[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6646043,"mediaKeyId","3424812-8e8db841879312989aef50fb4e5a790e","parentId",3424812,"title","Edgecombe County presents FY2026 budget framework: no tax‑rate change, $10.8M fund‑balance ask and proposed borrowing for school match and capital","audioSeconds",7999,"startMs",10603000,"endMs",18602000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3424812-8e8db841879312989aef50fb4e5a790e&start=10603&end=18602","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3424812-8e8db841879312989aef50fb4e5a790e/thumbnail_10603000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6646043/Edgecombe-County/North-Carolina/Edgecombe-County-presents-FY2026-budget-framework-no-taxrate-change-108M-fundbalance-ask-and-proposed-borrowing-for-school-match-and-capital","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6646043-365d0426dad182c6eb3ccb6d90e125c3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154827&Signature=cCaTRD5l2bjkC-d8jt1DlneHyP0ZJgu~UKYb7F0Achk3f-7hzd9qc8LETQabSl22FJrxS0CSoisvQti-0X4Jp~eJdG6aP0voJnM3XT5zfBHVrrviRTeFZEvmRiUge7W8aM8hSYWdH3uar9My0-PJ7XeOGo5Vdb0YoQM8~C3AQQRhgNUNOimMagzx0Pu0ZrkDC16DbtlVKj~G94QHfANU2lt4jeySx2LI1FRZ3ADhxmZculaD6c2LA2msz4ypioupifhyq1qSvGb95Mvx71Sb46UynC1oEow~6ZI0fgmxyQLc79~B~qQL9mNi-tVVBOlfawkk0VDFHh5tCCASg7xIQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Edgecombe County","date","2025-05-21T00:00:00Z","article","Edgecombe County staff presented a draft FY2026 budget at a May 20 work session, asking the board to call a public hearing and providing staff recommendations that keep the county’s tax rate unchanged while planning to use fund balance and targeted borrowing to cover a set of capital and operating needs.

County finance staff and the county manager walked the board through revenue assumptions, expenditure drivers and risk factors. Highlights include no proposed change to the current county tax rate (the county’s working assumption), a proposed appropriation from fund balance to balance the recommended budget of about $10.8 million, and a recommendation to hold the line on pay increases in the proposed budget while leaving the door open to revisit a compensation adjustment later in the fiscal year if revenues permit.

Revenue assumptions and risk
- Property tax: staff are budgeting ad valorem revenue on the current levy and a conservative collection rate (staff cited a target 96% collection rate for budget calculations). The assessor’s finalized valuations were provided and used to compute potential ad valorem receipts.
- Sales tax: staff said moderate confidence exists that sales tax will meet the current fiscal year estimate but low confidence that sales tax will remain flat or increase in FY2026; staff therefore budgeted a $500,000 decrease in sales tax receipts compared with the recent high run rates and set a FY2026 sales tax budget of approximately $9.9 million.
- Emergency medical services: staff said EMS revenue should approximately meet the FY2025 budget; staff are reviewing fee schedules and may propose rate adjustments in future budget updates.
- Inmate housing: the county’s inmate‑housing revenue has fallen from the prior high‑revenue years; staff lowered next year’s budgeted revenue accordingly.
- Investment income: the county has seen higher investment income in the current year; staff kept a conservative $500,000 estimate for FY2026 rather than budgeting current year over‑performance.

Personnel and benefits
- Staff recommended no across‑the‑board cost‑of‑living adjustment (COLA) in the proposed budget as presented at the session. Commissioners and staff discussed the political and organizational trade‑offs of adding a COLA or other pay steps; staff said a 2% COLA would cost roughly $700,000 and that a 5% increase would exceed $1 million.
- Health insurance: the county is self‑funded and staff recommended budgeting a 6% increase in health insurance cost for FY2026, while continuing the current plan structure (PPO option plus HSA high‑deductible option with the county HSA contribution). Staff proposed continuing the existing $250 wellness incentive program and chronic disease management offerings.
- Compensation progress: staff described prior multi‑phase work to close market‑pay gaps and said the county remains behind some neighboring counties on selected classifications; staff emphasized retention, credential incentives and targeted hiring flexibility as tools already in use.

