[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6210353,"mediaKeyId","3720345-a35d337340c12d3b5037475b5e348643","parentId",3720345,"title","Richland County Council advances second-reading budget with tax-impact choices left for third reading","audioSeconds",4698,"startMs",232000,"endMs",4930000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3720345-a35d337340c12d3b5037475b5e348643&start=232&end=4930","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3720345-a35d337340c12d3b5037475b5e348643/thumbnail_232000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6210353/Richland-County/South-Carolina/Richland-County-Council-advances-second-reading-budget-with-tax-impact-choices-left-for-third-reading","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210353-d61f1f3dabed1f22c5fb6816f7753b33/orig.mp4?Expires=1773078548&Signature=Lw9VquPTpWas0OkoomqzzjXPeq-2seo7ZW~qhnOwzkPSpFfWUHQyBhLqKmYB3yCeB2XlgIt-E7tV-GILxtc7K1~uowRMd687wEV3tTituZw9zXmtNcoXH4kks8ybXn-6jUJ8izF8ORysH8YAaGUEvFqlBli0uNf3-8gTaA11BvNqGyeBrUMtADxpnbJbwIIqniBORQlyXFuCkZwxB2PbELds-jzb7TwV7cCHOhVclbhgTZfkhI~1yS3yraIWJEnqg7iJRH37u1itfimXKqryFV6NAKtSe1poYNQv0x4dvxL4VzBAc8qmZyaS0bX0oAx9ftE-wUO-YLTdHTEvsaYSyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Richland County, SC","date","2025-06-06T12:19:36Z","article","Richland County Council on June 5 reviewed second-reading ordinances to set ad valorem property taxes for fiscal year 2025–26 and took votes on a range of agency funding requests, while leaving several larger policy choices for third reading.

The council heard staff numbers showing different combinations of millage actions would change household tax bills by relatively small amounts, but could add up countywide. “On a hundred thousand dollar home that’s a residence, that would be $2” for a half‑mill increase, County staff member Mr. Otter said when explaining impacts. Auditor Brawley said if all millage agencies were funded as requested — and including an administration proposal to raise the general fund by five mills — the net effect on a $100,000 residence would be about $26.80.

Why it matters: council members repeatedly returned to the central choice facing the county — whether to fund agencies at the amounts they requested, accept the administrator’s suggested five‑mill general fund increase, or hold line‑by‑line reductions to avoid raising millage. Those choices determine programs that depend on county millage and how much property owners will pay.

Most important facts: the council conducted second reading on an ordinance authorizing the levy of ad valorem property taxes for the July 1, 2025–June 30, 2026 fiscal year and then moved through motions to fund many millage agencies and hospitality/accommodations tax recipients as listed on the updated packet. Multiple motions to approve agency requests were approved on the floor (for example, Columbia Area Mental Health and several hospitality‑tax line items). Attempts to impose a general directive to the administrator to produce a balanced general fund without increasing county millage — or limited to a maximum of one mill — were brought to the floor and defeated after debate.

Council debate focused on fairness across districts and households and on tradeoffs between sustaining agency funding and limiting tax increases. “We as the representatives of the taxpayers… I think it’s okay for us to stand with them and say, you know, we’re gonna… keep their tax bills as low as we can,” Councilman Bridal said during debate on a no‑increase motion.

Votes and next steps: several specific line‑item motions were adopted and will go to third reading as amended by tonight’s votes. A motion by Councilman Bridal to direct the administrator to amend the proposed general fund so that it did not increase county millage (or at most increase by one mill) failed on a roll call. Staff said that any council direction to reduce the proposed general fund would require the administrator to return with a revised budget book for third reading.

Context and process notes: county staff repeatedly reminded the council that some line items put forward by administration were proposals or placeholders; if the council does not act on an item tonight, it will carry forward to third reading. Councilmembers debated whether to provide specific reduction guidance or leave amendments to the administrator’s professional judgment. The Council recessed midmeeting and resumed to complete votes.

Ending: With most line‑item votes completed, councilmembers left several high‑impact policy questions — notably the overall general‑fund millage decision and exact funding levels for some agencies — to be finalized at third reading after staff prepares the revised financial sheets the body requested.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special Called Meeting [FY24-25 Budget-2nd Reading], June 5, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Richland County Council on June 5 reviewed second‑reading ordinances to set ad valorem property taxes for FY2026 and voted on multiple funding requests while deferring several major millage decisions to third reading.","taxTitle","Richland County, South Carolina","taxId",3705,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6210347,"Council splits accommodations and hospitality tax awards; South Carolina Ballet proposal fails, ATAX recommendations approved",2135,5445000,7580000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3720345-a35d337340c12d3b5037475b5e348643&start=5445&end=7580","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3720345-a35d337340c12d3b5037475b5e348643/thumbnail_5445000.jpg","/articles/6210347/Richland-County/South-Carolina/Council-splits-accommodations-and-hospitality-tax-awards-South-Carolina-Ballet-proposal-fails-ATAX-recommendations-approved","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210347-db8ed54d12764173e0cb80b6ced5829d/orig.mp4?Expires=1773078548&Signature=WWTy0Asv-B2CebjS6W0roCj5cpFdCMu5Fu4I20mIvNDjxBoTPA~y0JLz0LWJThF3TtPz7e0aSBd0XVJ7qmh7Ei6OO2Qkhl6VnIdBlUkGQ6YKJY4R8ihbhbRxAhJQnOZSPr7HWX3iFVlHT0ekpTLGzAIVaVKsnRfCmlmKeebqnvm9dfTb1Vcj2c5QySE4nMuU6uAm9mnprVSWV4qMfenMh8bUlLcDRBZMc8S1VKG1auIsjJZxyFZdwcPkkxv4~V2mOTEmu2ofp1A2vKNfsF9wRd-oK2on3e97aQ-cnUAWb-R1E4pdzTemAkMrrvZpfA0yvT9tQ-Mnyu4dFk7JJvnC8w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Richland County Council debated handwritten changes to the accommodations‑tax committee recommendations and hospitality‑tax awards on June 5, approving the ATAX committee’s recommendations but rejecting a council amendment to increase the South Carolina Ballet’s award.

