Greenville County Council restores $1 million for affordable housing after public push; budget adopted

At a meeting of the Greenville County Council, members voted to adopt the FY2026 county budget after a daylong debate that included sustained public comment urging restoration of affordable-housing funding. Councilors approved an amendment to add $1,000,000 to the countyaffordable housing fund — $750,000 identified as returned GADC (Greenville Area Development Corporation) funds and $250,000 taken from the county fund balance — before passing the final budget.

The spending change followed repeated public appeals for more housing resources. Amber Stewart, representing Greenville Housing Fund and the Greenville Affordable Housing Coalition, told the council: "Since 2019, Greenville County Redevelopment Authority has strategically managed these funds with over 7,800,000.0 already invested to support housing projects across the county." Becky Godby of GOAL (Greenville Organized for Accountable Leadership) asked the council to "support amendment 1 to reinstate the $2,000,000 into the affordable housing fund," calling affordable housing a "public purpose. This is something I want my taxes to go towards." Matt Rollins, who chairs the Rent Stability Working Group, said reinstating $3,000,000 would "be a powerful way to show that we care." Many other speakers, including nonprofit and faith leaders, described needs ranging from home repairs to senior housing and transitional units.

Council debate centered on trade-offs between housing and other priorities, notably road projects and proposed tax reductions. Councilor James Horwood urged prioritizing roads and a millage decrease, arguing against shifting road funds into workforce housing. Councilor Mitchell introduced an earlier amendment to create a down-payment assistance program for county employees and proposed funding changes (which would have used transfers from the infrastructure bank); that amendment failed in an initial roll-call vote (5 in favor, 6 opposed, 1 abstention). A separate amendment by Councilor Russo to increase public-safety pay passed earlier in the process.

Late in the meeting Councilor Seaman moved to reconsider the initial housing amendment and then offered a replacement: keep the $750,000 in returned GADC revenue and add $250,000 from the countyfund balance to bring the total restored to $1,000,000. Seaman said, "I'd like to amend the motion to take, to keep the 750 increase in other revenue and add 250,000 to that, from our, fund balance, to total, and add that back into affordable housing." That motion passed (roll call 7 in favor, 5 opposed). The council then adopted the FY2026 budget as amended (final roll call 8 in favor, 4 opposed).

Speakers on both sides pressed fiscal and policy points: some council members questioned duplication of existing state programs (Councilor Mitchell noted the Palmetto Heroes program administered by the South Carolina Housing Finance and Development Authority) and requested clearer reporting from the Greenville County Redevelopment Authority; others argued the county must sustain investments to retain essential workers and avoid long-term costs associated with housing instability. Councilor Fant and other supporters framed workforce housing as an economic and public-safety priority: "Every dollar spent on workforce housing, we get back tenfold through additional property tax revenue over the life of the property," Fant said during debate.

The council's final action did not restore the full $3,000,000 some public speakers sought. Instead, the adopted budget increases the affordable housing fund by $1,000,000 (sources: $750,000 identified in the motion as returned GADC funds; $250,000 from county fund balance). The council also approved unrelated amendments earlier in the meeting, including pay increases for certain public-safety personnel. Council members said they expect further follow-up from staff and the Greenville County Redevelopment Authority to report how county funds are used and to return to council with implementation details.

For readers: the councilaction represents a partial restoration of housing funding after intensive public comment and intrapanel negotiation. The motion leaves open further debate about the scale and structure of county housing investments and about what additional local, state or federal programs might be aligned with county dollars in the coming year.