[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6242772,"mediaKeyId","3244829-e0fcb34645f47783c6c2e94a708098e5","parentId",3244829,"title","County finance staff present FY25 midyear review and FY26 budget preview; no tax rate changes proposed beyond one fire district","audioSeconds",425,"startMs",3858000,"endMs",4283000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3244829-e0fcb34645f47783c6c2e94a708098e5&start=3858&end=4283","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3244829-e0fcb34645f47783c6c2e94a708098e5/thumbnail_3858000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6242772/Charleston-County/South-Carolina/County-finance-staff-present-FY25-midyear-review-and-FY26-budget-preview-no-tax-rate-changes-proposed-beyond-one-fire-district","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6242772-3c41fbbc196e088253b712c7a9fe1e90/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167480&Signature=CagXfrgahJ-5IJ9itARVFdbqSKWes~xmRTb8gdM7Lr1Ivjwp0NJ4Yl569mRyelWxLd8tT6bgrQz1POI-Ar6aMmsEXGk9eAZXKpgJAJJYhAg7Pxlsv1WLmXLivSY4tFzq5p-m-RcPE8MYsVkFomdjDmbwK8KhTmgKy35yKU6oj8IFwh1EluVkOfj1opInqmf8DZy7Ys5dgqKlbegQLJeB25zIJd2gvk6MMpHmKJkiMdk3TyCRcycUdJILPy58ZHz3Srwlawyi932RAX6dzPiUYtKeyJT9UuxWxN6ExOUg8-fG-~KBlfyINlIPne4OWU~YxZAx61WoWaNrIGf7QCivmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-09T10:25:46Z","article","County finance staff presented a midyear review of the FY25 budget and a preview of the proposed FY26 budget during the May 8 meeting, reporting revenues above budget year‑to‑date and outlining proposed spending and staffing priorities for the coming fiscal year.

Finance staff noted a net revenue position better than budgeted, driven in part by interest income, but also said one‑time savings are smaller than recent years and certain public‑safety and medical examiner areas are filling positions faster than anticipated. The FY26 preview proposed a general fund increase of about $24 million driven by new positions and commitments, with most new staffing tied to public well‑being and public safety strategic priorities. The only tax increase proposed within council purview was for the Northern Fire District to allow the contracted CMB Fire Department to levy its maximum allowable millage; other millages remain unchanged in the draft.

Staff emphasized the budget remains a work in progress. Council members were invited to review binders and schedule individual budget meetings; staff said formal first and second readings are planned in May with a public hearing and third readings to follow in June. No votes on the FY26 budget were taken at the meeting; staff described the presentation as the regular midyear and budget preview required under county financial policies.

Why it matters: The FY26 preview maintains existing services while adding staff in areas council prioritized; small changes in interest income and personnel lapping affect midyear projections. Council members asked follow‑up questions about one‑time revenue sources and the treatment of the Airbnb settlement in the budget projections.

Next steps: Staff will continue outreach with council members and proceed with the ordinance reading schedule in May and June. Individual council budget briefings will be scheduled before final votes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","05/08/2025 - Charleston County Council","oneSentenceSummary","Finance staff reported revenues above budget at midyear and outlined the draft FY26 budget, which preserves services and adds staffing largely for public safety and public well‑being; only the Northern Fire District shows a proposed millage increase tied to contracted fire services.","taxTitle","Charleston County, South Carolina","taxId",3700,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6242777,"Council debates greenbelt forward‑spending policy; motion withdrawn pending legal rewrite",767,1827000,2594000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3244829-e0fcb34645f47783c6c2e94a708098e5&start=1827&end=2594","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3244829-e0fcb34645f47783c6c2e94a708098e5/thumbnail_1827000.jpg","/articles/6242777/Charleston-County/South-Carolina/Council-debates-greenbelt-forwardspending-policy-motion-withdrawn-pending-legal-rewrite","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6242777-97bb42c212306f2ea1d28830674e84e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167480&Signature=QXH27fRHWi1iEne~GpO84GzlT62tpGVqg3pM20zV7qh5Epl9GqOPar56uk2lUahTTN98n0WnKQcU~KzyMdeClLHVb3YZpeYlldXo8xoEHi4XPkdDb2DyeD093VPxA9z6dAsgPiFT3b94eS39CX3HYJnV2gnfS5qRc2JspWxia867N4k3n41-SdpxeNu-Z8CHOU~qTLePhT6jtfKSOxlMw89XAt~9xAV9o-gMKsZXFzE3aISZOD9AgIkWcDXjsYCip0WoguXGsJUea-RMDHpebmMotmjccBZSqPFI-tQext8MkBeQO0hKoUbd5IWCPyCoo~w5MNA2A~lSdzP-FA8Iaw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Charleston County Council members debated May 8 a proposed change to the greenbelt forward‑spending policy that would permit applicants to receive awards larger than their current allocation provided they secure bridge financing and agree to be repaid from future allocations.