Positions, reserves and overtime
- Departments requested multiple new positions; staff declined to add most new full‑time positions to the proposed FY2026 budget and kept 41 positions in reserve across departments to maintain flexibility. Staff removed several previously reserved detention slots from reserve after discussion with the sheriff and adjusted overtime budgets accordingly.

Capital, borrowing and prioritized projects
- Staff reported total capital requests of roughly $5.7 million across departments, then recommended paring that list and pursuing targeted borrowing for high‑priority items rather than appropriating large annual capital sums from fund balance.
- Two borrowing packages were proposed for board consideration: (1) a capital/maintenance/equipment package that includes infrastructure projects (notably an estimated $584,000 low‑voltage/electrical infrastructure replacement in the Human Services Building identified after a smoking/overheat incident in building bus duct), and solid waste equipment prioritized at about $725,000; and (2) the county’s anticipated match requirement for the North Edgecombe School project (roughly $3.2 million as budgeted in staff projections). Staff said borrowing would be scheduled to match project timing and that Local Government Commission (LGC) approval is required before closing loans.
- Davenport (bond/financial advisor) analysis included in the packet shows the proposed borrowings would remain within the county’s formal debt‑policy ratios (10‑year payout, debt to assessed value, debt service to expenditures) if structured as recommended; staff cautioned timing and interest costs could affect near‑term cash requirements and noted that loan interest could begin to accrue before principal payments depending on project schedules.

Other recommended fiscal actions and operating items
- Solid waste: staff recommended increasing the municipal solid waste tipping fee from $75 to $79 and increasing the household solid waste fee shown on the tax bill from $1.25 to $1.50 to partially cover rising transport/disposal contract costs.
- School roof: commissioners approved jointly with the school board an Edgecombe County Schools request to use state lottery funds to pay $180,000 to repair the roof at Baskerville Elementary School (the board voted to approve the school’s application earlier in the session).
- Outside agencies and ‘getting off the list’ discretionary funds: staff set aside $200,000 for community/‘getting off the list’ discretionary grants tied to the board’s four focus areas; staff received about 25 proposals and said the budget allows for a committee review and later appropriation after the fiscal year begins.

Legal and other matters
- During the meeting staff requested a closed session under North Carolina General Statute §143‑318.11(a)(6) (personnel) and (a)(3) (attorney‑client privilege) to discuss personnel matters and two pending solar‑related lawsuits (Swift Creek Solar LLC v. Edgecombe County and Brightleaf Solar LLC). The board voted to enter closed session; no details on the litigation were discussed in open session.

Board action requested
- Staff asked the board to call a public hearing on the proposed budget for the June 2 meeting; the board voted to call the public hearing.

