A County’s Reckoning: Inside the Greene County Board of Commissioners Budget Workshop
“This costs them money every way they turn.” He said he did not think a quarter-cent cut would break the county, and that he worried more about the political optics of raising the rate later....
On the morning of Wednesday, May 27, 2026, the five members of the Greene County Board of Commissioners gathered in the Longleaf Pine Conference Room inside the Greene County Office Complex in Snow Hill, joined by County Manager Kyle DeHaven, department heads, and representatives from The MAPS Group consulting firm. The purpose was the county’s annual budget workshop, a full-day working session to review the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-2027 budget before the formal public hearing scheduled for the following Monday. This one would run most of the day.
The session did not begin with spreadsheets or projections. It began with a prayer.
Commissioner Bennie Heath opened the Greene County Board of Commissioners Budget Workshop on the morning of May 27, 2026, by addressing what he called the “throne of grace and glory.” He gave thanks for the county’s blessings and mercies, asked for wisdom in the decisions ahead, and prayed specifically for the county’s first responders: military, law enforcement, and emergency medical services.
It was a quiet and earnest beginning to what would become a long, detailed, and at times contentious review of a budget document that touched nearly every corner of life in Greene County, North Carolina. By the time the meeting was over, the commissioners and county staff had worked through dozens of departmental budgets, a formal salary study presentation, debates about the tax rate, and more than a few digressions into Little League baseball, road sign thieves, and possums under a neighbor’s house.
Heath would later return to the subject of his opening prayer with an addendum. “When you think about it,” he told the group during a break, “our county employees are all first responders. They are first responders to the 21,500 people we have in this county.” He had not meant to leave anyone out, he said, and he wanted the record to reflect that.
Before the board moved on from the budget memo overview, Heath raised a point about the electronic version of the budget document that had been distributed ahead of the session. He noted that the posting contained what he believed was a clerical error in the section covering education and institutional funding. As displayed electronically, it appeared that Lenoir Community College had been increased from $300,000 to $3.185 million, which Heath said was not accurate. He clarified that the $3.185 million figure represented the Greene County Schools fund, not the community college appropriation, and that the $300,000 increase had gone to Greene County Schools, not to the college at all.
The community college funding had, in fact, remained the same as the prior year. It was a straightforward correction, and DeHaven acknowledged it without dispute, but Heath wanted the record clear given that commissioners had received the electronic copy in advance of the session and may have been working from those figures. Several other errors would later be identified during the session.
The board was also given an updated copy of the budget memo before the start of the session.
The Budget Itself: A Balanced Document in a Tightening World
County Manager Kyle DeHaven opened the formal presentation by describing the budget in plain terms. “This is a planning document for the next fiscal year’s expenses for the county,” he said. He wanted the board to understand both what the document contained and what it represented.
The proposed Fiscal Year 2026-2027 budget was a balanced budget. It carried the same tax rate as the prior year, a rate that had remained unchanged for what DeHaven estimated to be thirteen or fourteen consecutive years. That consistency was notable, and he acknowledged it directly, though not without a note of caution. Providing the same level of service, or an increased level of service, with the same or similar resources, he explained, “just continues to get tighter and tighter. Some of us like to call it more efficient, but in reality, it’s tighter and tighter.”
He was frank about the pressure the county faced. The tax base had increased modestly, which provided some relief, but the growth in expenses was outrunning the growth in tax revenue. DeHaven said plainly that the county needed new industry and acknowledged that work toward that goal was ongoing.
DeHaven guided the board through it section by section, starting with the budget message on pages one through three, which summarized the major spending points and revenue projections.
Staffing: One New Position and the Question of IT
The budget proposed only one new staff position for the coming fiscal year: an information technology position housed in the administration department. DeHaven was measured in his description of the need. A good portion of IT work had been distributed among employees in various departments, individuals who had other primary responsibilities and were absorbing technology duties alongside them. The county also maintained a relationship with an outside IT vendor, Intercomps Systems, which DeHaven said should continue. But the volume and complexity of technology demands had grown to the point where someone in-house was needed to absorb the delegated workload.
“I honestly don’t know if I would even do it immediately,” DeHaven said of the position. It was in the budget as a recommendation, but he was candid that it might not be filled at the start of the fiscal year.
Employee Compensation: The Salary Study and the CPI Debate
The most consequential element of the budget, in terms of its impact on employees and on the fund balance, was the employee compensation section. The board had commissioned a salary study, the third such study conducted during the tenure of the current county management team, and its findings were woven into the proposed budget in the form of targeted pay adjustments across all departments.
DeHaven explained the core principle. The budget proposed that employees receive either a 2 percent increase or the result of the salary study, whichever was higher. The salary study itself, conducted by The MAPS Group consulting firm, had focused specifically on the problem of compression: a condition in which long-tenured employees earn the same as, or close to, newly hired employees because cost-of-living adjustments had moved starting salaries upward over time without a parallel mechanism to recognize years of service.
Commissioner Derek Burress raised an immediate objection to the 2 percent figure. He noted that the current Consumer Price Index reflected an inflation rate of approximately 3.8 percent, which was nearly double what the budget proposed for employees. “Is there any way we can increase that 2 percent without affecting the budget too much?” he asked.
DeHaven acknowledged the gap. He explained that 2 percent had been the number when the budget was drafted, and that by the time the budget was finalized, the CPI would likely be around 3.3 to 3.8 percent. He offered to look up the current CPI figure and work it into the budget, but he was direct about the cost: any increase beyond 2 percent would come out of the fund balance appropriation.
Commissioner Bobby Taylor offered some helpful context on the numbers. A 1% raise applied countywide, excluding benefits, would cost approximately $120,000 to $130,000. He had already calculated that the county was projecting a 4.7 percent increase in sales tax revenue, which translated to roughly $338,000 in additional funds, though DeHaven noted that about $180,000 of that increase came from a redistribution formula benefiting the smallest counties in the state, not from organic growth in the local economy.
Burress pushed for some action on the CPI gap. “I think it’d be a good idea to look at that number again,” he said, “see if we can work with that, try to increase that 2 percent a little bit.” DeHaven agreed to revisit the number before the final budget was approved.
