Council approves Greenville Arena District bond ordinance amid neighbor concerns about amphitheater notice and a failed referral attempt
Loading...
Summary
After a heated discussion and a failed motion to send the item back to committee, the council adopted an ordinance authorizing the Greenville Arena District to issue up to $40 million in general obligation bonds; supporters highlighted arts and accessibility benefits while opponents said an amphitheater was not disclosed in public notice.
Greenville County Council adopted an ordinance at third reading authorizing the Greenville Arena District to issue general obligation bonds not exceeding $40,000,000, after debate over procedure and public notice.
The council opened a public hearing on the bonds and heard supporters who said the Arena District project — which includes renovations to the Bon Secours Wellness Arena and related improvements — would boost opportunities for local artists, accessibility programs and small businesses. "An investment in this project is an investment in the community and in local voices," Cassie Harden Scott, a local producer for So Far Sounds, told the council. Nia Zambrano described sensory‑friendly programming for people with unique abilities and the arena's role in job creation. Beth Paul, general manager of the Bon Secours Wellness Arena, explained that the Greenville Arena District is a political subdivision and that bonds authorized by the district would not be general obligation bonds of the county and would be paid from district revenues.
Opponents urged separating an amphitheater from the arena funding package. Diane Vreeland said an amphitheater adjacent to the arena would create unacceptable noise and lighting impacts for nearby residences and asked council to vote no on any amphitheater portion while supporting arena renovation. Attorney and frequent council commenter Audrey Payson said the ordinance and published notice did not mention an amphitheater and that omission could constitute defective notice under the enabling statute, potentially exposing the county to litigation unless the notice and ordinance are amended.
On the floor, a council member moved to refer the ordinance back to the Committee of the Whole and to consider a voter referendum; that motion failed. Council then proceeded to a roll‑call vote on adoption. The transcript records a roll call of 9 in favor and 2 in opposition and the motion passed.
Council also adopted an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement related to accommodations fee revenues among the county, the city and the Arena District, and separately approved a second supplemental hospitality tax revenue bond ordinance (not to exceed $100,000,000) to be issued in one or more series. Members discussed statutory limits on the use of hospitality and accommodations taxes for tourism‑related activities and finance structures intended to rely on district revenues for debt service.
Next steps: Because concerns were raised about adequacy of public notice for an amphitheater, legal counsel and staff may need to review published notices and ordinance language to ensure compliance with state notice requirements before further arena‑adjacent projects proceed.