Why this matters: The proposed FY2026 budget holds taxes steady but relies on a substantial appropriation from fund balance and on carefully timed borrowing for school construction match and capital infrastructure. Staff emphasized revenue uncertainty (sales tax, inmate housing) and rising benefit costs as drivers and urged the board to monitor mid‑year results with the option to revisit compensation or add capital if revenues trend better than projected.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Edgecombe Commissioners Meeting 5/21/25","oneSentenceSummary","County staff presented a FY2026 draft budget May 20 that keeps the current tax rate unchanged, budgets a $10.8 million draw from fund balance and recommends borrowing to cover a school match and prioritized maintenance projects.","taxTitle","Edgecombe County, North Carolina","taxId",73547,"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},6646048,"Edgecombe County panel affirms assessor values in series of tax appeals; multiple adjustments approved",2319,467000,2786000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3424812-8e8db841879312989aef50fb4e5a790e&start=467&end=2786","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3424812-8e8db841879312989aef50fb4e5a790e/thumbnail_467000.jpg","/articles/6646048/Edgecombe-County/North-Carolina/Edgecombe-County-panel-affirms-assessor-values-in-series-of-tax-appeals-multiple-adjustments-approved","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6646048-dbbe703361589cf706fcace82b26fee0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154827&Signature=byAqGJn1S2klo90rhvaQEphLXiRARzXgSIb8qEanWD6ENhvl85cs527y~XzjGq-BmkH7B5Gator6mi15F2kfcGpOVmbimM9U11Gi7Gwsqr67R8vvN-ZaW4WM4ALr3SMfwFh2Rc09vuKNn51wFbYVSDhxAUoR~pJyIrnSH4ee9h6B0zPpdlmJVq4didpuoseulz5oJ5ivVHq48r3vKuPxcL4PS1~WWGE7Xdyjj4naHmuJZv1Xcc6AYUA0u-lseHjjTjeKxUfsZ7juocfLfTa4DYfYuK0UfxHTm~JERdvdz5MawCmR~U1qSOD8CHKuqhPdoGb2bguPCsgkQ~6xzjl2rA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Edgecombe County Board of Equalization and Review on May 20 heard formal property tax appeals and voted to approve the tax assessor’s recommendations or negotiated adjustments in multiple cases.

County commissioners convened as the board of equalization and review and heard testimony from Tax Administrator Theresa Lewis and appraisal staff before taking votes on each appeal. Appraisal staff also sworn in appellants and representatives before testimony.

The board approved the assessor’s recommended 2025 taxable value of $530,046 for the property identified as Appellant No. 4 (433 Cotton Lane, Tarboro). Tax staff described the assessment process and adjustments made after on‑site visits — including changing a basement from finished to unfinished and adjusting condition and interior finish codes. An appellant representative, identified in the record as Mr. Rosolo, disputed the higher figure and presented estimated construction costs and comparables; the board nevertheless moved to set the value at the assessor’s recommended $530,046 and approved the motion.

The board also handled dozens of additional appeals during the session:
- Appellant No. 5 (115 East Pitt Street, Tarboro): the assessor recommended changing the 2025 value to $10,007.11 after staff determined a structure was a storage/garage rather than a finished commercial building; the board approved the recommendation with no appellant appearing to speak in person.
- Appellant No. 6 (712 Martin Luther King Drive, Tarboro): staff found structural damage and adjusted condition and related building factors; staff reported the owner (Dorothy Purvis) accepted the new recommended value of about $89,000 and the board approved the adjustment.
- Appellant No. 7 (2412 Augustine/ Augustine Lane, Rocky Mount): appraisal staff concluded the dwelling was uninhabitable due to flooding and made topography/condition adjustments; staff recommended a taxable value of $8,003.71 and the board approved it.
- Appellants Nos. 8–18: a series of appeals for a common owner/entity (listed in the record under various ET/ETxx LP names and related parcel addresses in Tarboro and Rocky Mount) were discussed and each recommended adjustment from appraisal staff was presented and approved after staff said most of these had been agreed to with the taxpayers’ representative (Ryan LLC / Mason) by email or during on‑site verification. Staff described re‑measurements and change orders that altered square footage or porch/garage configurations in several subdivisions; the board approved the recommended values for each parcel.
- Appellant No. 19 (KB Rocky Mount LLC, 170 Glory Drive): the parcel had been constructed as low‑income housing subject to federal low‑income housing tax credits (IRC §42). Under the cited state provisions staff applied an income‑approach valuation using the rent‑restricted income data provided by the taxpayer; staff reported the taxpayer provided the required income information late in the process and accepted the assessor’s income‑approach recommendation. The board approved the lower value derived from the income approach.
- Appellant No. 20 (JCTANC1 LLC, 3301 Main Street, Tarboro): staff reported the deed transfers included sale‑leaseback elements that inflated the deed price; staff consulted an MAI commercial appraiser and Department of Revenue guidance and negotiated a downward adjustment, recommending a taxable value of $9,000,000; the board approved that recommendation.

