County Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting of the Lancaster County Council to order. I ask that the clerk note for the record that a quorum of counsel is present, that public notice of the meeting, including the meeting agenda, has been posted the required length of time in the lobby of the county administration building and on the county website, and that the news media was notified of the meeting time and place. I welcome you to your county council meeting. I would ask that you take a moment to turn off or place on vibrate any cell phones. Thank you for not wearing any hats or caps in the council chambers. And please be considerate of others in the room by refraining from conversations during the meeting. I ask that you please stand and join council for the Pledge of Allegiance followed by the invocation given this evening by Council Member Stuart Graham. to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Heavenly Father, we thank you for the gifts of community, calling, and the work before us, Western employees, our neighbors, and this council. Give us clear minds, steady hands, and united spirits. grant us wisdom to govern well, courage to do what is right, patience to listen, and grace to work together even when we differ. As we consider each item, lead us toward decisions that serve the common good and honor those who call Lancaster County home. In your name we pray, amen.

Before we get into the meeting, I got one special announcement. Sheriff Vail is here with us tonight, and I believe today is his birthday. Hey, it's his 30th birthday. His 30th birthday. Happy birthday. Okay, do we have a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Have a motion for Mr. Neal. Second. Mr. Harper. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous.

Mr. Chair.

Yes.

I think we have another birthday in the house.

Okay.

Lauren.

Okay, we have another birthday. Happy birthday, Lauren.

And she really is 30 minus.

All right, now we're gonna go on to citizens' comments. We come to citizens' comments. Please bear in mind that this is not a period of dialogue with council or a question and answer period. This is your opportunity to address council with your concerns. I ask that you address your remarks to council as a body and not to any individual council member. Please speak into the microphone, state your name and address for the record, and you will have up to three minutes to address counsel. Your time will not start until you have provided your name and address. Okay, first, Mr. Tim Page.

guys for letting me speak tonight. My name is Tim Page. I live at 1240 Branch Street here in Lancaster, South Carolina. I'm a member of the board, a newly member of the board at the Council on the Aging. And how I landed there was I recently retired as an educator with Lancaster County School District. Previous to that was Spartanburg County, where I'm from. and started volunteering Meals on Wheels. My father-in-law did that and so I thought it'd be a good use of my retired time. And then shortly after that, I was asked to be a member of the board, and before I could really think about what that entailed, I said yes. I guess why I'm here tonight with my fellow board members is there's a growing need in the county, and I'm sure you're aware of it, but the awareness to me became real clear in those first few meetings. I'm not sure very many people in the county understand what all services that the council and the agent provides. But large in particular was something I was familiar with because my wife and I, we have three sons who are grown men now. And our middle son, Elijah, is a special needs adult. And at the age of almost 30 now, he works part-time at Food Lion and uses a ride service to go to an adult enrichment center where he gets to do some community service projects and interact with other special needs adults, which is beneficial to him on the days when he doesn't work at Food Lion. But I guess what I'm here for is just to make sure that if there's any way possible for the board to put a place in for the council and agent to receive as much as they can to help meet that growing need in the county. I know it would be greatly appreciated and it will certainly meet that growing need.

Thank you. Ms. Janitha Belk.

Good evening. My name is Janitha Belk and I live at 503 North Pine Street, Lancaster. So I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I am a board member as well with Tim. I'm a retired educator as well here in Lancaster. I'm a parent educator, so a lot of the parents that come to our parent meetings have to choose to ride the large bus because they don't have cars. They don't have money to pay for other people to bring them to the meetings, so they need a transportation. Since January, our agency has not received some of the monies that we need, a lot of the funding that we need. So right now we have lots of people who are missing things that we know we can provide. And this interruption that we have in services causes burdens to those who need these rides. So the last 14 passenger vans really help us and continue to support those in need by being aware of the need and then supporting us with funding. So that's what I asked for you tonight is to consider giving us as much as possible so that we can continue the services and keep the bands moving because the burden is large, a lot taller than I am. So I thank you so much for listening. Pat Clancy.

Hello, I'm Pat Clancy. I'm the new president of the board of the Lancaster County council on aging. My address is 1982. Shamrock Avenue here in Lancaster. Thank you all for listening to us We ask that you consider favorably our budget request as specified earlier by our executive director Jessica McGriff our budget request is for our Lars a Lancaster area ride service program Lars provides public transportation at low fares for seniors veterans low-income residents workers, students, and for those who live out in the country with no reliable transportation. The riders will utilize doctors, colleges, pharmacies, senior services, stores of all kinds, putting a lot of money in Lancaster's economy. As the county grows, the demand for public transportation will increase. Without an increase in funding, LARS will have to reduce its routes, charge more for fares, exactly when the county continues to grow and could use their services. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Janine Clifton.

Jeanine Clifton, 2023, Oliver Terrace, Indian Land, South Carolina. I guess I'm back. I appreciate the support, and I know you're listening, but the ambition of the developer on Barbaville Road and Fort Mill Highway just continues, irregardless of the Planning Commission vote or the UDO. For tonight, the clearing of the adjacent property started right after the council meeting as if they had gotten approval. The UDO violations are now continuing to mount without any enforcement. Two big violations that I'm bringing forward, and my neighbors have written about them, are first about the cell tower. I'm not going to do all the codes, but all required setbacks shall be used as tree preservation areas. They didn't. They clear cut it all the way. The tower fall zone is a required setback. That's kind of being ignored. The trees around the cell tower are mandatory and the tower isn't allowed without them. Again, it's clear-cut. The cell tower shall be camouflaged to reflect the character of its environment. The tower shall preserve the pre-existing character of the site, preserve or improve existing vegetation, and minimize disturbances. Clear clad, pure sand. The second is sensitive lands. They're violating nearly all of the Judeo Chapter 8.6 requirements for protecting environmentally sensitive lands. Their own civil plans identify wetland and stream, waters of the U.S., and still they bulldozed it entirely and trampled them. So we can go down the whole list, but it's adverse impacts to wetland area, wetland not preserved by deed or plat restrictions, stream not preserved to the greatest extent possible, tree cutting and vegetation removal shall be minimized. It was complete. Development shall not destroy or damage vegetation, it's gone. Undisturbed buffer area shall be required for all waters of the United States. Linear buffers shall be designated along both sides of all channels. I can go on and on and on. We'll continue to come. We'll continue to voice until there's adequate enforcement. What I've got to ask is, and I hope you think about it, is why isn't this being stopped? Why isn't the UADO being enforced? And why are we allowing our property values to be impacted? So I really hope you think about this. We really need your support. It was denied at the last planning commission meeting, but the developer continued and clear cut the land two days later. So please help us. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Jean Doyle.

Good evening. Jean Doyle, 6030 Kings Canyon Way, Lancaster. Good evening and thank you, County Council. While I was unable to attend the first reading of the budget, I have viewed the meeting on YouTube portions more than once. with only three minutes I can only focus on a couple of the budget issues. First I said I guess I'm glad to see the most of you support getting serious about the Harrisburg fire station although not final it would appear that most of you have agreed that six million dollars should be appropriated towards a new station and then number that you can live with although One council member seems to think that the number should be $4 million. I did a quick Google search to find out what a fire station costs, and what I found was everything that Chief Nichols has said is 100% accurate. As of April 26, $650 per square foot is what a new fire station costs, which is exactly on the high end of what Chief Nichols had said. Google search stated that the average three-bay 15,000 to 18,000 square foot facility costs between $8 and $12 million, exactly what Chief Nichols has said. The same search indicated that this is the most expensive municipal building that can be built. That was kind of interesting to me, and it can vary depending on what other things are added to it. costs are up thirty eight percent since twenty twenty and recent years the increases have been ten to fifteen percent i think understanding the costs in the potential increases important because as the process is nickel-and-dimed and decisions are kicked down the road The costs are going to continue to go up. Assuming only a 10% increase, $8 million becomes $8.8 million. $800,000 is a lot of money. It could go for the cost of a lot of new equipment, staffing, et cetera. And just to kind of put an exclamation point on this, Ms. McGriff also reminded the council that Edgewater is going to need a fire station as well. One last thought when it comes to the fire stations. Please build for the future. Don't build for two decades ago. Um, the other part of the budget that was of interest to me was a discussion on salaries and I still don't understand if they're merit raises based on time served or whatever. And I guess because I don't get the detail, but I thought it was an interesting discussion. I hope that it isn't just on time served. I hope that every employee has KPIs that they need to meet in order to get at least part of those pay raises. And then the last comment I was shocked that you guys were asking for line item budgets. You mean you don't get them already? I mean, I've had to build budgets. I've had to justify budgets. And the best way to build a budget is zero-based budgeting. You start with zero dollars and build it all the way up. Each department should be doing that and submitting it to the finance team so that they can aggregate everything and give you guys a really detailed budget. I want to thank the finance department. It's a thankless job. Everybody wants a piece of them all the time. And it's an ongoing job. It's not just right now for the budget. But it's a lot of hard work. So those are just some comments. And thank you, Mr. Harper, for asking the constituents to please comment on the budget. I hope a lot of people have at least written in. Thanks.

Thank you. Mr. Gordon Johnston.

Council members and staff, good evening. Gordon Johnston, 7401 Carmel Executive Park Drive, Charlotte 28210. Here tonight, representing Century Communities with respect to item 8F on the agenda, this is the second reading for the requested amendment to the development agreement for the Shallow Woods project. No changes to report from the first reading two weeks ago, other than there has been continued positive progress. But as with the first reading, I will be here this evening, so if there are any questions for me,

or any comments i can respond to i'd be happy to come back up at your request thank you again for your time and consideration thank you miss kathy storm good evening i'm kathy storm 5025 redwood grove trail in indian land First thing I wanted to bring attention to is that I saw on the Internet that Jose Luis's daughter graduated from Indian Land High School with honors, not only the valedictorian, but with two associate degrees. Fantastic job. The other thing I wanted to talk about was the budget. I have not done enough homework on this, but I understand that the budget is 30-some percent over last year's budget. And I just think that's a lot of money when everybody's struggling right now. to come up with 35% or 38% more. The other thing that I would like to say is that tomorrow is a very important day. It's Election Day, and I hope that everybody will go out and vote. This is a privilege that we have in this country, and so many Just throw it away. Don't vote. Many people have died for that reason. And I hope you take advantage of that tomorrow. Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you. Ms. Carla Knight-Dees.