Mister Boykin explained the draft policy language and said the approach would allow projects to proceed by committing future allocations while protecting the county from covering borrower finance charges. “This is really a commitment of future funding,” staff confirmed. Several council members warned the proposal could still leave some municipal allocations overspent and argued for hard safeguards that prevent one jurisdiction from exhausting another’s projected lifetime allocation. Mister Kabrowski and Miss Hunnicutt pressed for guardrails to avoid “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

Legal and administrative staff were asked to draft clearer language that includes hard stops and limits so an urban or municipal allocation cannot be forward‑spent beyond its total projected lifetime allocation. After a period of discussion and suggested edits, Mister Boykin withdrew his motion and asked the county attorney’s office and staff to craft revised language for council review at a future meeting.

Why it matters: The county’s greenbelt and allocation programs are capitalized from a transportation‑related revenue source that has finite lifetime receipts. Council members expressed concern that forward spending without firm limits can deplete allocations intended for other municipalities or future cycles.

Next steps: The county attorney and staff will redraft the proposal to incorporate explicit hard stops and repayment safeguards and return to council for consideration; no ordinance or policy change was adopted on May 8.","Councilmembers discussed a proposed forward‑spending policy allowing applicants to receive awards in excess of current allocations if they secure bridge financing; concerns about negative balances and allocation ‘hard stops’ led the sponsor to withdraw the motion and seek legal revision.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6242782,"New FEMA policy shifts could shift disaster costs to local governments, county emergency manager warns",1104,2645000,3749000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3244829-e0fcb34645f47783c6c2e94a708098e5&start=2645&end=3749","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3244829-e0fcb34645f47783c6c2e94a708098e5/thumbnail_2645000.jpg","/articles/6242782/Charleston-County/South-Carolina/New-FEMA-policy-shifts-could-shift-disaster-costs-to-local-governments-county-emergency-manager-warns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6242782-4ceb25744ca3cd15597d364bbe251a83/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167480&Signature=cmBi-39mgl5MwLawEFMB1~mp75KMNc0LZ3l6fx0cq3pfhTRpNx1aHqs2lgH1tJTK7vO3dJT0pyCeuXgS6~vWNzKyJ~nhWgRMHUyrDquExwlN0U0VnY-0rwUiI7HTBwNZto~OjmDjSiTxskxxyluTLmCJx~5XfkNTI6yVtoWWXD6VwOY2j1yrrRbXOIoxAiAGQCzwC2tF9L3qGEYf5MkQro~TsGubu-jzRDnSsXf6Uqp0CKcsJkCYj6Hpu0MXfNkg65gWA462C3YC7JhcT-CegLbcj-Z2P4-GOTrKHVZ-M8mzSk0-WMDkGXgG45~ASJ0jOg4j4t1u7~xp1v3Ezq2wWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Justin Pierce, Charleston County’s new director of Emergency Management, told council May 8 that recent federal policy changes and administrative actions have the potential to shift a larger share of disaster recovery and preparedness costs to state and local governments.

Pierce described three core federal shifts: (1) the federal government is proposing to push more responsibility for preparedness and recovery to state and local governments, (2) the administration is aligning and pausing preparedness grants while reevaluating priorities, and (3) FEMA is refocusing on what it calls “catastrophic” disasters, which could raise the cost threshold for a federal major disaster declaration. Pierce said the Robert T. Stafford Act governs major disaster declarations and that current discussions could move the state threshold well above the existing $9.6 million benchmark — participants estimated possible increases into the hundreds of millions or higher — which would leave counties to cover smaller and more frequent disasters.

Pierce warned that in the past decade Charleston County received roughly $30 million in federal disaster reimbursements that could be at risk under a higher threshold. He also said FEMA has paused or canceled some preparedness grants (including the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant) and that internal FEMA guidance has already scaled back some field operations such as door‑to‑door canvassing and disaster recovery centers.

