Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board wrestles with FY26 budget trade‑offs: deputies, salaries, tax rate and one‑time vs recurring funding
Summary
In advance of public hearings and May budget adoption, York County supervisors debated proposed tax‑rate increases, funding for additional sheriff deputies, midyear salary corrections and whether to use one‑time revenue for ongoing costs.
York County supervisors used much of their April 8 meeting to map choices for the FY26 operating and capital budgets, including whether to raise the real‑estate tax rate, fund additional sheriff deputies, and approve midyear compensation adjustments.
County staff reminded the board of the public schedule: a public hearing April 15, and the board must finalize the budget by May 6 to meet statutory and administrative timelines. Staff also advised that a reassessment and the timing of property‑tax billing can produce a near‑term, one‑time revenue spike (the board discussed how a tax‑rate change would affect the June billing cycle) but cautioned against using one‑time revenue to underwrite recurring personnel costs.
Several supervisors pressed for adding sheriff deputies to reduce overtime and improve courthouse security. County staff said hiring additional deputies would be an ongoing recurring cost; one supervisor noted that if the board approves new positions, overtime savings may not be realized immediately and could require six to 12 months (or longer) to materialize in the county’s operating budget. The board discussed a recurring half‑penny to one‑penny real‑estate tax increase as a funding source for deputies and other public‑safety needs.
On compensation, county staff recommended a general employee compensation adjustment (examples discussed included a 4 percent raise plus a flat $500), and supervisors asked staff to return with a midyear compensation review that would assess whether further adjustments are required to address recruitment and retention. Staff committed to that midyear analysis.
Supervisors also discussed the CIP and larger long‑term debt implications of planned projects (notably the Tabb High School work and other school projects). One supervisor proposed dedicating a fraction of the real‑estate tax rate to a CIP reserve to reduce future borrowing; others favored retaining flexibility and evaluating project timing and debt service when finalizing the FY26 CIP.
On personnel matters briefly raised at the meeting, county staff said they had identified an acceptable candidate for a vacant assessor position and asked the board’s permission to make an offer; board members asked to receive the candidate’s background information and signaled tentative support for proceeding.
County staff said they would supply more detailed cost scenarios ahead of the April budget work sessions, including the effect of alternative tax‑rate choices and the timing of revenue from reassessment. The board set follow‑up work sessions on April 17 and later in April to continue the decisions before finalizing the FY26 budget.