Carla Knight Dees, 887 Baxley Pond Road, Kershaw, South Carolina. Good evening, and thank you all for allowing me the opportunity to speak. Meeting after meeting, I have the opportunity to observe you guys as you make decisions that affect Lancaster County and all of its residents. Each session includes challenges, rewards, critiques, and the occasional praise. As a county taxpayer, I recognize your effort involved. I listen to how funds are used. I observe you doing your best to lessen taxpayer impacts, and I appreciate you being able to ask you guys follow-up questions when needed. To any of you, none of you have ever been unavailable when I have asked you questions, and I have asked you tough questions. And you've answered, and I appreciate that. At the last meeting, the topic of raises was brought up, including county council compensation. It was also mentioned, which prompted me to do a little research on the matter. And here are the facts that I gathered. Roughly the annual compensation for you guys is $13,000. The amount of hours you work averages to about 1,500 hours per year. I contend that your hours are more than that. I see you out at the events. There's nothing you're invited to that you don't come to. And I appreciate that as well. You're at multiple meetings, multiple special meetings outside of your normal call duties. You have constituent services along with your meetings, community engagement, planning ordinances that govern our county, budget details for an entire county and a multitude of departments. This list of your responsibilities could go on and on and on. Your responsibilities span throughout long days, long nights. I've been here on those nights watching you guys as well. Your weekends are also taken up. You read thousands of pages of documents in a year. This job requires you to balance public service with your personal life, and it's certainly not easy. But it is one that should be appropriately rewarded, in my opinion. I see your efforts and I see your commitment in all you do. You don't always suit everybody, but you try and you listen. And you do it for a whopping average of $8.67 an hour. I don't know anybody that would do it. So my hat's off to all you guys and I thank you for that. And while many of you are against the voting for your own raise, I believe it's well deserved and I ask you to reconsider. No matter your decision, please know your work is not without notice and it is very much appreciated. Thank you. Jane Alford.

Hi, I'm Jane Alford. I'm here on behalf of the Lancaster County Council of the Arts, 201 West Elliott Street, Fort Mill. That's where I live. The Arts Council is at 201 West Gay Street. Good evening, council members, and thank you for the opportunity to share some Arts Council events with you. The LCCA kicked off its 30th annual Arts and Science Camp this week here in Lancaster. Seventy children ages 5 through 12 are building sculptures and solar ovens, screen printing their own T-shirts, making story quilts and batik designs, making music and learning karate and dance and more in the half-day camp taught by local teachers. This week's camp will be followed by camps in Indian Land next week. and Kershaw the following week. The Beaufort Camp will be July 13th through 17th. Camp at each location is 9 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a special parent showcase on Friday for children to show off their creations. There are still a few spots open in each of the upcoming camps, and parents can visit the LCCA website at artslancaster.com to sign up. Camp costs $120 per child, and the LCCA offers scholarships for those who need them. The LCCA's annual summer arts and science camp is funded in part by the South Carolina Arts Commission, which is funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. It's also funded locally by the Aris Foundation, John T. Stevens Foundation, the Stanislaus Community Foundation, Duke Energy Foundation, the Lancaster Lunch and Indian Land Rotary Clubs, and the more than 50 people who donated to our Send a Kid to Camp drive this spring. Also, on Friday, June 5th, we opened our Creative Collaborations exhibit in partnership with Chester Lancaster Disabilities and Special Needs at the Springs House at the corner of Gay and Catawba Streets. The exhibit showcases artworks by 18 disabilities and special needs consumers who were paired with local artists. Each created their own artworks, and then each pair created a collaborative artwork for the exhibit. All of these are on display now through the end of June. The gallery exhibits are always free to the public. The LCCA and DSN will host a special free reception for the Creative Collaborations artists at the Springs House at 3 p.m. Sunday, June 14th. The Creative Collaborations exhibit will then hit the road in July for pop-ups at DSN and local libraries. In the fall, the LCCA will host free public workshops on art therapy and music therapy to help everyone understand what these therapies involve and how they can benefit both the people involved and the whole community. The Creative Collaborations exhibit is funded in part by South Arts and the South Carolina Arts Commission, both funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. I appreciate you listening to this and hope that you will come to our exhibit and that if anybody wants to send their kid to camp or their grandkid, they're welcome to do so. Thank you.

Thank you. We do have two comments that came in via email. The first one was from Sonny Rivers, talking about the conditions of downtown Lancaster, school conditions and school rating, lack of community resources, programs for kids, college prep for high school seniors, lack of community businesses, i.e. bagels, donuts, and other things. And then we have a second one from Frank Simpkins. None of the rezoning issues seem to be concerned for power, water, sewer, fire, police, roads, and EMS. Does council have a strategic plan? Thank you. Okay, we're gonna go on to item six. I don't think we have any special presentations tonight, so we'll go to item seven. Do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Mr. Chair, I move to approve consent agenda items 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E, and 7L.

We have a motion from Mr. Marsteller, a second from Ms. McGriff. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. Okay, we go now to item 8, our non-consent agenda. Item 8A is resolution... 1325-R2026, a resolution titled a resolution establishing the local option sales tax credit factor for the 2026 tax year.

I have a motion to approve. So moved.

I have a motion from Ms. McGriff. I have a second.

Second.

Second from Mr. Lewis. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it's unanimous. Mr. Willis.

Well, council's already approved it, but this is formula driven, so there's not really much discussion on it. I would note that it is a little bit of a decrease this year. More tax parcels, more tax value to spread the local office sales tax credit factor out. Hopefully it'll rebound next year when we have a full year of collection from some of our new big box stores, Costco, Target, some of those.

All right, thank you. We're going to go on to item 8B. Public hearing and first reading of ordinance number 2026-2038. An ordinance to amend the official zoning map of Langster County to rezone approximately .565 acres. Tax map number 0013-00-018.10. which is located at 2637 World Reach Drive from the General Business GB District to the Regional Business RB District. This is Planning Department Case Number RZ-2025-2390. The Planning Commission recommended approval by a unanimous vote of six to zero, and the Planning staff also recommended approval of the rezoning request. Ms. Cato, do we have a motion to approve? So moved. I have a motion from Mr. Neal. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second from Ms. McGriff, Ms. Cato.

Mr. Chairman, there is a public hearing on this as well.

We had no one sign up, so we're going past the public hearing. Thank you, Ms. McGriff.

Thank you, Chairman and Council. We have a request from Hebrews South Indian Land LLC. a rezoning request from general business to regional business. The property is located at 2637 Worldwide Drive. The intent is if it does get a rezoning is to combine this to the property that's located that's the to the north. This is to make for a commercial development and to be able to meet all the commercial development standards. Staff recommended approval because this fits in with the future land use plan map. Planning Commission recommended approval. Actually, it was five to zero. It was unanimous, but it was five to zero. We had one... member that was not in attendance. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you may have, and I believe the applicant's here if you have any questions for them.

Are there any questions of Ms. Cato?

I had a question, Mr. Chair. So if I've read correctly in the notes, there was a comment that they could not meet in general business what they would be able to meet in RV. What is that?

No, so the use that they're doing is allowed, but the reason why they're wanting to rezone it is to be able to combine it to another piece of property that is regional business. The commercial development standards that they can't meet is mostly for the parking. They need parking for their building. And there's already, if this is combined as one, there's parking already that's located on the SWIG site.

So if they do this, they can then utilize the parking with SWIG, which they would not be able to do if they remained?

So they can't combine the two parcels together as one use with two different buildings unless we rezone this other piece. Once they combine them, SWIG's going to have its own parking, but Seven Brews needs more parking because it'll be an inside where you can sit down. So it'll have its own separate parcels, but the movement of traffic coming into there and coming out. So it will be better for them if it's combined as one.

Because what it's saying, if I'm reading the memo, it says the applicant has begun the sketch review process and has found that the parcel they are developing is not able to meet current UDO standards and requires more property to accommodate their plan.

And that is because of the traffic movement being the parking coming in with the travel aisles. They will have cars that are standing out in the travel aisle waiting for the parking to come. If you have a parking space for them to come out, they're going to be standing in the travel aisle coming in the way the parcel is currently today. But if they combine this, they'll have more movement.

So they can only combine this if they're both zoned the same?

Yes, sir.

Sorry, so if they combine this, then they both will work together? Yes, sir. That's what you're saying is what's needed in order to develop the whole parcel?

Yes.

Okay.

Are there any other questions? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. Okay, we're gonna go on to item 8C, public hearing and first reading of ordinance number 2026-2039. an ordinance to amend the official zoning map of Lancaster County to rezone approximately 7.09 acres. Tax map number 0016-00-048.00, which is located at 7319 Charlotte Highway from the Low Density Residential district to the neighborhood business district. Planning department case number is RZ-2026-0503. Planning commission recommended approval by unanimous vote of six to zero. And the planning staff also recommended approval of the rezoning request. There was a public hearing scheduled for this. No one signed up. So we'll move on to the discussion. Is there a motion to approve? So moved.

have a motion for mister harvard we have a second second second for mister graham misquoted the application but that we have is from dot the kumari ramesh and this is uh... to rezone a piece of property that's currently zoned ld are two neighborhood business the properties located at seventy three nineteen charlotte highway uh... the future land use plan that calls for this to be a growth The growth area, planning staff recommended approval as well as the planning commission that approved it five to zero. We had a board member that was not in attendance. They're wanting to do some type of a commercial, but they have not dedicated or specified a specific use. But we took what the future land use plan map called for. And I'll be glad to answer any questions if you have any, and I believe that they're here as well if you have any for the applicant.

Do you have any questions of Mr. Cato?

Yeah, I mean, my question is around access to this property. So it's showing that the entrance exit is on Charles Pettus.

They also have access to off Charlotte Highway. I don't know, because we haven't seen a sketch plan, I don't know what the proposed use is gonna look like, but the tax parcel and the address is off Charlotte Highway.

I just want to make sure that there's not going to be an access because Charles Pettis is very different than 521. So for me, um, it makes sense for neighborhood business off of 521, but if they're accessing off of Charles Pettus and it's a commercial type situation, that doesn't make any sense to me. So how would that be resolved? How would we know where that access point is actually going to be?

Once they have a proposed use that they've decided on, that they've committed to, then they would have to do a commercial site plan and then we'll know where. But 9-1-1 has already addressed this off of Charlotte Highway, so unless they changed it with 9-1-1 to come off Charles Pettus, they would have to access it off Charlotte Highway.

I guess just going to your question, are you concerned that they would have access to Charles Pettus regardless, or as long as they have access on to 521, that's all?

I just wouldn't, I mean, one of the uses would be a bank. So, I mean, I wouldn't want people coming off of Charles, Charles Pettus is a very different road than Mr. Rule residential road. Obviously 521 is a four lane highway. So I would not want a commercial use coming in off of Charles Pettus.

And that's what I thought you were saying. Cause then I think what you're saying is, it will have access to 521 because that's where emergency services have already indicated the address for that. But it could potentially have access still as secondary to Charles Pettus.

Yeah. I don't know what the topo of that property looks like. I'm not sure. But also, too, I think it's—I don't know if—I think they're here. The applicants are here. They can speak more to what the proposed use is. However, I think the intent was more of a community, a small-scale doctor's office of some sort of that. So they have not—

You can ask the applicants to come up if you want to. I mean, I think the other businesses that are located that are adjacent to Charles Pettus do have back entrances to Charles Pettus now, so.

Are they here?

I don't see them. Are they here?

I don't see them. So without the applicant not being here and without us not having a specific use, I can't give you a clear of what the use would be.

Is there any other questions? Hearing none, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it's unanimous.

