Council directs staff to hold $9.6 million Airbnb settlement in contingency and prepare spending recommendations

Charleston County Council voted April 20 to place $9.6 million from a recent Airbnb settlement under council control and to halt any spending until council develops a public set of priorities.

Council member Pryor moved that staff prepare recommendations on how the money should be spent and that the settlement funds be moved from local accommodations tax (ATAX) into Council contingency. Pryor said the money should not be absorbed into the existing ATAX uses without council review and that members should view staff proposals publicly before allocation. He described an expedited timeline, saying he did not want to wait months to decide how the funds are used.

County legal and finance staff told the committee that ATAX is an account with statutory and policy constraints and that leaving the funds in ATAX without direction could have unintended consequences. The county attorney advised that accommodations tax revenues are normally subject to restrictions; staff recommended designating the funds and returning with options. After discussion about whether to move the money now or include it in the FY2026 contingency, council approved an immediate transfer into council contingency and directed staff to return with a prioritized list of needs and proposals. Council also sought transparency: Pryor asked staff to circulate how past large allocations (for example, from another settlement or central fund) were previously allocated so the public could compare.

The motion specified that no spending occur until council acts to allocate funds and that staff should present needs-based recommendations rather than ad-hoc requests. The committee approved the motion on a roll call vote; council directed staff to prepare recommendations for public consideration and to bring the funding into council contingency for FY2026 budgeting if needed.

Why it matters: $9.6 million represents a substantial resource that can be used for tourism-related projects, housing, community development or other priorities permitted by law. By moving the funds into council contingency and ordering a public process, councilors intended to centralize decisionmaking and ensure transparency before fund allocation.

What the vote did and did not do: The vote did not appropriate the funds to any program; it stopped staff from spending the money and moved the account into council contingency pending public recommendations and further council action. Council asked staff to return with proposals as soon as practicable.