Methodology and coverage

This site covers Greenville County’s published budget and audited financial statements. It does not assess county legal or procedural questions, including whether a vote was lawful, notice was proper or a transfer required a three-quarters majority. Those questions concern applicable law and county proceedings.

The finances of Greenville County Schools, City of Greenville and Greater Greenville Sanitation are also outside this site’s scope. These links lead to those governments’ official sites.

The county’s published budget total combines four fund groups. This site covers the General Fund end to end and the other groups at the level their published summaries support. Every region of every page states its own coverage; the table below is all of those claims in one place.

“Not covered” always means this site has not extracted that material from official sources. It is never a claim that the county did not publish it.

Full coverage data, all years: scope-coverage.csv

Most checks in this project test internal consistency: totals against their parts, years against their neighbours, one dataset against another. All of those pass on a year that was transcribed wrongly but consistently. Only one check compares these figures to the printed page, and it is the one reported here.

For each year, an agent that had not seen this data and was denied access to the repository was given the source PDF and a list of cells to read, and reported what the page said. Coverage is stratified: every department-total row in the audited report’s detailed budget-and-actual schedule is read from its original-budget column, because no internal check reaches those source cells.

423 cells across 14 years: 415 exact, 8 explained by the dash-as-nil convention, 0 mismatched. FY2025 is verified differently — by two independent extractions — and is shown as such below. FY2006–FY2010 are included in the adopted fund totals and department-level series. They are outside the audited budget-versus-actual comparison and source-fidelity audit.

verification-status.csv — the same table as data.

Absent is not zero. A year with no published figure is shown as not published. A numeric zero is shown as $0. When the county printed a dash, the site uses zero for reconciled arithmetic but marks the displayed $0 with †. These are different facts and the site never converts an unpublished year into zero.

A budget is spending authority, not money held. A fund’s figure is what it is authorized to spend. Fund balance is an accounting position, not cash in an account, and the two are kept apart throughout.

Money in and money out are labeled, never summed. The county publishes revenue as an estimate and appropriations as adopted. Adding figures of different status would produce a number the county never printed.

Transfers between funds are shown, not netted away. A transfer out of one fund is money in to another. Both appear, which is why the fund totals cannot simply be added to a “what the county really spends” figure without double counting.

The most recent official printing wins. The county reprints prior-year figures in later books, sometimes revised. Where a figure is cited to a book later than its own year, the citation says “as printed in” so the reader is not left thinking the citation is a mistake.

Audited results and adopted budgets answer different questions. Where both exist, both are shown and labeled. The budget-versus-actual comparison uses the final budget as printed in the audited report, not the originally adopted figure, and says so on the page. The originally adopted figure is not lost: every year’s comparison download carries both, as original_budget and budget, so the mid-year amendment is visible.

A budget difference is a question to explain, not a judgement by itself. Compare revenue, spending, transfers and other financing for the same year and accounting basis. Ask what caused the difference, whether it will recur and what commitments remain. Whether spending exceeded lawful authority depends on the applicable appropriation level and approval records. A difference in either direction can arise from timing, one-time items or revised estimates, and does not by itself establish a conclusion about how the county was funded.

Caveats are stored as data, not written into pages, so the same qualification reaches every figure it applies to and travels with the CSV downloads. This is all of them.

Two ways of countingbasis adjustment · FY2011–FY2017

For these years the county reports its result on a budget basis and then prints a separate adjustment reconciling it to the accounting basis used elsewhere in the report. Both figures are the county's own; the adjustment is what connects them.

Which budget this compares againstbasis label · FY2011–FY2025

This comparison uses the final budget as amended during the year, the same figure the county's audited report measures its results against. The originally adopted budget is a different number; both are in the comparison CSV for each year, as `original_budget` and `budget`.

No budget was set for this lineno appropriation · FY2022–FY2025

The report shows no appropriation on this General Fund debt-service line but records actual spending. General Fund debt service is normally budgeted as a transfer to another fund, so the transfer and debt-service lines need to be read together.

The county's printed revenue and expense totals differ in three yearspresentation difference · FY2022–FY2026

The county's own books print Enterprise revenue-and-funding and expense totals that do not match: FY2022 $18,614,519 against $18,614,517 ($2 apart); FY2024 $25,029,990 against $24,663,492 ($366,498 apart, all within Stormwater); FY2026 budget $33,222,897 against $33,222,597 ($300 apart, within Stormwater). Both totals are shown as printed; the site does not reconcile them.

Money in and out does not fully explain the changeincomplete flow decomposition · FY2016–FY2017

In this year some of the change in fund balance comes from items outside ordinary revenue, spending and transfers, such as proceeds from selling land. Those amounts are itemised separately so the year still adds up.

