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

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.