Commissioner Ray Johnson said his main concern was simply that the salary study results were already included in the budget. “That’s what I want. That’s my main concern,” he said. DeHaven confirmed they were.
Heath offered a broader note of context. “A lot of attention has been given from this board to employee salaries,” he said. The county had provided more than 34 percent in cumulative pay increases since 2018, and if the 2015 adjustments were included, the figure was approximately 41 percent. He acknowledged that there was tension among some employees about the salary levels and pointed to the fact that there was a sign on the wall beside him displaying those figures. His message was that the board had not ignored the issue. “We recognized the need back then, and we continue to acknowledge that it requires review every year.”
The Salary Study Presentation: Becky Veazey and The MAPS Group
At approximately 11 a.m., Becky Veazey and her colleague arrived to present their findings from the salary study. Veazey brought decades of experience to the room. She had served as HR director for both Durham County and the Town of Cary before entering consulting work more than thirty-five years ago. She had worked with more than 225 local governments in North Carolina and had recently achieved what she described as a retirement goal: visiting every county in the state.
She opened by explaining the conceptual foundation of a classification and pay plan, which she described as having two sides of a coin. The classification side looks at job duties, how those duties compare to other jobs, what titles are appropriate, and how positions should be ranked. The pay side asks what salary range is appropriate for a given set of duties, based on what comparable employers in the market are paying.
Veazey described five reasons why a classification and pay plan need to exist and need to be periodically updated. Recruiting competitive candidates requires starting salaries that are at or near market rates. Retaining experienced employees requires that longer-tenured workers not find themselves earning the same amount as new hires. Proper job classification ensures that employees feel their work is accurately represented and valued. Internal equity requires that similar jobs across different departments be compensated similarly. Legal compliance, particularly under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Equal Pay provisions of federal law, requires that equal work receive equal pay.
To illustrate the cost of ignoring these principles, Veazey described a study she conducted in 1992 for a city outside of Charlotte. That city’s long-tenured manager had run payroll informally for decades, setting salaries through individual negotiation rather than structured ranges. When consultants were brought in after his retirement, they found a custodian earning the equivalent of $75,000 in today’s dollars and an administrative assistant earning the equivalent of $82,000, alongside many employees who were substantially underpaid. The city had been spending its limited resources in ways that were both unfair and inefficient.
She then walked the board through the mechanics of how a pay plan works. Pay grades run down a chart, each one representing a job classification. Within each grade, there is a range from minimum to maximum. An employee’s position within the range reflects their experience and tenure. When market conditions change, cost-of-living adjustments move the entire chart upward. When an individual employee performs well or gains experience, they move across the range within their grade. The grade itself only changes if the job changes, such as through a promotion or a reclassification.
Veazey described the four components of a complete compensation system as legs of a table: the classification and pay plan itself, cost-of-living or market adjustments, a method of moving employees across their pay range over time, and longevity pay. She emphasized that range movement, meaning the mechanism by which employees advance through their salary range, was more important to retention than longevity bonuses. Longevity pay, she said, is a nice gesture of appreciation, but it is the sense of progress within the range that actually keeps people from looking elsewhere.
On the compression problem, Veazey described the pattern she had found in Greene County and in many other organizations. When the distribution of employees across pay ranges was charted, the ideal shape was a bell curve, with most employees in the middle of their ranges. What Greene County had instead was what she called a ski slope: most employees clustered at the low end of their ranges, with very few in the upper portions. This created two problems. First, it made it difficult to hire well-qualified candidates without creating inequity with existing staff. Second, it created dissatisfaction among tenured employees who found themselves barely ahead of new hires, contributing to the expensive cycle of turnover.
The US Chamber of Commerce estimates, she noted, that the cost to an organization of losing an employee ranges from two-thirds to 125 percent of that employee’s annual salary. For many of the county’s most critical positions, including nurses, law enforcement officers, and EMS personnel, the cost was toward the higher end of that range.
Veazey presented four implementation options that ranged from full market positioning at 100 percent of the surveyed market to phased approaches at 96 percent and 92 percent of the market, with varying rates of longevity-based step movement. DeHaven had selected what she called Option 6: a version that set pay ranges at a level the county’s budget could sustain while still addressing compression more meaningfully than prior adjustments had done. The approach credited employees with additional pay based on their years of service, using a blended formula that weighted both total time with the county and time in their specific role.
The salary data itself had been collected between November 2025 and January 2026. Veazey noted explicitly that the data reflected market conditions as of that time, and that by July 1, when the new fiscal year would begin, competing jurisdictions would likely be conducting their own cost-of-living adjustments, which would move the market further. She said some organizations implement a salary study in July and delay their annual COLA until January of the following year as a way of managing costs when many employees are already receiving increases through the catch-up process.
She also recommended that the Board of Commissioners authorize the county manager to make limited adjustments to the study’s placements in specific cases, particularly where a new hire had come in with substantial prior experience and had been placed lower in the range than their background warranted, or where an employee was currently under a disciplinary process and a catch-up increase would be inappropriate.
One structural recommendation that Veazey made, which had apparently already been incorporated by DeHaven without a formal board discussion, was that animal control be moved to report under emergency services rather than directly to the county manager. Her reasoning was straightforward: the county manager had too many direct reports, which strained his ability to give adequate attention to each department. Consolidating some functions under department heads with related responsibilities would reduce that strain. She also noted that counties where animal control and emergency services were aligned tended to have better day-to-day oversight of animal control operations.
Personnel Policy and Plan Approval Timeline
Veazey had included an updated personnel policy in the salary study deliverables, noting changes in federal law, emerging regulatory trends, and outdated language in the existing document. She highlighted that the county had already added a floating holiday for Juneteenth, which had been condensed into the holidays section of the policy document.
DeHaven told the board that he intended to bring both the salary study classification plan and the updated personnel policy forward for formal approval by resolution at the second meeting in June, after the board had time to review the full document. Veazey confirmed that July 1, the start of the new fiscal year, was the appropriate effective date for implementation.
