Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County administrator outlines Lancaster County 1% transportation sales-tax proposal and road priorities
Summary
Lancaster County administrator presented a county-crafted plan for a voter-approved transportation sales tax (up to 1%) to fund road widenings, intersection fixes, greenways and sidewalks; county estimated roughly $15 million per year and discussed either a 25-year or a 15-year plan with an estimated $400 million outcome in the shorter option.
Lancaster County’s administrator presented a countywide proposal to the Lancaster City Council for a voter-authorized transportation sales tax of up to 1 percent, describing revenue projections and a prioritized list of road and safety projects the county would seek to fund.
Dennis Marsal, introduced by the meeting’s presenter as the county administrator, told the council the tax is allowed under state law and that an opinion from the attorney general supports the approach. He estimated that a 1 percent county transportation sales tax currently would generate roughly $15,000,000 a year and noted a 25-year projection of about $375,000,000. He also said county staff have modeled a 15-year plan that could generate about $400,000,000 and produce results sooner.
Marsal outlined major categories of investment: widening high‑pressure corridors (examples cited included Highway 521), intersection improvements at several countywide choke points, selected roundabouts, signal work, guardrail/safety projects, and continued support for greenway and sidewalk connections such as the Lindsay Perez Greenway link. He said the county has asked a county transportation committee (CTC) and legislative delegation-appointed team to review priorities and that the county would work with SCDOT and municipal partners to coordinate projects.
Council members pressed for data: several asked whether the city would receive an equitable share of the revenue relative to where sales taxes are generated and whether the county could provide a breakdown by municipality. One council member raised the regressive nature of sales taxes and whether residents who already pay less would be asked to contribute proportionally more. Marsal acknowledged the concerns, said the county has modeled revenue using historic sales tax patterns, and emphasized that out-of-county shoppers can help offset the local burden.
Marsal said any county decision would require three council readings and a referendum; county council planned to begin formal consideration the following month. If put to voters, Marsal said ballot language would be broad (categories and percentages) rather than a long itemized list of every road, and that the program could be structured in stages within the legal 25‑year maximum.
The council did not take a vote on the county proposal at the meeting; the discussion concluded with staff and council agreeing to continue coordination and to ask for more localized revenue breakdowns and prioritization details.
