Johnston County adopts FY 2025–26 budget, cuts property tax rate to $0.52 and reduces countywide fire rate

The Johnston County Board of Commissioners voted to adopt the fiscal year 2025–26 budget on June 16, approving a county property tax rate of $0.52 per $100 valuation and a countywide fire tax rate of $0.115 per $100 valuation.

The motion to adopt the manager’s proposed budget with revisions was moved by Vice Chairman Harris and seconded (second not specified in the record). The board then conducted a voice vote; the motion carried and the budget was adopted (exact vote tally not recorded in the meeting minutes).

The board’s adopted package made several specified allocations and adjustments. Highlights included: a $110,000,000 allocation for supplemental current expense and $3,500,000 for capital outlay for Johnston County Public Schools; $9,290,303 for supplemental current expense and $4,570,504 for capital outlay for Johnston Community College; $500,000 allocated toward a new behavioral health urgent care facility; a 3% pay adjustment effective July 1 for county employees with the possibility of an additional up to 2% performance pay increase in October; $1,395,000 for Triangle Land Conservancy (to preserve farmland and open space, described by staff as matching/leverage funds); $100,000 for a Smithfield library site improvement project; and $100,000 for a transit-oriented development (TOD) study.

The motion as read into the record included several other programmatic allocations and service‑district tax rates recommended by advisory boards, including: an 8¢ per $100 valuation tax rate recommendation from the Research/Training Zone Board, and a 2.5¢ per $100 valuation proposal for the Moccasin Creek Service District (both included in the adopted package).

Commissioners and county staff described the budget as the product of weeks of work and compromise intended to balance competing goals: preserving financial stability and credit strength, funding capital and service needs, and limiting the immediate tax burden on residents. Commissioners noted constrained options given large county capital needs — notably public safety, DSS facilities and utilities — and stressed the goal of maintaining the county’s financial ratings to preserve favorable borrowing conditions.

Several commissioners and the manager thanked staff for extensive modeling and outreach. Multiple commissioners emphasized the longer-term context: rapid residential growth in unincorporated areas, demands on utilities and schools, and the county’s interest in increasing commercial and industrial tax base over time to reduce reliance on residential property taxes.

The board accepted the motion and the budget passed by voice vote. No roll-call tally was recorded in the public transcript.