Greenville City Council members and city staff, from left, councilpersons Mark Lehman, Jim Barrus, Claude Johnson, City Clerk Krissi Brott, City Manager George Bosanic, Mayor Jeff Scoby, Larry Moss, Jeanne Cunliffe, Jay Linton and Assistant City Manager Heather Feazel, discuss how to handle future excise tax revenue from retail marijuana retailers during Tuesday’s meeting of the Council. — DN Photo | Cory Smith
GREENVILLE — With retail marijuana soon to be a reality in this city, an additional source of tax revenue will eventually be added to the city’s general fund.
However, how these excise tax funds will be used is likely to be decided at a later date, following a discussion by the Greenville City Council on Tuesday evening.
Two weeks ago, Councilperson Larry Moss requested that the Council discuss the possibility of earmarking the future marijuana excise tax funds specifically for “neighborhoods north of the Flat River.”
After a discussion that included all council members, no decision was made as Moss chose not to make a formal motion, stating it was clear his proposal would not receive support.
Other council members indicated that their reluctance to earmark the future funds was not about neglecting the northern neighborhoods, but about using other means to support that area, such as through the council’s annual Items for Accomplishment (IFA) list.
‘It’s a good fit’
In discussing the subject, Moss reiterated his case that the excise marijuana tax funds, which could exceed $60,000 per municipality, per marijuana retailer in 2025, should be used to support the city’s northern neighborhoods.
Greenville City Councilperson Larry Moss, left, expresses his desire during Tuesday’s meeting that future excise tax revenue from retail marijuana retailers be earmarked for “neighborhoods north of the Flat River.” The council took no action after Moss declined to make a motion due to a perceived lack of support following discussion. — DN Photo | Cory Smith
For 2024-2025, the city projects general fund revenues of $6,199,100 (excluding the excise marijuana tax). With one retailer, Green Medicine Shop, expected to be licensed before October 1, the additional tax revenue would account for less than 1% of the city’s total revenues.
“I just felt we set up the North Lafayette Zoning District to have an area of town that would accommodate the marijuana retailers, medical and recreational,” he said. “As I drive around that neighborhood, I see it is one of the neighborhoods that is probably most in need of some TLC — tender loving care. It just seems to me that it’s a good fit. We’ve asked those people to host this (marijuana retailers) on their main drag (N. Lafayette Street) and I just felt that, to give back to that neighborhood, makes sense.”
Moss suggested that new curbs and gutters, street repairs, new or repaired sidewalks, connections to city trails, and additional city parks were needed. He noted that all these items appear on the council’s IFA list, which last year included over 30 items ranked by the council for city staff focus.
“It meets the goals of several of our items on the IFA list … So I thought this was a good fit,” he said.
‘Do we really need to earmark it?’
Councilperson Mark Lehman expressed his preference for using the excise marijuana tax funds for the Greenville Department of Public Safety and questioned whether specific allocation was necessary.
Greenville City Councilperson Jim Barrus, left, shares his thoughts about future excise tax revenue from retail marijuana retailers and his belief that they shouldn’t be earmarked for a specific purpose during Tuesday’s meeting as fellow councilperson Claude Johnson listens. — DN Photo | Cory Smith
“Do we really even need to earmark it?” he asked City Manager George Bosanic.
“I don’t know, really, what that answer (is),” Bosanic answered. “We don’t earmark funds, per se, for anything else unless there’s a very specific reason for it.”
Bosanic cited the Downtown Development Authority as an example, which captures tax revenue from three sources specifically earmarked for the DDA’s general fund. However, he explained that most city revenue, primarily from property taxes and state revenue sharing, goes into the city’s general fund without specific designations.
“All of that funnels through the general fund and then we decide after I recommend to you where that money goes and for what … “The types of items that Larry brings up are in the IFA. They’ve gone to you for discussion and they are listed within the Capital Improvements Projects (CIP),” he said.
Councilperson Jim Barrus expressed a preference for not earmarking funds for a specific area.