Mr. Chairman, would you leave that on non-consent?

I will.

Ask the applicant to be here for second reading.

You made a note of that, Lauren. All right, thank you. We're gonna go now to item 8D, public hearing and first reading of ordinance number 2026-2040. an ordinance to amend the official zoning map of Lancaster County to rezone approximately an 8.001 acre portion of tax map number 0041-00-004.00, which is located at 3172 Shallow Unity Road from the institutional INS district to the rural residential RR district. Planning department case number is RZ-2026-0725. The planning commission recommended approval by unanimous vote of six to zero, and the planning staff has stated that the rezoning request meets the UDO requirements for approval. Again, there is a public hearing. No one signed up. We'll proceed to the discussion. Is there a motion to approve?

Move to approve.

I have a motion for Mr. Mosteller. Is there a second? Second. Second from Ms. McGriff. Ms. Cato.

We have an application to rezone a piece of property from Gary Pettus. This is going to be a newly parcel. If it gets rezoned, they want to subdivide the parcel. It's to allow for a residential home. It's currently zoned institutional now, and they're wanting to rezone it to RR, which is rural residential. The future land use designation map was ruled. So planning staff recommended approval. Planning commission recommended approval 5-0. We had a member that was not there. Be glad to answer any questions that you may have. And the applicants are here if you have any questions for them.

Any questions? Any comments? If not, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed is unanimous. And we're gonna move on to item 8E. This has been requested to be removed by the applicant, so we will go on to item 8F now.

I need to recuse myself from this one.

Okay, go ahead, Mr. Harper. Okay, we're going to have second reading of ordinance number 2026-2035, an ordinance to amend a development agreement with Century Community Southeast LLC in accordance with the unified development ordinance section 9.18.C.16.C and section 5.02 of ordinance 2025-1987, to extend the effective date of the agreement to September 30th, 2026. This passed four to two at the May 2026 meeting. County Stuart Graham and Jose Luis opposed and Steve Harper recused himself. Do we have a motion? So moved. Second. I have a motion from Mr. Mosteller and a second from Ms. McGriff to approve. Ms. Cato.

Chairman and Council, there's been no changes since the first reading. All right, thank you very much.

Is there any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

All those opposed?

And the vote is four for and two against. Okay, we're gonna go on to item 8G, public hearing and second reading ordinance number 2026-2036. An ordinance to appropriate funds and approve a detailed budget for Lancaster County for the fiscal year beginning July the 1st, 2026 and ending June the 30th, 2027. Our fiscal year 2026-2027. to set millage rates for the levy of ad valorem taxes, to approve a schedule of taxes, fees, and charges for services for fiscal year 2026-2027, and to provide for matters related thereto. This passed 6-1 at the May 2026 County Council meeting. Mr. Mosseller opposed. We do have a public hearing. We have one person signed up for it. We have arrived at the place on the agenda for public hearings. Public hearings provide an opportunity for the public to express to council their views on the matter that is the subject of the public hearing. Each public hearing will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of state and local law. Please keep in mind that a public hearing is not a forum for the public to engage in a discussion or dialogue with council members. Your comments and views are to be addressed to the council as a whole. Each person will be given three minutes to make their comments. Please speak into the microphone. Before you begin your comments, please state your name and address for the record. Your three minutes will start when you have provided your name and address. Ms. Barbara Scannell.

My printer stopped working, so I only had four copies. Sorry. Some of you are going to have to share. My name is Barbara Scannell. I live at 8016 Carolina Lakes Way in Indian Land. members chairman and members of the County Council I am speaking to you this evening about the current funding issues of the Lancaster County EMS and fire rescue departments and a proposal for a long-term sustainable solution I hope you will consider this proposal during the 26 20 26 27 budget process or shortly thereafter we've all heard you discuss that additional EMS and fire rescue services are needed throughout the county. However, funding resources have not kept up with the increased demand for those services. Guideline for fire rescue is one fire station for 10,000 people and for EMS one ambulance for 10,000 people. An Indian land panhandle, there's over 45,000 people, two fire station staff with onsite, full-time firefighters, augmented with part-time staff, and two EMS stations with three ambulances that run 24 hours each day, and one ambulance that runs 12 hours each day. There are several 55 plus communities in the panhandle totaling over 4,000 units and six assisted living facilities. We're among your most popular people for EMS. The Roseland community south of Highway 5 will have over 1,800 units at build out and there's thousands of units applications not only in the county but also in the city that are coming on board as well that's going to affect not just the panhandle but all your districts. So EMS and fire rescue are struggling now. Units from other areas in Lancaster County regularly are being rerouted to the panhandle. This creates a domino effect of no units available throughout the other county districts, causing increased response times. So right now, only residences in the Panhandle and Town of Banwick are charged an annual fire rescue fee on their property tax bills. These fees pay for the full-time and part-time firefighters' salaries and benefits. The fees are the same regardless of the size of the property. Residents who live in 1,000 square foot or less residences pay the same as someone that has a 3,500 square foot house. There's a great difference in the owners as far as financial capabilities of these properties as well as seniors or disabled people. So the bottom line is I am suggesting that because commercial properties are assessed based on square feet that we may want to look at doing the same thing for an annual EMS fee and annual fire rescue fee assessed on all residents in county districts based on the number of bedrooms for apartments and square feet of all other housing units. I went ahead, this is what I kind of showed you. I went ahead and did just an estimation of what this could look like. For example, apartments would be $10 for a one-bedroom for EMS, fire rescue $10, total of $20. You cut that down for disabled. People right now in Indian land that have... Houses up to 3,500 square feet would pay about the same as they pay now So I hope you consider this because everybody needs EMS services throughout the county and it's just going to keep getting worse and worse If we don't do something to fund these folks. Thank you.

You miss Gunnell It's peruse neck ups first do we have a motion to approve the budget I

Right now, we're gonna prove it.

We're gonna wait. We always get a motion before we start.

We make amendments as we go, right?

I'll make that motion. So moved. Okay. I have a motion for Mr. Harper, second for Mr. Neal. All right, we are ready to go.

Mr. Chairman.

Yes, sir.

If I could, just a real quick summary. What you have before you at second reading is a net neutral millage budget. Debt service did go down. General fund operations did go up, but they offset each other. USCL, court security were static. So we are net neutral. It includes many of the things you talked about at first reading. But in order to make it a net neutral millage increase budget, We had to go back, and we took a hatchet to recurring expenses. There's some things in here that I doubt are going to find favor with council. This is where it's going to be a policy decision of council. What are your biggest priorities? For example, we cut the detention officers. Is that going to impact the ability to open up the detention center? I haven't seen the numbers from Department of Corrections, what they're going to require on our staffing. Don't know. We had to cut the shift change at EMS, the additional medics, to implement that. Would we lose medics to surrounding counties? Because we're the only ones running 2448.

Everybody's running 2472.

Even down to the smaller departments. This is one that, for the record, affects me because, hey, I'm 70. I'm hoping they're going to pass that new homestead bill. But Suzette's got to have somebody track that thing. That person's gone out of the budget. So just wanted to point that out to you that we've done our best to bring you a net neutral budget, including things that were discussed in the first reading. However, to the extent council may want to change some of those things, some of the increases and fund other positions. Those are policy decisions of council. We stand ready to implement whatever council desires.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Willis. Good evening, council, staff. Tonight is the second reading of your FY27 operating budget and includes tonight's public hearing. Here is the agenda. So what we are going to focus our discussion on is what's new from when we last spoke at first reading. We also need that designation for the group that will fulfill the tourism function regionally. So we'll ask for a vote for that as well. And then, of course, preparing for third reading, which will be on Monday, June 22nd, and that includes a second public hearing on tonight's budget, which was advertised on Saturday in the Lancaster News and then adoption. And so what's coming around to you, for the record, is a table that was requested earlier today regarding, okay, what are those positions that were requested initially and then where are we today? budget goals. This particular, you've seen this slide repeatedly, these are our guardrails for developing the budget for Lancaster County, our own goals and finance. The general fund at a glance. So this is continuing our conversation from first reading. And of course, we're gaining new information on new revenue. So we feel confident that we will have 6.4 million in new revenue in the general fund. New positions, only four. To Mr. Willis's point, for us to create a scenario where you have a neutral net increase, we're able to do four new positions.

If I could interrupt real quickly. The reason those four were selected, two of them are already on staff. One is your ERP coordinator that council's had the ERP program going for well over a year. The second one is a position the sheriff has currently, and that is to administer a $1.26 million federal grant that we received. The other two are grants that are hiring from the sheriff's office and by law in October. We must pick those up.

Question, how are we funding the one that's already on staff?

Y'all approved that, well, for the ERP, y'all approved funding that two or three months ago.

Yeah, we did six months, and now we're making the position whole for FY27.

The other one that's on the $1.26 million grant is the position that he will be leaving the sheriff's office end of June and we'll pick him up July 1.

Your line item detail includes, tonight's line item detail includes a 2%, for non-public safety staff and a 6% increase for sheriff and EMS, public safety communications, the coroner, fire emergency management, and the chief magistrate. So the public safety staff That bucket, 6% increase, non-sworn, non-public-related function, 2%. The line item detail includes the adjustment, the Tier 1 adjustment, from 15 minimum wage to 17 minimum wage. So now how we built it out was we raised from 15 to 17. those full and part-time staff that this applies to, and then layered in either the two or the 6%, depending on what bucket you fall into as far as salary adjustment.

Can I make a comment on that? Sure. I love our law enforcement and public safety and everybody to death, but you can't have that big a spread between public safety and all our other departmental employees. To me, that's just not fair. To me, this is a more cost of a living raise than it is a public safety raise. I'm looking at raising them for the same reason. I mean, I love all of them to death, and the issue we're having is they've been bumped up higher for the last few years than our other employees, and I'm scared we're going to lose key employees if we don't bridge that gap some.

And I agree with Steve. I think it's important that we recognize the importance of all of our staff. And if we're doing a 2%, I figured that up at $40 a week. So that's really not saying anything. I think we need to give all of our staff the attention that they need when it comes to a raise. 2% is just really an embarrassment, I think, for us to even present that. I have no problem with the sheriff and EMS public safety getting the raise. I think it should be across the board, 5%, all departments. And I had asked for those numbers to be calculated if we do across the board 5% for all other employees. I don't know whether Sabrina did, but I had asked her to calculate the numbers because...

It's 2.8%. If you do 1% across all, I mean, if you do 5% all across the board, it's 2.8 million.

And what was it at 2%? I'm not on that page.

With 6 and 2, it's currently presented at 2.4.

And I guess I'm looking at what will be the additional amount to meet that 5%. But what I'm saying is, and I think I've said it before, is the problems that the employees having, two percenters are the same as the six percenters. It's not changing. So we need to recognize that every job in this county is important. One makes the other work and the other makes the next one work. So we need to look at that. And we know the cost of living is outrageous. But we need to look at our employees and make sure they have a livable wage.

