Greenville County committee amends FY2026 budget to reduce FELO revenue projections, shift fund balances to roads

Greenville County Council Committee of the Whole members approved an amendment to the proposed FY2026 budget that reduces projected infrastructure bank FELO revenue by $12,000,000, lowers transfers from the infrastructure bank to the road program by $8,500,000, and reduces road program expenditures by $4,000,000, then approved the budget as amended.

The change, introduced by Councilor Bradley, was framed as a way to preserve funding for schools and other taxing jurisdictions this coming year while still maintaining a $36,000,000 road program by using existing fund balances in the infrastructure bank and the road program.

“This is the numbers that were all involved when we had the discussion last time about changing the FELO,” Councilor Bradley said as he read the proposed changes. County staff explained the amendment removes projected future FELO revenue from the budget and uses fund balances to soften the hit to road-program spending. The county administrator described the $12 million as a projection rather than cash on hand: “That’s a projection,” the administrator said when asked whether the $12 million was realized revenue.

Nut graf: The amendment is intended to realign the county’s revenue projection for FELO (fee-in-lieu-of ad valorem, referenced in the meeting as “FELO/FILO”) and to prioritize road spending without immediately reducing distributions to schools, cities or fire districts from revenues they already receive.

Council members pressed staff for detail on several topics during roughly two hours of discussion: how the FELO projection was calculated, whether the change would reduce payments to school districts or municipalities, and how the county’s fund-balance policies apply. The administrator said the amendment does not take revenue that taxing jurisdictions already receive; it reduces a projected future increase the county had counted as revenue. He said prior-year FELO receipts that have been distributed remain intact and that the county currently keeps 31% under the existing ordinance; any change to that percentage would require a separate ordinance. The administrator also said that projecting new FELO streams that have been approved but not yet producing revenue accounted for part of the county’s earlier higher estimate.

Councilors asked for specifics. Councilor Tripp asked whether the $12 million was projected; the administrator confirmed it was. Councilors also raised concerns about potential impacts on small fire districts and affordable housing. The administrator told the committee that an earlier internal estimate of the original proposal’s impact on the school district was about $13,800,000 and that small fire districts could have seen significant proportional impacts (one example cited was a fire district with a $3,100,000 budget facing an approximately $500,000 reduction under earlier scenarios). On affordable housing, staff said reductions to that line were tied to a proposed millage decrease and not a direct transfer to roads; affordable-housing funding in the draft was noted at $1,000,000 in the materials discussed.

The amendment Bradley proposed — as read by the administrator — was: “For the 2026 budget, reduce infrastructure bank FELO revenue by $12,000,000; reduce infrastructure bank transfer out to road program by $8,500,000; reduce road program transfer in from infrastructure bank by $8,500,000; reduce road program expenditures by $4,000,000.” The committee approved that amendment by roll call, 8–3, and afterward the committee voted to approve the FY2026 budget as amended.

Staff and members also discussed timing and process: an ordinance to change the county’s FELO retention policy is being drafted and will be considered separately; the administrator said the budget vote is meant to reflect current projections and that any legal change to retention percentages must be passed via ordinance. The county attorney explained that, if council members wish to permit amendments at third reading, a specific motion to allow amendment at that reading would be required during the regular meeting sequence.

The committee’s vote sends the amended budget forward; members said additional amendments could be considered at later readings and that council would likely schedule further workshops to review the proposals and the draft ordinance affecting future FELO treatment.

Ending: The committee approved the budget as amended and indicated the FELO/ordinance language will come back to council separately. Council members asked staff to provide the ordinance language and additional comparative budget documentation ahead of further votes so members and affected jurisdictions can review the changes in more detail.