Money in and out does not fully explain the changeincomplete flow decomposition · FY2022–FY2023

In this year some of the change in fund balance comes from items outside ordinary revenue, spending and transfers, such as asset sales or an accounting adjustment. Those amounts are itemised separately so the year still adds up.

Employee benefits moved into departmentscomparability break · FY2006

The county dates this change to FY2005: "Changes were made during FY2005 to reflect all departmental benefits within each department." The figures here change at FY2006 instead. The FY2005 department figures come from the earlier FY2004-05 book under the old arrangement, and the FY2006-07 book does not reprint FY2005 department detail.

How this year was readextraction method · FY2012

The county's 2012 report was published in a form computers cannot read as text. Its figures were read from the page images instead, and every total on those pages was checked against its parts. One heading was lost in the county's own file: the "Intergovernmental" revenue category is printed as "State of South Carolina:".

Departments were reorganisedcomparability break · FY2013

Around 2013 the county reorganised its departments. Human resources and public works stop appearing under those names, and emergency medical services and community development and planning appear. Figures either side of this point describe different groupings of work and should not be read as one continuous trend.

Engineering absorbed its two bureauscomparability break · FY2016

Through FY2015 the county printed ENGINEERING as one line among three, alongside ENGINEERING - NORTHERN BUREAU and ENGINEERING - SOUTHERN BUREAU. From FY2016 it printed a single ENGINEERING line covering all three. The label did not change, so nothing in the source marks the difference: the figure rises from $970,760 to $5,586,265, which is not a 475 percent increase in spending. The county printed no combined figure for the three FY2015 lines; adding them gives $5,553,311, which is our sum and not a published total, and it is within 0.6 percent of the FY2016 single line. Figures before and after FY2016 describe different amounts of work.

This figure is derivedderived value · FY2018

The county's 2018 report does not print a budget total for public safety. This figure is the sum of the four public safety sub-department totals printed on the same page. The county's own printed variance for the line confirms it.

A two-year rise with no stated reasonunusual movement · FY2020–FY2021

This line was appropriated $378,300 in FY2019, $5,196,837 in FY2020 and $6,819,595 in FY2021, then $327,931 in FY2022 — up roughly fourteenfold for two years and back again. No other General Fund line falls to match it, so this is not money moved from another department. This site transcribes the county's appropriation tables and not its narrative sections, so a reason may be stated somewhere we have not extracted. The amounts are confirmed against the printed page; the reason is not.

A step change with no stated reasonunusual movement · FY2020

This line was appropriated $1,563,640 in FY2019 and $4,337,648 in FY2020, and stayed near the higher figure afterwards. No other General Fund line falls to match it, so this is not money moved from another department. This site transcribes the county's appropriation tables and not its narrative sections, so a reason may be stated somewhere we have not extracted. The amounts are confirmed against the printed page; the reason is not.

A step change with no stated reasonunusual movement · FY2020

This line was appropriated $552,701 in FY2019 and $959,331 in FY2020, and continued upward afterwards. No other General Fund line falls to match it, so this is not money moved from another department. This site transcribes the county's appropriation tables and not its narrative sections, so a reason may be stated somewhere we have not extracted. The amounts are confirmed against the printed page; the reason is not.

Several departments were renamed in FY2020taxonomy break · FY2020

The FY2020-21 budget book relabelled a number of lines without changing what they cover. The operating-transfers category became Other Financing Uses and its members were renamed with it; County Administrator became Council Administrator; Geographic Information System gained an S. Planning and Code Compliance was split into Planning and Code Enforcement, whose two FY2020 totals add to $4,907,755 — our sum, not a figure the county printed — against the published $4,690,825 for the single FY2019 line. Where this site can show which later line continues an earlier one, the entity page links the two.

FY2022 actual General Fund transfers included COVID reliefunusual movement · FY2022

The audited report records a $41,245,916 transfer from the COVID Relief Fund into the General Fund. This describes actual transfers, not the adopted transfer budget.

A large transfer the report does not explainundocumented cause · FY2023

Actual transfers into the General Fund were again unusually large in 2023, including $30.3 million from revenue bonds. This describes actual transfers, not the adopted transfer budget. We could not find an explanation for it in the county's report. The amount is confirmed; the reason is not stated.

Departments were regrouped again in FY2024taxonomy break · FY2024

The county reorganised its operating categories a second time in FY2024, largely reversing the FY2013 change. Public Works, absent since FY2013, reappears and takes back four departments from Community Development and Planning, whose total falls from $24,797,319 to $5,496,367 without any department being cut. Three of the four were also renamed as they moved. Figures either side of FY2024 describe different groupings of work and should not be read as one continuous trend.

This year has no audited result yetbudget only · FY2026

Everything shown for 2026 is the budget the county adopted. The audited report covering this year is expected around December 2026, so there is nothing yet to compare the plan against.

