York County council previews FY26 budget, flags roads, stormwater, industrial land and ag arena as priorities

York County staff outlined the FY26 budget calendar and early revenue forecasts at a March 11 council workshop, and council members used the meeting to surface “big rock” capital priorities they want staff to study ahead of a fast-approaching retreat.

The county’s budget director, Trish Startup, reviewed the calendar, telling council that the county manager will present the FY26 recommended budget at the April 21 meeting and that the public hearing is scheduled for May 13, when outside agencies that request funding will be invited to speak. “We will have the March council retreat where we’ll discuss revenue projections, we’ll really dive into the capital projects discussion, and we will talk more about the budget opportunities and challenge for FY26,” Startup said.

Kevin Niles, the county’s chief financial officer and assistant county manager, gave early revenue guidance, saying York should expect mill value growth “somewhere in the 4 to 5% range” for budgeting purposes and noting that several revenue streams — deed stamps and building permits — are slowing from the post‑COVID surge. “We are seeing revenues coming in slower than in the past,” Niles said. He told council the county will have a firmer number after February data are booked and will update the council at the March retreat.

Why it matters: staff emphasized the need for an early, reasonably firm revenue estimate so council can prioritize capital projects and personnel requests before formal readings. Council members repeatedly pressed staff to return cost estimates and options for specific projects before the retreat so direction can be given without delaying the FY26 schedule.

Key capital and policy priorities raised by council

- Regent Park stormwater repairs: Council member Debbie (surname not specified in the transcript) asked staff to ensure the budget includes space to track and potentially fund repairs identified by a study the county previously funded. Council members recalled the county previously allocated $100,000 for design work; staff warned the study’s recommended fixes could exceed that amount. Jonathan (last name not specified), the county planning director, said the study is expected in March or April, after which design and repair cost estimates will be developed. Council agreed staff should bring back estimates in April where possible, with the caveat that design work does not commit council to full construction spending.

- Roads and paving: Multiple council members named road maintenance and paving as top constituent demands. Council members asked staff to present current pavement programs and options to accelerate patching or paving during the retreat.

- Industrial land, master planning and the ED fund: Several council members proposed studying a county industrial park or “pad‑ready” sites and asked staff to evaluate whether the county has capacity and, if not, what consultants or consultants’ costs would be. Council member Chris suggested a 10–20‑year master plan for town center and industrial development to guide infrastructure investment (water, sewer, roads) before growth arrives; staff said they will prepare examples for the retreat. Council and staff discussed the Economic Development (ED) fund as one potential revenue source, and members asked the ED committee to continue work on recommendations.

- Agritourism / ag arena and parks: Tommy (surname not specified) and other council members advocated for an agritourism/education facility that would serve 4‑H, FFA and school programs and could also generate tourism revenue. Council said one proposed project already has about $4.4 million in state funding identified and that parks staff and schools should clarify operational and maintenance commitments. Staff agreed to assemble comparative information and to fold agritourism planning into the parks master‑planning process where appropriate.

- Transportation projects and a second river crossing: Council members raised long‑range transportation priorities, including interchange improvements, potential new crossings of Lake Wylie and other bridge concepts. Members suggested staff raise these issues with regional transportation partners (the transcript mentions ARFATS and regional planning bodies) and explore whether a legislative or lobbying resource could better position York to compete for state or federal infrastructure money.

- Legislative liaison (lobbyist): Several members urged staff to cost and evaluate a legislative liaison or dedicated state‑level representative to identify grant opportunities and pursue state support. Proponents said jurisdictions that use liaisons frequently pick up timing‑sensitive funding opportunities and that York previously had such a function in a shared arrangement.

- Solid waste and regional processing options: One council member raised the possibility of re‑examining large‑scale solid‑waste solutions, including incineration or newer waste‑to‑energy technologies, and asked staff or the Public Works Committee to review the county’s solid waste plan and the current legal/regulatory landscape.

What staff will do next: staff asked council to send specific priorities and clarifying questions in the coming days so the team can prepare focused materials for the retreat. The county said it will provide the FY26 revenue number after March bookkeeping is complete and will return in April with more detailed cost estimates on Regent Park and other capital items where feasible.

Ending: Council and staff agreed the retreat will be used to turn the workshop’s priorities into a narrower set of decisions the manager can reflect in the recommended budget. Several members asked that staff add more public engagement where possible; staff said the timeline was compressed but that public hearings and online postings will support citizen input during the adoption process.