Search Results for: housing

UPDATE on proposed housing projects in the area

Received this email Tuesday (screen shot below) after I followed up for a constituent about the status of the two proposed housing projects in our area.

Our community has experienced this before and I’m not sure what the final outcome will be. I’ve learned much during the past several years about these situations and frankly it comes down to “how much money is in the (federal) program” and “how may projects will that money cover”. The agency pretty much starts with high score and goes down the list of scores until money runs out.

One very interesting item is that during this past session (just months ago) a bill came to the House floor that would EXPAND this program to include STATE DOLLARS. Based on the feedback Rep. Huggins and I have received from y’all over the years, we quickly looked to amend the bill. If STATE DOLLARS are going to be used in the future, Rep. Huggins and I can have impact on that. As it stands currently, this program runs pretty much like I shared above.

As always, we will keep you informed as we learn more.

To view the scorecards of all projects in the state, click here .

More housing developments proposed in our area

Once again we have developers applying for the SC State Housing Finance and Development Authority’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program in our area. This time it’s 2 projects in the Irmo area.

As I have done previously, I wanted to bring to your attention (scroll after cliking link) since Representative Huggins and I receive certified letters informing us of the applications. Not sure how letter dated 2/26 and send 2/28 just got to my desk today (3/19)?

NathansNews readers may recall this has been going on for years, and many of the projects never came to fruition. Until recently.

Recently, projects have been approved on Lake Murray Boulevard (across from Wendy’s in Irmo where Silver Fox Tennis used to be) and on Ballentine Park Road (behind Ballentine Food Lion/Dutch Fork Baptist Church). And now, it looks like there are more trying to be built on Lake Murray Boulevard and adjacent to Lake Murray Boulevard as well.

Since this has happened at least 5 or 6 times through the years, I’ve learned a lot and wanted to share:

1) This is a FEDERAL program (money comes from Feds to the states and – something we hear a lot – “they gotta spend it”. Not a fan of that logic)
2) Approvals are based on the scoring of each project and the amount of funding available. Simply put, once scores are calculated, the agency looks at funding available and goes down the list of high to low scores and approves projects until “the money is out”.
3) There are no points awarded or deducted based on community feedback (I highly disagree with this; but cannot change at the state level).
4) These are not SECTION 8 developments. I have been told these designed for “the teachers, firefighters, policeman who work in the community but cannot afford to actually live in the community”. Again, that is what I’ve been told.

Each time I’ve received notice, I’ve asked y’all have reach out to me and let me know your concerns and I agree to share those with the SC Housing Agency. This time it looks like about 35 projects have applied . While I do not get a vote on these matters. I do get to share my response and ask that you share yours as well.

To have your voice heard, you can do one of two things:

1) Email me directly at with the title “Parkside at Columbiana” and I will forward you emails to the SC State Housing Finance and Development Authority. “Parkside at Columbiana” is the development proposed in the area I represent. “Cooper’s Trace” is the development that is proposed in the area Rep. Huggins represents”. Of course, we’re all in the same area – but just wanted to share that detail with you.


2) Email Laura Nicholson directly ( and cc: me at

While I have been told our responses and feedback do not impact the scores, I do believe in our community having a voice and sharing feedback.

As I’ve shared before, it bothers me when developers from out-of-our-area come do this. In the past it has been developers from Florida. “Parkside at Columbiana” looks like a developer from the Upstate. Those developers don’t have a footprint here, live here, shop here, go to schools or churches here, and -in my opinion – don’t consider the impact on the community as much as perhaps a local developer would.

We are more than aware of our overcrowded schools and infrastructure needs with the current population. Packing in 40-50 families in these developments will only add to that burden and problems. Just like what we will soon experience over at Ballentine Park Road behind Food Lion and Dutch Fork Baptist.

As I learn more, I will keep you posted.

UPDATE – Proposed 60 housing development again

Seems like this is the 4th or 5th time an out-of-state developer has tried to use tax-credits to build a development near Ballentine Elementary that will cause even further infrastructure and crowding issues in our community.

Every time, y’all have reach out to me and let me know your concerns and I agree step in to help. This time there are 35 projects applying . While I do not get a vote on these matters. I do get to share my response and ask that you share yours as well.

To have your voice heard, you can do one of two things:

1) Email me directly at with the title “The Park” and I will forward you emails to the SC State Housing Finance and Development Authority


2) Email Laura Nicholson directly (please cc: me at email above) at her address:

Proposed Housing – again?

