Meeting Details
Lancaster County Council Special Meeting Recap (March 11, 2026)
1) Call to Order
⏱ 1:37 – Chairman Brian Carnes opened the special meeting, confirmed a quorum, and noted that public notice had been properly posted. He also reminded everyone about standard meeting etiquette before moving into the pledge and invocation.
2) Pledge of Allegiance & Invocation
⏱ 2:20 – Council Member Charlene McGriff gave the invocation after the pledge. The prayer centered on asking for guidance and openness as Council received information during the afternoon’s workshop meeting.
3) Approval of the Agenda
⏱ 3:16 – Council approved the agenda unanimously. This was a straightforward procedural step to move into the workshop discussion items.
4) Citizens Comments
⏱ 3:31 – The meeting included one in-person citizen comment.
Citizen 1: The speaker said her concerns had evolved from a single nearby development to broader countywide worries about fire protection, EMS, law enforcement, and overall safety as more homes and commercial uses are approved. She argued that Lancaster County is adding people faster than public services can keep up and urged Council to make decisions based on what is best for the whole county, especially emergency response capacity.
6A) Special Presentation – Memory Café Program
⏱ 7:06 – Dr. April Williams introduced the library’s new outreach librarian, Maggie Vincelette, who presented the county’s new “Memory Café” program. The program is designed as a social gathering for people living with memory loss and their care partners, not as a medical program or a formal support group. The goal is to reduce isolation, provide fellowship, and give participants a safe place to engage in familiar and enjoyable activities.
Maggie explained that Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia in Lancaster County had increased sharply over time and said the library is trying to meet a need that often falls in the gap between diagnosis and more intensive care. She said attendance started modestly but encouragingly, with early participation at both the Del Webb and Lancaster library locations, and that county marketing support is helping spread awareness. Council’s follow-up questions focused on outreach to underserved populations, especially African-American residents, and on how churches and community organizations could help connect families to the program. The discussion also clarified that this is not a respite program where loved ones are dropped off; instead, care partners attend together with the person experiencing memory loss.
7) Discussion Items
Important note: This was a special meeting/workshop, and the emphasis was on receiving information, asking questions, and giving direction rather than taking final action.
7A) Update on the Detention Center Project
⏱ 15:44 – Staff gave a substantial construction update on the new detention center. The project team reported that the building was about 50% complete, with about 95% of the concrete tilt panels installed and roof/decking, masonry, second-floor slab work, and in-wall rough-ins progressing in multiple quadrants of the building at once. Site grading and the main entrance work were also underway.
Two major supporting infrastructure projects were discussed alongside the building itself. First, staff said the county needed a 12-inch water line to serve the facility because the existing Highway 9 line was only 6 inches; that project was nearing completion and was expected to wrap up around May 1. Second, the county is coordinating a road widening and turning-lane project in front of the detention center to support safe access, with that work set to begin after the water-line work clears the area.
Council also asked about the surrounding properties, entrance appearance, and whether the county had looked at acquiring nearby buildings. Staff said several houses had already been acquired and demolished earlier in the project, but some remaining nearby parcels are privately owned. The county intends to rely on a significant landscaping and signage package to improve the appearance of the entrance and better screen the project from Highway 9.
On budget and delivery, staff said the project total is about $90 million, with a little over $43.7 million spent to date, including both construction and soft costs, which lines up with the roughly halfway-complete status. The team said the facility is still expected to be dried in by late May, reach substantial completion by the end of December, and be ready for turnover/operation by the end of January after training. Council also discussed the value of the construction-management / guaranteed-maximum-price structure, with staff explaining that it helps insulate the county from some of the material-cost volatility and change-order concerns being seen elsewhere.
7B) Discussion of Countywide EMT Response by Lancaster County Fire Rescue
⏱ 24:34 – This was one of the biggest discussions of the afternoon. Clay Catoe and Chief Nicholson presented a proposal to allow certified firefighters across Lancaster County, including Indian Land, to provide EMT-level care under the umbrella of Lancaster County EMS through a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) and medical-control structure. The main idea is that firefighters who already hold EMS certifications could begin patient care immediately when they arrive on scene, rather than being limited to first-responder actions while waiting for an ambulance.
