Chesterfield County finance committee advances first-draft FY2026 budget with COLA, convenience-center fee and public-safety items

The Chesterfield County Finance Committee on April 21 advanced a first draft of the county's FY2026 general fund budget that includes a 5% across‑the‑board cost‑of‑living adjustment, a proposed convenience‑center fee, adds staff for the solicitor and public defender offices and funds a security officer for county facilities.

Michelle Stanley, county finance staff, presented the draft and said, "I went ahead and incorporated a 5% across the board COLA increase." She walked committee members through alternate COLA scenarios and a set of line‑item requests from departments.

The committee discussed several substantive changes that Stanley recommended: funding one full solicitor position plus a second solicitor to be added mid‑year (described in the draft as "one and a half" solicitors), one public defender position, a security officer for the county administration building, two truck‑driver slots for the road department, and moving convenience‑center operations into a separate fund supported by a flat fee. Stanley said the solicitor/public defender items are shown in the administration department as approximately $385,000 if the committee chooses to fund them there.

Committee members debated phasing and risk. One member said phasing the solicitor additions so the second slot would begin mid‑year would give the county a chance to evaluate hiring and performance before committing full funding. The committee agreed informally to consider adding one solicitor and the public defender at the start of the year and, if conditions permit, add the second solicitor mid‑year.

On convenience centers and solid‑waste accounting, the draft separates convenience‑center operations into a stand‑alone fund and proposes a flat fee to appear on property tax bills rather than on‑site cash collection. Under the draft scenario Stanley described, the proposed fee would be $47 for unincorporated county residents and $20 for municipal residents (municipal residents already receive local trash services). Stanley estimated the combined effect of the proposed fees and a rollback of the operational millage from 94.53 to roughly 91 mills would increase an example homeowner's tax bill by about $22 next year.

Public safety items drew extended discussion. The committee reviewed sheriff's office requests that included technology purchases and ongoing support (Stanley cited ClearView for facial recognition, Cellebrite for phone data and IDEMIA for fingerprint services), grant‑funded positions the sheriff now asks the county to pick up, and other operating increases. Committee members stressed accountability and asked staff to obtain more detail on one‑time purchase versus ongoing support costs before final decisions.

The committee also discussed detention‑center and juvenile holding costs. Stanley warned that pending state legislative changes could substantially raise juvenile holding per‑day costs and recommended the committee consider increasing the juvenile holding line to prepare for that possible change. For court operations, the clerk of court requested a large (30%) increase for employees in one office; the committee noted that the draft budget as presented includes a 5% across‑the‑board COLA but does not adopt a 30% increase.

E911 and telecommunicators were also on the agenda. Committee members heard that E911 is handling increased call volume and additional license/name checks that have put pressure on the single existing supervisor. The committee discussed short‑term staffing help for E911 and said staff should bring back options, including whether municipalities that generate extra call volume should share in the cost.

On several smaller items, the committee discussed raising the county's charge for constructing resident driveways (current material cost cited at $6.38 per unit; committee talked about raising the customer charge to about $800 to avoid a recurring subsidy), animal control increases for fuel and equipment, and whether the county should continue an annual payment to NETC (the draft identified roughly $375,000 paid historically). Several members said they want to investigate NETC funding and whether to reduce or eliminate the line before making a final decision.

After extended discussion the committee voted to move the draft changes forward to the next meeting so staff can return with additional detail and updated scenarios. A motion to advance the draft and the changes discussed passed by voice vote.

The committee then took executive session under South Carolina Code Section 30-4-70(a)(1) to discuss employment matters related to the county attorney; no votes were taken during the executive session. When they returned to open session the chair confirmed no motions or votes occurred while in executive session.

The committee scheduled follow‑up work and asked staff to produce cost detail for the sheriff's technology request (purchase versus ongoing support), a refined convenience‑center fee model, COLA scenarios (the presenter offered variants such as tiered increases for lower paid employees), and updated detention and juvenile holding cost projections for the next meeting.

Votes at a glance - Adopt agenda: motion by Mr. Ford; second by Mr. McClendon. Outcome: approved (voice vote). - Approve minutes from Oct. 18, 2024 finance committee meeting: mover/second not specified on the record excerpt; outcome: approved (voice vote). - Move draft FY2026 budget changes forward for further work (includes 5% COLA baseline, one solicitor + half, one public defender, security officer slot, two road truck‑driver slots, convenience‑center fund proposal): mover/second not specified in the excerpt; outcome: approved (voice vote). - Enter executive session (personnel, county attorney) pursuant to S.C. Code §30-4-70(a)(1): motion by Mr. Ford; second by Mr. McClendon. Outcome: approved (voice vote).

What the committee asked staff to return with - Detailed cost breakdown of the sheriff's technology purchases vs. ongoing support and evidence of current usage plans for prior equipment; - Refined convenience‑center fee models and a scenario showing taxpayer impact under different splits of general‑fund subsidy vs. fee revenue; - COLA scenarios including a proposed 5% across the board baseline and alternative tiered options (examples run by staff); - Juvenile holding cost projections in light of pending state legislation; - Options for E911 staffing and possible municipality cost‑share models.

The committee's discussion produced no final increases or enacted ordinances at this meeting; staff will return with updated numbers and drafted budget language at the next scheduled session.