Departments are grouped differently this yeartaxonomy break · FY2026

The adopted budget book groups departments differently from the audited reports used for earlier years. Emergency medical services sits inside a wider administration department, and public safety is narrower. Figures for 2026 should not be lined up against earlier years department by department.

How transfers affect this totalinterfund transfer · FY2026

The General Fund budgets a $250,000 transfer to Affordable Housing. The county records it as money out of the General Fund and money into Special Revenue. When the fund budgets are added, the transfer out remains alongside the receiving fund's spending plan. A transfer from outside the displayed total is different. The General Fund receives $2,500,000 from the Workers Compensation Internal Service Fund. Internal Service is outside this total, so that receipt does not have two entries within the displayed fund budgets. This total includes the General Fund, selected Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service and Enterprise. The county reports Capital Projects and Internal Service separately.

This total includes transfers between fundsinterfund transfer

Transfers between these funds stay in the county's published total, so some money appears in more than one fund's plan. Changes over time compare those plans, not actual service spending.

Department names as printedlabel drift · FY2011–FY2025

The county's own wording for a department changes between years, and sometimes within a single page. Each figure is shown with a consistent name so it can be followed over time, and the county's exact printed wording is kept alongside it so any figure can be checked against the cited page.

The county printed a dash here, not a numeric zeroprinted dash

The site treats the dash as zero so the county's own totals add up. A dash does not mean nothing was budgeted or spent.

The county printed a dash here, not a zeroprinted dash · FY2022–FY2023

This summary table prints a dash for the Affordable Housing fund. The site uses zero for reconciled arithmetic and marks the amount with † so the source form remains visible. The table does not establish that the county appropriated nothing for affordable housing; the FY2022–23 adopted budget book carries a separate ordinance appropriation that this fund table does not represent. This cell must not be read as a zero-funding decision.

The county printed a dash here, not a zeroprinted dash · FY2022–FY2023

This summary table prints a dash for the Natural Resources fund. The site uses zero for reconciled arithmetic and marks the amount with † so the source form remains visible. The FY2022–23 adopted budget ordinances appropriate $1 million in each year to the Historic and Natural Resources Trust through a Trust and Agency account outside this fund table. This cell must not be read as a claim that the county appropriated nothing for conservation.

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2002–FY2013

Transfers made for matching grants and other special revenue funds whose budget is passed separately by County Council

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2010–FY2013

Transfers made for matching grants and other special revenue funds whose budget is passed separately by County Council

Unresolved source marker: *source footnote · FY2012–FY2015

The county prints this marker but does not define it on the cited page or elsewhere in this budget book.

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2016–FY2021

Expenditures include transfers out to other funds

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2022–FY2026

Expenditures include transfers out to other funds

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2012–FY2026

Expenditures include transfers out to other funds

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2012–FY2021

Expenditures include transfers out to other funds

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2022–FY2025

Expenditures include transfers out to other funds

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2016–FY2026

Expenditures include transfers out to other funds

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2012–FY2017

Expenditures include transfers out to other funds

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2016–FY2026

Expenditures include transfers out to other funds

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2016–FY2021

Expenditures include transfers out to other funds

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2014–FY2017

Expenditures include transfers out to other funds

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2012–FY2015

Expenditures include transfers out to other funds

Source footnote: *source footnote · FY2022–FY2026

Expenditures include transfers out to other funds

Source footnote: **source footnote · FY2012–FY2015

Beginning in FY2014, Human Resources area is included under General Services

How money in is shown for this yearstatement not printed · FY2002–FY2017

The county began printing a single reconciled statement of where General Fund money comes from in 2018. For earlier years it published the revenue estimate and its categories without that statement, so those figures are shown here as the county reported them rather than as one reconciled total.

Why no transfers-removed total?interfund transfer

A reconciled schedule of transfers between the included funds is not yet available on this site. That calculation needs matching sending and receiving entries for the same year and budget basis. Subtracting every transfer receipt would also remove money arriving from funds outside this total.

Why our department totals differ from the county's summary pagepresentation difference · FY2011–FY2025

Our department figures come from the county's detailed budget schedule, which counts each department's capital purchases inside that department's total. The county's one-page summary statement moves those purchases to a separate capital outlay line, so its department totals can look smaller than ours. Both versions add up to the same overall total.

Reading a budget differencebasis label · FY2011–FY2025

A budget difference is a question to explain, not a judgement by itself. Compare revenue, spending, transfers and other financing for the same year and accounting basis. Ask what caused the difference, whether it will recur and what commitments remain. Whether spending exceeded lawful authority depends on the applicable appropriation level and approval records. A difference in either direction can arise from timing, one-time items or revised estimates, and does not by itself establish a conclusion about how the county was funded.

data-notes.csv

The property-tax explorer uses the Auditor’s 2025 millage sheet, covering 120 tax districts. These are calendar-year tax rates, separate from the fiscal-year budgets elsewhere on this site. The latest sheet linked on the Auditor’s index when checked September 7, 2026 was 2025; this tool does not forecast a 2026 bill.

