Commissioners preview FY26 budget priorities: recovery center costs, training center, energy and contract-deputy debate

York County officials used the Jan. 15 meeting to preview major issues for the fiscal 2026 budget, focusing on rising personnel costs, expected increases in electricity rates, funding and outfitting needs for the county’s recovery center and training center, and a prolonged discussion over contract deputies and county policing responsibilities.

County administrative staff (identified in the record as Greg) told the board the county will need to factor in wage and benefits increases tied to recently approved and forthcoming union contracts; the county anticipates negotiating with multiple unions this year. Greg also highlighted that several long-term electricity purchase agreements will expire in November 2025, and initial modeling shows a likely increase in utility expense unless the county can re-lock favorable rates.

On facilities, staff reviewed the recovery center and related training center plans. The meeting record shows the board previously approved a development cost estimate for the recovery center of about $21,900,000; combined planning and outfitting discussions increased the projected total development-related figure discussed in the meeting (including contingency and other projects) toward a $43,000,000 aggregate number. Staff said the county can currently account for roughly $41.5 million using a mix of ARPA, opioid settlement funds, reserves, other CDS funds, and approximately $1.6–$1.7 million in accrued interest; the remaining funding needs will be pursued through value engineering, grant seeking and fundraising by the foundation board.

Equipment and furnishing estimates were highlighted as a near-term budget pressure. Staff said initial furnishing estimates are about $2,000,000 to outfit the recovery center (beds, desks, furnishing), and discussed potential local partnerships—such as a state prison wood shop and community college support—to lower those costs. Staff also said the training center will pursue EMS/paramedic credentialing and will require policies, staffing and equipment and that the county expects the training center to begin operational costs in FY26 (power, sewer, general operating expenses) if it takes ownership in late 2025.

On program modeling, staff said the county is using a 70% utilization assumption for reimbursement modeling and described an approximate operating-scale model of a $6,000,000-per-year operation for the recovery center under current assumptions. Staff emphasized contingency planning, a $1.5 million contingency in the construction budget, and the need to retain funds currently raised for Layman Way (the present program) to help cover initial operating and outfitting costs for the new recovery center.

The sheriff and commissioners engaged in an extended discussion about contract deputies — town-paid positions in which municipalities pay for dedicated deputies — and whether the county should move away from highly customized contracts and toward a standardized hourly or flat-rate model, or absorb contract positions into general county patrol. The sheriff said the customization of contracts created administrative burdens, limits on resource allocation and complications under union contracts; he said there are also grant-funded positions and vacancies that could be reallocated. Commissioners voiced differing perspectives: some favored requiring towns that receive a dedicated deputy to pay standardized hourly rates, others argued towns that already fund full-service departments should not face additional burdens if the county absorbs more costs. Several commissioners asked the administration and sheriff to return with financial analysis of the tax-rate and budget impact of absorbing contract deputy positions (for example, modelling the cost if 1–5 contract positions reverted to the county operating budget).

Why it matters: The FY26 budget choices will determine whether the county can fund the recovery center’s initial outfitting and begin operations with minimal tax-rate impacts, how the training center is staffed and credentialed, and how law enforcement coverage is structured countywide — including whether contract deputies continue under the present model or shift to a different funding/administration approach.

Ending: Staff said they will distribute budget materials to departments in the coming weeks, continue discussions with the foundation and grant partners about fundraising and value engineering, and prepare the financial modeling commissioners requested to evaluate the cost and tax-rate implications of different contract-deputy approaches.