Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harnett County budget discussion focuses on schools, low‑wealth gap and fund balance options
Summary
Commissioners reviewed the recommended FY2025‑26 budget, debated how much of the school system's request to fund from county resources, discussed use of the fund balance versus a tax increase and directed staff to prepare scenarios showing impacts of funding options.
HARNETT COUNTY, N.C. — The Harnett County Board of Commissioners spent an extended portion of its meeting reviewing the county manager's recommended FY2025‑26 budget, with an extended discussion about Harnett County Schools' funding request and the county's fund balance.
County finance staff reported that the school system requested approximately $45.7 million; the county's recommended contribution in the presentation was about $37.3 million, leaving an $8.4 million difference from the schools' request. County staff said fully funding the school request would reduce the county's projected fund balance from the current estimated 22.5% down toward the county's policy minimum and could lower the balance to about 17.1% if fully funded, depending on final figures.
Commissioners and staff discussed options including using fund balance dollars, placing additional funds in contingency pending the state's low‑wealth replacement decision, or raising property tax rates. Finance staff explained the possibility of placing additional school funding into contingency so the money is budgeted but only spent if needed by the schools; that approach preserves a contingent backstop while not immediately reducing the year‑end fund balance if the state ultimately provides funds.
Several commissioners urged support for schools; others cautioned about drawing down reserves before a countywide property revaluation is complete. Commissioner Jaggers suggested postponing permanent staffing/funding changes until a new Board of Elections/board members are seated (in a related discussion about an elections outreach position), and several commissioners asked staff to provide detailed dollar scenarios. The board reached consensus to have staff prepare updated numbers and scenarios showing the fund balance impact of different funding levels, including amounts to place into contingency, for the next meeting.
Separately in the budget review, staff and commissioners discussed a county manager recommendation to add a Social Worker III in the Department of Social Services for adult services and guardianship caseloads. Staff said the position would be split between guardianship services and in‑home special assistance, with roughly 50% of time in each area, and that portions of the job could be state‑reimbursed (up to 75% for guardianship work and up to 50% for in‑home special assistance). The estimated gross cost was approximately $60,000 with a net county cost of less than $30,000 after anticipated reimbursements; staff indicated the position was requested to be effective Sept. 1.
County staff agreed to bring updated budget numbers to the board next week, including scenarios that show the dollar impacts on the fund balance and tax rate implications. Commissioners asked staff to show clearly the tradeoffs and, if additional one‑time funding is used this year, how the board intends to replenish reserves in future years.