Did you get those numbers, Sabrina? Yes, ma'am. And so good evening, council members. And this was, the calculation was actually leaving the sheriffs and the other departments, fire, EMS, public safety corner, leaving them at 6% if we were just to change those other non-sworn related employees to a 5%. That would bring the bottom line total to 3.2 million. That would be 6% for this public safety groups, 5% for all others. That would be an additional It'll be an additional $727,000. Okay.

That's the number I was looking for.

Those numbers. Say that again. Start with the sheriff and the EMS and fires. What you got those at?

Sheriff, EMS, fire emergency management, public safety, and coroner. six percent that's what you got those are at six percent okay just that group at six percent is 1.98 million all other staff and this is again including full and part-time all other staff at five percent would be 1.2 million those two together 3.2 million okay what we're going to be

What was the figure with the 6% for the public safety and the 2% for the employees? I want to know the difference here.

The difference is the 727,000. So 2% for those non-public safety staff is 484,000 and change. And for those in the 6% group, it's 1.98 million.

You're basically at 2.5 million before.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

So we could do a 5% across the board, public safety and all employees.

If you did 5% across the board, all employees, you would have to come up with about, well, it's $394,000. It's $394,000 above that 2.4 million.

To me, I'll be honest with you, I would rather see all of our employees get 5% instead of these minimum wage people. deserve a raise too, but we're looking at close to a million dollars to bring these people up to $17 an hour, and then you got your compression in there. We're looking at $919,000. I'd like to take that money and let's put toward giving all of our employees a bigger raise, public safety, everything. That's my opinion.

As a takeaway for our next meeting, which will happen on Wednesday, is it the interest that it be 5% across the board for all staff, or is it 6% for the public safety group and then 5% for everyone else?

Let me ask you a question while we're calculating. That 5% for the $15 an hour, what would that total be? Would it bring them up past $17 annually?

Okay, now that calculation, I can't do that for you very quickly, but I will tell you, I do want to just also clarify that the order in which we would make these adjustments, the across the board increase, we would calculate that first. So wherever everyone is right now, whatever the approved increase is, whether it's the two and the six or the five and the six, whatever's approved, the across the board would happen first. After that, we would re-tier those groups to see who is still below $17 an hour. And then from there, it would bring that group to $17. And that, we haven't gotten to that slide yet, but that slide shows that new estimation. It's based on the 2% and the 6%, but it's after the across the board, then whoever's still below the $17, bring them to the $17. It would not be that much, would it? It would be $15.75.

It would be $0.75.

It would be $15.75 would be their new rate.

I would like to know those total figures for 6% for public safety and 5% for across the board, everybody else, what that total would be if you could get that calculation.

I still want those $15 folks at $17. I'm not swaying from that. I'm sorry? I still want us to pick that $17 tier as the minimum wage. I mean, bring everybody up to that level.

Okay, so just to make sure. We're going to have to make some choices.

I know we will have to. I'm saying what I want. Okay, just.

I'd like to see the six and the five and see how we look with that.

Okay, 6% for the public safety staff, 5% for all others. That is the 3.2 million. Yep.

which is basically an $800,000 difference, which would be made up by the increase on the 17. Yes, that's fine.

That's gone, we're gonna wash it.

The next challenge is gonna be what we're gonna do.

For the roles that are, yeah, because we need to add Suzette's role. Yes. Carla had some people.

What's the detention center for me? Yeah, the detention center.

We can't have a ghost town for a detention center.

Let's skip by this part first. I'd like a motion that we add this and let's get this raised part out of the way.

Let me hear the motion.

My motion is 6% for public safety, what they have them at, and 5% across the board for all other employees.

Second.

And this would delete the $17 increase and the compression.

So that's all part of the same motion. That's right. Okay.

We eliminated compression, right?

Right. It'll eliminate everything that's tied to that.

The entire increase to $17 minimum and the compression.

And the compression, which is about the $900,000 difference. Okay.

Okay. We have a motion for Mr. Mosley.

I think somebody over there seconded.

Okay. Mr. Neal seconded. All right. Is there any additional discussion? I just want to say one thing.

I can live with that 5% across the board for all the employees. If I have to give up that $17, bring them out the mud, but I'm not going to give up on the discussion because I'm going to bring it up again next year. You know, We have this discussion every year about raises, but at least it's given them a 75% raise. $15.75. $2 last year. They're still in the mud. We've got a long way to go. We've got a long way to go. I can live with that 5% and 6%.

We'll take that for making adjustments for the next workshop and for third reading. And I will note as well, when we get to those slides, we can bypass those slides. But I did want to just mention that we did include as a fund balance appropriation $125,000 for the compensation and classification study. And so if that's something that we do fully want to address in a comprehensive way to have the study and look at how far we are from the market, how far we are from our internal position, one compared to the other, we did include a fund balance appropriation for that.

Can I speak to that, Mr. Chair?

Go ahead.

You know, the only thing with that study is that it's going to tell us where we need to be, and we are nowhere where we need to be. It's going to put us in a discussion that we are not ready to have. We've done it before and could not meet the requirements. So I think when we get to a point where we are in the black and we've got money to do that and can give raises, I think that's when we need to do it.

I agree 100% on that.

Mr. Chairman, before we get into these other positions, we've had a request for, I think, to be fully funded for the ride, what is it, the Lars?

We've got a motion on the floor right now.

Okay, well, we need to vote on that.

I guess my point on that is, I mean, I think conceptually, I agree with where we're going on the raises, but I'd like to see what we're gonna do with some other things because we're not gonna know where the money's going to end up until we get through the discussion on the detention center. I mean, right now, right now, if we, if we do the six and the 5% raise and we eliminate the $17 where we've got $192,000, but we know that we're going to, we're going to need to add some more things in there. Um, so I would prefer waiting on, um, the this amendment until we sort out some of the other things. So we know what we're, we're dealing with. That's just my, my thoughts on it.

That's what y'all want to do. I'll be glad to draw my motion right now.

Are you saying do it to wait and let's do an amendment with whatever?

I think exceptionally we're okay with the raises. I think what we do need to understand is what, what's the impact on the detention center? Number one, on what we need to do with that to get that open with the appropriate number of officers so that at least we know what gap we need to bridge. Right now we don't know what that is yet. So I would say let's figure out what that is first and then come back to this discussion. I think we're conceptually on the same page, but I think we might be jumping the gun a little bit.

Yeah. Okay. Mr. Moss still has withdrawn his motion. Will you withdraw your second, Mr. Neal? Yeah.

Okay. We're not giving it up. We're just holding it.

I hope not. I got a question on revenue for Ms. Harris. In our one time, you know, in our fund balance, we have... Right now, $70-something million. And if the budget passes, I think $36 million will be reserved. But that will not be spent this year. In y'all's calculations for future revenue, is that $36 million, is the interest calculated on that for the rest of the year? What I'm trying to get at is if there's $36 million that's going to stay in our account this year. You know, that's $750,000, $800,000. $700,000 or more in interest for one-time projects this year? Or is our interest revenue that we're projecting... Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Is our interest revenue reflective of investing our reserve dollars? And it is. It is. It is.

It is taken into account what we currently have in reserves. That's figured in. Okay.

Yes, it is. If our reserves change, we'll adjust what we're projecting in interest. But what we have projected for next year is reflective of that. Yes, sir.

I'm trying to help the council to age it out because we do have an aging population. Unfortunately, I lost both of my parents in the last year. seven years but we were able to uh you know to to buy a van to haul them around and so but a lot of people aren't that fortunate and and and i see a lot of people that uh that really need this service and it's only we're all getting old in this county I know I'm not making a motion at this time, but if we can, before the end of this discussion, if there is additional funding that could be available, I would like for that to be considered.

And I do think we've got so many other important positions to discuss. As we said, the auditor's office, the detention center, which is a priority if we're going to open it with an adequate staff. We've got to remember that. That is, to me, one of our priorities. We really need to look at those positions.

I'd just like to drop this into the conversation today because this is hot off the press. I talked to the sheriff this morning. As of this morning, we had over 220 prisoners in a jail that was built for 125. 240. So we're basically double what the population of that jail should be. We have to figure out how we're going to open a new detention center on time because if not, I mean, we're going to open that new detention center and we're going to be at 75% capacity or more.

And we're putting that much money into a new facility. We should be able to staff it accordingly. And I keep saying, y'all, we're growing. We've got to make some decisions about what we're going to do. We can't live off last year's budget. We know that we are one of the fastest-growing counties in the state. So we've got to make decisions accordingly.

Mayor Fale, could you come up? There's been a request that you come up and just address that a little bit with us. I know you did, at the last meeting, you said that you could wait until for those employees to be half-year employees, so that helped things a little bit.

Yeah, I asked for half up front, which would be the sworn officers and the booking clerks and two extra officers come January. I think that's reasonable. Are there any questions for the sheriff? No.

Say that again, just so I understand. Say that again.

Total of 12. Correct. Eight sworn officers, four booking clerks.

Right.

I'm asking for half of the sworn officers up front.

So four.

No, six.

Oh, six total.

And then two sworn officers and four booking clerks in January.

And none of that is in the budget, right, Mr. Mayor?

So, well, all of the full year is, well, I see eight and four.

He's just split them up by position. So when he's saying eight sworn officers, he's talking about eight sworn detention officers, correct, Sheriff?

That's right. You're looking at, I think it's 486 for the eight correctional officers and 177 for the four booking clerks minus the fringe.

I mean, there's a whole host of reasons why we're overcrowded at the detention center and not, I mean, the good thing is is the sheriff is doing his job. The bad thing is is the rest of the judicial system's not performing at the same level that the sheriff's performing at. Get them in and get them out.

I'm just trying to get to the number that we need to solve for. So to open this, just to make sure I've got this right, you need four right now? Or four? I'm asking for six sworn. Six sworn officers out of eight.

That's right.

Okay.

And the reason I need them up front is they have to come in, they have to get trained, they have to go to the academy. They really won't be any good to me till January once I get them hired.

Each one of those is roughly just under $100,000 a year. So six is $600,000 or just a little under that. Four, did he say four?

Sheriff, I hang out the figures in front of me, but you mentioned the medical contract. I forgot. Has that been cut back in this budget to what it's going to actually be?

I don't think so. What was that fee? Around $600,000.

And I think we budgeted or asked for a little. It's going $943,000 in here. How much? $943,079. You can cut that back to $600,000.

Do you all have any information on that?

All right, I'd have done my part.

Thank you. let Jamie go ahead and say what you're gonna say excuse me some of those operating increases decreases are later in the presentation deck I have this it been deep has it been reduced okay so so we do have about 300,000 that comes out of that as a reduction

I'm going to have to pay for this. Correction officers.

So where are we at, Mr. Chair?

That would more than pay for the four non-sworn booking clerks. After that, 284, so.

Yeah, we just got to figure out where the rest is coming in. And just remember, this is for... We still got ones that'll be hired after the beginning of the year, so you're gonna have a half a year salary on them.

I mean, we still need, I mean, that's basically, to open the detention center, I mean, it's a little bit less than that, but it's basically about a million dollars.

Yes.

