Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Fiscal Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greenville County Council adopts FILO allocation ordinance to direct future revenue to roads
Summary
After hours of debate over wording and potential impacts on schools and fire districts, Greenville County Council approved a fee-in-lieu-of-tax (FILO) allocations ordinance 9–3 that directs specified future FILO revenue from multi-county industrial parks to the county infrastructure fund for roads and related projects.
Greenville County Council on Nov. 18 narrowly adopted an ordinance to allocate specified future fee-in-lieu-of-tax (FILO) revenues from designated multi-county industrial business parks to the county infrastructure fund for road and related projects.
The ordinance, moved by Councilor Bradley at third reading, passed on a roll-call vote of 9 in favor and 3 opposed after members debated whether the language was sufficiently specific to adopt at third reading. Opponents said parts of the text were “too vague” for a final vote, while supporters said staff and committee briefings provide a clear list of intended road projects.
The debate included concerns from residents and councilors about downstream effects on special tax districts and school funding. Public commenter Daniel Rumpelt argued the proposal would “defund fire districts to fix a pothole,” citing Act 388 and offering an example in which the school district’s share of industrial tax revenue would fall sharply under some FILO distributions. Council members responded that the ordinance would not change current budgets; it applies to future FILO agreements only, and that partners and taxing entities retain existing mechanisms to set their budgets.
County administration told council that approximately 16 FILO projects since February 2023 could generate roughly $8,000,000 immediately and that revenues might grow to about $25,000,000 within the next year and a half, adding that the ordinance had been retooled after earlier budget discussions to avoid an immediate impact on current recipients.
The final procedural sequence included a failed motion to hold the ordinance (2 in favor, 10 opposed) and then the roll-call adoption of the ordinance (9–3). The council did not attach an implementation timetable in the meeting record; staff said monitoring and adjustments would follow as revenue projections change.
What’s next: The ordinance moves into implementation planning; staff said they will monitor incoming FILO agreements and report on revenue forecasts and any necessary adjustments to mitigate impacts on partner taxing agencies.