DeHaven thanked Veazey and her colleague as the presentation concluded, noting that the MAPS Group had worked with Greene County on three salary studies and that their expertise was something the county genuinely depended on. "Always a pleasure working with Becky," he said. "Always a pleasure working with Richard. I swear, these guys have forgotten more than I'll know in their respective fields of expertise. It's a much-needed service that they provide."
The General Fund: Department by Department
After the opening overview, DeHaven led the board through the general fund budget on a department-by-department basis. The review covered more than a dozen organizational units, and the recurring theme across nearly all of them was consistency: budgets that were close to the prior year, with the primary variations attributable to the salary study or to specific one-time capital needs.
Governing Body
The governing body budget was largely unchanged. DeHaven noted a slightly higher allocation for board expenses in case commissioners attended an additional conference. Commissioner Derek Burress raised the question of a $450 annual membership in the National Association of Counties, known as NACo, suggesting it might be eliminated if the board was not actively using it or receiving updates from the organization.
DeHaven defended the membership. He said one of the county’s most valuable financial programs, a cash management initiative called cashVest, had been developed through NACo involvement. That program had allowed the county to adopt a more aggressive investment strategy with its funds, extending investment horizons and achieving higher returns than would be available through shorter-term instruments. “Our interest earned is up. We are maintaining a higher interest rate over the long term,” he said. “That’s just one off the top of my head.” The board elected to keep the membership.
Burress also caught what he believed was an error in the governing body budget, noting a request figure of $64,000 that seemed inconsistent with the rest of the document. DeHaven clarified that this was a typographical error in the request column that had been corrected in the recommendation column, where the figure appropriately showed $10,000. The totals were accurate.
General Government
The general government budget was lower than the prior year, a fact DeHaven attributed to the absence of the salary study consulting fee, which had appeared as a one-time contracted services expense in the current fiscal year’s budget. That cost, approximately $30,000, would not recur.
Burress questioned several zero-balance line items that appeared across many departmental budgets, particularly in equipment lines for items such as copiers and phones. In some departments, those lines showed numerous expenditures in the prior year, but no appropriation in the proposed year. DeHaven explained that the pattern was largely explained by how the county accounted for its leased equipment. Copier payments, for example, were recorded under an account described as “equipment rentals” rather than under a supplies or technology line, and the accounting treatment was required under GASB 87, the Government Accounting Standards Board standard that governs how lease obligations must be classified and disclosed. What appeared to be an empty line in one department was not always an absence of cost but rather a cost that had been properly moved to a different account code.
Burress then asked about a line item for the BMAT program. DeHaven confirmed it was the Beaver Management Assistance Team program, which the county co-funded with matching dollars. The cost had risen from $6,000 to $10,000, with the county contributing an additional $2,000 above what it had been matching, maintaining its share at $8,000.
Commissioner Jerry Jones asked whether the program was actually producing results, noting that the county appeared to be spending more on it. Jones said he agreed with the question and added that he would love for the program’s administrator to come to a board meeting or, at minimum, send a report. He wanted to know how many landowners had been assisted and what the program had accomplished. DeHaven said he would reach out to ask the program’s contact to have the program administrator provide an update to the board.
Administration
Administration was close to the prior year, with the main changes driven by the salary study. DeHaven noted that the lobbyist expense, which had been in prior budgets, was not included in the proposed document. He explained that there had been discussions about consolidating lobbying services through the economic development region, and he had not wanted to duplicate the service. But he acknowledged that the county’s lobbyist, referred to as Jim, had not been given a fair opportunity to demonstrate his value because the state had not yet passed a budget, leaving little for him to act on.
Commissioner Bobby Taylor asked whether the contract could be extended for six months, through December 31, 2026, with a revisit depending on whether the state legislature passed a budget and whether lobbying activity produced results. DeHaven said that was reasonable and noted that the contract included a thirty-day exit clause. The board appeared to reach an informal agreement that the lobbyist expense would be maintained for the next six months.
A question arose about the retirement line item in administration, which had increased noticeably. DeHaven explained that the employer retirement contribution rate had risen from approximately 15 percent to 17.55 percent, with an additional 2.4 percent offset related to the state health plan. That increase had been mandated by the state treasurer as a way of funding future liabilities in the state health plan, liabilities that had not been adequately funded in prior years. The change had been delayed from an earlier implementation date because it would have cost the county approximately a quarter of a million dollars mid-year. The full impact was now being absorbed at the turn of the fiscal year.
Tax Office
The tax department budget was substantially similar to the prior year, with one significant capital expenditure: approximately $110,000 for new appraisal software from the vendor Bytech. DeHaven explained that this purchase was a necessary first step in preparing for the county’s scheduled reappraisal in 2029, and that the investment was not optional. “We’ve got to have this,” he said.
Clerk of Court and Elections
The Clerk of Court budget was essentially a reimbursement to the county for utilities and equipment costs, with little variation from the prior year. The elections budget was close to the prior year, with a new utility expense of approximately $7,000 added to accurately reflect actual operating costs. DeHaven noted that requests from the elections office for a dedicated legal counsel had been addressed by confirming that the county attorney would be available for elections-related legal questions with appropriate notice.
Commissioner Burress asked if the board pay had increased for election members, noting that $5,980 had been spent in 2025 for board salaries, and $12,000 was appropriated in 2026 and 2027. Dehaven said it had not. Burress had asked the same question the year before. DeHaven’s answer was the same as the previous year. It had not changed.
Planning, Zoning, and Building Inspections
This department also carried a notable one-time capital item: a software conversion cost related to making the department’s existing software compatible with the new Bytech tax software. DeHaven said the two systems needed to be able to communicate with each other, and that without the conversion, the county would be unable to provide fully functional software services to the public. The cost was significant, but it was not expected to recur the following year.
Commissioner Bennie Heath asked whether the department’s gas price estimate of $3.60 per gallon was realistic. DeHaven acknowledged that it reflected prices at the time the budget was built, and that fuel costs affected virtually every department in the county. He offered no promise that the price would hold.
