Greenville County Finance Committee members on Oct. 10 voted to hold action on the Lake Cunningham Fire District’s request to continue its current 43.8 mills for operations, and asked district leaders for a detailed spending breakdown tied to the 6.6-mill increase approved in 2024.

The item matters because councilors said audit figures and the district’s description of planned uses — apparatus replacement, station remodels and a proposed new station on the east side of the district — left unanswered questions about what the operating increase actually funded after voters defeated the bond to build the new station.

Councilor Long asked for the hold after reviewing the district’s 2024 audit and financial highlights, noting the millage was raised last year from 37.2 to 43.8 mills (an 18% increase) and asking why the district still carried reserves and what portion of the 6.6 mills was allocated to staffing, capital, and other items. “So my concern here is that at this time there’s not a building that’s been built,” Long said, pressing for itemized allocations.

Chief (Lake Cunningham Fire District) told the committee the district still faces the same service needs and has $4 million in apparatus on order, with roughly a four-year payment timeline for vehicles. The chief said some revenue from the increase paid for station roofing and remodels, and that the district created a designated state investment account for trucks. “The need hasn’t changed,” the chief said. “If those stations aren’t constructed, we still have to formulate a plan to cover the needs of our district.”

Committee members pressed technical and timing questions: Councilor Russo argued the district had a year of the increased rate and declined to delay, while Long said she had only just received the 2024 audit and needed time to review it. Committee staff said the district’s presentation to county finance last year contained projections and that the requested breakdown is available in the district’s budget documents; the chief said she could provide the projections and line items used to justify the 6.6 mills.

The committee approved a motion to hold the item and requested the district provide the specific allocation breakdown for the 6.6-mill increase prior to the next meeting on Aug. 25, with the option for a special meeting if members decide to act sooner. The motion passed on an affirmative voice vote; formal roll-call tallies were not recorded in the transcript.

Discussion vs. decision: The committee’s action was to table (hold) consideration so members can review requested supporting documentation; no change to the district’s millage occurred at the meeting. Committee members noted timing constraints related to tax-bill preparation and were told the item is a resolution requiring one reading by council, so there should be time to include it.

The committee also discussed growth and annexation impacts: speakers noted that new subdivisions in parts of the district generate call volume but not equivalent tax revenue when those parcels are annexed into the City of Greer. The chief and councilors emphasized that operating costs (personnel, insurance, workers’ comp) and truck replacement are immediate expenses the district must plan for even without new stations.

The committee set a follow-up: district staff will supply the requested line-item breakdown of what the 6.6-mill increase was projected to and actually funded; members may call a special meeting if the documentation resolves outstanding questions before the next scheduled meeting.