I mean, it might be 900, but you gotta, we need to come up with that. Yeah, right now.

So the salary wage report study, can we take that out? Yeah, the compensation study. I think we agreed to take that out.

Compensation study. I'll make a motion to.

We'll wait, yeah.

Let's have the discussion, we'll keep that and we'll try to roll this all up into a motion. I think Mr. Graham is tracking all this and we're gonna lean on you to. to bring us back together, Mr. Graham.

Yeah, I mean, that one's capital, right? I mean, that's not operations. Okay. You know, I'm really focused on the capital. I agree with the salary study and what Ms. McGriff said. I would like the ability for us to take that out now, but consider bringing that back, you know, in the course of next year's maybe a budget amendment if we get it in the right place.

How much was that study?

It's $125,000.

$125,000. $125,000. We don't have a need right now.

Mr. Chairman.

Yes, sir.

If I could, just as information for counsel, there are some adjustments for the solicitor public defender, but they're contractual. They're not into salaries, but I would note that. And just as information, because I still do the CJCC statistics, they've reduced the backlog this fiscal year by about 700 cases. The bad news is they started about 7,000 in the whole, so it's going to take a little bit.

So where we at? We waiting on some, we're waiting on the next topic of discussion.

Well, we got the EMS and the, we need to address the.

3472.

Yeah, and the auditor's office request.

I think that EMS Fire Services Partnership 534,000 could wait. I would like to see us do that 24-72 for EMS. If any way possible.

Councilman, I would note that 2472 is the first of a two-year cycle on that, just for the record.

Between the detention center and the EMS, that's $2.1 million, roughly. $2.1. My suggestion with the EMS would be if we go down that route to make it a half year and start, and then, so instead of 1.4 and change, it'd be 700 starting January the 1st. I mean, I think that would make it more reasonable.

I don't have an issue doing that, but we just need to all remember that It's going to come. It's coming next year and we're going to be in this same cycle next year.

I just don't think there's going to be near as many requests will be staffed up at the detention center. I know we got new EMS stations to staff, but this will, is Clay back there?

We actually have the staff. Yeah, we got staff.

We hired six for last year.

We hired one for EMS station. Yes, sir.

So we discussed it the last budget of half year, and you didn't have any issues with that?

I think Mr. Willis had recommended 15 employees for EMS for the full year, and I just said if we can cut that back to the half year, we can make that work. So whatever the total cost, and I don't have that in front of me, whatever the cost for the 15 employees, just cut that in half and we started in January. And we're good with that because it'll take us that amount of time to hire the employees. And as you saw already, I believe on Friday, you got an email or sometime this weekend about we already had one employee that did leave because they could no longer drive the distance and work the 24-48 because of the rigorous schedule and the number of calls that we run. so that the attrition is already started. It's just the beginning. We could be building EMS stations and not having people to, we'd have nice pretty stations, but it would just be a station with nothing there.

All right.

Where we at, Mr. Chair?

Yeah.

I mean, maybe I think we should just continue the presentation and I think that one.

All right.

Okay. A clarification. Where are we at? What are we looking at so far?

Maybe that'll, we've talked about a 6% all public safety raised 5% all other employees raised. We've talked about large funding. Uh, we've talked about, uh, the officers to get the detention center open, um, six this year. Uh, and two booking clerks and then the remainder next year and then we just talked about 2472 for EMS. Is that what you have? Lauren? All right, that's where we're at. Go ahead.

So if we just set our conversation aside because about the changes and just here we are today. If we do A NO MILL INCREASE, THAT'S THE 92.6, AND YOU CAN SEE OVER THE 10 YEARS, THIS IS THE SPAN OF YOUR TOTAL COUNTY MILLAGE, AND YOU CAN SEE IN 24, 25, THAT DRAMATIC DECREASE IS THE ACT OF DOING THE ROLLBACK CALCULATION BECAUSE IT WAS A YEAR OF PROPERTY REASSESSMENT, REAL PROPERTY REASSESSMENT. You've got the 92.6, so it's flat from 26 to 27, but because your county debt millage rate went down 4.7 mills, we use the available 4.7 mills to bring up the county operating. So your bottom line's the same, but we've just shifted mills so we could have more revenue available for county operations. course the schools they're in their own lane you county have four millage rates to manage your millage value history this is the number that is produced out of the county auditor's office and certified and so that number that 674.7 is what the value of a single mill is for the calendar year 2026 and you could see that value is going up year over year over year in the line graph Revenue we had lots of conversations around revenue in the general fund and what does that projection look like? And if you know that we've been this is a conversation that's ongoing so throughout March April and May so we are budgeting 42.3 million for FY 27 for the ad valorem property tax real and and then the collection of what was actually collected and Carrie does a great job, 98% collection rate. She's collected as of May 22nd, 37.7 million. So we can assume safely that Carrie is gonna collect 98% of the estimated budget for this property tax in 2027.

We're 2% off.

Yes, it's wonderful. So personal property tax is related to vehicles. The methodology is at the top. We're looking at how many vehicles are registered, the number of bills that are being pushed out by the auditor's office, and of course, economic conditions and population growth, and that is increasing. So the trend line. So our budget for FY27 is the $6.7 million. And then that note at the bottom of the screen, the $4.8 has been what is collected as of May 22nd. Building permits, this is, we have to keep an eye on building permits, noting that the residential moratorium took place in November of 2025. So for this year, working with Darren, we have a budget of, for FY27, a budget of 4.5 million. We have collected, as of May 22nd, 4.3 million building permits. interest income we had conversation about interest income just a few moments ago the we are counties are allowed to invest their idle cash as you know the local government investment pool interest rates as of april twenty twenty six three point eight percent we have budgeted for interest income in twenty seven three point two million we've collected as of may twenty second two point six million. The road improvement fee, this is a $40 fee that is on your...

Excuse me, what's our interest, what's that based on as far as how much money that's based on? What generated that $2.6 million?

Okay, let me get back with you. Oh, the two points, that's actual collections from July 1, monthly collections and interest from July 1 through May 22nd.

Yeah, but I'm talking about what dollar amount is that interest collected on? Is it collected on the whole fund balance? Because we're going to be spending a big chunk of fund balance, which is going to change our interest for next year.

The interest is estimated on our fund balance, which is being invested, all the dollars that are being invested in the LGIP, as well as interest that is in any other investments. We do intend to have our bankers come through in September to kind of talk through the investments that we've done, some of the different strategies that we've used. to be able to realize additional interest. And so, again, that interest that we have estimated for next year, it is based on the current savings reserves as well as other investments that we have.

It's based on what we currently have. It is. We're going to budget for one-time expenses, a good portion of that. So we're basically going to cut our interest in half next year.

Well, not exactly in half. I mean, because the dollars are in the bank until it's actually spent. We know historically what we have budgeted for fund balance typically doesn't all get spent. And so some of it will fall back to fund balance, maybe potentially reinvested in something else next year. Sometimes we don't spend it based on timing. Sometimes we just don't spend it based on it could be lapped salary dollars for positions not getting filled. And so we're trying to factor in all of those things potentially occurring. And so it's not just about what might be coming out of reserves, but what will be present, not just at the end of the year, but throughout the year, because the investments are happening month over month.

but it will be something we need to take into account as we go into the future, because as we spend that money out, it's going to decrease it.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Sabrina, I actually have a question. So when we're going through the ad valorem, the personal property taxes, the expectation for the 26 budget was that we would be at 38,566, and we're coming in at 37, basically eight, so it's $700,000 short as of May 22nd. what are the expectations that we're gonna make up that gap by the end of the year?

Well, ad valorem, those are current property taxes, and so we don't expect that there'll be any making up of that $700,000, anything that's not paid by the deadline.

Whatever's been paid has already been paid, and we're not going to collect anything further. So we're $700,000 in the hole.

In the hole, in that revenue stream. And so anything that's not collected as, you know, because the calculation is based on those actual tax bills. If it's not paid on time, it's going to go to delinquent. Yeah, you might get some that come in. It'll end up balancing itself out to a degree, either in current or delinquent taxes.

Okay. And then personal property taxes, same thing. We're in the hole about $700,000. Not likelihood to make up that difference. Okay. Building permits looks like that one's about a million dollars off. No expectation to make up that gap?

Well, I hear moratorium in the back. I don't want to say moratorium because I don't know that we were even realizing the effects of moratorium at this stage. I think there's a lag in when the moratorium was effectively executed versus when we would actually see it show up in the permit collections. And so we do still have... you know, the remainder of the year. This is through the mid-May. May 22nd. And so we have had another full month that is not reflected here. And so that activity plus whatever all the way through June 30th, and we'll be making sure to close that out all the way through the audit process as well. And so we'll have a final number there to be able to look back on in a couple of months to be able to see how we fared against what we have projected for building permits.

Okay. And then how do we close that gap at the end of the year if we haven't made it up with those other funds?

I don't know what you mean. How do we close the gap? I mean, we're making a projection. I mean, it is an estimate based on the best information that we have at the time. If we don't collect it, it's something that will get factored into the trend for the next time that there's a potential that it's, you know, whatever percentage less, you know, over the next three years. The current year will be factored into the next three-year trend.

Okay.

Because I think, you know, last year we thought it was going to be tight. We had a 4.1 million carryover, I think, surplus.

We did.

Yeah. So I know we'll be stretching it.

That's why I was asking. That's why I'm asking the question, just so that we're aware that we're not hitting the current goals that we had established for last year. So just to be aware of that. And I think that we're going to have some properties that are going to come online that will add to that. I think once we get through the UDO and the moratorium, we'll see some positive growth as well. But it's just something to be cautious about as we're reviewing the revenue structures.

And one is going to offset the other in the long run. Most likely, yes. But it is something that we'll be very watchful of. I'm good. All right, shall we continue?

Any other questions?

We landed on road improvement fees. This is a fee that appears on your annual fee schedule at $40. This fee will be the same for this fiscal year coming up, 27, and that is your trend line there. And the same cadence, a little over $4 million we will budget. We've collected $3.5 million as of May 22nd. Ambulance charges, these are those that use the service, pay for the service. So not everyone is going to pay for the service like the property tax. So Clay does a good job watching this particular revenue source. We've got $3.8 million budgeted, $427 million. We've collected through May 22, $3.6 million. And so when we're looking at the conversation about revenue where we do see increases between 26 and 27, we can see these revenue sources listed and an increase. you can see ad valorem 3.7 this is where that 6.4 million new revenue number is coming from is where we're seeing increases from 26 to 27 in these revenue sources listed so we're planning on 6.4 million in new revenue for 27. Moving on to the general fund operating budget. This is a slide that you should be familiar with at this point. We are for just the general fund at second reading $144 million. The general fund at this time last year adopted at $102.9 million. You can see that dollar increase of $41 million. A lot of that are those fund balance appropriations with the 39% increase year over year. New positions where we are in order to get you to a place where I don't want a mill increase. That would mean four positions. These are the four. Mr. Willis talked about them earlier this evening. Salary adjustments. I can float through this or Sabrina, did you want to touch on these or just float through?

