York County residents urge council to preserve municipal recreation funding as budget hearing continues

Dozens of York County residents and municipal recreation officials on Monday urged the York County Council to preserve the existing recreation tax district model and the 1.5-mill funding that has for years supported municipal parks and recreation programs.

Speakers said the county'wide budget proposal to unwind the recreation tax district and replace most municipal funding with a $75-per-child stipend would sharply reduce operating budgets for municipal recreation departments and could force higher nonresident fees or restrictions on participation. "This bill, even with the $75 per child stipend, will leave our rec departments at a significant budget shortfall going forward," said Forrest Stone, a Fort Mill resident.

Why it matters: Municipal recreation departments, residents and local businesses told the council that municipal programs deliver a broad set of services beyond youth sports'adult classes, special-needs programming, senior lifelong-learning and volunteer-driven community events'and that a large share of participants are county residents who now access municipal facilities under the intergovernmental arrangement currently in place.

What speakers said: Jim Bradford of York said the 1.5 mills that support municipal recreation provide a simple, countywide mechanism that lets unincorporated residents participate in municipal programs without complex verification. Rick Lee, a former county council member who helped design the older funding deal, said the arrangement "worked well" for nearly 20 years and that more than half of facility users are county residents. "If you did it proportionally ... you should be paying $5 million or $6 million," Lee said, describing the current 1.5-mill approach as a good financial deal for the county.

Municipal managers and the Municipal Recreation Association urged the council to delay changes and keep the FY2025 funding formula through the next fiscal year while county and municipal staff negotiate a long-term solution. Charlie Funneberg, representing municipal managers, told the council the municipalities had provided participation data in past years despite there being no contractual obligation to do so, and argued the county had not sufficiently explored alternative funding options that would preserve municipal programming.

Council and staff response: A council member and county staff said the county obtained a parks master plan recommending expanded county park capital and operational funding, and that the committee considered options including a capital contribution or a stipend. County staff and a council member said they had asked municipalities for registration-level data to design a data-driven stipend and to map who uses services, and said that some municipalities initially declined to share granular data on legal advice grounds. "Data doesn't lie," one councilmember said, arguing registration data should guide any new distribution formula.

Alternatives suggested publicly: - Maintain the FY2025 funding formula for FY2026 while municipal and county staff negotiate a permanent approach. - Levy one additional countywide mill to raise roughly $2.3 million and retain municipal funding while funding county parks. - Keep the 1.5-mill rec district and add a separate county-wide passive-park tax. Several speakers asked the county to consider raising camping and nonresident fees at county parks instead of cutting municipal program funding.

Community context and concerns: Commenters emphasized impacts beyond youth athletics: adult lifelong-learning classes, Miracle League and unified sports, disability-accessible facilities (Miracle Park), and the economic benefits tournaments and tournaments bring to hotels and restaurants. Several municipal speakers warned that reducing municipal funding could force municipalities to charge out-of-county participants higher fees or limit access to city residents only.

Votes/actions at the hearing: Council moved and seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition and the public hearing was closed.

What's next: Council will consider the FY2026 budget on subsequent readings; management and the committee plan to return recommended fee and stipend language to the council at second reading and requested further discussions with municipalities to refine stipend amounts and data-sharing arrangements.

Ending note: Multiple speakers asked the council to use the remainder of the calendar year to negotiate a durable, data-driven solution that preserves municipal programming while funding expanded county parks and operations.