Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beaufort County commissioners approve 2026–27 budget after heated debate over taxes and fund balance
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing and extended debate over fund balance, tax rates and service levels, the board adopted a fiscal 2026–27 budget that holds the current tax rate steady while adjusting several line items and one-time allocations; commissioners disagreed over whether to return prior revaluation collections to taxpayers.
Beaufort County officials presented the manager’s recommended fiscal 2026–27 budget and the Board of Commissioners debated line items, tax-rate strategy and use of fund balance before adopting a final ordinance.
County staff described the manager’s recommended budget and the board’s changes: removal of a recommended half-cent tax increase that was intended to offset a federal cut to SNAP administration reimbursement; an increase in the across-the-board cost-of-living adjustment from 2.5% to 3.0; addition of a health-department pay-for-service position ($144,263 offset by a $150,000 grant over three years), a DSS on-call social worker partly state-reimbursed, and funding for an armed security position at DSS (50% offset). One-time expenditures from fund balance included $663,000 for specified items and a contingency roll of $8,922.
Staff cited the North Carolina Department of Revenue sales-ratio (92.14) reflecting a revaluation-driven increase in market values; commissioners debated whether the county should lower the tax rate to return gains to taxpayers. Public commenters pressed the board on tax increases and the size of the county’s fund balance; one speaker, identified in comments as Patricia Garrison, said the county was holding roughly $38 million and asked what services justified that reserve.
Commissioners expressed sharply different views. Commissioner Richardson urged returning money to taxpayers and criticized the board for last year’s revaluation collection, arguing the fund balance could cover reductions. Other commissioners defended the budget, citing continued service obligations, inflationary pressures, capital needs and statutory constraints on operations.
After debate and multiple motions on timing, the board moved to adopt the budget ordinance for 2026–27 with the board’s listed modifications (no half-cent increase; 3% COLA; targeted one-time expenditures and offsets as discussed). Staff indicated the effective date for some tax/levy changes and other fiscal-year timing issues would align with the July 1 fiscal year start.
The board also approved minor enterprise-rate changes (a $4 increase in the solid-waste fee) and left water rates unchanged. Commissioners directed staff to return with any required implementing ordinances and to reconvene for a final vote on outstanding procedural items as needed.
