Mauldin workshop weighs 1% sales-tax referendum to fund property tax credits and infrastructure

City staff presented an overview of the Municipal Tax Relief Act (Senate Bill 866) at a July 6 special workshop, proposing a 1% local sales‑and‑use tax to fund a minimum 20% property tax credit for owner‑occupied municipal properties and to finance specified infrastructure projects if approved by voters via referendum.

The staff presentation said official eight‑year capture figures from the state’s Revenue and Fiscal Affairs office were pending, but preliminary projections indicated the measure could deliver “almost $3.8 million” in property‑tax relief and roughly $15.5 million for infrastructure over the projection period, subject to revision once RFA numbers are incorporated, City staff said.

The proposal requires an ordinance to place the question on the ballot; staff outlined a timeline that would allow a first reading July 20, a likely second reading Aug. 3 and transmittal to Greenville County by Aug. 17 so the ballot could appear in the Nov. 4 general election. If voters approve the measure, staff said collections would begin May 1 following the election and the state Department of Revenue would administer collections and remit the local share quarterly.

Council members spent much of the workshop debating the project list and how to present the ballot question to voters. Several members argued that naming visible, broadly used projects — such as street resurfacing or a public‑safety facility — would build public trust and make the measure easier to sell, while others cautioned that narrowly targeted road projects risked benefiting relatively few residents.

A councilor who opposed moving the issue forward criticized the local approach and said the city was being forced to make up for state and regional funding shortfalls; another member noted the majority of the city had supported a penny tax two years earlier and described the referendum as an avenue for voters to decide. “For me … it is a referendum,” one councilor said, urging that voters be given the choice.

City staff also highlighted legal constraints on outreach. “If council does adopt the ordinance and it goes before the people in November, we cannot use public dollars to advocate for the referendum,” the staff member said, adding that public funds may be used only to educate voters about the measure’s contents and mechanics—not to urge support.

Staff recommended working with the city attorney to draft ballot language and a project list and to bring a refined proposal back to council for further discussion; councilors indicated support for drafting the ordinance and returning with a clearer, narrower project list and messaging strategy before any final vote.

The workshop produced no ordinance vote. Staff will draft language and a project list for council review; the next procedural opportunities included a potential first reading on July 20 and a special‑call second reading in early August if council elects to move forward.