Animal Control
The Animal control budget was similar to the prior year, with salary increases attributable to the compensation study. DeHaven said the department had been specifically recognized in the study’s findings and that its employees performed an important function. Burress flagged what appeared to be a discrepancy in the advertising line item, showing a prior-year actual expenditure of approximately $100 and a request of $1,105. DeHaven clarified that this was another case of a misplaced entry in the request column that reflected a copier lease payment, which had been properly categorized in the recommendation column.
Commissioner Burress asked about the advert line showing the animal control had spent $102.00 in advertising in 2025, had requested $1,105.00 in the current budget cycle, with a recommended appropriation set at $0.00. Dehaven confirmed this was another typo in the MUNIS system. The requested amount and appropriation should both be $0.00.
Sheriff’s Office and Jail
The Sheriff’s office and Jail occupied separate budget accounts. Sheriff Matt Sasser, who was present at the workshop, described some of the challenges facing his budget. One recurring cost pressure was the juvenile detention rate, which had risen to $150 per day and was increasing to $160 per day. The county had seen elevated juvenile detention costs in the past year related to the “Raise the Age” law, which extended juvenile court jurisdiction to older defendants. Sasser said he could not predict how many juveniles would be held in any given year.
DeHaven added a related note: the juvenile services agency had experienced a staffing issue that led to a delay of sixteen to eighteen months in submitting invoices to the county, resulting in an unexpectedly large bill.
Sheriff Sasser noted that he was scheduled to meet with the state Department of Health and Human Services secretary that same afternoon to raise the issue directly. DeHaven said the agency needed to be held accountable for its billing delays. He also noted that neighboring counties had experienced the same problem with the same agency, which suggested it was an organizational failure at the provider level rather than a dispute about the county’s obligations.
Commissioner Bobby Taylor noted with some surprise how inexpensive the court interpreter line item appeared to be. Sasser indicated that a National Guard or reserve duty deployment accounted for the reduced cost, as the county was using a shared or supplemental resource during that period.
Emergency Management, EMS, and Dispatch
Emergency Management Director Brock Kearney’s budget included one vehicle. DeHaven said Kearney had been broadly cooperative in the budget process, working to accommodate the salary study costs alongside his other departmental needs. All three departments under Kearney’s umbrella, including EMS and communications dispatch, were among the primary beneficiaries of the salary study, which DeHaven said was a key factor in explaining why the overall budget felt as constrained as it did.
Burress raised the subject of road signs after noticing what appeared to be a slight decrease in the amount appropriated for road signs during the current year compared to prior years. He wanted to understand whether that reflected an actual improvement in the sign situation or simply a reduction in what was being budgeted.
Kearney explained that road signs were ordered through the Department of Corrections, which produces standard state signage, and that the department had implemented a monthly geographic rotation to address missing signs more systematically. The county was divided into eleven fire districts, and crews surveyed one district per month to identify gaps, placing bulk orders at the end of each survey cycle. They had also begun using concrete footings and heavier posts to make signs harder to pull from the ground. “Put them on concrete at the bottom of our post,” Kearney said, acknowledging that a determined person would still find a way to steal them if they really wanted to. When a citizen calls in a missing sign, those are ordered alongside the regular monthly batch.
Commissioner Ray Johnson mentioned he had been keeping an eye on the Maury and Hookerton area and had called in a couple of signs three or four weeks earlier. He was not pressing for an immediate answer on when they would go up, but wanted to know whether the order had been placed. Kearney said orders were placed on a monthly or bi-monthly cycle, depending on volume, because shipping minimums meant the county could not just order four signs and expect a delivery truck to arrive. “If we order four signs, they’re not going to bring the 18-wheeler to us,” he said.
Johnson also brought up the Morris Barbecue Road sign in Maury, noting that there was not one at the far end near the Hookerton direction either. He then reported, with some amusement, that he had been told one of the missing road signs from that area had turned up inside somebody’s barn or building, hanging on the wall. He was told by the person who told him that they were not going to name who had it. The comment drew knowing laughter from around the room. Sheriff Sasser noted that people had started reporting their neighbors when road signs turned up inside someone’s building, which had helped reduce the problem somewhat, though he acknowledged it was not the most comfortable thing to ask people to do.
On the subject of communications staffing, Burress asked whether previously part-time communications employees had been converted to full-time status. Part-time and overtime salary lines were appropriated at $0.00. The same two lines for EMS also showed $0.00.
Kearney confirmed that the department still retained some part-time staff, but that their compensation was pooled with full-time salary accounts for simplicity of accounting. DeHaven suggested the board add together the salary and part-time salary lines to understand the full staffing cost.
Commissioner Jerry Jones also raised a question about volunteer fire department funding. Kearney clarified that eight departments received $2,500 each in the EMS budget as part of a first responder support line, and that eleven departments were currently participating in a related program at a combined cost of $20,000. Burress asked which departments were not participating. They are Snow Hill, Arba, and Castoria.
Cooperative Extension
The Cooperative Extension budget remained virtually the same as the prior year. Commissioner Burress asked about the supply lines on the sheet, with explanations from department heads, which contained two separate supply lines. DeHaven explained that one line was for the agency and the second was for the farmer’s market.
Recreation Department
The recreation department budget drew more discussion than almost any other, both because of the financial details and because of broader governance concerns about the county’s recreational facilities.
DeHaven noted that the overtime salary line had nearly doubled, which prompted a question from Burress. DeHaven explained that the shift reflected how actual expenditures had played out rather than a policy change, and that he had budgeted overtime more generously to avoid shortfalls. Commissioner Taylor offered a vivid real-world example: rain delays, games pushed back, extra innings, and extended parking lot gatherings all produced overtime hours that could not be forecast with precision.
Commissioner Jones raised a concern about trash at the recreational complex, noting that a pair of group home residents who used the walking track had commented on how littered the facility became at times. DeHaven said the facility had cameras, trash receptacles, and staff who picked up the grounds during the week, but that weekends, especially tournament weekends, could leave the property in worse shape before staff returned Monday morning. He said he would also follow up with Bill Ellis about a possible cover for the playground slide, which had been discussed briefly during the last month’s regularly scheduled meeting.
