Interim manager proposes targeted 6¢ property tax increase, deep cuts and $1.3M fund‑balance use in Sampson County budget

Interim County Manager delivered the fiscal 2026 proposed budget to the Sampson County Board of Commissioners, asking the board to adopt a package of cuts, fee increases and a targeted 6¢ increase in the county property tax rate to address recurring revenue shortfalls and capital needs.

The manager said the goal of the proposal is to bring recurring revenues and recurring expenditures closer into balance and to reduce reliance on savings: "The budget is a policy," he said, and later emphasized that budget communications must "convey the truth." He presented a plan that lowers the proposed use of fund balance from $11,800,000 used in FY2025 to $1,300,000 for FY2026.

The nut graf: The package combines $82.0 million in total recommended spending after cuts and reallocations (about $79.9 million for operations), the proposed 6¢ property tax increase (raising the countywide rate from 62.5¢ to 68.5¢), targeted capital contributions and program changes intended to preserve public safety and increase education funding while avoiding recurring use of savings at prior levels.

Under the proposal the 6¢ tax increase is earmarked as follows: 2¢ for K–12 operating support to move Sampson County Schools toward the top 100 county school funding ranks; 2¢ to support public safety (including a plan to purchase two replacement ambulances annually and to buy 13 sheriff patrol vehicles this year); 1¢ to a Public Education Capital Fund to repair and maintain school buildings (the presentation cited a $1 million allocation for a Sampson Middle School roof); and one half‑cent to a county building capital fund for county facility repairs and maintenance.

The manager described extensive cuts and reallocations that produced the smaller budget number. Department heads were required to lead initial budget reductions, and the manager said he then implemented further organizational cuts. Highlights of those reductions include eliminating or reassigning 20 full‑time equivalent (FTE) positions (net reduction to 570 FTEs from 589), freezing pay raises (no COLA, no merit increases), cuts to discretionary services and hours (library hours reduced at Roseboro and Newton Grove; a proposed closure of the Garland branch was averted after a $51,000 Garland town grant), renegotiated health insurance changes that the manager said reduced recurring costs by more than $1 million but increased employee deductibles and added lifestyle penalties such as a tobacco surcharge, reductions to contingency (from $500,000 to $100,000), cuts to mowing and housekeeping contracts, and increased user fees (for example, youth recreation fees proposed to rise from $30 to $50 per child).

On personnel the manager said only one new county position was approved: a partially grant‑funded Veterans Service Officer. He said an employment freeze and vacancy management were used to reduce payroll costs and that further layoffs would be a last resort.

The proposed budget includes explicit capital and equipment items: purchase of two ambulances annually (cost estimated at about $704,000 per two ambulances), a multi‑year plan to acquire 13 sheriff patrol vehicles this cycle (initial sheriff request was 17), and a recommendation to save annually for major school and county building repairs (education capital reserve $1,000,000; county building capital reserve $1,269,000 included in the recommended totals).

Fire contracts and fire taxes: The manager reported that 18 of 20 volunteer fire departments had signed five‑year contract extensions and that two remaining contracts were being processed by the clerk. He said the contracts include agreed performance expectations and that districts will have fire taxes set by district; the contracts will require tracking response performance with a 95% response‑rate target.

Revenue context and assumptions: The manager said FY2026 recurring revenues were estimated at roughly $73.4 million and that initial departmental requests totaled about $94.33 million. He described rounds of cuts that reduced the request to about $82.0 million. He highlighted revenue drivers and constraints: a revaluation in 2024 reduced the county's tax rate from revenue neutral to 62.5¢ previously; one penny on the tax rate equals about $704,000 in Sampson County; the average single‑family home value cited by the tax office was $157,314 (the manager estimated the tax impact of the proposed increase as about $94 annually on that average home, from about $983 to about $1,077). He also noted a large present‑use valuation base in the county (roughly 404,588 acres under present‑use value) that the tax office and Cooperative Extension estimated results in roughly $800,000,000 of deferred tax value and removes about $5,000,000 per year from the countyrecurring property tax base compared with market valuation.

Service demand and other indicators cited: 911 call volume rose from about 106,000 in 2020 to over 118,000 in 2024, EMS calls peaked in 2022 and rose again in 2024, and total fire calls reached over 3,700 in 2024. The manager emphasized that public safety and education together account for the majority of county spending (public safety was shown as roughly $30 million, education about 26% of the budget; combined with human services and debt service, roughly 81% of the budget is constrained by mandate, service levels or debt).

Process and next steps: The board established a workshop schedule beginning June 11 (the board took a motion and voted to set that workshop schedule) and a public hearing on the budget was scheduled for June 16 at 6 p.m. Hard copies of the proposed 600‑page FY2026 budget were made available at county administration and branch libraries, and town hall meetings were announced for June 5 (Clinton), June 6 (Garland) and June 9 (Newton Grove). The manager said public comments can be submitted to budgetcomments@SampsonCountyNC.gov.

What was not finalized: The manager emphasized the commissioners must decide the final mix of cuts, fund‑balance use and tax rate. He presented options including (1) adopting the proposed mix as presented, (2) keeping the tax rate lower by increasing one‑time use of fund balance, (3) lowering the rate by reducing capital reserve contributions, (4) lowering the rate by cutting departments or services, (5) raising the rate further to plan for future needs such as future COLAs, or (6) a combination of the above. He recommended a mixed approach of modest fund‑balance use, targeted tax increases and continued pursuit of sales‑tax options.

Direct quote from the presenter: "It is my duty to give you my opinion," the interim county manager said, urging commissioners to consider a balance of cuts and targeted revenue increases rather than repeating the previous year's deep reliance on savings.

The presentation concluded with the manager noting department heads are prepared to appear at the workshops to present service details and answer the board's questions; formal adoption remains the board's decision at subsequent hearings and workshops.

Ending: The proposed budget package will move to the board workshops beginning June 11 and to a public hearing on June 16; commissioners will decide whether to adopt the manager's recommendation, alter the mix of cuts and revenue, or choose an alternative that increases fund‑balance reliance or reduces services.