Most of these we've gone over, you know, in a little bit of detail, but we had just summarized here just to be able to capture it all here in something dashboard view, the different groups and breaking up the full-time versus part-time in each of these groups. And so we will reproduce this for third reading to reflect the 5% and 6% in each of the groups and adjust that bottom line number. All right, here, yeah, this is one, you know, we'll pull that out. It's there for reference if we wanna come back to it at any point in time, but that's the $17 increase. All right.

And then with that new revenue of 6.4 million, we were trying to spread it across operational Non-personnel operating expenses, how we could use that, and that totals up to $2.5 million. Of course, this might change after your conversations later tonight. Fund balance appropriations. What you see in yellow was the conversation that you had at first reading and reflecting that change here to second reading. And so fund balance, those are our savings. That's the $72 million number that we're talking about. And so $15,000, that's highlighted yellow. Those are the moving expenses that we could one time use to bring our new administrator on. And then we kept digging and trying to find other fund balance appropriations that make sense, because we want to use fund balance for one-time non-recurring expenses. Emergency management, the storage shed and radio purchases, $200,000. We moved that over. So we're combing through the budget at this point. You did discuss tonight about the comprehensive class and compensation study. We could, if you move and vote... we could remove that $125,000 from the fund balance list. Last first reading, there was conversation and then a vote of adding the $6 million for the Harrisburg Fire Station project located in Indian land. That's reflected here as a fund balance appropriation. There are no changes to this slide. We did get, excuse me, Mr. Purser provided us with an updated quote for the 12-position radio console replacement, and that's reflected here at $1.3 million. These are changes. If you decide to not fund the staff attorney position, which we had pulled out, that $990,000 is reflective of 15 replacement deputy vehicles at $66,000 a pop. vehicle and of course then you have your four hundred and thirty thousand for the third floor courthouse suite renovation for the solicitor's office the four hundred thousand dollar contract increase with the city of lancaster for tipping We don't always want to use fund balance for contractual type increases, but we did here trying to scramble to pull some stuff out of the recurring amount. And then $80,000 for Lancaster soil and water and the watershed maintenance. That brings you to a potential fund balance appropriation of $36.3 million. And so here's the rundown, for lack of a better term. When we closed the audit fiscal year of FY25 in reserves in the general fund, you had $72 million. This time last year, you appropriated $5 million. You then, for this current fiscal year, did budget amendments, which drew down from the $72 million. And that's reflected here with the Solicitor's Office project and three EMS items. To Mr. Harper's point, we do add back to fund balance. And Mo does great work here. During the 13th and 14th month of the fiscal year, we estimate the add back for FY26 to be $4.6 million. And then when you're doing the math, it lands at 70.2 million available in the FY27 budget for appropriation. And let's say you do the list as is, 36.3 million would come out of the 70. You would land at 33.8 million in your reserves. And that is within the range, although the upper band of the range at 31%. So you want to stay between 28 and 32% for borrowing really to get good interest rates. And you're at 31%. Moving on to external agencies. These are groups where you've had long standing partnerships in the community, financial partnerships that is. Each organization is listed. And I'll just point to what has changed since first reading. Of course, we heard from counsel on aging tonight. The Historical Commission, Ms. Jenna Woods, spoke to the 10,000 for marketing and advertising for this group. We did reduce the request by 10,000, and so the Historical Commission could work with our communications and marketing department on any brochures and such. Lancaster soil and water conservation where we looked at this the 80,000. Let's get it on our fund balance list and So for those external agencies in the general fund 3.2 million an increase of nine hundred and twenty nine thousand dollars from the adopted budget and The general fund summary and this may change given the conversation that has occurred tonight with how to do six and five percent etc But if you want to maintain a no mill increase Which is eighty one point two? It's a net increase effect because we're offsetting debt capacity this is what the rundown would would be so we want to set aside that fund balance appropriation and just look at what's recurring and those recurrent your recurring budget would be $109 million. So if we think back to what we adopted without fund balance for current fiscal year, that's $97 million. So this time last year, you had a recurring general fund budget of $97 million. So this would be an 11.4% increase, recurring to recurring general fund. So we would then and of course these numbers would shift and change now that we want to possibly if you vote to Back out the 15 to 17 and the percentages and you may add back positions or you may change fund balance but the revenue piece will hold constant and so those last two lines will hold constant for you and then you can move how you would like through budgeted expenditures and Special revenue funds, let's not forget about these. There are 18 special revenue funds. You have 19 total funds, 18 of which are special revenue. These are all listed alphabetically. Some of them do have their own dedicated millage rate. So you have the fund, what was adopted this time last year, what is today, second reading, the change between second reading and the adoption, and a description of what is happening with that fund. What's conversation from first reading around capital replacement? I think Mr. Graham raised about using reserves. these funds we did so the capital replacement fund is balanced there is a no millage increase and we did use some reserves to balance that fund of course this is one time equipment purchases county debt service this is where you see that when we talk about offsetting the debt and we're using the four point seven mills because we have that available that we can apply to county operating you can see here the decrease so you're not borrowing anything new you're just retiring existing debt paying principal and interest payments year over year on existing debt And so we know from the auditor that we need to generate 2.5 mils worth of revenue to pay our existing annual principal and interest payments of 3.5. The impact fees, what we're doing new is appropriating nearly all of the fire service impact fee that we've collected since 2021 to purchase one engine for Fire Station 3. And, of course, the regional park is a huge chunk of that $1.8 million in appropriating some money for the regional park, impact fee money. The CTC, Mr. Cato, Jeff Cato, believes that we would not bring in as much money, or we've been notified we won't bring in as much. Sea funds for road projects from South Carolina DOT, $1.9 million. court mandated security that has its own millage rate and we were working with our shaw to sort through this so there are two new positions in this particular fund that has its own millage rate. Judicial transport officers and then there's a vehicle attached to the officers and they do just that they transport those in custody to and fro. and that is balanced, that is balanced with some reserves and the millage rate is the same, 2.8 million. There aren't any changes to this particular side from first reading. Indian Land Consolidated Fire, they have 10 positions, but nine of the 10 will start on January 1 and those are listed. The one logistics officer right now is in this fund at 12 months, and we removed the large one-time appropriate asks, the 10.3 for the fire station, et cetera. He is balanced. The majority of the revenue is the rooftop fee. There is no increase in the rooftop fee amount proposed for this fiscal year, nor are there changes in the last three funds. Stormwater our Terrence does a great job managing the stormwater fee. It's very comparable to the fees around our area And he has a dramatic decrease in his budget. He's does a good job managing Van Wack if you recall this time last year Van Wack increased their rooftop fee so they have generated enough revenue to bring on one new firefighter to position with their fees and And then finally victims assistance fund, we're better utilizing that fund in the upcoming fiscal year. $58 million for the 18 funds, an increase of $805,000. The all funds summary, this is the last page of your Smart Fusion line item detail report. 202.1 million of which that 41 million increase that's where your fund balance 37 6 million number is in there and so that is a 26% increase from all funds what you adopted this point last year and So that is the rundown for second reading However, I do want to shift us quickly over to the tourism agency designee because we didn't get a vote from you at first reading for this. We need you all to do the exercise that you did this time last year where you designate an agency to fulfill this function or multiple, you could do what you did for FY26. You had $57,000 available. You split it in half between two tourism agencies, the Old English District and the Lancaster County 250 Committee. So you could do that same scenario for this year. You have $60,000 available. Or you could make a motion and do a different scenario. But we do ask that you do that tonight. Select the designee and do your percentages with a motion. And so here we come with two actions. For second reading, to make a motion to approve and adopt as is, or whatever, you know, have discussion. And then, of course, to do for the state accommodations tax, select the designee, and then you have $60,000 available. Select one or more designees and how you want to disperse, allocate the $60,000. And so the remainder of your budget calendar through June, you do have the special meeting scheduled this Wednesday for discussion. And then on Monday, June 22nd, would be your third reading. And the second public hearing would occur as well. And then adoption.

Are there any questions for Mr.

Mr. Chairman, just simply, I know council's probably already aware of this, but to the extent some things come in under budget, it just rolls back into fund balance. And the big one we're looking at right now, we've got budgeted list price for those $18.6 million worth of fire trucks. It's going to be less. To whatever extent it is, that'll be next fiscal year. It just rolls back into fund balance. It's available for y'all next fiscal year.

Is there any questions? I've got a couple going back. One, and I'm slow on this one. It keeps popping up, but that HR, that nurse practitioner, it's a rollover from an existing position or administrator. It says a rollover or it's moving from administrator. I guess my question, it's just moving from one position but is it, it's not treated as new, a new position, right? I mean, because it's not adding to the budget. So I'm just make sure, I just want to make sure that is not an additional position to the budget. It's already been in our, in, in the budget. It's not, it's not like we found $142,000 that it's, it's not part of that.

That is correct. Your understanding is correct. We're moving it from one department. We think it is a better fit in human resources.

Okay.

Can I ask the question about the nurse practitioner? Is that all a county cost or does the city participate in that program?

No, I don't know if the city's participating, but we can serve... So they don't use that service? I'm not sure. We could go back and look.

We used to split it with the city, but I have no idea about now.

They what? It's both, so they budget for it too. Could y'all check on, see what the city's budget is on that? See if they're, what's the total cost of that program and see if they're paying for half of it. Absolutely, not a problem. Mr. Chairman, are you ready for Discussion on anything or?

I'm gonna call a 10 minute break. Thank you. And we'll be ready to discuss when we get back.

Can I ask one more question before we? Right ahead. On the HR side, there's a contract services that went up to $130,000. It was for background checks and that kind of stuff. And I might be splitting hairs here, but I mean, that's a lot of money. I mean, if you had 1,100 employees, that's $110 per employee. I know it's for new hires and things like that. I just want to make sure that that is a real number. I mean, if we get $50,000 or $60,000 to play with, I mean, I just think that's a lot of money. It is a lot of money.

Could you say what we spent on that in the previous issue of budget? Mr. Wendland.

Councilman, one big thing that's on there to the dollar amount, I don't know, perhaps Jamie could tell us, but as you recall, part of the background checks, one of the things we found out had not been done for a while is the driver history checks, annual for folks that drive county vehicles. So that is budgeted, that is an increase this year because it hadn't been done the last couple of years.

I think for, I'd just like a little bit more information maybe for Wednesday just to talk about, just make sure that that number's realistic.

All right, we'll be back at 8.05. Okay, we are back in session now. All right, let's begin discussions.

Well, I guess we need to know, Stuart, have you come up with the numbers over there?

So basically for the detention center effectively, cause you, I netted out the $300,000 for the medical. So you basically need $700,000 roughly to open the detention center. So you need to find roughly $700,000 for the detention center. EMS going to 2472 for half years, roughly 700,000. So that's 1.4 million. Doing the salary like we talked about with the six and the 5% and then removing the $17, you make up right at $200,000. So that gets you basically at 1.2 million you need to find. So that's kind of where not taking into consideration anything else that's That's where, that's what I have at unless anybody's got something else. 2.6. Yeah. 1.2 is what we're looking for at this point. Was any of that a front balance or that was all? That's all, I'm just looking at operating. Operating.