The director laid out nine recommended county actions, including updating the county Emergency Operations Plan, building financial reserves or a disaster reserve fund, accelerating shovel‑ready resilience projects funded by federal grants, reassessing the county’s disaster insurance coverage and deepening partnerships with private‑sector and nongovernmental organizations. Council member Mister (first name not provided) moved to direct the administrator to pursue Pierce’s recommendations and to empower staff to implement them; the motion passed unanimously.

Why it matters: If the federal cost threshold for disaster declarations increases, smaller disasters that previously triggered federal assistance could require county or state funding. Pierce said that would increase pressure on reserves, force local response gaps and potentially leave some recovery needs unmet without local funding or new state programs.

Next steps: Council unanimously approved a motion to authorize the county administrator to advance the emergency management recommendations; staff will proceed with updating plans, reviewing insurance, evaluating funding reserves and accelerating eligible mitigation projects where feasible.","The county’s new emergency management director briefed council on recent federal FEMA changes that could raise the state disaster threshold, pause preparedness grants and reduce federal mitigation funding; council unanimously empowered the administrator to pursue a set of preparedness and financial resilience actions.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6242785,"Staff outlines priorities for $9.4M Airbnb settlement; council takes no immediate appropriation action",1115,739000,1854000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3244829-e0fcb34645f47783c6c2e94a708098e5&start=739&end=1854","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3244829-e0fcb34645f47783c6c2e94a708098e5/thumbnail_739000.jpg","/articles/6242785/Charleston-County/South-Carolina/Staff-outlines-priorities-for-94M-Airbnb-settlement-council-takes-no-immediate-appropriation-action","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6242785-9ce4cb90905bb21f98c89409e4ff615a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167480&Signature=cWm~XjAIJ-OyTZEUFK57AjCfPgo1zGmu9IHNQXSLHmgfR4rd~K8dQMvXsALTCVM9Idr3lrCR1Jo2hhwjQJm5abMy9u5y08uNUDP~vMY-12-QVZ1Mxv~on6OaDBH44F84zE6CdYHS7cdNfPsAdOB7iENMcYRqkBYqcn0NJUMxeKYpaLksopKT5JM4hPG5AnnaFA~ld6PvgdOLvRvdtl5zCr4Oqvph-kYVipUiAEB2KiD7qo2gGomVU3JpMdpQ4vxt3vqlcTvVp3ZrBMvDB7Z6JDlBWmiP~tkiOYKtuNQ5Sb6W9JqZpnuaqr2W3ofzSWQNqojBwjGOEec-aS-OvsqjvQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Charleston County staff presented a framework May 8 for allocating approximately $9.4 million from an Airbnb settlement, proposing priorities that include housing initiatives, visitor‑economy support, internal financial system upgrades, public‑works drainage projects and a disaster reserve fund.

The presentation listed five top priorities and tied them to council direction and the county’s strategic plan. Christine Durant, speaking for staff, said the housing recommendation would mirror the council’s recent decision to set aside 15% of accommodations‑tax proceeds and that the settlement recommendation would set aside an additional 15% for housing-focused uses, primarily to continue a critical home‑repair program. “This represents 15% of the settlement consistent with what the other practices of council have been,” Durant said. Justin (last name not provided) and other staff described proposals for digital payroll/timekeeping and HR tools, cast‑in‑place pipe lining for drainage projects and modest funding to support the Charleston Visitors Bureau’s downtown consolidation and operations.

Council members questioned overlap with existing fiscal commitments. Mister Pryor and others asked whether the additional 15% for housing would duplicate funds already placed in the housing trust fund from the current year’s budget; staff clarified the settlement money would fund critical home repair as a separate stream from the trust’s long‑term housing supply work. Mister Wierman and others urged caution so the settlement dollars do not reduce planned trust funding; Mister Wierman said he did not want the transfer of settlement funds to cost the housing trust programs money allocated elsewhere.

Staff emphasized the proposals were recommendations only. No ordinance or appropriation was moved at the meeting; staff said the settlement allocation will require a future ordinance (third reading required to move money out of an accommodations tax restriction) if council chooses to appropriate funds. Council received the presentation as information and agreed to continue discussion before making any appropriation.

Why it matters: The settlement provides an immediate, one‑time pool of funds that county staff say could be used to accelerate critical home repairs, improve county financial operations and shore up resilience and tourism infrastructure. Council members repeatedly flagged the need to avoid substituting settlement dollars for existing long‑term housing commitments and raised equity and geographic distribution questions for the proposed allocations.

