On Monday night, North Myrtle Beach residents have a rare chance to weigh in before their wallets do. The City Council holds a public hearing June 1 on the proposed Fiscal Year 2027 budget, a hearing required under state law before adoption [FY2027 Proposed Budget, 2026]. Behind the routine agenda item sits a spending plan of roughly $190.2 million — up 5.4 percent from the prior year — that would raise property taxes, add new debt, and lift several household fees at once [FY2027 Proposed Budget, 2026]. For a coastal community that has long prided itself on low taxes, this budget marks a turning point worth understanding before the microphone opens.
A Tax Increase Framed as Overdue
The most direct hit to homeowners is a property tax increase from 45 to 50 mills [FY2027 Proposed Budget, 2026]. The city frames this as only the second increase in nine years, intended to bring property tax revenue — about $34 million — closer to the roughly $38 million it costs to provide public safety [FY2027 Proposed Budget, 2026]. That argument has real merit; the prior year’s budget itself boasted that 45 mills was among the lowest rates for any full-service government in South Carolina [FY2026 Budget, 2025].
Yet residents should look past the rate alone. The budget’s own tables show total property tax revenue climbing nearly 23 percent year over year — far more than a five-mill rate change produces by itself, which means rising property values are doing part of the lifting [FY2027 Proposed Budget, 2026]. Asking how much of the bigger tax bill comes from the rate versus reassessment is fair game Monday night.
The Quiet Reversal of a 36-Year Promise
If the tax hike is the loudest change, a quieter one may matter more over time. For decades the city financed equipment and capital projects on a pay-as-you-go basis — spending cash rather than borrowing. The FY2026 budget stated this plainly, noting the practice dated to 1988 and that equipment replacement would continue that way [FY2026 Budget, 2025].
The 2027 plan breaks with that history. It adds an $18 million bond for the Aquatic & Fitness Center expansion and a $5.43 million lease-purchase to buy heavy equipment — a ladder truck, refuse and recycling trucks, a street sweeper, and a motor grader [FY2027 Proposed Budget, 2026]. That equipment is exactly the category the previous budget said would stay pay-as-you-go. As a result, debt service jumps 57 percent, from about $4.4 million to $6.9 million [FY2027 Proposed Budget, 2026]. The new document never flags this as a departure from 36 years of practice — an omission residents can press the council to explain.
Fees Rising on Several Fronts
Beyond taxes and debt, the everyday costs of living in the city are edging up together. The proposed solid waste fee rises $2.00 to offset a county disposal increase of $1.50 per ton — meaning the city’s fee climbs more than the cost driving it [FY2027 Proposed Budget, 2026]. Water and sewer charges rise as well, pushed by Grand Strand Water & Sewer Authority increases of 12.2 percent for water and 15.8 percent for sewer, with parks and recreation program fees also going up [FY2027 Proposed Budget, 2026]. Stacked on the tax increase, these create a cumulative burden the budget never totals for a typical household — a calculation worth requesting.
Leaning on Savings and a Curious Bet
That pressure shows in how the city balances its books. The new Capital Asset Fund draws $12 million from fund balance, while the Water & Sewer Utility Fund pulls $8.9 million — a 347 percent jump in reliance on savings [FY2027 Proposed Budget, 2026]. Notably, the prior budget had already warned that a revenue bond might be needed for water projects, suggesting this cash-flow strain was foreseeable [FY2026 Budget, 2025].
One pairing invites particular scrutiny: the city proposes borrowing $18 million to expand the Aquatic & Fitness Center in the same year that facility’s membership revenue is budgeted to fall 18 percent [FY2027 Proposed Budget, 2026]. Expanding a facility while its core revenue declines is a bet that deserves a clear justification.
Why It’s Hard to Check the Math
Underlying all of this is a comparability problem. The 2027 budget consolidates the city’s finances into five funds and restates the prior year to match — but the FY2026 document reported its own total as $211.9 million, while the new budget now shows that same year as $180.3 million after netting transfers [FY2026 Budget, 2025; FY2027 Proposed Budget, 2026]. The city calls the restructuring a transparency improvement, yet the inability to cleanly reconcile last year’s total to this year’s restated version makes that claim hard to verify.
Taken together, the 2027 budget is not reckless — it is a city absorbing real inflation, county cost increases, and growth. But it asks residents to accept higher taxes, new debt that reverses a long tradition, and reduced year-over-year clarity, all at once. Monday’s hearing is the moment to ask whether each of those trade-offs is necessary, and whether they were made in plain view.
Further Reading
- City of North Myrtle Beach FY2027 Proposed Budget (July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2027) — available through the City Clerk and the city’s official website, nmb.us
- City of North Myrtle Beach FY2026 Adopted Budget — available through the City Clerk and nmb.us
- June 1, 2026 City Council meeting agenda and public hearing notice — posted on the city’s website ahead of the meeting
- South Carolina Code of Laws §6-1-80 (public hearing requirement for municipal budgets) — scstatehouse.gov
