Franklin County hears opposition and support at public hearings on budget, proposed property and meals tax increases

Franklin County held three statutorily required public hearings Thursday on the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget, advertised property tax rates and a proposed increase in the county meals tax, drawing roughly two dozen public speakers who sharply disagreed on whether to raise revenues.

The hearings featured a staff summary of the advertised budget and tax options and more than an hour of public comment. Brian Carter, deputy county administrator and chief financial officer, said the version advertised this spring would raise the real-estate tax rate by up to two cents from the current rate and increase the county meals tax from 4 percent to 6 percent; he also said a change in the county's health insurance plan will reduce costs by roughly $1 million. Carter said the baseline figure in the original proposed budget was about $185.2 million and that each penny on the real-estate tax produces about $1 million of revenue.

The debate cut along familiar lines: teachers, school staff and some residents urged modest tax increases to retain employees and maintain services, while small-business owners and other residents argued the increases would disproportionately harm low-income households and local restaurants.

Why it matters: the board is required by code to hold the hearings and wait seven days before adopting tax rates or the budget; no final action was taken at the meeting. The hearing is the central public opportunity to comment before the board votes at its next meeting.

County presentation and options

Carter told the board the proposed budget “does propose to increase the real estate tax rate by 1 cent to 44¢” as originally submitted in March, and staff later advertised a second penny as an option — which would move the advertised rate to about 45¢. He said the advertised budget is “about a 3.58 percent increase over the prior year” and that the county avoided service cuts and added no new positions while funding a 3 percent cost-of-living increase for state-supported local employees.

Carter and other staff noted two revenue changes since March: roughly $1 million in health-insurance savings from a new plan and the additional penny of real-estate tax that was included in the advertised numbers. He explained how a penny on the real-estate tax equates to about $25 a year for an average home assessed at $250,000 and that the meals tax change was authorized previously by the General Assembly to let counties adopt a local meals tax.

Public comments: safety, services, and fairness

Speakers expressed a wide range of concerns and priorities.

- William Ferguson, speaking for a group of volunteers, said volunteer firefighters and emergency responders are being sidelined and asked why stipends and volunteer supports were not increased. “Why not provide an equal increase?,” Ferguson asked, urging the board to consider volunteer stipends and to clarify how recent FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grant awards were allocated among volunteer departments.

- Several educators urged support for the advertised increases. Shannon Brooks, who identified herself as a teacher, said she backed the tax changes: “I’m in favor of the tax increases,” she said, adding that retaining teachers and school staff requires ongoing investment.

- Small-business owners and restaurant operators warned the meals tax would be regressive and would reduce tips for servers. Deborah Russell, who said her family owns local restaurant franchises, said a higher meals tax would make customers go less often and “take away from their tips.” Ed Saunders, a longtime resident, said taxing restaurant meals will “hurt local families” and small businesses that depend on steady patronage.

- Several residents questioned county spending choices and reserves. Amos Denton and others pointed to a reported county cash balance (speakers said about $40 million) and asked why reserves or other revenue sources were not used before raising taxes. Multiple speakers criticized capital projects such as an underused park and questioned purchases of property or new vehicles.

- Public-safety and service delivery concerns also featured prominently. Rachel Wright and George Garrett Gish described slow ambulance responses and reductions in staffing at volunteer rescue squads. Speakers flagged school transportation reliability and the cost of utilities such as electricity as additional pressures on household budgets.

Board discussion and next steps

Board members did not vote on the budget or tax rates at the hearing. The chair repeatedly reminded the room that state or local code requires a minimum seven-day waiting period between the advertised public hearing and any formal adoption. A number of board members said they would review the budget detail book, which staff said is posted on the county website.

Several supervisors discussed alternatives to raising taxes. Supervisor Tim Paden presented a set of line-item reductions he said would reduce pressures on the budget without adopting the full advertised revenue increases; Paden said those savings were the result of reviewing department requests, vehicle replacements and other line items. Another supervisor, identified in the meeting as “Mike,” said the county’s renegotiated insurance savings largely offset the need for a full two-cent increase and said he would support a one-cent increase but not the full two cents.

What the meeting did not decide

No motions or roll-call votes were taken at the hearing. The board closed the hearings and said it would consider final adoption of the budget, the property tax rate and the meals tax at its next scheduled meeting after the statutory waiting period. The board also discussed scheduling a work session to review budget details; members gave differing answers when the chair asked whether a work session should be held.

Ending

The public hearings made clear there is not a consensus in Franklin County: some speakers pressed the board to invest in employees, emergency response and school services, while others urged restraint and questioned the timing and equity of proposed tax increases. The board paused further action until the statutory waiting period ends and will consider final adoption at its next meeting.