Next steps: Staff said the $9.4 million will be moved to a contingency if council elects, and any allocation will require formal ordinance readings to transfer restricted tax revenues. Council did not adopt any appropriation on May 8; further hearings and ordinance readings were discussed for later consideration.","County staff presented proposed uses for a roughly $9.4 million settlement, recommending allocations for housing (15% for critical home repairs), a visitors bureau allocation, financial system upgrades, drainage projects and a disaster reserve; council treated the presentation as informational and did not finalize funding.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6242791,"Charleston County council declines to write preservation letter for Tobin Boyd Elementary property",468,132000,600000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3244829-e0fcb34645f47783c6c2e94a708098e5&start=132&end=600","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3244829-e0fcb34645f47783c6c2e94a708098e5/thumbnail_132000.jpg","/articles/6242791/Charleston-County/South-Carolina/Charleston-County-council-declines-to-write-preservation-letter-for-Tobin-Boyd-Elementary-property","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6242791-154534b2e4c8fb8ef15daedbb369b220/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167480&Signature=CGfdn4phMyUtEe40i0CW7laDa6k9Y6Sq0k-B1vsJ9XTeCTlmOIUp4Xi~hN91eS~QnHffB4hEPpFA3D0hc0r3-Z1F5oPUKfGA~wzRFQg25u45o8nyxVTZHxv6WhMaJZVbDxmeIdDJwvJZjVQTqYIri9kTIN0pzZa23cLQsN5dpCAzW0rAkjxS~K9aNL74dQq3vMyBNxaoD1Hbgv65LzZqQFkeSY-K4cJvHO5c1gjO0vf5IoBtOMr~7Ju5QaTx~Ub7DjGZ2qgoqW93MrtAameO8p2fh-rMaePvNCBJ4i0aau-fZBiZqu3vKPYrqItlWtq6zhdOQPQ-T9f3rFTu5LozjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Charleston County Council members on the Planning and Public Works Committee voted unanimously May 8 to deny a request that the council write a letter asking to preserve the Tobin Boyd Elementary School property in District 6.

The vote follows a multi-member discussion about the building’s condition, whether it has official historic designation and the limits of county authority over private redevelopment. Committee Chair Mister Pryor, the council member representing District 6, told colleagues the school is not designated by the county Historic Preservation Commission and that the developer has a by‑right entitlement to develop the site as zoned. “The building is dilapidated,” Pryor said, and “they have the right to develop exactly what’s contemplated for this particular property.”

The vote came after several council members urged deference to property rights while acknowledging community concern. Doctor Moody said the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) might be able to weigh in and suggested salvaging architectural elements if the developer proceeds. Mister Boykin, Reverend Melton and others agreed with denying the request for a council letter, and Mister Kabowski asked staff to consult further with the preservationists ahead of the council’s next scheduled meeting.

Why it matters: Council members emphasized that asking the county to write a preservation letter would not change the site’s zoning or require a special exception; instead it would be a policy statement. Members repeatedly cautioned against using council authority to limit by‑right development or invite legal challenges. Pryor said no community purchase effort to acquire the property was known to him.

Details and context: Committee members referenced the school’s age, construction type (brick, L‑shaped) and condition as reasons they believe moving the structure would be infeasible. Several members contrasted the Tobin Boyd building with smaller, movable schoolhouses elsewhere. The Historic Preservation Commission had forwarded a request for consideration but the building had not received an official local historic designation. No application for rezoning or special exception was before the committee; staff noted the developer’s proposal is allowable by right under existing land‑use rules.

Outcome and next steps: The committee’s motion to deny the request that council write a preservation letter passed unanimously. Mister Kabowski asked staff to check with the preservation society and report back by the council meeting on Tuesday; the committee chair indicated the matter could be revisited if additional information or a formal application is submitted.

The discussion occurred during the Planning and Public Works Committee portion of the meeting; public comment on the matter was not recorded in the committee transcript. The denial is procedural (refusing to draft a letter) and does not alter any land‑use approvals or the developer’s legal rights.","A Planning and Public Works Committee vote rejected a request that council write a letter supporting preservation of the Tobin Boyd Elementary School property; members cited by‑right development rights and the lack of an official historic designation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County finance staff present FY25 midyear review and FY26 budget preview; no tax rate changes proposed beyond one fire district

Council debates greenbelt forward‑spending policy; motion withdrawn pending legal rewrite

New FEMA policy shifts could shift disaster costs to local governments, county emergency manager warns

Staff outlines priorities for $9.4M Airbnb settlement; council takes no immediate appropriation action

Charleston County council declines to write preservation letter for Tobin Boyd Elementary property