Hope Mills board weighs property‑tax options as finance director flags staffing, contracts and cuts

Hope Mills held its fifth special budget workshop on June 15, where town leaders reviewed a proposed $22.5 million operating budget and discussed options to close a projected shortfall, including possible property‑tax increases and selective spending cuts.

The meeting opened with the mayor outlining the budget timeline and saying the board did not expect to adopt a budget that night. The mayor said the April 30 budget presentation arrived as a so‑called “48‑cent” balanced plan that relied on one‑time uses of fund balance ($423,500) and $653,000 in ARPA funds while excluding five police positions and freezing a firefighter post to achieve balance. He said if the five police positions remain filled, the town will need to pursue a budget amendment or new revenues to avoid structural imbalance.

Britney, the town’s finance director, presented three revenue scenarios the board asked for: a 3.5‑cent levy (producing about $731,500 in additional revenue under the town’s estimates), 4.0 cents (about $836,000) and 4.5 cents (about $940,500). She said she adjusted several revenue lines to be conservative, trimming prior‑year ad valorem estimates and revising permitting and parks revenues to reflect current collections; she also noted final June 30 actuals would not be available for several weeks.

“Those are the three scenarios that I’m going to present and see just how close we are,” the mayor said, explaining staff would return one week with refined materials and that the deadline for adoption is a special meeting on June 22 (or June 29 if more time is needed).

The budget presentation laid out department‑level changes, including a proposed 2.5% cost‑of‑living adjustment and no merit pay in the scenarios shown. Britney said roughly 66% of the proposed $22.5 million budget is salaries and benefits, and total town headcount is 162.

Police contracts and new software purchases became a focal point. Staff flagged about five contract items for the police department — a heat‑mapping service, a crime‑statistics service (Forcemetrics), a phone‑number/phone‑linking tool (PenLink), a crash‑diagram vendor and a social‑media/intel product (ScopeNow) — collectively discussed around $62,700 (rounded in board discussion to approximately $68,000 while staff verified contract start dates). The police chief told the board most of those services are used for extracting records, investigative work and crash diagramming; he said the heat‑mapping tool was the one the department might be able to forgo temporarily.

“We can probably do without the heat map,” the chief said, adding that other analytics and diagramming tools are used routinely for crash reports and fraud investigations.

Commissioners and staff discussed funding sources for certain police items, including the possibility of using asset‑forfeiture funds for some contracts, with staff cautioning there is no guarantee those funds will recur next year.

On committee and program cuts, staff recommended reducing committee budgets from $5,000 to a single $10,000 pool (displayed as $1,250 per committee in the presentation). After discussion about some committees (notably historic preservation) having higher recurring needs, the board voted on a motion “to stay at $1,250” per committee. The on‑the‑record tally was four in favor and one opposed (Commissioner Marley opposed).

Other department changes noted by staff included reallocating three street positions into the storm‑water fund after a job‑description review, a proposed $24,000 local match for a parks/grant project, and restoring one firefighter position at an estimated cost of about $88,000 (salary, PPE and equipment). The finance director said fuel and other operating costs had been increased across several departments to reflect current price trends.

The mayor closed the 5:30 p.m. workshop after pinning unresolved items for continued discussion under item D of the 7:00 p.m. regular meeting. Staff will return with the packaged 3.5/4.0/4.5‑cent scenarios and any contract start‑date clarifications in time for the June 22 adoption deadline.

What’s next: the board will continue the budget conversation at the 7:00 p.m. regular meeting under a dedicated discussion item; staff said they will provide a refined budget package and clarify the new‑contract start dates that triggered the policing discussion.