A mill is $1 of tax per $1,000 of assessed value. We multiply taxable market value by the selected 4% or 6% assessment ratio, then apply each recipient’s rate. For a qualifying 4% legal residence, Greenville school operating tax is removed once; school debt remains. If the resident selects an approved Homestead exemption, we first subtract up to $50,000 of taxable market value. Eligibility and exemptions are not inferred from an address.

The rate sheet’s 60.1-mill county column includes 47.3 mills for general county operations, 0.4 for county debt, and separate library, technical college and art museum levies. The result separates those recipients. Amounts are rounded to cents per line and added; actual billing rules, fees, other credits and exemptions can change the bill. Mixed 4%/6% assessments, agricultural valuations and special tax arrangements are outside this estimate. For Anderson and Spartanburg school districts, we withhold 4% estimates because their operating/debt split has not been verified here.

Address and tax-map searches go from your browser to county GIS. After you choose a parcel, its PIN is sent to this site’s server to retrieve the official 2025 county record. The site does not save the query, place it in the URL, or send it to analytics; the county and hosting provider may keep their own logs. GIS returns current parcel records, so a displayed value or district may differ from the 2025 tax roll. Confirm or replace them using that year’s record. Recipient amounts are calculated from those inputs and published rates; they are not imported notice line items or a record of what was actually paid or distributed.

Sources: 2025 millage sheet (districts on pages 1–4; county and Greenville school components on page 4), Real Property FAQ, and the county’s estimator. Published rates and citations are available in the millage CSV.

FY2006–FY2010 are included in the adopted fund totals and department-level series. They are outside the audited budget-versus-actual comparison and source-fidelity audit. The older audited reports use a different fund-balance presentation, and department figures across FY2005 and FY2006 carry a comparability break because employee benefits moved into the departments.

Special Revenue and Debt Service money-in summaries from FY2010 and Enterprise money-in summaries from FY2002 are covered. This site does not yet cover:

• Internal Service Fund money in and fund position
• detail beneath the published Special Revenue, Debt Service, and Enterprise summary statements
• workforce, staffing, or salaries
• property-tax history or actual bills
• figures adjusted for inflation or population

Each missing layer needs its own extraction from official sources.

It does not calculate a transfers-removed total. The county’s published budget total keeps the transfers between its fund groups, so some money appears in more than one fund’s plan. Removing them needs matching sending and receiving entries for the same year and the same budget basis, and simply subtracting every transfer receipt would also remove money arriving from funds outside the total.

The consolidated fund summary on p.36 of the FY2026 book is a different scope from the four-group total on p.35. It prints estimated financial sources ($388,631,230) separately from transfers and other financing, and its columns include Capital Projects and Internal Service, which the published budget total does not.

It does not rank, score, or evaluate what the county spends money on. It has no position on whether any figure here is too high or too low.

Budget figures cite their document and printed page. These are the budget and audited-report sources; the separate tax-rate sources are listed in the property-tax methodology.

• FY2004-05County of Greenville Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 — Budget Highlights
• FY2006-07County of Greenville Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 — Budget Highlights
• FY2008-09County of Greenville Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 — Budget Highlights
• FY2010-11County of Greenville Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 — Budget Highlights
• FY2011-ACFRGreenville County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2011
• FY2012-13County of Greenville Budget Document Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013
• FY2012-ACFRGreenville County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2012
• FY2013-ACFRGreenville County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2013
• FY2014-15County of Greenville Budget Document Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015
• FY2014-ACFRGreenville County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2014
• FY2015-ACFRGreenville County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2015
• FY2016-17County of Greenville Budget Document Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017
• FY2016-ACFRGreenville County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2016
• FY2017-ACFRGreenville County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2017
• FY2018-19County of Greenville Budget Document Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019
• FY2018-ACFRGreenville County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2018
• FY2019-ACFRGreenville County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2019
• FY2020-21County of Greenville Budget Document Fiscal Years 2020 and 2021
• FY2020-ACFRGreenville County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2020
• FY2021-ACFRGreenville County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2021
• FY2022-23County of Greenville Budget Document Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023
• FY2022-ACFRGreenville County Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2022
• FY2023-ACFRGreenville County Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2023
• FY2024-25County of Greenville Budget Document Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025
• FY2024-ACFRGreenville County Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2024
• FY2025-ACFRGreenville County Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2025
• FY2026County of Greenville Budget Document Fiscal Year 2026

If a figure here does not match the county’s document, the document is right and this site is wrong. Corrections are recorded in a public log with the date and what changed, and the page carrying a corrected figure says so.

The corrections log and how to report an error