Berkeley County Council adopts $155 million FY26 budget; approves fee increases, 51 new positions

Berkeley County Council voted on May 12 to adopt the fiscal year 2025–26 budget and related ordinances after a presentation by county staff and brief council discussion.

County officials said the proposed general fund budget rises from $138,000,000 this year to about $155,000,000 for FY26, and projected countywide revenues of $146,000,000 next year compared with $144,000,000 for the current year. Presenters reported a current projected positive delta of $3,500,000 and said $9,000,000 is programmed for a specific list of capital projects included in the packet. The finance committee and council approved bill number 25-30 (the county appropriations ordinance) and a set of companion ordinances by voice vote.

The budget presentation included personnel and rate changes. The supervisors’ recommended budget includes a 2% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) effective July 1 and a 3% merit increase effective Jan. 1; staff said merit increases are tied to performance evaluations. The county reported 51 new positions in the FY26 proposal (33 in the general fund and six in capital funds); presenters said the additions include an in-house water crew intended to reduce outsourcing costs and staffing increases for the sheriff’s office.

The council approved several utility and solid-waste fee changes described by staff during the presentation. Key changes reported by staff include: raising the annual solid-waste user fee for single-family and multifamily accounts from $75 and small-commercial accounts from $85 to $99; increasing commercial cubic-yard pricing from $148 to $172 per cubic yard per week; raising the solid-waste tire disposal fee from $1.50 per ton to the state-allowed $400 per ton; and converting a one-time water fund fire-protection fee of $350 to a recurring $62.50-per-month charge for certain customers. Staff also described impact and connection fees based on 2,000 ERUs and said impact fees are transferred to the county’s R&R account for capital work; presenters said impact fees were expected to account for roughly $26,000,000 of projected funding for capital projects.

Council members asked for clarifying data on revenue assumptions; a council member asked whether the county had all numbers from the South Carolina Department of Revenue, and staff responded they “feel good about the revenue estimates.” Another council member asked about slower impact-fee growth; staff said the assumption was conservative because of possible real estate market slowdown.

Council approved the budget and related ordinances (bills 25-30, 25-31, 25-32, 25-33, 25-34, 25-35 and 25-36) by voice vote; there was no recorded roll-call in the transcript. Several items moved through committee and second readings were combined at council by motion.

Votes at a glance

- Bill 25-30 (appropriations ordinance for county FY26): approved by voice vote during council (motion and second recorded). See provenance below. - Bill 25-31 (companion FY26 ordinance): approved by voice vote. - Bill 25-32: approved by voice vote. - Bill 25-33 (Pimlico Special Tax District): approved by voice vote. - Bill 25-34: approved by voice vote. - Bill 25-35 (amend ordinance 96): approved by voice vote. - Bill 25-36: approved by voice vote.

Why it matters

The FY26 budget sets county tax levies, funds public safety and utilities, and programs capital projects and staffing changes that will affect service delivery and ratepayers. The council-approved fee changes and the shift of a fire-protection charge to a monthly fee affect households and commercial accounts that use county solid-waste and water services.

Details and next steps

County staff said the FY26 budget will move toward second reading in finance committee and county council (as noted during committee reports). The budget book and proposed capital listing were included in the packet; council members said they will continue reviewing details and suggested follow-up on revenue projections and process improvements for planning and zoning to accelerate some revenue-producing projects.

The ordinances were read and passed into the record by title; second readings were combined by motion for efficiency. Council scheduled no additional public hearings on the budget at the May 12 meeting.