While local zoning issues are county/town level decisions, from time-to-time members of the General Assembly are notified when an individual/developer is applying for state-tax-credits in their community. It seems that once again, the same out-of-state developer is looking to use state-tax-credits in our area. Seems I’ve written about this many times here at Nathans News and tonight, I’m writing again.

I have not seen official correspondence from the SC State Housing Finance and Development Authority; but earlier this month I received the letter above. VERY similar to letters in the past. When I hear from the state agency; I will again update everyone with the same instructions as in the past. Instructions to share your opinions with the agency.

You may recall, while the project in our area did not receive the funding (in part due to our overwhelming feedback), a development in the surrounding area (Lake Murray Boulevard) was approved.

Last week, I spoke with a reporter who asked about the changes in the Ballentine and surrounding area. I shared with him that it’s ovvious everyone wants to move here because of our outstanding schools and proximity to the lake and retail; we just need to be sure what’s being built doesn’t negatively impact our infrastructure and safety.

While I never have a vote on local zoning issues, in my role as a state official (with SCDOT), I will work to help reduce any complications from growth in the area. I ask that each of you stay informed and give your input to the decision makers that approve the local zoning changes in the Town of Chapin, Town of Irmo, or on Richland County Council.

Becoming a member of the Ballentine-Dutch Fork Civic Association is just one way to stay informed!

Below are previous posts related to these proposed projects in our area. Ultimately, each project was not awarded state tax-credits and the developer then decided against building without them.

July 19, 2016 Update Proposed Housing Development

UPDATE: Proposed Housing Developments

April 27, 2016 Update Housing Projects Proposes for Area

UPDATE: Housing projects proposed for area

March 29, 2016 Back again Proposed Housing Development Submits Application

Back again: Proposed Housing Development submits application

July 19, 2013 Not funded – Bickley Manor Project

NOT FUNDED! Bickley Manor Project

May 21, 2013 The Latest on Bickley Manor Project

THE LATEST on “Bickley Manor Project”

April 19, 2013 Another Update on Bickley Manor Project

Another UPDATE on “Bickley Manor” project

March 18, 2013 Update on Proposed Housing Development in Ballentine

UPDATE on proposed housing development in Ballentine

March 12, 2013 Your Input on New Proposed Housing in Ballentine

Your input on proposed housing in Ballentine?

UPDATE: Proposed Housing Developments


Wanted to keep you informed of the proposed developments (The Park at Lake Murray, The Point at Lake Murray). Pictured above are the Preliminary Scores for each development. Obviously, too small to read. You can click here to review the scores.

As I read the list, it appears 22 developments received higher scores than these two. I also notice that the proposals in Irmo (Lexington County) and Chapin (Lexington County) received higher scores than these two in our area. As previously shared on NathansNews, I’ve been there is only funding for 20 of the 42 submitted projects.

Per the schedule on the SC Housing website , it is anticipated that notification of the Final Tax Credit Reservations will be made in late July to early August 2016.

While I do not get a “vote” on these matters. I have shared your concerns. If you have questions/concerns/support, you can either:

1) Email me directly at with the title “The Park and The Pointe” (names of the 2 almost identical proposals) and I will forward you emails to the SC State Housign Finance and Development Authority
2) Email Laura Nicholson directly (please cc: me at email above) at her address:

As soon as I hear if these projects received tax credits (or not), I will share with you!

UPDATE: Housing projects proposed for area


Nathan’s News readers will recall last month I shared the news of 2 housing projects proposed for our area .

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) is designed to provide an incentive to owners developing multifamily rental housing. Developments that may qualify for credits include new construction, acquisition with rehabilitation, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. Owners of and investors in qualifying developments can use the credit as a dollar-for-dollar reduction of federal income tax liability. Allocations of credits are used to leverage public, private and other funds in order to keep rents to tenants affordable.

Today, I asked additional questions from the SC Housing Authority and was given these timeframes:

* Preliminary scores for each project should be posted mid-to-late June
* Awards are anticipated to be announced in mid-August

Of the 42 projects that applied, funding will only be available for 20 projects.

I appreciate your feedback here on the website, via email and particularly emails and letters sent to SC Housing.

As usual, I will keep everyone informed.

(Note: Very similar project was not approved years ago in our area).

Back again: Proposed Housing Development submits application



Readers may recall a few years ago, a federal-tax credit development was proposed for our area. By law, Members of the General Assembly are to be notified of applications made in their districts.