Commissioner Taylor asked about signage prohibiting alcohol on county property, a discussion that had apparently taken place previously. DeHaven confirmed that signs were in place or had been ordered. Taylor acknowledged that enforcement was complicated since no one was going to inspect the contents of a Stanley Cup or a Yeti tumbler, but said the signage at least provided a legal basis for intervention if something did happen.
The most charged recreation discussion came when Johnson described a recent incident at the Little League facility involving the same group of individuals who had caused problems in the past. He said he had called a deputy to respond and that the deputy’s presence had defused the situation. DeHaven gently noted that posting a deputy at the park for a ball game meant one fewer officer patrolling the rest of the county. Jones suggested two-hour coverage during games. Taylor proposed a presence that was more patrol-like: a deputy arriving, walking around, and leaving, then returning for the next game’s start. He said he had left a game himself just before a confrontation occurred and received four phone calls afterward questioning his departure. Taylor also suggested that the county work with the Snow Hill Police Department on coverage since the ball fields and recreation complex were within the town's jurisdiction.
DeHaven said he had taken note of the board’s comments that signage to that effect was needed near a specific area of the facility and noted that an individual had been banned from the park.
Taylor, who had recently been appointed to the recreation advisory board, noted that he had not yet attended a meeting, as the first one had been canceled, and it had coincidentally fallen on the day he returned from the hospital. He said he had no report but would contribute once he had recovered.
The broader concern, voiced by Johnson, was that commissioners were often the last to learn about problems at county facilities because issues arose between advisory board meetings and were not being communicated up the chain. He wanted commissioners to be informed in a more timely manner so that problems could be addressed before they escalated.
DeHaven acknowledged the concern and said he would make the adjustment to improve communication.
Before the recreation discussion concluded, Commissioner Derek Burress asked Taylor to look into the draft situation, noting that board members had received numerous complaints about the draft process, and individuals signing up and choosing not to play after learning which team they had been drafted by.
The concern was that players with established travel team affiliations were being pulled into different recreational league teams through the draft, creating friction between families and fueling disputes within the travel ball community. Taylor confirmed he was already aware of the volume of complaints, noting that he had received more phone calls about Little League baseball in his sixteen months as a county commissioner than on all other issues combined, and that the draft process was among the most contentious threads. He said he would take it up through the advisory board once he was able to attend meetings.
Chairman Bennie Heath offered a summary comment on recreation that reflected the board’s long-standing commitment to investing in the department. “We invest a lot in our recreation department, half a million dollars for our kids, and I think that’s very admirable for the county,” he said. “I think we’re doing a good job trying to provide organized athletic opportunities for our kids.” He noted that some of them had been around long enough to remember when the recreation budget was a fraction of what it was today. DeHaven agreed, telling the board that the budget had grown substantially over the years. When he had first arrived, recreation was funded at roughly $350,000. It had climbed steadily from there and had reached what he described as close to its current height, reflecting the board’s consistent willingness to invest in athletic programs and facilities for people of all ages.
DSS, Health, and Senior Center
DSS Director Amanda Smith was present for the review of her department’s budget. DeHaven described it as among the best budget documents she had ever submitted and noted that the department had experienced substantial increases in costs, many of which were driven by state-level program requirements. He had budgeted salaries at 93 percent of the full amount to account for a historical pattern of vacancies that provided a natural buffer. Even with that adjustment, the DSS budget reflected a significant increase, most of it in state-funded programs.
The Health Department budget was similarly complex, encompassing many different programs with costs split proportionately among funding sources. Health Director Joy had achieved a notable saving for the budget year by obtaining permission from the state to use travel funds earmarked for another purpose before their expiration date, redirecting approximately $25,000 in state money to cover local transportation costs. She also reported using similar state funds to purchase a vehicle in the current fiscal year rather than the proposed one.
She also addressed a staffing change: an environmental health employee was leaving for a state position but had requested permission to return part-time to perform on-site inspections on weekends. She had also arranged for two employees from Wayne County to join the team, and the employee leaving had arranged for someone from Duplin County to provide coverage on an as-needed basis. Full coverage was secured.
Sharon Harrison, the director of the Senior Center, ran a tight operation, according to DeHaven, and the senior center budget required few cuts. He expressed hope that the county would gain access to a new senior center building at the turn of the upcoming fiscal year.
Utilities, Landfill, and Transportation
The second half of the budget workshop moved through the county’s enterprise funds: water, sewer, solid waste, and transportation. These departments operated on a separate financial basis from the general fund, with revenues intended to offset operating costs.
Utilities
The water and sewer budgets were substantially similar to the prior year. DeHaven noted that rate adjustments included in the budget were pass-throughs, reflecting increases the county had received from its wholesale provider, the Greenville Utilities Commission, and the Town of Farmville. He said the county was required to maintain a reasonable surplus margin within its utility funds to cover capital improvements and unexpected repairs, and that it was “much easier to maintain than it is to replace.”
One notable addition was the establishment of an industrial sewer rate, designed for the C-130 aircraft maintenance facility that is being built for Fleet Readiness Center East in Lenoir County. Commissioners plan to tour the facility on June 10th.
DeHaven also noted an increase in the utility systems management fee charged by the county for administrative services, a fee calculated based on a state formula for reasonable cost recovery. He mentioned in passing that a county a fifth the size of Greene County had recently been described to him as transferring millions of dollars from its utility funds into the general fund, a practice he found striking and which put Greene County’s relatively modest fee into favorable perspective.
Tap fees were raised as an area for potential adjustment. Taylor suggested looking at increasing them to be more competitive with surrounding areas. DeHaven said tap fees would be addressed through the budget ordinance.
Landfill
The landfill budget drew questions about a significant increase in the equipment maintenance and repair line, which had risen from approximately $40,000 to $100,000. DeHaven explained that the county’s older equipment was both more expensive to maintain and increasingly difficult to find parts for. In at least one recent case, parts had to be custom fabricated. He acknowledged that these costs were based on trend analysis and expressed hope that actual spending would come in below budget.
A broader landfill issue was the closure cost liability. DeHaven explained that the county had inherited an underfunded landfill closure obligation when the current management team arrived roughly eleven to twelve years ago. The liability was estimated at over a million dollars. The strategy had been to address it gradually through incremental solid waste fee increases rather than an abrupt large adjustment. “We’re trying to chip away at it very slowly,” he said, describing it as a respectful approach to not burdening county residents too quickly.
