural disaster, staff feels that this is another regional issue that must be addressed comprehensively, rather than development by development.  All counties and municipalities in the region should work towards solutions to this pressing issue.

School District Impacts

As with the County analysis, the school district impact is based on a significantly higher development pace than has been shown to be feasible, given market forces and construction lead times.

Additionally, no weight was given to increased debt service funding provided through higher than anticipated development densities on these sites.  This will greatly increase the funds available for improvements needed to serve these developments.

Finally, the analysis gives no consideration to sites donated for school construction as part of these development agreements.

Burton Fire District

This analysis projects a surplus to the Burton Fire District.  Staff feels this is likely correct, but in anticipation of needed additions to service in the area, has forecasted City funds to augment fire service to these developments.

Additionally, the petitioners have agreed to donate sites for police and fire facilities.

Marine Corps Air Station

Staff has received impact assessments from Air Station leaders.  We are currently pursuing remedies to issues raised in the report.  We recommend that the City continue to negotiate towards mitigation of impacts to the Marine Corps.

City Council met in regular session on April 25^th to discuss, amongst other things, the annexation petitions for the Clarendon and McLeod properties.  Council voted to “table until Council elects to take it off the table,” the second readings for both annexation petitions.

It is worth noting that the sentiment of Council is for issues regarding these annexations to have, after negotiations, full disclosure to the public, specifically the negotiations regarding the Air Station, School District, and City staff review (and comments) of the planned unit development (s).  Furthermore, while Council understands that full resolution of the issues may have varied time elements, the disclosure of these agreements and the necessary amendments to the agreements, should be done in a timely and open manner.

This mandates to the petitioner that Council and the public (via postings on the City Web site) receive this information in advance of public meetings that the public will have to speak to such matters.

Clarendon PUD
Clarendon Development Agreement
Planning Commission Comments on Clarendon

McLeod PUD
McLeod Development Agreement
Planning Commission Comments on McLeod

Financial Impact Analysis
City's Comprehensive Plan
Planning Department Website