Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lexington County holds public hearing on $314.7 million FY2025-26 budget; council plans no tax increase
Summary
Council received the revised recommended budget totaling $314,746,387 and directed staff to use unfilled vacancies and rollover funds to cover additions rather than raise property taxes; one member of the public urged development fees as an alternate revenue source.
Lexington County Council on May 13 held a public hearing on the proposed fiscal year 2025-26 budget that would appropriate $314,746,387 and includes no proposed property tax increase, county officials said.
The revised recommended budget calls for $208,700,289 in the general fund (which includes fire services and law enforcement) and $106,046,098 in non‑general funds, for combined county appropriations of $314,746,387. County Administrator Sturkey told council the package “does include the changes that we discussed earlier today” and reflects additional revenue tied to recent marriage‑license changes.
Council members earlier directed staff to cover newly approved items using unfilled vacancies and rollover funds (savings from recurring operational accounts), rather than increasing the tax rate. “The option that has been chosen is we will use unfilled vacancies ... plus rollover funds,” Sturkey said during the presentation.
At the public hearing, resident Thomas Scott of 128 Harrison Hill Court, Gilbert, urged the council to consider assessment methods targeted at new development instead of a broad property tax increase. “Let the problem that caused it solve it by saying every new home inspection is a $5,000 fee,” Scott told the council, suggesting per‑unit fees for developers or purchasers to fund school additions and infrastructure rather than raising taxes on all property owners. He identified himself as retired and offered to assist the county on the idea.
No final vote on the budget was recorded at the May 13 meeting; the ordinance (25‑08) was presented during the public hearing process and council closed the hearing after public comment. Next steps for formal adoption were not finalized on the record at the meeting.