Throughout the hearing appraisal staff — including real property appraisers Art Bradley and Shane Blanton and Deputy Tax Administrator Caitlin Kiel — explained the county’s schedule of values and point system (base rate per square foot multiplied by a quality/index derived from points) and why certain components (porch segments, basement finish classification, fireplace treatment) produce particular adjustments in value. Staff noted a few system calculation items (porch component calculations) that would be rechecked after the meeting.

Board actions were recorded as motions to accept assessor recommendations or amended assessor recommendations; in each recorded instance the board voted in favor and no recorded opposing votes were announced on the record.

What this matters: property owners who appealed their 2025 notices had formal, on‑the‑record hearings and several values were adjusted downward where staff verified condition, structural damage, or where law (for example, IRC §42 low‑income housing rules) required the assessor to use an income approach rather than schedule values. The decisions set each parcel’s 2025 taxable real value, which will be used to calculate tax bills once the county tax rate is set.

The board concluded the formal appeal docket and returned to county business.","The Board of Equalization and Review met May 20 and approved assessor recommendations and negotiated adjustments on a series of property tax appeals, including a $530,046 valuation for a log home in Tarboro and several reduced commercial and multi‑unit valuations after staff review or taxpayer documentation.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6646039,"Edgecombe County commissioners enter closed session to discuss personnel and two solar‑related lawsuits",50,6344000,6394000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3424812-8e8db841879312989aef50fb4e5a790e&start=6344&end=6394","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3424812-8e8db841879312989aef50fb4e5a790e/thumbnail_6344000.jpg","/articles/6646039/Edgecombe-County/North-Carolina/Edgecombe-County-commissioners-enter-closed-session-to-discuss-personnel-and-two-solarrelated-lawsuits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6646039-6ed9acc5d3253b58bd6998daec47b5b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154827&Signature=mHsJfq8krW86ujJI5fsUhYwAVnRqg9wIrHp9Q4dj4k9Mx6xW7XTmyjhS46B9trjlXxZZ8g~1032BZoiW~MkDRqylFrBuxEL17sXDqRc-13~aJZ3QuAloalwPup2aYF3grvxNvKpkKrE1gA-8oc4KuWRuvQAZLtQUbKe2oDQ~HtEnTUnrYBnI0KSj4dKS7nOEkKagY0O5~qOpXrSKzLGwF5ZbYBQ9cv9NP2lzvKm6QHlrc7hsDlJUw4FMeXVdCoGLWOKEHs0yTP6mxjC3a7wI1rKxR~ALoQhiMQQjzQTfxBg0Z6a0B7Ue~ivBIPQvG3EAiqeLxFKslWOszk4WQ4Bpwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Edgecombe County commissioners voted on May 20 to go into closed session to discuss personnel matters and two pending legal matters involving solar projects.

County legal counsel asked the board to convene a closed session citing North Carolina General Statute §143‑318.11(a)(6) for personnel and §143‑318.11(a)(3) for attorney‑client privileged legal discussion. The matters identified on the record were Swift Creek Solar LLC v. Edgecombe County and a related Brightleaf Solar LLC matter. The board voted to go into closed session; no substantive details of the litigation or personnel matters were disclosed in open session.

Why this matters: the record shows the board is addressing litigation involving proposed or existing solar projects in the county. Commission action in closed session is permitted under state statute for privileged attorney‑client discussions and personnel deliberations; any subsequent public action (settlement, contract approval, or litigation filing) would be reflected in future public minutes or agenda items.","At the May 20 meeting commissioners voted to go into closed session under N.C. Gen. Stat. §143‑318.11(a)(6) and (a)(3) to discuss personnel matters and litigation involving Swift Creek Solar LLC and Brightleaf Solar LLC.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Edgecombe County presents FY2026 budget framework: no tax‑rate change, $10.8M fund‑balance ask and proposed borrowing for school match and capital

Edgecombe County panel affirms assessor values in series of tax appeals; multiple adjustments approved

Edgecombe County commissioners enter closed session to discuss personnel and two solar‑related lawsuits