Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Durham County residents press commissioners for full school funding, HEART expansion during budget hearing
Summary
At a May 27 public hearing on the FY2025-26 recommended budget, dozens of Durham residents urged the Board to fully fund Durham Public Schools and expand the HEART response program; several raised concerns about tax reappraisals and asked for increased low-income homeowner relief.
Dozens of residents spoke at the Durham County Board of County Commissioners’ May 27 public hearing on the manager’s recommended FY2025-26 budget, urging the board to fully fund Durham Public Schools and expand a county mental-health/crisis response pilot known as HEART.
The hearing, opened by Chair Nida Allam, included requests from a group of speakers who asked the board to back the school system’s requested funding levels and a separate set of commenters who urged expansion of the Holistic Empathetic Assistance Response Team (HEART).
Why it matters: The public hearing is part of the board’s budget review process and informs decisions about allocations that affect schools, public health and crisis response services countywide.
What residents said: A list of citizens asked the board to provide full support for Durham Public Schools. Separately, speakers including Robin Magee, Shanise Hamilton, Rayna Rusinko and others asked the county to expand the HEART program, which provides a non-law-enforcement response for certain community crises.
Several residents raised concerns about the countywide property revaluation and its effect on tax bills, urging targeted relief for neighborhoods in southeast Durham. One written commenter, James H. Svara, asked the county and the Department of Social Services to increase the Low-Income Homeowners Relief (LIHR) program’s payment caps; Svara’s email included proposed cap increases (for example, raising the extremely low-income cap to $2,000) to help offset larger tax bills resulting from reappraisals.
Other emailed comments urged different budget approaches: Ethel Simonetti recommended forming a county–Duke University task force to identify additional funding sources; Terry Coyne opposed tax increases above the published revenue-neutral rates and sent a history of combined tax rates in support of that position; and Richard Mullinax thanked Sheriff’s Office responders for protecting rural residents’ peace.
Agency comments: Maggie Clapp, director of the Department of Social Services, thanked the Board for the foster care proclamation and said the child-welfare system nationally “was broken and needed repair,” urging support for foster families and services.
What the board did next: Chair Allam thanked residents for their comments. The hearing was one step in the budget process; the board scheduled a budget work session on May 29 (the minutes note excused absences for that session), and no final budget vote occurred during the May 27 meeting.
Claims and contested points: Several commenters alleged that tax revaluations were producing steep increases in assessed values that would raise tax bills without adequate relief; this claim was submitted largely through public testimony and written comments and was not resolved at the hearing.
What to watch: The board will continue budget deliberations in subsequent work sessions; any formal changes to the manager’s recommended budget will be reflected in forthcoming board actions and votes.