These developments have been trying to pop up in Chapin and Irmo for some time. Including 1 currently proposed for Chapin.

Just as I did years ago (and actually last month when I received a letter from a consultant working for this development group), I shared what you have asked me to share in the past. Our community does not have a need for these facilities nor do we have the current infrastructure in place to support it.

We have a lot of growth as it is that goes unchecked or unquestioned at the county level. I’m glad members of the General Assembly are dialed in on these federal-tax credit projects so that we can speak for the community and not have a local council or commission approve a change without the community knowing about it.

While I do not get a “vote” on these matters. I do get to share my response and ask that you share yours as well.

To have your voice heard, you can do one of two things:

1) Email me directly at with the title “The Park and The Pointe” (names of the 2 almost identical proposals) and I will forward you emails to the SC State Housign Finance and Development Authority


2) Email Laura Nicholson directly (please cc: me at email above) at her address:

There are currently more than 40 developments vying for tax credits. These 2 or our community along with 1 in Irmo (Lake Murray Boulevard/Lexington) and 1 in Chapin.

For a complete list of all 40+ projects in the state, click here and then select 2016 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program List

The Pointe

UPDATE on proposed housing development in Ballentine

*** UPDATING you (Monday, March 18th, 4:30pm) from an earlier post on the website. My additional comments are listed beneath the letter I am sharing today ***

The South Carolina State Housing Finance and Development Authority has responded to my letter and Senator Courson’s letter which shared our objection to the proposed Wendover development. The letter reads:

“The Authority is in receipt of your letter opposing the proposed development by Wendover Housing Partners, LLC called Bickley Manor (#13042) on a site across from Ballentine Elementary School. The Authority received a total of 65 applications fro proposed developments throughout the state as part of the Auhtority’s 2013 Tax Credit Application Cycle. The tax credit funding cycle is an annual competitive funding cycle which is governed by a document called the 2013 Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP).

One of the requirements of the QAP is that the site be properly zoned for the proposed development and that the developer have site control. Both of these preliminary requirements have been met. As Applications continue on through the review process, they must also meet market and financial/underwriting criteria to ensure financial feasibility. Further, the QAP outlines other criteria all developments must meet in order to be considered competitive and are point scored using the same criteria. A copy of the criteria is attached ( Part One , Part Two ). At th eend of the review process, Applications having the highest point scores receive an allocation of tax credits. The Authority anticipates making aware announcements in July and anticipates funding 16-17 developments.

In recognition of your objection, we have asked a representative from Wendover Housing Partners, LLC to contact you to discuss the concerns of both you and your constituents as it relates to the proposed development.”

(end of letter)

From Nathan: I called the Authority again this morning and spoke directly to Laura Nicholson and Valarie Williams. They shared the same information that is listed above and attached. I wanted to also share my “takeway” from today’s conversations.

1) Apparently the land IS zoned for this development AND there is a current sales contract. Those are 2 of the “first hurdles” for developers. For those of us against the project (and I’ve yet to hear anyone from this area say they are FOR the project), this news is not good.

2) The “good news” I heard is that there are 65 applications throughout the state for these projects and the state will und between 16-17 projects. (Of course, that still means “there’s a chance” this happens but less likely than I had feared). Basically, one-in-four will get funded AND that assumes all 65 applications are scored with the same score such that all 65 are competing against each other. If 20 scored “perfectly” but Wendover did not; Wendover would not get the tax credit. I would feel that would severely change Wendover’s desire to build but would need to ask our local councilman to keep us informed if the contract for purchase of land still went through.

3) For those that clicked on the links above, you’ll see how these applications are “scored”. I was told last year out of 82 applicatinos, 65 had “perfect scores”. That meant only 65 of 82 projects were even considered. And of those 65 “perfect scores” the state only funded 15.

4) Our feedback is not a PRIMARY factor involved in the ‘scoring process’ but it will be taken into account in any “tiebreaker” situations. What I learned that meant was “all things being equal” (scoring of projects) those projects with OPPOSITION would not be considered for funding over projects that did not have opposition.

What does this all mean (at least MY OPINION), this is obviously not a “done deal” yet (although I was concerned to hear the zoning is ok and there is a sales contract pending) and it appears to me there’s a long way to go for this out-of-state developer to get his tax credits approved. (Again, state should only have funding for 16 or 17 of these 65 applications; Wendover project being one of those 65).