So that's reoccurring, yeah.

Yeah.

Mr. Neal, you had something you wanted to?

Yeah, I'd like... with the sheriff's department, the staff attorney. I'd like to see us start that in January. He's got to have an attorney over there.

I know we had some, uh, like when we cut the salary study, I would, uh, I would really like to consider Laura's additional funding because of, uh, the impact it has on our county and the needs. I would like to see another $100,000 if possible.

An additional $100,000, right?

Additional, yes, ma'am.

The comp study was, I believe, $125,000, so you're actually a little good there. Well, Jamie, what was the comp study? $125,000. $125,000, yes. You're a little to the good.

Does anybody want to? Can I ask them to make a comment, or would you rather not?

For the people from Lars?

They commented. We know them.

Could I have them? Can I have one person come up?

Could you address the actual needs of what you have to have, would like to have from the county to keep these programs running all the time? That's what I thought.

So when we're talking about those numbers for the county, what's the baseline that you're looking at right now? So how many people are using it right now with the $100,000 that we had last year? And you don't need to, what I'd like to see is what's the usage that you have right now? Like what's the baseline? And then to Mr. Harper's point, if we increase that $100,000, what are we gonna get for that? Who's gonna show up? How many more people are we gonna expect to use it? What's the benefit that we're gonna see from that additional 100,000? Because what we're trying to do is we're trying to prioritize all these items. And as you can see, we have a lot of demands and we don't have enough funds to cover all of it. So what we're trying to do is say, where are we gonna get the most benefit for the revenue that we're investing in these areas? Okay, so what I would like to see is like when you're talking about that tripling. Okay, so are we talking about 100 people and now it's 300 people. So just whenever you get a chance, just let me know that information, just present it already.

We're having a meeting Wednesday afternoon. Could you give us some hard numbers? Yeah.

And also let me speak to Lars because, you know, This is a county service that Council on Agents is doing on behalf of the county. They're doing what county is responsible for. If they get the $200,000, they'll be able to match the money that they're getting from the federal government. If they don't get it, they won't be able to get all the money from the federal government. So that's why it's so important that they get that matching funds. And believe me, if you know about large and you've ever used it, it is a critical need in this county. You see them all over, take people to the doctor, to work. It's just, and senior citizens, they wouldn't be able to do what they did without it.

I would challenge any... Any of us up here that has any questions to go spend a day and ride along with some of those people and see what they actually do.

Just make sure I understand. You're basically $200,000 gets you an additional $600,000? Okay. I mean, that's what speaks to me. Anytime you can spend $2 and get $6, that's pretty good. I don't know where else you can do that.

Okay. Mr. Chairman, are you ready for motions or you want to do additional discussion before we start making?

I need discussion. Let's do discussion. Then we'll start. Okay. It's 100,000. Is that what you need or do you need 200,000? It's an addition.

We already got 100 in there.

We already got 100. They need an additional 100.

They need it.

All right. So 100 is what you need. Go ahead.

Can I make a motion on that?

We're going to make them all together, right?

That's fine.

All right.

Yeah.

Okay.

So any other discussion on this? Thank you.

So just to make sure, okay, so we have the detention center, EMS, staff attorney for sheriff, and the wars piece. Is there anything else that we're adding?

We need the auditor's office, the coroner's office.

The auditor's office?

How much is that, that's 64. Talked about a half time or part time person for the auditor's office, right?

Did we say part time?

I think she originally, Originally, I requested full time, but then said you really could start with a part time, I guess. Come up here and talk to us. And all of this increases thanks to the state, which is great for all of our seniors, but it's going to triple your work probably.

It may not be on. It may not be on. There you go. There we go. Okay. I'm just going to say this with the utmost respect for everybody up here. If I don't get my clerk, my full-time clerk, we're going to be short-staffed during one of the busiest times of the year, which is going to be the real estate time. If we have short staff and we do have a lot of work that we do, like Ms. McGriff says, each department backs up another department. We all have to work together to get these real estate bills out. If we can't get them out on time and I have to call Department of Revenue to request extensions to get these real estate bills out, guess what? Ain't nobody here going to get paid. Because we ain't going to have no money coming in because we can't send bills out on time. So y'all think it's not that serious. But I have asked several of y'all to come to my office. I know you have. I know you have. Y'all just need to come, just drop in like Mr. Harper did one day and see what we do every day.

So in short, you need a full-time person.

I need a full-time person, yes.

With the, could you, on the homestead, is all that passed?

It has not passed yet, but we are still hearing that it is going to be sometime.

There's going to be different. If you live here so long, you qualify. You qualify for so much. So this is going to be, you're going to have, if this passes. You're going to have to go back for years and see how long people have lived here. Correct. And keep up with it from now on.

Yes. Different levels of how much people will get exempt. And we're going to have to have one, probably one dedicated person just to do that. Because y'all, there's a lot of older people in Lancaster County. And that's one of the reasons that they move here is because of the homestead exemption, because they get that exemption off.

So, and what I'm gonna say is, I think there's a lot of opportunity for that research and all that work that's gonna go in, that we can use AI, we can use different tools to do that. I have been to your office. I have seen the personal services that you all provide. It is a busy office all the time, every single time that I've been there. There are people still waiting. So it's not just this additional work. You already are behind, is that correct?

We already are behind, yes. Yes.

I don't want people thinking that this is just for additional work. This is just for you to catch up to where you currently are at.

Because I used to have one person to do the vehicle billing each month. Now it takes two. I mean, it's just growing, y'all.

And this department is not like your average citizen when they pull up to that counter. This is not a one-minute operation. That is correct. This is a 10, 15-minute operation.

Because we ask for proof of residency, which a lot of counties do not. We make sure that they live in Lancaster County. So we do a lot of research on the people that come here.

Could you briefly tell council about, you know, computerization is nice, but unfortunately the state legislature has mandated that you have file cabinets and paper. Okay.

Yeah, we've talked about that before. I know Stuart has looked into that too, but we're going to eventually need more space for the homestead applications that are probably going to be flooding in because they cannot be digitized. They still have to be paper. So that is something that we're looking at down the road. So we've got to have more space as well.

It's okay to have paper documents that can burn up in a fire and not have it on the cloud where you can have it forever.

Yeah. But I appreciate y'all considering the full-time employee for me. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. How much is the full-time clerk gonna cost so Stewart can add it into the number?

The clerk is 64,4301.

And then you mentioned the coroner? Is that the data manager?

Mr. Chair, would you like the coroner to come up?

Yes, please. She's always welcome at the microphone.

I saw that my full-time position was cut. And honestly, I can probably live with that and meet you guys halfway if it's okay and agreeable with everyone. Because my position would come with a base salary plus fringe benefits because it would be a new employee. So just to kind of ease some of the burden, I can take a portion of that salary. I have one person that I could put that over on to. she and I would split the duties. With her doing about 65% of it, I would take the other 35, but just take a portion of that original that I asked for, which would take away all the fringe benefits, and give her that as a salary increase, but she also gets a workload increase as well, and so that will take it down. I'm not sure what it would cost. The base on that was 40, I think $40,000 doing your fringe on top. So if I just did the $20,000 and then gave her that boost and let her do the work there, then you can at least save half your money there on the base plus all the fringe benefits.

Which... Of the hours in the week, are you going to put that extra on? Because I know you work a lot of hours.

I do. Until the day that I'm my own person down there in the morgue, I'm going to keep working like that. So my work ethic is not of concern. I make sure I take care of all of them and make sure they get their rest and their day.

Could you put that right for us for Wednesday? with the numbers, it would actually.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, I mean, that would.

Yep, I would need to get with you guys about what it would cost for that position plus the fringe and then what I will take it down to.

Is that what's on the sheet here? Yeah, that's what it is. We got it down for $84,000.

I'll take it to $20,000 and give you $64,000 back. How about that? That's a good deal.

Yep.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

So I'm gonna ask a question, same thing that I asked to the auditor. Is that what you need or is that what you're gonna do to make things work? Because to Mr. Carnes' point, you do work there. There's only one of you, you don't have clones. So what is it that you need?

I'll ask you for it next year again. This is okay. This will do. This will suffice for now. We are like the auditor's office, too. We do keep everything on paper just because the antiquated law says so, which is okay. This is a little different. Historically, you guys have always asked for data, statistics, percentages. That's normally my job. I'm normally there. When you do that, I'm there all weekend long, and I'm there very late at night. this will give somebody else an opportunity during the week to keep up the pace there, and then I'll do the case management and overlooking of that. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, anything else? I hear nothing else, so now we're ready to To talk a motion. Who's going to craft a motion? Well, I mean, we're not balanced.

Yeah, we can't.

What is it going to take? I mean, I can throw a suggestion out and then we can go from there. I mean, to me, you got two levers you can pull, right? Especially with what we're talking about now. One is employee raises and the percentage that you're paying to employees. Two is, well there's three. Two is you can increase the mills. Or three, you're cutting something else. So basically what I'm seeing is we're looking for 1.2 or whatever. It's really 1.5 with the mills. staff attorney for the sheriff, the large match, the auditor's office in the corner, and the other stuff we talked about, that's like $1.5 million. So, I mean, there's, to me, you're looking at it, you're going, okay, and I'm just throwing this out there as an example. If you did your public safety at 4% and you did everything else, oh, hold on a second, I messed that up. Actually, hold on a second. Basically, if you go, I'm trying to nail down the actually percent. What I'm looking at is like if you looked at the cost of a mill, $675,000. The cost of the mill to the taxpayer per $100,000 house value is $4. So you have a $300,000 house is about $12 if you go up a mill. It gets you $675,000. So, I don't know, I mean, unless we're gonna cut, go back and figure out how to cut something else out, I think we have to do a combination of raises and millage. Otherwise, I mean, there's not a whole lot of leverage you can pull there, if that makes sense.

What is it that we need now, 1.2?

1.5 total.

Yes, sir. Councilman, on the EMS, did that include the paramedic instructor? Because if not, we're going to have to bump Clay's travel and training budget because we won't be able to train the paramedics in-house anymore. I'm just asking. I didn't know if that included that or not. Did not include it. Or if it was 2472. Nope.

Sure did.

So if we went five, four on the increases and did a two mil increase, we should cover more than enough everything.

You could do a mil and a half.

If you did 5% public safety, 4% staff, and then you did a mil and a half increase.

What will that total be? Opposed to what?

It's 300, that's 500,000. What are you talking about? Plus a mil is 674 plus three is a mil. You're about a million four.

We need a million five. Yeah, you're close enough.

You're really close. I mean, I'm just doing math.

Math in your head.

Math in my head.

That's dangerous.

And the impact to the taxpayer would be on a $100,000 house would be $6. No, right, yeah, $6, I'm sorry. $6 on a $100,000 house. Well, I mean, you can multiply it, you know, 300,000. $20. Yeah. I just want to get, because to me that's the way I think about it. When you start talking about mills and all that stuff, what does it actually mean to the homeowner? All right. That's what it means.