Commissioner Johnson asked about annual contributions toward the closure liability. DeHaven acknowledged that the annual amount being set aside was working toward the total but that the number was a budgetary estimate subject to an actuarial-style formula.
Taylor raised an idea that the board had been discussing for a few months: whether the county should negotiate and potentially purchase land for landfill expansion now rather than wait until the current facility is closer to capacity. He reasoned that land values would only increase, and that a purchase structured as an installment sale could allow the current landowner to continue farming the property while receiving annual payments. DeHaven said it was a good idea and offered to reach out and initiate that conversation.
Transportation
The transportation department had undergone significant change over the prior fiscal years as COVID-era relief funding wound down. Director Kim Howell had worked hard to find a balance, and the proposed budget showed transportation as self-sustaining for the first time in several years, without the $140,000 transfer from the general fund that had been required in the current year.
Taylor noted that he had been unaware of how frequently the transportation department served patients traveling to Raleigh and the Research Triangle for medical appointments. DeHaven confirmed that hospital-related trips, many of them to specialized facilities, represented the bulk of the out-of-county routes.
The Fund Balance Appropriation and the Limits of Efficiency
As DeHaven wrapped up the enterprise fund budgets and moved toward closing out the full budget presentation, he gave the board an honest accounting of where the general fund stood. The proposed 2026-2027 general fund budget required a fund balance appropriation of approximately $142,000 to cover expenditures that could not be fully met by operating revenues. That was in addition to a $140,000 transfer that had been required in the current fiscal year to support the transportation department before it became self-sustaining.
“I don’t want to say we’ve hit our limit,” he said, “but throughout the year you’ll notice we do appropriate against the fund balance, but out of the gate, that is not something I generally practice.”
He concluded the budget overview with language from his budget message: “The FY 2026-2027 proposed budget demonstrates Greene County’s ongoing commitment to sound financial stewardship, thoughtful planning, and high-quality public service under the leadership and direction of the Board of Commissioners.”
He gave credit broadly. “I think everybody’s teamwork is what got us here.”
The Property Tax Rate Debate: Relief, Caution, and the Math of a Penny
After wrapping up the budget review with his summary remarks. Dehaven asked if there were any remaining questions or comments. By that point, everyone in the room knew exactly what was coming. Commissioner Ray Johnson had been waiting for this moment. So had Commissioners Derek Burress and Bobby Taylor. The tax rate had not moved in more than a decade, and none of them intended to let the budget workshop conclude without at least putting the question on the table.
Johnson opened by saying he would love to see the tax rate lowered. He acknowledged a full large cut was probably not possible but asked whether something modest, perhaps in the range of a quarter of a cent, was achievable. Taylor had been making the same argument since his election. He offered specific figures: at a current rate where one full cent generates roughly $140,000 in revenue, a quarter-cent reduction would cost approximately $35,600. A tenth-of-a-cent reduction would cost even less. At those numbers, Taylor argued, a modest cut would represent less than 1 percent of the county’s unassigned fund balance, which he estimated at approximately $10 million. “Point 1% of a penny is better than zero of a penny,” he said, pressing the point that even a symbolic reduction would show good faith toward property owners who were feeling the financial squeeze everywhere they turned.
DeHaven responded carefully and did not dismiss either. But he walked them through the arithmetic. The budget was already $142,000 short of covering operating expenditures through operating revenues alone. The extended lobbyist contract would push that figure to approximately $160,000. Any COLA adjustment above 2 percent would add to that. And the county was still facing an unfunded school construction obligation that, if financed over forty years at 5 percent on $15 million, would add roughly $750,000 in annual debt service in future years. A tax rate reduction on top of all of that, even a small one, would deepen the structural shortfall further. He was not saying it could not be done mathematically. He was saying it was not something he could recommend. “Do you want to go further in the red to lower taxes?” he asked plainly.
DeHaven then offered a candid explanation of how he views the county’s financial constraints during the tax rate discussion, framing them as more than a matter of balancing numbers on a spreadsheet.
“I am going to tell you a secret,” he said, adding that he had shared the same thought with the board before. “If we hit that big industry and it finally does come, working towards that, we will allow staff departments to staff adequately.”
He pointed to several departments he said were already feeling pressure. He said he had previously spoken with the board about strain on EMS. Sheriff Sasser, he said, had been requesting additional deputies but had been, in DeHaven’s words, “very kind” in delaying those requests. He also said the health department, finance department, and DSS needed additional support, while planning, zoning, and building inspections, which he described as the county’s fastest-growing department, were on pace to outgrow their space.
The broader point DeHaven appeared to make was that county departments have absorbed increasing demands while delaying staffing expansions and other requests. A major industrial taxpayer would not simply change the revenue line. It would, in DeHaven’s telling, provide the financial flexibility to address long-delayed staffing needs and growing operational demands, finally giving the county room to run the operation at the level it actually required.
It was right at that point, after DeHaven had made clear to Johnson and Taylor that he was not recommending a reduction in the property tax rate, that Burress stepped in with a different idea. He asked whether an early payment discount might be an option. DeHaven had mentioned the prior year that few taxpayers took advantage of the prior discounts, and those that did were usually large businesses and industries.
DeHaven explained the problem. An early payment discount was not free. It would reduce revenue, and administering the program at any meaningful scale would require additional staff. That meant the county would be absorbing two costs simultaneously, a reduction in revenue and an increase in expenditure, rather than one. “You’ve got two expenses,” he said. “You’re working against the budget twice.” He also noted that a discount structure was fundamentally harder to forecast than a fixed rate, because the county could not reliably predict how many taxpayers would participate in any given year, while a rate change produced a precise and predictable number.
Tax Administrator Stephanie Wiggins, who was present, confirmed the administrative complexity involved. Burress then asked how much it would cost to add an additional staff member to calculate the savings. Dehaven responded with approximately $55,000.