“I live in that corridor. Yes, it’s rundown, but what part of the city isn’t?” he said. “My suggestion is that we just kind of spread it evenly, that’s my thought. I understand that it needs it up there, I really do, I see it every day, but what part of the city doesn’t need it? That’s just kind of the way I see it.”
“I agree with everyone, but I think Jim kind of said it all,” Councilperson Claude Johnson added. “Wherever we can use it, to spread it out, not just earmarking it for one specific location. That’s probably not the appropriate thing to do.”
Councilperson Jeanne Cunliffe acknowledged the reasoning behind earmarking funds, but hesitated to commit to it, citing the changing dynamics of the city.
“I would like to suggest that it is a good idea to support certain areas in the city, but I think it’s something that if you do support it, it should be reviewed on a yearly or bi-yearly basis so that you can have a choice in the future to benefit each part of the city as you go along and see where the needs are,” she said.
Councilperson Jay Linton felt that earmarking funds for a specific purpose might be premature.
“There are opportunities coming up with things like Pearl Street Park and when we did the Recreational Master Plan, there were several areas, including the Water Works area, included in that,” he said. “These monies could be used for those areas, but we’ve yet to determine what direction we are going to go in. The community may be involved in deciding that. So I don’t think we want to make a decision and try to earmark this for a certain area.”
Looking at the city ‘as a whole’
In closing the discussion, Mayor Jeff Scoby emphasized his belief that the City Council should allocate funds based on recommendations from city staff and various department heads.
Greenville Mayor Jeff Scoby shares his thoughts during Tuesday’s meeting on the subject of future excise tax revenue from retail marijuana retailers and his belief that the spending of such funds should be determined by city staff and the council’s Items for Accomplishment list. — DN Photo | Cory Smith
“We have directors … They come up with what the city needs, based on their department’s needs and those needs are also a reflection of the IFA,” he said. “We can dive deeper into the IFA. These are things the community is saying they want … I’m actually looking at the list that you gave us, Larry, and I think it’s great. These are things that I think, one, are good things that should be happening in our community and not just in North Lafayette. Do I think there is some love that’s needed there? I’m not going to argue that. It’s a different part of the city, too, so it has to be looked at that way as well.”
Scoby suggested that the council keep Moss’s desire for improvements in the North Lafayette corridor in mind when reviewing the IFA list again this fall.
“I think we keep pushing IFA items and if that means more for North Lafayette, that’s great,” he said. “If that’s a concern, we can improve something there, but I also look at the city as a whole. I don’t exactly agree, Jim, that it’s all rundown. I think our city has been doing very well, there’s new businesses coming up in downtown left and right. There’s new businesses popping up in the North Lafayette district and they aren’t recreational marijuana businesses. There are more opportunities happening.”
“Every city has its ups and downs and right now I think we are on the up, but Jeanne makes a good point,” he continued. “What happens this year might be different next year. We may deal with some other crisis or situation. That’s why we do the budget every year. That’s why George and his departments all do that. Every year there are new needs.”
No action taken
At the end of the discussion, the council took no action.
“I was going to make a motion, but I don’t think there’s one to be made,” Johnson said.
Scoby reiterated his belief that no motion was necessary, emphasizing confidence in the existing process.
“I don’t think anybody’s shy, especially Jim, that our city is worn down, but I think that focus needs to go in the IFA — that’s where we make the influence right there,” he said. “We hash it out and we prioritize it. I don’t know how many items have been accomplished this year, and it hasn’t happened in order, even though we prioritize it.”
Although Moss had prepared a motion to earmark the funds, he chose not to present it.
“I have a motion, but at this point, I don’t see that I would get any support for it, so I’ll let it go,” he said.
While Moss appeared disappointed by the lack of action, Scoby encouraged the council to take the points he raised seriously.
“I think this was good, and Larry, I know you didn’t quite get what you wanted, but I think very strong points were made and everyone should take the IFA very seriously,” he said. “As George said, we’re on the up and up. Yes, we’re spending a lot of money, but it’s because we’re making things happen. The IFA is a big influence in that.”