You took out the $300,000 for savings on the detention center. Right. Medical thing. And then you took out the compensation study.

Well, that's not operations. That's capital anyway.

Well, the lost sales tax factor you said is going to be a little less.

It's going to be a little less this year.

Next, it should be, should rebound.

You want to put that in the form of a motion?

I'd like to have a discussion on the budget, the fund balance. As I said last meeting, and I don't agree with $6 million for fire department, you can put out the same amount of fires with a $4 million fire department you can with a $6 million fire department. We got to look at putting other fire departments throughout the county. So our fund balance is empty of what we can spend. There won't be any other fire departments built for a long time because we don't have fund balance to do it. So that's my take on that. I just going on the record that I still don't agree with that. What was done last time, I don't know.

The problem is you can't build a $4 million fire department. You can't. We already know that we got updated numbers for the fire department in Fort Lawn, and they said if you built that same fire department bare bones the way it is right now, it would be approximately $4.5 million.

That's not what I was told by them.

We got the email this week. and it came from the owners of the construction company that built the fire department in Fort Long.

Could you forward that email, please?

I can. I think we all got it. I think everybody got it.

I'd like to go ahead and nail down the operating side of the house. Go ahead. Okay, so... I'm gonna give this a shot, so apologies to Lauren. Okay, so I make a motion that we include the detention center I think we should just do, it was hard to follow exactly. I don't have the numbers for exactly what the sheriff wants to do. So I'm just going to say it as the full amount. And then if the sheriff can kind of, if we can get the updated numbers on for that on Wednesday or for the third reading, we could back those actual numbers out, but basically fully fund the officer, the corrections and the, the booking clerks, so it'd be eight correction officers, four booking clerks for the Lancaster County Detention Center, and then EMS going to the 2472 for a half year, funding for a half year staff attorney for the sheriff's office. funding an additional $100,000 for the LARS, funding the auditor's clerk, the auditor's clerk, and then funding the, I guess the, call it a bump up position for the coroners.

Yes. Bump up, okay.

Councilman, if I could ask for the record, that's a dollar amount. You're not talking about the FTE. You're talking about the split that Carla mentioned? Correct. I'll make sure we had that for the record.

In addition, for public safety, doing a 5% raise and for all others, a 4% raise. and increasing the county operation millage by 1.5 mills.

1.5?

Yes. All right. Just to make sure we have captured that, when you get through, would you like to read that back, Lauren?

All right, you guys want to include the eight correctional officers for the detention center and two booking clerks.

Four booking clerks.

For EMS, going to the 2472 for half a year, including the staff attorney for the sheriff's office, adding an additional 100K for Lars, the auditor's clerk. Is that full-time or part-time?

Full-time.

Full-time, okay. The salary increase for the coroner staff member, and that's gonna be the split. 5% public safety raise, 4% for everyone else, and a 1.5 mil operating.

And did you say half a year for the staff attorney?

Yes. Okay.

All right, we have a motion from Mr. Graham. Is there a second? I have a second from Mr. Luis. Any discussion? Any discussion?

and that's a maximum of one and a half percent, and if it comes in less.

All right, any other discussion? I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous. All right, we're gonna go on to item 8H. Second reading of ordinance number 2026-2037. Ma'am? I'm sorry. Go ahead.

We have the full order. That was an amendment.

That's right. We've got to go back to the main motion and vote again.

Do you have other things in there such as the designation of the tourism agency and all that?

Yeah, we got to do that tourism money.

All right.

Who wants to take that on hand? Decide how we're going to split the $60,000. My question is the 250 committee still active after that date?

I think they're going to be going on for a little while afterwards. I don't know how long. The 250 committee, will it be active after this year?

They've been active for several years because 1776 just kicked it off. Yeah. I think Battle of Waxhaws was actually three years later. I'd have to ask Gina. Well, Councilman Mossel, you're out there all the time.

Do we need to add that to his motion or would this be a new motion? His is a secondary motion.

Okay. Now, what we got to do is we got to go back to the main motion and talk about other items that didn't get carried into the secondary motion. Is that what happened to my attorney?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay, so we're gonna go back and vote on the main motion as amended. Is that correct, Jenny? Or do we discuss these other things?

We could go back to the main motion.

So to the point, you've made an amendment that dealt with your operating budget, but there's other parts to the budget. As Jamie mentioned, you've got to designate these tourism funds and then you've got to go back and adopt the budget.

Amended budget.

Amended, correct. Somebody has a motion on what you're doing with the tourism dollars. I'm sorry, I was talking to Jamie about our public hearing on third reading, so I missed if you all had a motion on that.

No, we haven't had a motion. Okay. Can I make that motion now? Go ahead, Ms. McGriff.

I'd like to make a motion that we split it half and half as we did last year with the Old English District and the 250 Committee.

All right, we have a motion from Ms. McGriff to split the funding between the 250 Committee and the Old English District. Do we have a second? Is this the hospitality or? No, that's the hospitality advertising stuff.

I'll second it.

All right, we have a motion from Ms. McGriff and a second from Mr. Harper. Discussion?

What are the alternatives?

Those are probably the only ones that qualify for this pot of money. And we don't have too many options.

I thought last year we had talked about potentially having the chamber.

We found out they didn't qualify.

They don't qualify?

They didn't last year.

They don't want it. I was about to say, my understanding was that they didn't want to go through what they needed, what was required.

I think they needed another person they were seeing just to do that.

Councilman, in talking to John McCain, they're interested, but in a short period of time, they didn't think they could actually stand up a proposal for council that would be worthy of your consideration. Maybe next year, but that would be next year.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Not hearing any, so I'm gonna call for the vote. All those in favor of that, raise your right hand. All those opposed? Motion passes six to one. All right, now we go back to the main motion and vote on the main motion as amended. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call for the vote on the main motion. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, the main motion passes amended seven to zero. Now we go on the item H8. Second reading of ordinance number 2026-2037 an ordinance to amend ordinance number 2021-1726 relating to the adoption of a revised Lancaster County capital improvement plan for fiscal year 2021 to 2022 through 2030 to 2031 as recommended by the Lancaster County Planning Commission. This passed six to one at the May 2026 meeting and Mr. Mosteller was opposed.

Good evening, council. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, Council Members. Josiah Park, Budget Analyst, here to walk us through the second stage of our annual revised CIP adoption. Our agenda tonight begins, as always, with a quick overview of the CIP process, and once that background understanding is established, we'll walk through the list of projects that are included for second reading. While revisions requested at last meeting are included here, I encourage council members to stop me as needed anytime during this presentation and make any comments as needed and I will record them and do my best to answer any questions you have along the way. Finally, I would ask that the chairman facilitate any discussion or motions to amend the CIP document before finally facilitating a vote to adopt the amended CIP ordinance. Our CIP overview begins with our original 10-year CIP document adopted in July of 2021. This ordinance has been amended annually, most recently in June of last year. This year we had 24 total new capital project requests submitted for your consideration. However, of those selected by Interim Administrator Willis, only nine met the $100,000 individual project threshold needed to be included in the 10-year CIP document. This includes one project requested at last meeting by County Council, and one project requested has been moved to a start date in a future fiscal year. 18 projects that are currently in progress have funding revisions for the upcoming fiscal year, yielding a total of 27 capital projects for consideration with a project request for FY27 total of $43.5 million. As mentioned previously, the CIP is a financial planning tool only with no fiduciary obligations attached. All funding sources and amounts for approved projects are included in the annual operating budget ordinance. There are a variety of ways to fund capital investments, as you know. These can include, among others, borrowing in the form of bonds, the collection of taxes and fees, increased millage rates, as well as the use of cash savings or fund balance. Again, council is not committed to the funding amount or the funding sources listed when adopting the annual CIP document. The selection of the funding source can thus have larger cost implications for the county's operating budget if further projects are taken on. So in April of this year, the Planning Commission and Interim Administrator Willis worked independently to produce two recommended ranking lists to County Council. And in May, we conducted our public hearing as well as the first reading of the CIP ordinance. The following slides show the projects both new and revised that are requesting funding for FY27. At the request of council, the airport tanks, development services office space, economic development spec building or site improvements, new parks and rec mini buses and public safety dispatch cloud migration have been revised as unfunded and no longer appear on this list. However, in addition, the Harrisburg Road Fire Station has been added as a new project for FY27. So I'll just click through these slowly. Again, these are new and revised, listed together. Something of note, new this meeting, Flat Creek has been listed as the total cost allocation needed for the county, not the total for the project. And finally, we can see that total for FY27 of $43.5 million. And I'll pause for any questions or comments. If we're gonna keep going, we will keep rolling.

Any questions, comments?

Go ahead.

Okay.

So tonight staff recommends that council move to adopt the FY27 capital improvement plan as amended. And... Next steps after this would be the June 10th council special meeting. This is gonna be this Wednesday. We can discuss this further if needed. And then June 22nd is our third reading of the budget NCIP ordinances as well as public hearing and adoption of the operating budget.

All right, is there any questions for Mr. Park? If not, I'll take a motion. We already have a motion, sorry. No, we don't. I've got it, the one before listed down there. Do we have a motion?

So moved. You waiting on a motion?

Yes, I have a motion from Ms. McGriff to approve as presented.

Second.

And a second from Mr. Graham. Any discussion?

I agree with the capital improvement plan. It's up for $6 million for the fire department, as I against last time.

Any other discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed? It passes 6-4-1 against. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Thank you. Okay, now we're gonna move on item nine.

Mr. Chair, just one of the things that I think we forgot when we did the budget amendments was to remove the $17 an hour increase. So we just need to remember to do that for the next meeting.

Will you note that, Lauren? Thank you for remembering that.

We talked about it when Mr. Mosseller had initially done a motion and then it was seconded, but then we took it back and then we forgot to add it back in when we made the other motions. And then we also forgot to take out the 125,000 for the compensation study.

Okay, we're on 9A now. We've got some board positions that need to be filled.

Mr. Chair and members of council, we received an application from William Casper for the District 1 vacancy on the Board of Assessment Appeals. If approved, he would be serving his first term, and the term would expire 6-30-2029.

All right. And we have a motion.

Make a motion to appoint William Casper as the board on the Board of Assessment Appeals.

We have a motion from Mr. Graham. Second. Second from Mr. Luis. Any discussion on that one? All those in favor, please raise your right hand. It's unanimous. We've got another, okay. All right, go ahead.

We received an application from Jennifer Sims for the District 2 vacancy on the Board of Assessment Appeals. She would be serving under an unexpired term, and it would end on 6-30-2027.

And I'd like to make a motion to appoint Jennifer Sims to the Board of Assessment Appeals.

We have a motion from Ms. McGriff. Do we have a second? Second. Second from Mr. Neal. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. All those opposed, it is unanimous.

And then the other two are just for information only.

All right. We don't have executive session tonight, so I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. We stand adjourned.