Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davidson County staff present balanced FY2026 budget that preserves school capital funding and expands capital plan
Summary
County budget presenter reviewed a largely balanced FY2026 general fund budget that holds the property tax rate at 54¢, maintains $4.8 million in annual school capital funding, proposes a $165 million capital program and sets contingency money aside for a possible detention center borrowing.
Casey Smith, a Davidson County staff member responsible for preparing the budget, presented the county's proposed fiscal year 2026 general fund budget at the Board of Commissioners meeting on Monday, May 12. Smith said the draft budget is balanced, keeps the property tax rate at 54¢ and uses less fund balance and interest revenue than the prior year.
Smith told commissioners the county expects property tax revenue to increase by about $4,000,000, or roughly 4.5 percent, and that taxable sales growth is modest (about 1–1.5 percent). He said the county will not take lottery funds previously taken from schools (about $528,000 removed from the county budget for FY2026) and will continue the existing annual school capital payment of $4,800,000.
The proposed budget keeps the county tax rate at 54¢ and preserves the three sales-tax articles (articles 40/42 and 46) that fund school capital and debt. Smith presented a 10-year summary showing about $49.5 million in sales-tax proceeds dedicated to schools over the last decade but noted the county has contributed additional general-fund dollars to school debt and major capital, roughly $41.4 million beyond the sales-tax receipts.
Why it matters: the package outlines the county's plan for school capital, countywide capital projects and contingency for large borrowing. Smith said the board has complied with legal requirements for school funding and proposed continuing the county's supplemental contributions so long as the board approves them.
Major details from the presentation included: - School funding: Smith proposed maintaining the $4,800,000 annual school capital funding level and recommended setting aside additional growth from sales-tax articles over the next two to three years (he highlighted an illustrative $28.9 million figure as the average annual county contribution trend to be continued). - Capital plan: Smith described a proposed capital program totaling about $165 million, of which he estimated $85 million would be cash-funded and the rest financed through debt and enterprise funds. He said the county would need roughly $22.6 million per year in 2025–2027 to fund the plan as presented. - Contingency and debt planning: the draft includes $1.6 million in contingency funds intended to be available for the potential detention center borrowing so the board would not need to change the budget in a future year if the project proceeds. - Staffing and positions: the draft includes a net addition of 10 positions overall (annualizing nine previously approved positions and adding others such as an EMS base staffing item, a Board of Elections position to comply with a state-law change that shortens provisional ballot processing, and a grant-funded public health position tied to Medicaid reimbursement). Smith said some positions are grant- or Medicaid-funded and would be eliminated when those revenues end. - Public safety and EMS: Smith described plans to staff a new Silver Valley EMS base to improve response times in the southern county; average county response time was presented as about 9.5 minutes and 7.5 minutes for cardiac calls. - Other funds: Smith noted planned work in sewer (pump replacements, a sewer flow study) and expected a 6 percent wholesale rate increase from the City of Winston-Salem for sewer services; opioid settlement receipts and a new MAT fund to handle a $500,000 Vivitrol grant were also discussed.
Smith outlined the next steps: a public hearing (scheduled for May 27), a budget workshop on June 5 and a planned adoption vote on June 9. He answered commissioner questions about tax rate choices, contingency, school MOUs for teacher supplements, and capital project timing.
The presentation did not include a final board vote on the budget; commissioners will consider formal adoption in subsequent meetings. Smith emphasized compliance with state requirements for school funding and asked the board to consider continuing the current practice of contributing county dollars above the sales-tax articles for school capital.
The meeting included routine procedural votes (excusing a vice chair, adopting the agenda, approving the consent agenda) but no final vote on the FY2026 budget at this session.