The proposal stressed that this would not eliminate the current first responder model. Firefighters who do not want to pursue EMT certification could remain first responders, while those who are already certified or want to become certified could operate at that higher level under EMS medical oversight. EMS would provide the training, compliance tracking, medical protocols, supplies, and continuing education structure, while fire departments would gain more medically capable personnel already stationed around the county. Staff said the proposal would require one additional EMS certification/training oversight position and a modest increase in certain support costs, but overall they framed it as a relatively low-cost way to get much more value out of personnel and apparatus already in service.
Council’s discussion explored both the immediate public-safety value and the longer-term workforce implications. Members emphasized that this could especially help in rural areas where ambulances may be farther away and where earlier intervention could materially improve outcomes. Staff also noted that during major incidents or high call volume, certified fire personnel could help staff off-duty transport units, which would create more surge capacity for the county during school-bus crashes, mass-casualty events, storms, or other emergencies.
A large part of the conversation focused on staffing and recruitment. Council and staff discussed whether this model could become a competitive advantage by allowing Lancaster County to recruit or retain dual-role personnel more effectively. The presenters said nearby counties are not yet broadly using this exact model, though versions of it exist elsewhere in South Carolina, and they suggested Lancaster could actually lead by moving first. There was also discussion of possible pay incentives for fire employees who take on EMT duties and how this would work differently in career departments versus volunteer departments. In Indian Land, Chief Nicholson said EMT certification would likely become a requirement, while in volunteer parts of the county it would remain optional.
Council also asked whether the current joint EMS/fire “lift assist” truck concept would remain part of the strategy. Staff said the concept has been beneficial to patients and has proven the value of faster, more targeted response, but that managing personnel from two separate departments on the same unit has been difficult. The proposed next step would be to let fire manage that function on its side while EMS shifts its staff back toward transport and higher-acuity response, which would keep the value of the concept while simplifying supervision. Staff said the service is busy—around 45 calls per month, and often more—and that it reduces wear on large fire apparatus by keeping million-dollar trucks from getting tied up on lower-acuity calls.
Near the end of the discussion, several council members signaled strong support for moving forward. The key takeaway was that staff do not see a major downside if the county supports the model and works through the documentation and compliance steps. The next steps discussed were to prepare the MOU, align with Department of Public Health requirements, and bring back a resolution of support so the program can be reflected in the budget and formally endorsed by Council. Staff suggested the program could begin relatively quickly—on the order of about 30 days once approvals and setup are complete.
7C) Strategic Plan Update
⏱ 1:04:53 – Stephany Snowden gave a broad update on the county’s strategic plan, with special emphasis on where implementation is on track and where it is lagging. She explained that the strategic plan is a large, living document with many objectives, and said that while the county has had real successes, some measures are below target and need more direct management attention. She also said one of her own goals going forward is to work more closely with department directors so the reporting is better tied to actual performance and more useful for Council.
On public safety, she highlighted major progress already made or underway: the detention center project, additional EMS stations, 911 and fire infrastructure investments, ARPA-supported public safety improvements, added staffing in the FY26 budget, and discussions about future fire funding. At the same time, she acknowledged that the county is still below target on fully adopting a fire service growth management plan and on more tightly aligning fire planning with land use planning. Her presentation suggested that the county has made tangible progress, but the more difficult task of integrating those efforts into a countywide long-range framework is still incomplete.
On infrastructure, Snowden emphasized the sheer pace of growth, citing U.S. Census data showing substantial county population growth over the last decade and nearly 3,000 new residents added in a single recent year. She said Council has tried to respond with more intentional land use decisions, updates to the comprehensive plan, work on the revised UDO, the residential moratorium in the panhandle, and the impact fee study process. She identified the roadway funding study as an objective that was effectively completed, and noted additional work such as the application to the S.C. Infrastructure Bank and the GIS-based road service-level mapping effort. At the same time, she said the county is still below target on establishing a truly integrated countywide infrastructure partnership working group, even though parts of that work are happening through existing channels like the CTC.
