Pitt County manager presents balanced $414.8 million FY2025-26 budget; no tax increase recommended

PITT COUNTY, N.C. — County Manager Janice Gallagher on May 5 presented a recommended fiscal year 2025-26 budget of $414,781,324 that she called “balanced” and proposed to adopt without increasing the county’s current ad valorem tax rate.

Gallagher said the recommended budget includes a 3 percent cost-of-living adjustment for county employees, merit increases of 1.2 or 2.4 percent depending on length of service, and targeted increases for public safety, human services and education. She told commissioners the county would not use a “fund balance plug” this year.

Why it matters: The budget sets priorities for Pitt County government services for the year beginning July 1, and it allocates local dollars for K‑12 and community college needs, public safety, and human services. Gallagher said the recommendation reflects strong property tax growth but continued uncertainty in interest income, federal funding and other revenue sources.

Gallagher said ad valorem taxes are expected to provide roughly 60 percent of the county’s revenue and that the recommended general fund allocation is $245,004,294 — about $11 million, or roughly 4.8 percent, above last year’s general fund. "This budget is balanced, and it reflects the hard work of the financial services budget team," Gallagher said.

The manager described the county’s fiscal forecast as “sunny with a chance of clouds,” noting robust property value growth after a recent reappraisal while warning that interest earnings and federal revenues may decline. She said the county collected $129 million in ad valorem taxes so far this year against a budgeted $127 million and expects to collect up to another $4 million before year-end.

Education remains the largest county expenditure in the recommendation. Gallagher recommended increasing funding for Pitt County Schools’ K‑12 operations by 5.73 percent to about $55.6 million and proposed a 2 percent cost-of-living allowance for both K‑12 and Pitt Community College to align with the likely state contribution. She recommended trimming some of the schools’ requests, including funding half of a requested $3.6 million classified pay-study while leaving room for the board to revisit the item during workshops.

Gallagher said the county would not budget an extra plug in fund balance this year and that the budget team reviewed every line item before returning a recommended package. She proposed a $5 million allocation toward moving forward on design for a new County Administration Building and recommended paying for several one-time capital projects at Pitt Community College totaling $4,225,000 to address deferred repairs and equipment needs.

On public safety, the manager recommended funding a new detention-center fire alarm system and three new ambulances; she also noted savings in jail medical services following a successful re-bid of the contract. EMS revenues are expected to increase partly because the county did not reduce the EMS tax rate when it lowered the ad valorem rate last year, Gallagher said.

Gallagher proposed nine new county positions funded in the recommended budget, including a shelter veterinarian (to replace contracted services), a facilities coordinator and custodian for cultural arts and recreation, a building code inspector and administrative assistant paid from increased inspection fees, a sanitation equipment mechanic shared between emergency management and the garage, a multimedia specialist in public information and additional staff in tax administration to reduce appeals. She deferred other requested positions, including four paramedic positions and other items, to future years.

Gallagher outlined proposed fee changes: generally flat across departments, with a recommended modest increase in solid waste fees to keep that enterprise fund sustainable after earlier midyear pay increases for convenience-site workers and external tipping fee increases. She said more detail on proposed solid waste fee changes would be presented at the solid waste budget workshop.

Next steps: The board will review department-by-department details in budget workshops May 6–8, with a public hearing on the budget set for June 3 and a final adoption deadline of June 30. "I welcome your feedback throughout this entire process so that by the time we get to a public hearing on June 3, that the board has full confidence," Gallagher said.

The manager acknowledged the budget team — Sharon Rountree, Susan Stokes and Sam Croom — and invited commissioners to raise questions during the upcoming workshops. Gallagher closed by reiterating that the recommendation aims to invest in employees while remaining conservative in the face of economic uncertainty.

The presentation included line-item figures for revenues and expenditures, projected rates for interest earnings and a breakdown of major spending categories. Commissioners did not adopt the budget on May 5; adoption remains scheduled for a later meeting after workshops and a public hearing.