Pittsboro presents FY2026-27 budget with no proposed tax-rate increase; public survey flags growth and environmental priorities

The Town of Pittsboro presented its manager-recommended FY2026-27 general fund budget at the May 11 public hearing, outlining a proposed $13,800,300 budget that the administration said would maintain current service levels without increasing the tax rate or appropriating fund balance.

Assistant Town Manager and Finance Director Heather Meechum told commissioners the proposal includes funding for new positions (an assistant project manager, a development services division manager, a senior planner and a downtown marketing operations coordinator), a 3% cost-of-living salary adjustment, and projected increases in medical costs and employer retirement contributions. The presentation noted that one penny of tax rate is estimated at $185,261 in revenue and that the budget currently reflects a decrease from the prior year because no fund balance is being appropriated.

Earlier in the meeting, Communications Director Kaitlyn Murphy reviewed results from a March community budget survey of 132 responses (69 identified as in-town). Survey respondents rated public safety, downtown vibrancy and parks highly and consistently prioritized environmental preservation, public safety and parks and recreation for possible funding increases. When asked about supporting a tax increase for a top priority, responses were mixed: 30 said no, 21 said it depended on the amount, 15 said yes and three said unsure.

Meechum highlighted adjustments since the board retreat draft, including reductions in the budgeted health-insurance increase and reallocation of some capital items to contracted services. She also said a sanitation contract increase of 2.4% and a projected 18% increase in major medical costs were included in the analysis, with continued work to finalize medical-cost estimates before the June meeting.

The public hearing record on May 11 included comment urging the town to fund a tree-canopy assessment and other environmental planning tools. The board did not take a final vote on the budget at the May 11 hearing; staff said a final budget will be presented at the June meeting after further refinements.