The Person County Board of Commissioners on June 6 voted to instruct staff to prepare a fiscal-year 2025-26 budget ordinance that reflects a property tax rate of $0.63 per $100 of assessed value and approved a set of adjustments to the manager’s recommended spending plan.

The change follows a discussion of revenue assumptions and departmental requests during a budget work session. Commissioners agreed to raise the assumed property tax collection rate from 97.5% to 98.5% (a staff estimate presented during the meeting showed that a one-point increase from 97.5% to 98.5% would yield about $232,085 in additional revenue). The board also agreed to reallocate $50,000 from the Economic Catalyst Fund incentives line to an allocation listed as PCVIC, and to reduce the fund-balance appropriation accordingly.

Why it matters: lowering the advertised tax rate to 63¢ requires the manager’s office to prepare a formal budget ordinance reflecting the changes discussed by the board; that ordinance will be brought back for formal adoption at the next regular meeting. The adjustments approved at the work session affect recurring personnel and one-time costs that will carry into future budgets if not revisited.

Major decisions and votes

- Instruct staff to prepare a budget ordinance setting the tax rate at $0.63 per $100 of assessed value. The board moved and approved the motion; the chair called for the ayes and the motion passed. (Motion approved.)

- Increase the assumed tax collection rate from 97.5% to 98.5%. Commissioners agreed to adopt the higher, more conservative collection-rate estimate after staff reported the county’s current year-to-date collection rate was above 99%. (Adjustment approved.)

- Reallocate $50,000 from the Economic Catalyst Fund incentives line to the line identified in the budget as the PCVIC allocation. Commissioner Wilburn proposed the shift and the board approved it; Commissioner Wilburn recused from the vote on that specific allocation due to an identified conflict. (Adjustment approved.)

- Remove the proposed animal control supervisor position from the recommended budget. Commissioners voted on a motion to eliminate that position; the recorded vote was 4–1 in favor of removing the position. (Motion passed 4–1.)

Other budget-level items discussed

- Interest earnings: staff proposed and the board agreed to modestly raise the interest-earnings estimate used in the recommended budget (the finance officer and the board discussed moving the earnings assumption toward $1.2 million from a lower, more conservative figure). That assumption will be reflected in the ordinance staff prepares.

- Fleet and vehicle timing: staff reported delays in receiving vehicles ordered under a fleet-management arrangement with a private vendor; the board was told vehicles are arriving and that any undelivered items remain encumbered in the fleet fund until received.

- Personnel requests: the board discussed multiple department personnel requests (social services, public works/Person Industries maintenance, EMS assistant chief, sheriff’s office positions). Several requests were trimmed or deferred in the manager’s recommended budget; the board asked staff to model partial-year (midyear) start dates and other timing options in subsequent budget drafts.

Quote

“We will prepare the ordinance to reflect the 63¢ rate and bring it back to the board at the next regular meeting,” the chair said after the board’s final motion to instruct staff. (Chair’s first reference in the transcript is to the board’s action.)

What happens next

Staff will prepare a formal budget ordinance that reflects the rate and the adjustments discussed at the session; that ordinance is to be presented at the board’s next regular meeting for formal adoption. Departments were advised to be prepared to discuss timing for any midyear hires and to provide more precise revenue and expense backup for the adjustments the board directed.

Ending

The board concluded the work session by directing staff to prepare the ordinance and by setting the documents for presentation at the next regular meeting; commissioners signaled they expect follow-up detail from department heads and the finance officer ahead of final adoption.