Onslow County manager presents FY 2025–26 budget with no tax increase, proposes $3M draw from stabilization reserve

County Manager David Smitherman presented the Onslow County Board of Commissioners with a proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget on June 2, 2025, that includes no new property tax rate and allocates new funding for public safety, parks, technology and capital projects while using reserves to close a budget gap.

The budget message said the proposal relies on about $8,000,000 of revenue growth and a modest rise in property values, and that the county would use $3,000,000 from the tax rate stabilization reserve to help balance the plan. Smitherman told the board, “This budget includes no new taxes,” and said growth in state and federal program money and local sales-tax receipts account for much of the increase in available funds.

Smitherman described the county as financially healthy and outlined the plan’s priorities: parks improvements and an indoor recreation facility, a community resource hub, a county “innovation lab” to optimize processes and technology, and investments to support a “high-performing” government. He said the proposed budget adds positions across departments and invests in technology and capital maintenance.

Why it matters: The budget steers funds to several long-running county priorities — school and college capital, EMS and fire service changes, and parks and tourism infrastructure — and includes proposals that will affect service delivery and long-term debt commitments.

Major allocations and proposals - No change to the county tax rate in the proposed budget. - Revenue growth: about $8,000,000 driven largely by state and federal program dollars and sales taxes. Smitherman said the county tax base rose to roughly $22,300,000,000. - Reserve use: $3,000,000 withdrawal from the tax rate stabilization reserve to cover part of the gap for FY26. - Insurance and benefits: the budget includes roughly $4,000,000 in additional health‑insurance costs for employees. - Capital and debt: the county is preparing near‑term debt issuance; Smitherman said total debt will be about $220,000,000 after upcoming transactions and outlined a multi‑year capital plan that includes large school and facility projects. He listed high‑level targets in planning documents: nearly $400,000,000 for school projects, $70,000,000 for the community college, $75,000,000 for a community hub, $40,000,000 for a recreation complex, and $50,000,000 over 10 years for parks improvements. He described a recurring plan to issue debt roughly every other year. - New and continued capital: funding set aside to begin planning the indoor recreation facility (Smitherman cited $1,000,000 for planning/design), three EMS stations funded to move forward, and maintenance and replacement funds including a vehicle replacement program and facility maintenance appropriations. - Public safety and EMS: a $300,000 public‑safety drone program pilot; a proposal to staff Bear Creek Fire Station 24/7 by adding seven firefighters because volunteers are not covering some shifts; expansion of the community paramedic program and operational changes to reduce unproductive ambulance responses. - Technology and operations: creation of the Onslow Innovation Lab to streamline processes; continued investments in geographic information systems (GIS), IT automation ($68,000 noted), optimizing legacy systems such as Laserfiche, and pilot work that Smitherman said will let some permitting be completed electronically: “You can get a permit without ever coming in this building.” - Tourism and communications: tourism functions to be brought into the county communications operation effective July 1; the budget recommends roughly $1,100,000 in funding for nonprofit and tourism categories each under a competitive policy adopted earlier. - Fees and revenues: a proposed increase in permit fees projected to raise about $200,000; miscellaneous user‑fee updates and continued emphasis on diversifying revenue away from ad valorem taxes.

Items the manager said were not funded or were delayed Smitherman said several requested positions and CIP items were not funded; parks master‑plan projects are being paused until plans are revised, with only emergency maintenance provided in the interim. He said $250,000 is budgeted for general parks maintenance and some nonprofit and tourism capital requests were not funded.

Public comment and related concerns During the public comment period, residents raised issues tied to the budget: - Susan Jardine, a Greystone resident, pressed the board on “orphan roads” in her development and urged support for a county loan fund to fund road renovation; she noted that prior estimates for her development exceeded $1.5 million and said the county’s $2,000,000 orphan‑roads placeholder would likely be insufficient for all needs. - Kevin Rouse, a long‑time volunteer firefighter, urged the board to recognize the history and contributions of volunteer fire departments and requested revisiting past statements about volunteer service histories. - Rick Grant, an elected municipal official present, thanked the county for support on beach nourishment and said municipalities are planning continued investments and federal/state grant coordination.

Board members’ comments Commissioners asked questions and raised concerns during the meeting and public comment period. One commissioner said they were concerned about the size of proposed staffing growth and preferred investing in current employees rather than adding positions. Another commissioner emphasized the board’s strong general fund balance (discussed in the presentation) and encouraged long‑term planning. Multiple commissioners urged further work on the fire service strategic plan and on reconciling volunteer and paid emergency services.

Process, next steps and public hearings Smitherman said the county will hold at least four budget workshops before the fiscal year begins and noted a required public hearing is scheduled for 6 p.m. on June 16, 2025. The board will continue to review the capital improvement plan and debt schedule in upcoming workshops.

Ending: The presentation framed the FY26 proposal as a bridge year for larger multi‑year capital work and emphasized community engagement on major projects including the indoor recreation facility and parks master plan.

Votes at a glance - Adoption of the meeting agenda: motion approved by voice vote; outcome recorded as approved. - Approval of the consent agenda: motion approved by voice vote; outcome recorded as approved. - Motion to adjourn: approved by voice vote; outcome recorded as approved.