Burress, who had nitpicked through the budget most of the morning, is not convinced that adding another person would be necessary to implement such a program. The biggest challenge would likely be ensuring tax bills are prepared and mailed out in time. Property tax bills in North Carolina are typically mailed after July 1, often during July or August depending on the county, with taxes generally becoming due Sept. 1 and payable without interest until early January. Because the board controls how such a program would be structured, an early payment incentive could easily be applied during the first and second months after statements are mailed, allowing taxpayers a set period to receive the discount while providing flexibility in administration.
Burress pressed on, asking if, instead of a 2% discount in the first month and a 1% discount in the second month, for taxpayers who pay their taxes in full, which he had proposed the previous year, the discount rate could be restructured, perhaps offering a flat rate of 1% for both months or just having one month instead of the usual two.
DeHaven again defended his position on tax discounts, citing their unpredictability in terms of how many taxpayers would take advantage of them and the burden they placed on tax office staff.
Johnson acknowledged what Burress was after and said he understood it. “I understand what Derek wants to do,” he said. “He doesn’t care either way. He just wants to lower the tax rate for the people one way or another,” But Johnson said he was not in favor of the early payment approach. “I don’t like the idea of early payment discounts, because that’s a lot of stuff to keep up with,” he said.
The conversation continued. Johnson pressed the principle rather than the math. “I understand what we’re doing, but what I’m trying to figure out is what we can do to help the citizens,” he said. “This costs them money every way they turn.” He said he did not think a quarter-cent cut would break the county, and that he worried more about the political optics of raising the rate later than he did about the modest cost of lowering it now. Taylor reinforced the point, noting that property values in Greene County had grown substantially since he had taken office, driven by new development including Dollar Generals, a Piggly Wiggly, a Walmart Express, and residential growth at Cutter Creek. “We’ve easily added $300 million worth of property in the past fifteen or sixteen years,” he said.
Johnson also pointed to the fund balance. It had grown by approximately 160 percent since 2014. He was not suggesting the county drain it, but the growth demonstrated that the county was in a meaningfully stronger financial position than it once was, and that some small acknowledgment of that for taxpayers was not unreasonable.
DeHaven did not dispute any of it. He noted that Veazey had told the board that morning that the compensation market had shifted more dramatically in the past three or four years than in her previous forty-one years of doing this work, and that costs across the board were continuing to climb. “I just don’t want to set us up for failure or set us up for a step back or a decline,” he said. He told the board the county had been recognized by the state as one of the top two most efficiently run counties for seven consecutive years, and that was a badge of honor he did not want to put at risk. “I’ll say stability and consistency are what government should be known for,” he said. “When people start changing things, and things start bouncing around, that inconsistency takes place. I think that promotes volatility.” He said he would run whatever number the board directed and could have a figure ready by the end of the day. He just wanted them to decide with full awareness of what it would cost.
Johnson put a number on the table: a proposed rate of 0.0025 of a cent, representing a modest reduction from the current rate. The same number Taylor had been advocating since he was first elected.
The board did not take a formal vote, as this was a workshop rather than an official meeting. Taylor and Burress expressed support. DeHaven agreed to run the numbers and bring them to the formal budget hearing scheduled for Monday.
One way or another, it was clear that all three of them wanted the same thing: a lower property tax rate that would reduce the burden on the citizens they represent.
Reappraisal and the Future Distribution of the Tax Burden
Johnson and Taylor both raised the question of what would happen to the tax rate at the county’s next scheduled reappraisal in 2029. The purchase of new Bytech software, already included in the proposed budget, was the first step in preparing for that process.
DeHaven explained the standard approach. When a reappraisal is conducted, assessed values across the county are updated to reflect current market values. If values rise overall, as they have historically in Greene County, the county would typically set a revenue-neutral rate, meaning a rate that collects the same total revenue as before but at a lower per-dollar figure. In practice, he said, counties rarely go fully revenue neutral. A small growth factor is typically built in, producing a modest rate reduction.
Taylor pressed on the distributional implications: if one property rises in value more than another, the tax burden shifts proportionately. “It’s going to redistribute the tax burden,” DeHaven confirmed. Properties that have appreciated more will bear a larger share; properties that have appreciated less will bear a smaller share. That redistribution was another reason that the 2029 reappraisal was important to prepare for carefully.
Closing Observations
By the time the workshop concluded, the board had worked through departmental budgets that touched nearly every function of county government, a lengthy salary study presentation, and discussions that ranged from the financing of landfill expansion to the proper handling of situations at a Little League ball field.
The county manager and his team had built a budget that was, on paper, balanced, but that required a draw on savings to close the gap between operating revenues and operating expenses. The salary study represented a substantial investment in the county’s workforce and reflected years of incremental efforts to make compensation more competitive and more equitable. As Becky Veazey had noted, compensation markets had shifted more dramatically in recent years than at any other point in her career, and the pressure on local governments to keep pace was not expected to ease. Revenue growth continued modestly through new development, expanding property values, and sales tax distributions, but expenses were growing faster, leaving little margin for error.
Throughout the workshop, County Manager Kyle DeHaven returned repeatedly to the same theme: things were becoming “tighter and tighter.”
The formal budget hearing scheduled for the following Monday would bring the conversation from workshop discussion to official action. Commissioners would not only decide whether to adopt the proposed spending plan but also whether to pursue a tax rate reduction for the first time in more than a decade, knowing that any reduction would narrow the county’s already tightening financial margin further.
What was clear by the end of the day was that nearly every discussion, whether about employee pay compression, missing road signs, recreation facilities, future landfill obligations, or emergency services staffing, ultimately returned to the same question: how do you provide more services, maintain existing ones, and prepare for future needs when resources remain finite?
The Law That Banned Mowing in May: North Carolina’s Unusual Highway Pause Explained
Drive along a North Carolina highway in late spring, and you will notice something striking. Roadside grass grows unchecked, often waist-high, while bursts of wildflowers turn the shoulders into ribbons of color. The usual roar of mowing equipment falls silent. To the casual eye, it might appear as though the Department of Transportation has neglected its duties. In truth, this seasonal wildness is no oversight. It is the direct result of a deliberate state law.