Please feel free to share your input (opposed or supportive) to the Authority as outlined in my earlier post last week. I will obviously work with our local County Councilman Bill Malinowski and our Senator, John Courson, and other area elected officials to keep everyone informed as I learn more.

Your input on proposed housing in Ballentine?

Below is an email I received from the Ballentine-Dutch Fork Civic Association. It appears it’s a forward from our local County Councilman, Bill Malniowski asking for your input on a proposed Housing Development in our area.

As information, here is the letter I sent last week on your behalf. As Councilman Malinowski mentions, a letter from you can also help.


This relates to the previous e-mails regarding the low income apartments they want to put across from Ballentine Elementary school. This would be 56 apartments of low income housing. There are already new apartments on 176 which have 316 units as well as new apartments on Marina Road of 216 apartments. The developers claim that their “market research” indicates this type of housing is needed in Ballentine due to the increase in “retail business”. Is this what you want your community to be for the future, consisting of continual apartments. This is not the right direction for our town of Ballentine.

Subject: Wendover Housing Project

Please have as many people as possible IMMEDIATELY write letters of objection to the housing project across from Ballentine Elementary school. While it may not be possible to get them all in one envelope for a thicker, more impressive stack of letters, at least get them sent out ASAP.

They should be addressed to Ms. Laura Nicholson, Development Director, SC State Housing Finance & Development Authority, 300-C Outlet Pointe Blvd., Columbia, SC 29210.

The letter should state why he/she feels Wendover Housing Partners, LLC of Altamonte Springs, Florida should be denied their request for Low Income Housing Tax Credits to construct 56 units of just over 3 acres across from Ballentine Elementary School.

Some of those reasons could be the overcrowding of schools already at or exceeding capacity, increased traffic delays and congestion, the lack of need for this type of housing in the Ballentine area, and no public transportation to get residents to jobs that will obviously be located somewhere else in the Midlands area since there is no real job market here.

If you had time to review the market research/analysis conducted the person who did it is comparing the need for this type of housing to already existing and filled developments in the Harbison area, stating it is only 6 miles away. That is a totally ridiculous comparison in an effort to skew the figures. It would be like saying a need for low income housing exists in Shandon or Forest Acres because they need it in W. Cola or Cayce.

Since their application was due at the Authority by last Friday get those letters out now.

Bill Malinowski

SC Budget heads to Governor’s desk

We returned this week to finalized next year’s budget (which ultimately passed 84-28 in the House and passed 30-9 in the Senate). In the coming days, Governor McMaster will get to issue his vetoes – and I look forward to seeing many of those and hope we can sustain those that are not the best use of your tax dollars.

If you ever wanted to dive into the budget, here it is. Click and “enjoy”.

Below are some highlights for the areas most often asked about by constituents.


 $22 million to fully fund Constitutional Reserve Funds, which brings the
reserve fund total to $515 million ($364 million – General Reserve; $151 –
Capital Reserve)
 Reduced the total budget by $2.4 billion by removing double-booked funds
and items in higher education that are not state funds
 $599 million in direct tax relief for South Carolinians


 $32 million to fund the General Fund employer cost of Year 2 of the multiyear
plan to bring down the multi-billion pension liability
 $56.4 million to cover 100% of the state employee health and dental
insurance increases so employees will have no additional monthly
premium cost
 Expanded to cover Well Visits as a contractual service, which will require copays but
also count towards deductibles
 Small increases to patient liability in deductible and copays


Teacher Salary Increases
• $31 million for a statewide teacher salary increase of 1%
• $7.8 million to increase the statewide minimum starting salary for a
teacher with 0 and 1 year experience from $30,000 to $32,000
Increased School Funding
• $55.8 million to increase the Base Student Cost by $60 per pupil to
• $13 million for SC Public Charter Schools student growth
• $11 million for Technical Assistance for low-performing schools
School Buses
• $12 million in recurring, non-recurring, and lottery funding for new
school buses
• With this new funding, all 1995 fire-prone buses will be off the road
by the start of the school year
School Resource Officers
• $2 million recurring for hiring certified law enforcement officers to
serve as School Resource Officers
• Funds are available for school districts that otherwise would lack the
adequate resources to hire their own SROs, with districts of the
lowest index of taxpaying ability receiving priority consideration
• Allows any retired Class 1 law enforcement officer to return to
employment as an SRO without affecting the monthly retirement
School Safety Upgrades
• $15 million in the Lottery for School Safety and Critical Facility and
Equipment Improvements
• Funds are for life safety infrastructure for school facilities including
door locks, security cameras, metal detectors, lifesaving medical
equipment and SRO equipment


