Greer council approves first reading of 2026–27 budget after rejecting millage cuts and surveillance freezes

City of Greer councilmembers approved the first reading of Ordinance 18-2026, the city’s fiscal 2026–27 budget, after rejecting several proposed amendments that would have lowered property-tax millage or limited spending on new surveillance and data-collection technology.

The ordinance — introduced at the start of the meeting and described by the mayor as the city’s proposed appropriations and tax levy for the coming fiscal year — advanced after a roll-call vote that passed first reading by five votes to two. Mayor Danner presided over the session and thanked staff for months of work on the recommended budget.

Why it matters: Council debate centered on how to balance taxpayer relief with maintaining core services and funding personnel. Council members repeatedly returned to a projection in the recommended budget that personnel costs would comprise roughly 68% of the general fund — a share some members called “not sustainable” without a longer-term plan to manage growth, recruitment and compensation.

Several amendments failed during the meeting. Council Member Bettis’s motion to ask the administrator to find savings equal to two mills (about $650,000) failed on a 4–3 roll-call. A separate motion by Mr. Airwood to increase the stormwater fee by $1 — estimated to raise about $52,000 and to be applied per ERU (impervious unit) for commercial properties — was discussed as a way to fund mechanized equipment for sidewalk and inlet maintenance; that amendment was defeated on roll call by a majority.

Privacy and data-collection technology also figured prominently. Council Member Airwood urged caution about police and other agency purchases of license-plate readers, facial-recognition-capable camera packages, drone upgrades and third-party cell-phone–location data (Place/Placer AI-type products), asking how the city would store, secure and authorize use of such data and whether it might be resold. “Before dollars are spent that are directed to those expenditures, council needs to have a discussion on what are we going to do with that data? How are we going to store it? What are our rules and regulations?” Airwood said during the meeting.

In response, staff said the budget recommendation included items vetted as part of best management practices and that contracts generally would not be executed before council had a chance to review usage and retention policies. Airwood then moved an amendment to freeze new budgeted funds for departments that collect data until council approved written policy governing the funds; that motion was also rejected on roll call.

Council members on both sides agreed on one point: additional information would be useful. Several members asked staff to bring a clear, itemized presentation at second reading on the surveillance- and data-collection items in the budget — including the proposed Axon package for police and subscriptions that provide cell-phone–location analytics — so council could weigh operational benefits against privacy and cost concerns.

Other discussion items included a request to revisit golf membership fees to clear waitlists, and repeated calls for a workshop on the class-and-compensation study to understand multi-year implications of pay adjustments and projected retirements; a study cited in the meeting said a substantial share of the workforce is under 40 while roughly 30% are over 50 and may be eligible to retire in the next decade.

What happened procedurally: During the meeting council considered and rejected a sequence of amendments: the two-mill proposal (failed 4–3), the $1 stormwater fee increase (failed by majority), the motion to freeze new data-collection funds pending policy (failed by majority), and a proposal to have the administrator find one mill in savings (failed 4–3). The main motion to approve Ordinance 18-2026 for first reading then passed 5–2. No executive session was listed on the agenda; the council adjourned at the end of the meeting.

Key quote: “I believe it’s imperative that council have a much bigger discussion about the collection of data…before dollars are spent that are directed to those expenditures,” Council Member Bettis said, summarizing privacy concerns that ran through the discussion.

What’s next: The ordinance advanced to second reading. Council requested additional presentations and clarifications on surveillance contracts, cost drivers behind personnel increases, and the specific uses the stormwater fee dollars would fund before final action.

Votes at a glance: Amendment to find two mills (approx. $650,000): failed 4–3. Stormwater fee +$1 amendment (estimated ~$52,000): failed (majority). Motion to freeze new data-collection funds pending policy: failed (majority). One-mill administrator-directed reduction (approx. $323,000): failed 4–3. Main motion — Ordinance 18-2026, first reading: passed 5–2.