On quality development, Snowden said the comprehensive land use plan work was largely completed, but the county still needs a stronger financial impact model to better understand what different growth patterns mean for public services and county finances. She said the UDO work is progressing with both staff and the ad hoc committee, and that the process is nearing a point where broader community input may be needed. She also emphasized the need for more public education so residents understand how the moratorium time is being used and what outcomes Council and staff are actually trying to achieve. She spoke positively about the Technical Review Committee as one of the county’s strengths, saying it already provides multi-department review of development proposals and could become even more useful if it is tied more deliberately to public safety and other county priorities.
On resource optimization and high performance, Snowden pointed to the grant management position approved in the FY26 budget, the ongoing p-card review, website transparency efforts, the class and compensation study, and the pending employee satisfaction survey. She described these as important building blocks for making county operations more effective and more accountable. In discussion, Council Member McGriff said the county needs to review and update the strategic plan more regularly, especially where targets are not being met, and Snowden agreed the plan needs active ongoing attention rather than being treated as a document that sits on the shelf.
7D) Discussion of Infrastructure and Public Services for The Haven Development Project
⏱ 1:24:29 – This discussion was framed around The Haven project, but it quickly expanded into a broader conversation about what it takes to safely serve growth in the southern part of the county. Staff indicated they needed clearer direction from Council on what information was being requested, and the conversation evolved into a larger policy discussion about fire protection, EMS, law enforcement, impact fees, station placement, and how to pay for long-term operations.
Steve Willis began by putting public safety needs into population-growth context. He pointed out how fast Lancaster County has been growing compared with neighboring counties and said that part of the challenge is that the county is trying to catch up in staffing, compensation, and facilities while also competing with nearby agencies for employees. He laid out some rough fire-service cost figures, including the substantial cost of building and furnishing a staffed fire station, buying apparatus, outfitting personnel, and funding recurring salaries and benefits. He also noted that, on the EMS side, the county is likely going to have to address scheduling and compensation issues if it wants to stop losing trained personnel to neighboring systems.
The discussion then shifted to what Council was really trying to ask. Council Member McGriff said she was not interested in a one-off band-aid for a single project, but rather wanted a comprehensive countywide picture: where fire and EMS stations are needed, how many staff are required, what equipment is needed, and what it will all cost. Other members echoed that idea, framing the central questions as: Do we currently have the infrastructure to serve the population we already have? If not, what exactly is needed? And then how can the county realistically phase and fund that work?
From the fire-service side, the discussion revealed a real tension between long-term countywide planning and preserving the volunteer network that still underpins much of the southern county. Chief Nicholson and council members discussed staffing and station needs in broad terms, but Billy Mosteller especially stressed that the county cannot afford to undermine its volunteer departments by inserting county-run stations in ways that weaken local support. He argued that departments like Shiloh Zion already have their own planning efforts underway, and that the better path may be to support them through fire fee districts, equipment, and phased career staffing rather than replacing them. He emphasized that Lancaster County’s volunteer system remains a major asset and that the county does not have the money to simply replace it with full paid coverage overnight.
A major theme was funding fairness and structure. Council discussed the reality that some areas, particularly Indian Land and Van Wyck, already pay more directly for fire service while other parts of the county depend more heavily on general county support. There was open discussion that the southern part of the county may eventually need a more formal district-based funding structure if Council expects higher service levels there. Other comments focused on whether impact fees, building-permit revenue, general growth-related revenues, or some combination of tools could help fund the fire and EMS infrastructure needed not only for The Haven, but also for Edgewater, Roselyn, Van Wyck, Heath Springs, and other growth areas.
The conversation also highlighted the limits of what could be accomplished in a single workshop. Steve Harper pushed to keep some of the discussion tied to The Haven specifically, noting that broad countywide planning and project-specific infrastructure questions are related but not identical. In response, the general direction from Council seemed to be that staff should come back with more structured information rather than try to answer everything on the spot. The takeaway was not a final decision on The Haven, but a clearer statement from Council that future discussions need to present a fuller picture of service needs, service gaps, phasing options, and funding mechanisms across the county—not just for one subdivision, but for the county’s growth pattern as a whole.