PICKENS — The Pickens County Council voted to remove a proposed tax district it could potentially fund affordable housing in Clemson — but that doesn’t mean it’s completely off the table.

In a vote of 4 to 1 in the absence of Councilor Henry Wilson, Pickens County Council voted to one November 11 committee meeting to withdraw from the initial tax increase financing agreement with the city ​​of Clemson. However, he reserves the right to negotiate, which could take place before January 1, when the first increase in tax revenues could be obtained.

The special tax program would take into account the increase in property taxes within a defined time frame in the area where a student housing development is planned near Lake Hartwell in Clemson and use it to build infrastructure for affordable housing on the property of Clemson University, near the old Bi-Lo on SC Highway. 93.

This would be the first such use of TIF funds since the state Legislature approved affordable housing as an acceptable beneficiary.

Pickens County and the Pickens County School District each receive property taxes and, without objection before Dec. 2, would have been included in the TIF project.

Without the involvement of all four entities, the impact of housing diminishes, City Administrator Andy Blondeau said, and fewer potential clients would receive help purchasing a home.

What two entities can accomplish won’t be as beneficial to the community, Blondeau said, and there’s no need to pursue a TIF if the school district also withdraws support. Clemson would continue to move forward with a smaller-scale project on the land it purchased last year to bolster worker housing within city limits.

“The question comes down to, ‘Are we going to revisit this in December to really capture some money or has the box been evicted?’” County Councilwoman Claiborne Linvill, a representative for Clemson and the only one to have voted in favor of TIF. Mail. “We always have the opportunity to negotiate again so we can discuss this further. Timing matters. If we negotiate again before December it will make a much more significant difference than if we wait.”

There’s about an additional $50,000 at stake if the county negotiates before Jan. 1, 2025, County Attorney Les Hendricks said.

“There’s nothing stopping us from saying, ‘Yes, we want to step in later,’ until the bonds are issued,” he said. “We have not lost the ability to negotiate something that is more satisfactory for all parties.”

The at-large councilors who voted against the plan said they still had questions about how everything would work with districts, subdivisions and inventory management. Linvill understands this sentiment, noting that this TIF takes advantage of new legislation and has not been used in South Carolina.

“I understand there are frustrations with the intentional flexibility of this TIF, but it is the nature of this type of TIF that it will require community listening sessions, and it will require a comprehensive housing survey to ensure that the needs of this community are met. be satisfied,” she said.

This type of project needs to be done from the bottom up rather than from the top down, with the government deciding what is best for its citizens, she said. The timing also seems quick, but there has been a lot of noise around municipal elections that she feels aggrieved by the city’s ability to release information about the plan.

“At the end of the day, if our council doesn’t take action, you can say, ‘Sorry, asshole, because we already passed our TIF and you didn’t object when you had the chance.’ County Council Chairman Chris Bowers told Blondeau during the meeting. “That’s where my biggest heartburn is…it feels like a blank check.”

The first step is a housing study, Blondeau told the county council. If the research finds less housing is needed or the area doesn’t need that type of housing project, he said the city won’t issue bonds to move it forward.