Pender County budget workshop focuses on reclassifications, sheriff pay options and outside‑agency grants

Pender County staff presented a draft fiscal plan and a set of personnel reclassification proposals that include 23 reclasses, two new positions and several options for adjusting sheriff’s office pay, prompting a detailed discussion among commissioners about recruitment, retention and how to pay for recurring costs.

Brie, the county’s new housing director, told the board her department requested a modest one‑time increase of $7,200 to hire an outside certified inspector to complete inspections for about 160 housing units because the county’s previous inspector held a certification that allowed internal inspections. "We are not allowed to conduct our own," Brie said, explaining that the work must be performed by an outside INSPIRE‑certified inspector unless the county has a certified individual who is not inspecting their own properties.

Budget team staff presented a longer list of requested changes to pay grades and positions across county departments. Highlights included:

- Regrading the inspections director position from grade 15 to grade 18 to resolve a salary‑compression issue with the planning director and senior inspectors. - Adjusting register of deeds employees’ step placement to credit years of service rather than regrading the positions. - Regrading custodians and jail cooks from a grade 2 to a grade 3 to better match regional comparators (total recurring cost shown for custodians was about $29,000). - Multiple proposed changes in the sheriff’s office with two principal scenarios: a narrower adjustment limited to road deputies (presented as the lower‑cost option) and a broader plan that would regrade additional positions above deputies to avoid compression. Staff presented a recurring cost estimate of about $550,000 for the more limited change and roughly $6 million–$6.5 million for the broader package. School resource officer (SRO) regrades would add cost on top of those figures.

Commissioners asked staff to consider intermediate approaches. One commissioner suggested focusing on sergeants and below (rather than moving lieutenants and captains), and staff agreed to model costs for partial approaches. Commissioners raised the question of whether the recurring increases could be covered without a tax hike; county staff said they would do pencil‑sharpening to show tradeoffs and noted that existing fund‑balance and debt service transfers have constraints.

Other budget items discussed included:

- Four new deputy positions requested by the sheriff that staff recommended moving to next fiscal year to align with training and hiring timelines. Training and certification timelines were described as substantial: basic academy and on‑the‑job shadowing can take many months, and detention officer certification requires state courses. - New jail staffing tied to the county’s new jail project, with officials noting the facility is expected to open in late 2026 (speakers referenced October–November 2026 as a target window). - Reclassifying an administrative support role in elections to an elections coordinator to reflect duties and avoid adding headcount.

Outside agencies and community grants: staff reviewed annual requests and recommended a baseline approach for community‑based organizations (many receive $5,000 in the draft). Agencies paid through contractual obligations or state agreements (for example, Trillium, a regional behavioral health contractor) were flagged separately. Commissioners requested more information on agency outcomes and urged staff to consider moving large, one‑time capital requests (for example, museum repairs) into a capital process rather than funding them from the ongoing operating budget.

Commissioners also discussed the county’s opioid‑settlement funds and whether applications from community groups (for example, long‑term recovery after storms) might fit that funding stream; staff said applicants would need to apply and that a review committee would evaluate fit with settlement criteria.

Next steps: staff said they would refine cost models, provide narrowed scenarios for the sheriff’s office regrades (including a focused option for sergeant and below), and return with a balanced draft budget. The county must make the proposed budget available for public inspection for 10 days before adoption; staff said they expect the public hearing and vote at the first (or possibly second) June meeting and will publish public notices once the final draft is ready.

Brie’s contracting request for inspections and the sheriff pay scenarios were among the items flagged for prompt follow‑up. "Retention of deputies is step number one," said Ms. Blue, the county’s finance officer and interim county manager, summarizing the public‑safety rationale behind some of the proposed recurring costs. Staff committed to present costed options to the board.