Greer council holds budget workshop; staff preview revenue sources, reserves and millage implications

Greer — At a budget workshop, city staff and outside advisers walked the Greer City Council through a five-year lookback of revenues and the rules that govern how the city can use different funds, while cautioning that growth-driven tax streams are volatile and that millage rules constrain annual choices.

Andy, the presentation lead, told the council the session was intended as “an educational standpoint to reset a little bit” and to show where the city’s money comes from, how it has trended over five years and how debt and millage factor into projections. He introduced department and finance staff who said the budget team reconciles department requests line by line and that workshop sessions are for information and direction, not voting.

Why it matters: staff said roughly 55–58% of projected revenue is expected to come from ad valorem (property) taxes, with the remainder coming from licenses, fees, grants and user charges. That mix matters because many fees are restricted by law or ordinance — for example stormwater fees must be used only for stormwater purposes under MS4 requirements — and because consumer-driven revenues such as hospitality and accommodations taxes rise and fall with local tourism and dining activity.

Staff review of funds and projections: presenters described minor funds (facility rentals, golf enterprise), special funds (recreation, athletic programs) and major funds. They showed facility rental income and other minor revenue lines trending upward but noted FY26 figures were preliminary. The general fund (Fund 11) collects grant revenue such as SRO grants and law-enforcement grants.

On restricted revenues, staff said stormwater charges are calculated by equivalent residential unit and must be deposited in the stormwater enterprise fund. On hospitality and accommodations taxes, staff said the city levies a 2% accommodations tax (below the 3% statutory cap) and a hospitality tax; proceeds are restricted for tourism-related projects, advertising, certain infrastructure and, frequently, debt service. Andy said combined accommodations and hospitality revenue has averaged an increase of about 11% over five years but is subject to market trends tied to events such as the new sports and event center.

Council members asked for clarification about accounting and allocation. Chris, the finance department head, explained the state permits the city to transfer the first $40,000 of certain accommodations receipts into the general fund, but most of those tax proceeds remain restricted and often are already pledged to debt service.

Impact fees and sanitation: staff reviewed the October 2024 impact fee ordinance, which requires fees be set by actual improvement costs and be published annually; collections are triggered at building-permit issuance. Impact fees are designated into four buckets (police/fire/public safety, parks/recreation and a public safety training facility tied to For Greer projects). Sanitation (cart) fees are charged for service and collected at permit issuance or by request; staff said the sanitation fund operates on its own but is currently showing a deficit.

Reserves and planned use: staff highlighted an internal policy that calls for maintaining about a 35% unreserved fund balance. Presenters said the city’s unreserved balance rose substantially in the most recent fiscal year and that council has used excess reserves for one-time capital projects in past years. Andy said some of the fund balance above the policy threshold is likely to be recommended to cover cost increases on major projects — he cited the Gross Meadows Fire Station, where project costs have risen roughly $12 million from earlier projections — and said using reserves can reduce future borrowing needs.

How millage fits: Michael, the city’s bond attorney, gave a primer on millage and Act 388. He explained a mill is a tax rate per $1,000 of assessed value and described how Act 388 limits year-to-year millage increases and established a ‘‘use it or lose it’’ dynamic: if a jurisdiction does not capture its allowable increase within the statutory window it might forfeit the ability to claim that increment later. “Use it or lose it,” Michael said, summarizing the practical effect Act 388 has had on budgeting decisions.

Council discussion and next steps: members asked staff for supporting permit and housing-start data, a breakdown of which taxpayers (homestead versus other classes) are carrying the largest share of property-tax growth, and the specific amount of reserves that could be applied to upcoming projects. Staff committed to providing permit-level data and to share the presentation and budget books with council for further review. No votes were taken at the workshop.

The council recessed for a short break before continuing the session.