[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6566485,"mediaKeyId","3204924-5d7ba5bbe1ff7d35dc31bdcf9d0d250c","parentId",3204924,"title","Pitt County commissioners approve resolution opposing House Bill 765, several appointments and agency actions","audioSeconds",502,"startMs",3062000,"endMs",3564000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3204924-5d7ba5bbe1ff7d35dc31bdcf9d0d250c&start=3062&end=3564","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3204924-5d7ba5bbe1ff7d35dc31bdcf9d0d250c/thumbnail_3062000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6566485/Pitt-County/North-Carolina/Pitt-County-commissioners-approve-resolution-opposing-House-Bill-765-several-appointments-and-agency-actions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566485-57a5caea8aabf65b5ed44988a1e7c9f0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184262&Signature=o4cLfbK44HrYefzL7A6GSINrSeEK2rZ5AyGATFdJaeFzZM23rScJ8NbUQHP8uH5eN3DU9XYPTrO3ZFH4bvzbGjb-ZsQeg0TBZzXwtCQ44cnwPVUji9oiI4DwRwzmB9SBvZlZ15VAGHXGvtbQ6UxlYQx4nC7NmEprBtjD6MxkqftNOx6FAcJlflrsZ5mV534NlYB1RGPUnwIFFcsL2l2DN5fG0Tckzzx8bSO-cT0Vyj4ohVAhHtikRLjwAq-RXat7biCQ~IfZumS2oHXpdA4cjTevMhgGYaoy3ut9JJIFhm6EBRGwMf-2d~SZbl2BBEAer7MVRcIDpRfb13d8mXCGPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Pitt County, NC","date","2025-05-06T21:52:54.24Z","article","GREENVILLE, N.C. — The Pitt County Board of Commissioners on May 5 approved a series of votes, including a resolution opposing House Bill 765, a temporary one-year lease renewal with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for agricultural office space, approval of a non-emergency EMS franchise application and reappointments to advisory bodies.

Why it matters: The actions affect local service delivery (USDA presence, EMS franchises), board appointments and the county's stated policy position on a piece of pending state legislation that county leaders say would reduce local control.

Votes at a glance (selected items):

- Resolution opposing House Bill 765 — Approved. Introduced by Commissioner Nunley, the resolution mirrors guidance from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and cites loss of local authority over land-use decisions as the primary concern. The board approved the resolution by voice vote.

- USDA lease renewal (Agricultural Center) — Approved. The board authorized a temporary one-year renewal of the county's lease with the USDA for office space that houses the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and other USDA programs. County Manager Janice Gallagher told the board the federal government will pay market rent and that the one-year renewal gives time to assess whether the location should remain the county's permanent hub for those services.

- Carolina Transport LLC (non-emergency EMS franchise) — Approved. County staff said the applicant, Aaron Reeves, met application requirements; final operation will be contingent on establishing a physical location in Pitt County and medical-director approval as required by local ordinance and state rules.

- Cultural Arts and Recreation Advisory Council (rename and restructure) — Approved. Staff recommended renaming the Community Schools and Recreation Advisory Council and restructuring membership to one representative from each commissioner district (nine seats). The board approved the change and the proposed bylaws.

- Reappointments and nominations — Approved. The board reappointed Carl Wilson, Mary Moy and Veronica Robertson to the Human Relations Commission and nominated Steve Little to the Pitt County Planning Board to replace a vacancy.

Other routine approvals: proclamations for National Travel and Tourism Week and Economic Development Week; the March tax collection report; the March financial reports for general, solid waste and EMS funds; and consent items on the meeting agenda.

How the board voted: Most motions passed by voice vote or unanimous show-of-hands; individual tallies were not recorded in the meeting transcript for these items.

Context and follow-up: The USDA lease renewal came after local farming organizations and members of the county's congressional delegation sought to keep Farm Service Agency and related offices in Pitt County. County Manager Janice Gallagher said the county receives roughly $150,000 a year for that leased space and that a one-year extension will allow time to consider whether the county should continue as a host site.

The resolution opposing House Bill 765 reflects concerns about mandated zoning densities, limits on conditional zoning and potential liabilities for elected officials. Commissioner Nunley emphasized that land-use decisions should remain local.

Several items approved on May 5 will return for administrative follow-up (for example, the EMS franchise paperwork must proceed to state review and the USDA will complete lease paperwork).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025 05 05 Pitt County Board of Commissioners Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","At its May 5 meeting the Pitt County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution opposing North Carolina House Bill 765, renewed a one-year USDA lease for county agricultural office space, approved an EMS franchise application and several appointments and organizational changes.","taxTitle","Pitt County, North Carolina","taxId",14194,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6566491,"Pitt County manager presents balanced $414.8 million FY2025-26 budget; no tax increase recommended",3288,952000,4240000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3204924-5d7ba5bbe1ff7d35dc31bdcf9d0d250c&start=952&end=4240","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3204924-5d7ba5bbe1ff7d35dc31bdcf9d0d250c/thumbnail_952000.jpg","/articles/6566491/Pitt-County/North-Carolina/Pitt-County-manager-presents-balanced-4148-million-FY2025-26-budget-no-tax-increase-recommended","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566491-f2033686193b5921826f46d92dc85841/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184262&Signature=X6W5-m4of1ykoVs-qf-sA5jDndqxVOM90TFcraqhZofxKpW9L-OvCkZM1xGG61FqPJSGWWPt96L0o1R9fgjp4SprH3Sqb3VROkZnwJxti2iOK4fIF-Gm4NWsvU8dnkICnhhkwRnXFT1HAXKtphMieZut7Gf8ShcNbd2b9G~qqwsek6ZFfXq-OxDSi1-7lk7NfAcFuccFJ-GTKN-UFUQuA766l4Fe6ptZmJkQsMRjlmd-M7JoUgP678gs77nbflyLmTM7WxHGE-YCxi21ipUGhr8YbXThUwvpyC7se~EKPsCkanP2rOvepxZ88M72BbvhMSolkr092d-VQnFPRLgW2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","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.

","County Manager Janice Gallagher presented a recommended $414,781,324 budget for fiscal 2025-26 that holds the current tax rate, recommends a 3 percent cost-of-living adjustment for county employees and increases funding for K‑12 and community college while trimming some school requests.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Pitt County commissioners approve resolution opposing House Bill 765, several appointments and agency actions

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