Councilwoman Terasio moved to fund the South Carolina Ballet at $36,667 (a larger amount than the ATAX committee recommended); the motion failed on roll call. The council then voted to approve the accommodations‑tax committee’s original recommendations as presented. Separately on hospitality‑tax items, the council approved funding for the Columbia International Festival after a later motion by Vice Chair Pugh.

Committee funding context: staff reported the accommodations‑tax fund had a current balance of $412,834; accepting Terasio’s proposed increase for one grantee without an offset would reduce that balance. Committee chair and members clarified the ATAX committee had set aside roughly 10% of total community‑impact grant funds for child welfare needs, but the 10% figure was not a uniform cut to every applicant.

Why it matters: accommodations and hospitality taxes are dedicated local revenue sources used to support tourism and community organizations; changes to committee recommendations affect those grantees and the ATAX fund balance.

Outcome: The council approved the ATAX committee’s recommendations as submitted; the separate hospitality‑tax vote funded the Columbia International Festival as moved. A standalone council attempt to enlarge the Ballet award failed.","Council debated changes to accommodations‑tax (ATAX) and hospitality‑tax (HTAX) committee recommendations, rejected a council amendment to increase South Carolina Ballet funding, and approved the accommodations‑tax committee’s recommendations overall while separately funding the Columbia International Festival via hospitality tax.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6210349,"Council approves Riverbanks Zoo funding split between millage and hospitality tax",340,670000,1010000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3720345-a35d337340c12d3b5037475b5e348643&start=670&end=1010","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3720345-a35d337340c12d3b5037475b5e348643/thumbnail_670000.jpg","/articles/6210349/Richland-County/South-Carolina/Council-approves-Riverbanks-Zoo-funding-split-between-millage-and-hospitality-tax","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210349-fc0c49fc6e300f520daab2883d162698/orig.mp4?Expires=1773078548&Signature=fjY5fdVL0N--PJRf2W4CLMdrJ~~CAW31c4Emq55VDK~sV7gmQnb5Z4Ta~J21qhCu77x8McQcg97~QT9J1j5GhG-19b5GjYYaYfSKmg4tSXvweCwU~IqMqlxC-0Uh-6yxbtg5AwzsRHw~yA5TUvmuw1uqP9oKPS84dzkiHBWAkKIu0jWD9s8M9XZH3t0jSMBQzpX-XY7UiKDQmJKK5oEmQZz-nQIbpDLwe3M4nCKhrz0T5eXpbCn4wZk4yzljL3kgiiUqDpvMwryzkkB00OOASrJlFnlvBtIUt41aILlxrtDlUp5VrAtBmqvybstU~LiqGiPWcwTjDGP1vwoi~PwbLQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Richland County Council on June 5 approved funding to make Riverbanks Zoo and Gardens whole by approving both the millage‑agency line and a hospitality‑tax allocation, consistent with the current fiscal year’s approach.

Council members discussed whether zoo funding should come entirely from millage, entirely from hospitality tax, or a split of the two. “We would still need action on the motion… to make them whole,” a council member said during the exchange; staff clarified the county had previously cut zoo millage in half and made up the remainder with hospitality tax this year. ACA Thomas summarized that “the millage that you’re looking at… was actually the remaining millage. The remainder was funded through hospitality tax.”

A motion combining approval of item 4 (Riverbanks Zoo request) and item 19 (hospitality tax split) passed by roll call; the council voted in favor and the motion was approved.

Why it matters: Riverbanks is a major tourist attraction; funding decisions affect the zoo’s operating budget and whether general‑purpose mills or tourism‑related hospitality funds pay for ongoing operations.

Next steps: With council approval, staff will implement the split funding as reflected in the adopted line items and include the amounts in the final budget ordinance for third reading.","Richland County Council voted to fund Riverbanks Zoo and Gardens at requested levels, approving a combination of millage agency funding and hospitality tax that matches the current fiscal approach.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Richland County Council advances second-reading budget with tax-impact choices left for third reading

Council splits accommodations and hospitality tax awards; South Carolina Ballet proposal fails, ATAX recommendations approved

Council approves Riverbanks Zoo funding split between millage and hospitality tax