Every May, routine mowing on North Carolina’s state-maintained highways comes to a scheduled halt. The policy has quietly reshaped thousands of miles of roadside each spring, turning heads and sparking questions among drivers who suddenly find nature taking center stage.
A Surprising Rule Hidden in State Law
The provision is spelled out clearly in North Carolina General Statutes § 136-28.12. Subsection (a)(3) directs that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) “shall not schedule mowing of highway rights-of-way during May.”
This is a mandatory restriction limited strictly to state-controlled highways, interstates, U.S. routes, N.C. highways, medians, and shoulders. It carries no weight over private yards, city streets, county roads, or local parks. Residents and municipalities remain free to mow on their own schedules.
When and Why the Rule Was Added
The May prohibition is a recent addition to state law. It was introduced in 2025 through Senate Bill 391 (Session Law 2025-47), part of a larger package of transportation and maintenance reforms. Primarily sponsored by Senator Bill Rabon, along with Senators Vickie Sawyer and Michael Lazzara, the bill was signed in early July 2025 and took full effect for the 2026 season. Previous versions of the statute emphasized coordination between litter removal and mowing for efficiency and safety, but contained no seasonal pause.
The motivation is rooted in ecology. May represents the peak growing season for native wildflowers and a vital window for pollinators such as bees and butterflies, as well as ground-nesting birds and other roadside wildlife. Allowing vegetation to bloom and set seed supports biodiversity across the state’s extensive highway corridors, which function as important linear habitats. Safety-driven mowing, such as clearing visibility at intersections or addressing immediate hazards, remains fully permitted throughout the month.
What the Law Looks Like in Practice
The policy produces a reliable annual cycle:
April and early May: Roadside vegetation surges after winter dormancy.
Throughout May: No routine scheduled mowing on NCDOT rights-of-way, allowing wilder growth and colorful blooms.
June and beyond: Mowing resumes as usual, often after plants have completed their reproductive cycles.
NCDOT continues essential tasks like litter pickup and hazard response, ensuring the pause enhances rather than compromises safety. This year, even though April was mostly dry across much of the state, defying the old saying that April showers bring May flowers, the unmowed roadsides have still erupted in vibrant blooms, proving the policy’s value in giving native plants the chance to thrive.
State officials have noted the practical balance the law strikes, acknowledging that while some faster-growing weeds can pose visibility challenges in certain parts of the state, the overall approach supports broader environmental goals.13
The Next Time You Drive
So the next time you cruise down a North Carolina highway in May and see the tall grass swaying beside bursts of wildflowers, take a closer look. That untamed stretch of roadside is not a sign of forgotten maintenance. It is a deliberate choice written into state law, giving nature one month to flourish. In doing so, North Carolina has found a simple yet effective way to weave environmental stewardship into everyday travel. Sometimes the most beautiful stretches of road are the ones allowed to grow just a little wild.
Butterfinger Pie
If you love easy no-bake desserts packed with creamy filling, crunchy candy pieces, and rich peanut butter flavor, this Butterfinger Pie is one recipe you need to try. It is smooth, fluffy, loaded with crushed candy bars, and comes together with simple ingredients for a dessert everyone will want seconds of. Whether you stick with the classic version or try one of the fun variations below, these pies are guaranteed crowd pleasers.
Ingredients
8 oz cream cheese, softened
¾ cup creamy peanut butter
10 oz Butterfinger bars, crushed
12 oz whipped topping
1 graham cracker pie crust
Extra crushed Butterfinger pieces for topping
Instructions
In a large mixing bowl, beat the cream cheese and peanut butter together until smooth and creamy.
Gently fold in the whipped topping and crushed Butterfinger pieces until fully combined.
Spread the filling evenly into the prepared graham cracker crust.
Refrigerate for at least 4 hours, or until firm and chilled.
Top with extra crushed Butterfinger pieces before slicing and serving.
Chocolate Peanut Butter Variation
For an even richer version, this chocolate peanut butter variation combines creamy peanut butter filling with chocolate sauce and a crunchy chocolate cookie crust. It is perfect for chocolate lovers who want an extra decadent dessert.
Ingredients
8 oz cream cheese, softened
¾ cup creamy peanut butter
10 oz Butterfinger bars, crushed
½ cup chocolate sauce
12 oz whipped topping
1 chocolate cookie crust
Instructions
Beat the cream cheese and peanut butter together until smooth and creamy.
Fold in the whipped topping and crushed Butterfinger pieces until combined.
Spread the mixture into the chocolate cookie crust.
Drizzle chocolate sauce over the top.
Refrigerate until firm, about 4 hours.
Slice, serve, and enjoy.
Salted Caramel Variation
This version adds a sweet caramel flavor that pairs perfectly with crunchy Butterfinger pieces and creamy peanut butter filling. It delivers a sweet and salty combination that makes every bite extra indulgent.
Ingredients
8 oz cream cheese, softened
¾ cup creamy peanut butter
10 oz Butterfinger bars, crushed
½ cup caramel sauce
12 oz whipped topping
1 graham cracker crust
Instructions
Beat the cream cheese and peanut butter together until light and fluffy.
Fold in the whipped topping and crushed Butterfinger pieces.
Spread evenly into the graham cracker crust.
Drizzle caramel sauce over the top.
Refrigerate for at least 4 hours or until chilled and firm.
Slice and serve cold.
Cookies and Butterfinger Variation
If you love extra crunch, this cookies-and-Butterfinger version adds crushed chocolate cookies throughout the filling for even more texture and chocolate flavor.
Ingredients
8 oz cream cheese, softened
¾ cup creamy peanut butter
10 oz Butterfinger bars, crushed
1 cup crushed chocolate cookies
12 oz whipped topping
1 chocolate cookie crust
Instructions
Beat cream cheese and peanut butter together until smooth.
Fold in whipped topping, crushed cookies, and Butterfinger pieces.
Spread the filling into the chocolate cookie crust.
Refrigerate until firm and fully chilled.
Slice and serve cold for the best texture.
Cold, creamy, crunchy, and packed with candy in every bite, these Butterfinger pies are the kind of easy dessert recipes that disappear fast. The hardest part is deciding which version to make first.