Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves conveyance ordinance for Project Keystone, with due‑diligence and parking concerns noted

Greer City Council · July 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council approved an ordinance authorizing conveyance of city land for Project Keystone, contingent on a negotiated development agreement; councilmembers pressed staff to address downtown parking, merchant outreach and the due‑diligence timeline. The city noted a prior purchase price of about $3.8 million and a proposed sale price of $3.5 million.

The Greer City Council voted to move forward with an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of city property tied to Project Keystone, with the sale structured so the city's approval of a negotiated development agreement remains a required step.

City administrator Mister Merriman told council the conveyance and the purchase‑sale agreement assume "the successful negotiation of the development agreement," and staff said they expect up to 120 days for negotiation with the developer, with potential extensions. Several councilmembers said they were concerned about how the project will affect downtown parking and asked for a clearer communications plan for merchants during the due‑diligence period. "We will be as intentional with communications, with alternative parking options," Merriman said, promising staff would work with merchants and the developer to mitigate construction impacts.

Council members also questioned incentives and the rationale for the deal terms. Staff said the property was purchased for about $3.8 million and the proposed sale price is $3.5 million, which staff described as an opportunity cost the city is willing to accept to accelerate development. Council discussion ranged from the length of the due‑diligence window to whether incentives should exclude hospitality uses; one member suggested restricting incentives for certain hospitality anchors. Staff repeatedly emphasized that the development agreement will memorialize conditions council wants to see and that if council later denies that agreement "then this goes away." The ordinance was moved and seconded and the council recorded its affirmative vote.