Scholarships and Tuition Aid
 $11 million for Workforce Scholarships to provide grants for tuition, fees, transportation,
or textbook expenses to SC residents enrolled in a career education program at a
technical school or professional certification program
 $3.9 million to create Palmetto Promise Scholarship Pilot program that awards
scholarships to students from the Abbeville plaintiff school districts
 For the third year in a row, fully funded LIFE, HOPE and Palmetto Fellows Scholarships
through the Lottery, including the increases from the 10-point grading scale
Technical Colleges
 $4 million in recurring increases for all technical colleges
 $9.4 million for the successful ReadySC job training program, which provides customized
training for new and expanding business and industry
 $11 million for High Demand Skill Training Equipment to be distributed to all technical
Colleges and Universities
 $20 million in recurring to help bring colleges and universities closer to pre-recession
funding levels
 $50 million non-recurring for capital projects and maintenance needs at colleges around
the state


Heath and Human Services – Medicaid Budget
 $26.4 million for the state Medicaid Maintenance of Effort and annualization to
continue current level of services without expending agency reserves
 Includes Increased revenue assumptions and lower targets for managed care rates
 Continued funding for the Healthy Outcomes Proviso, serving over 14,000 highutilizers
of emergency rooms and/or inpatient services through coordination with all
Medicaid-designated hospitals, 70 primary care safety net providers, and three
behavioral health clinics state-wide
Health and Human Services – Rural Health Initiative & Telemedicine
 $3.5 million in increased funding for the Rural Health Initiative. DHHS will continue
to partner with the USC School of Medicine in the development of a long term
strategic plan for addressing medically underserved communities in the rural areas
of the state through services such as the iCARED initiative.
 Aimed at supporting and developing medical education in rural areas through rural
residency placements and infrastructure improvements
 $5 million in non-recurring through Telemedicine Proviso for continued
infrastructure build out and $1 million increase in recurring funds for Telemedicine
operations – this brings total recurring dollars for the SC Telehealth Network to
$11.5 million in combined funding through DHHS and MUSC
Health and Human Services – Autism Spectrum Disorder
 $4.8 million increase in state recurring funds for increased rates for autism therapy and
service providers ($9.4 M in matching federal funds)
 Rates for ABA line therapists will increase from $17.38 to roughly $30/hour with
increases to the supervisor rate from $58/hour to $64/hour
 Agency has updated the rate methodology to reflect cost-driven structure and avoid
blending the supervision rate with line therapists
 Rates are indexed against national standard cost of employment information, and
proposal is being distributed to providers by the end of the month
 DHHS is continuing to explore opportunities to increase capacity in the workforce, so
that children are not placed on waiting lists – 20% increase in enrolled providers since
November 2017
DHHS, DAODAS and MUSC – Opioid Abuse Prevention
 Over $11 million in increased state funding specifically aimed at addressing the Opioid
Epidemic through DHHS and DAODAS
 $5 million in state funds for the MUSC Hospital Authority Health Innovations Program,
which includes funding to expand the Emergency Department MAT pilot established in
FY 17-18 to additional hospitals
 Proviso 117.142 will use these funds to implement many of the House Opioid Abuse
Prevention Study Committee recommendations
 $4 million in non-recurring through HOP proviso 33.20 for capital improvements to the
behavioral health facilities based on need as determined by DAODAS and DHHS
Other Health Agencies
 DSS – $23 million in recurring funds to address required components in
settlement agreement and continue child care match for $8.65 million in
federal funds, $25 million in non-recurring for the continued development of
the Child Support System
 DDSN – $11.3 million to increase the department’s direct care staff starting
salaries agency wide from $11/hour to $12/hour and a 3-4% increase to direct
care wages for employees working with the department for at least 5 years,
$500,000 increase to the Greenwood Genetic Center for Autism Research,
$650,000 for in-home Autism Support services
 DMH – $6.9 million to increase funding for Supported Community Housing,
Child and Adolescent Intensive Community and Residential Services, and
enhanced School Based Services
 DHEC – $2.4 million for the EMS Performance Improvement Center and the
Credentialing Information System, Enhanced Communicable Disease
Prevention and Treatment, including funding specific to HIV/AIDS, Breast and
Cervical Cancer, and Colorectal Cancer [Read more…]