Lancaster County Council reviews FY26 administrator's recommended budget, proposes 5% pay increase and new positions

Lancaster County Council heard a presentation of the county administrator's recommended FY26 budget on Tuesday, during which County Administrator Dennis Marston and Chief Financial Officer Sabrina Harris outlined revenue projections, staffing proposals and fee schedule changes that would affect operations across public safety, public works and parks and recreation.

"I am pleased to start the presentation of the FY26 county administrator's recommended budget," Marston said as he opened the presentation. The council approved the meeting agenda at the start of the session; the motion was moved by Miss McGriff, seconded by Mr. Neil and approved unanimously by voice vote.

The recommendation frames the budget around continued population and development growth in Lancaster County. "Our county continues to experience growth, looking at our population increasing by 3.1% in just 2024 alone. Over the past five years, the county has grown by 16.4%," CFO Sabrina Harris told council, citing department performance indicators and increased workload for areas such as building permits, public safety and fleet maintenance.

Why it matters: the recommended plan would increase recurring personnel costs while using a portion of the county's fund balance and conservative revenue forecasts to balance near-term requests. The administration emphasized avoiding unfunded commitments even as it proposes new hires to respond to service demand.

Top-line revenue and fund balance

The administration presented a set of top revenue line items that together are summarized as roughly $61.2 million in FY26 general-fund resources. Specific figures discussed during the presentation included $36 million collected in real-property (ad valorem) tax receipts as of April 15, 2025; a proposed $5.2 million in building-permit revenue; and a $3.9 million ambulance-charges projection. The county's proposed use of fund balance for FY26 was presented as $4.8 million; speakers said the county's audited unassigned fund balance at the end of 2024 was about $55 million and that the county remains well above its stated reserve guideline.

Budget priorities and personnel proposals

The recommended budget centers on personnel investments and service capacity. Key personnel proposals presented to council include:

- A 5% across-the-board pay increase for full- and part-time employees (administration estimate: about $2.6 million). - Raising the minimum hourly pay for employees paid below $15 to $15, estimated at $452,000. - Continuing the county Christmas supplement for eligible employees (estimated $475,000). - Position adjustments and reclassifications for retention-critical roles (17 reclassifications/adjustments estimated at roughly $370,000).

The administration also recommended adding or converting multiple positions to address workload and service coverage. Among the new or converted roles discussed were corrections officers for the detention center (four officers proposed to start Jan. 1), three EMTs to support a joint EMS/Indian Land Fire service model, an ERP application coordinator and IT technician to support a planned enterprise resource-planning rollout, two park rangers to support regional-park operations and two violent-crime investigator positions previously grant-funded that would move to the general fund when the grant ends. The proposal also included converting three current animal-control staff positions to deputy status and adding three new animal-control officers in the animal-shelter budget.

Fee schedule changes and other operating items

Budget staff summarized proposed changes to the county fee schedule, including higher certified-copy fees in circuit/clerk of court offices (from $2.50 to $10 per certified copy), adjustments to airport after-hours call-out fees, modest increases in certain animal-shelter redemption fees and changes to parks-and-rec recreation fees (including a decrease to one day program fee and increases in swim-lesson fees). Several departments requested new or revised fees for special-event standby services and facility rentals.

Council questions and concerns

Council members pressed staff on the conservatism of revenue forecasts and on how staffing proposals align with capital timelines. One council member characterized the administration's approach to revenue as cautious: "We're being conservative on top of being conservative," that member said, asking whether the revenue forecasts might understate receipts from large new retailers slated to open in the county.

On capital-timing questions, council asked the administration to match EMS-station construction timelines to staffing needs and to return with a staffing plan tied to the projected station-opening schedule. Staff agreed to provide the requested timeline and staffing alignment before the next meeting. Council also asked for the full list of all 76 new positions requested by departments; administration said it will provide the complete list by the end of the meeting.

Formal actions

The only formal vote recorded on the transcript was routine: council approved the meeting agenda by unanimous voice vote at the start of the session. No vote on the FY26 budget recommendation occurred during the recorded segment.

What happens next

Administration and budget staff will provide follow-up materials requested by council, including the full list of requested positions not included in the recommendation and a staffing timeline matched to the new EMS station design. The recommended budget and fee schedule will return to council for further review and any formal action at a later date.