Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Greenville County councilors weigh larger public-safety pay increases, possible position trade-offs

5902878 · June 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Councilors discussed raising public-safety pay above the 3% in the proposed budget, cost estimates for higher raises, and possible offsets including delaying or cutting new positions and using discretionary funds designated for roads.

Councilor Russo and other Greenville County Council members discussed raising public-safety pay beyond the 3% included in the administrator’s proposed budget, focusing on costs, recruitment and possible budget offsets.

The council heard a county staff estimate that “the increase for the sheriff’s for public safety, actually, when you include the sheriff, detention, EMS, records, forensics, and coroner, which are all considered public safety, would amount to $1,130,000.00 per 1%.” Councilor Russo summarized that a 3% increase would therefore be “right at $3,600,000.”

Why it matters: councilors said they want public safety prioritized while also avoiding an unsustainable ongoing commitment. Councilor Mitchell asked if the increases would be “ongoing,” and county staff replied they would be recurring, noting that salary increases should be supported by continuing revenue.

Key details and trade-offs

- Cost estimate: county staff said each 1% increase for the entire public-safety group costs about $1,130,000; staff calculated roughly $3.6 million for a 3% across-the-board increase.

- Offsets discussed: staff said reducing planned new positions could offset part of the cost. Examples discussed included cutting sheriff’s office planned hires from 12 to 6 and reducing five EMS positions; council staff calculated those reductions would save roughly $800,000 (figures in the discussion were approximate). Council members also proposed using discretionary road funds (referred to in the meeting transcript as FELO/PELO/FILO funds) to bridge the remaining gap.

- Sheriff’s office response: Sheriff Lewis urged support for public-safety pay increases, describing recruitment and retention pressures. “We would love for council to unanimously, decide on these things when you talk about public safety,” Lewis said, and noted competition from the City of Greenville and other nearby employers that have increased pay and added positions.

- Vacancies and overtime: The sheriff and county staff said vacancies drive overtime costs. Sheriff Lewis said the office currently had about 21 vacancies, roughly 17 deputies and several dispatch positions, and that deputies sometimes leave for small pay differences. County staff and councilors argued that adding staff targeted to reduce overtime could be more cost-effective than paying continued overtime.

- Compensation study: Several councilors recommended or asked for an outside compensation review. County staff said they could issue a request for proposals or qualifications and expected to prepare an RFP “within 30 days” and could contract one firm to review multiple public-safety functions or run separate procurements for law enforcement, EMS and coroner/detention if needed.

- Recruiting and retention ideas: Council members and staff discussed total compensation (base pay, shift differentials, take-home vehicles or fuel) rather than base salary alone. Councilor Collins urged considering tenure/return-to-service rules and broader total-compensation packages to stabilize staffing.

Nut graf: The conversation left no formal council vote; members agreed public safety is a top priority but differed on the scale and financing of increases. Staff supplied the cost estimates and potential offsets; councilors asked for further data and a formal compensation study before adopting larger, ongoing pay commitments.

Ending: No formal motion to change the proposed 3% across-the-board figure was recorded at the workshop. Councilors directed staff to provide additional cost detail, begin procurement for a compensation review if council so instructs, and continued the debate to future budget work sessions. Quotes in this story come from councilors, the county administrator and Sheriff Lewis as recorded in the workshop transcript.