Durham Board of Commissioners - Budget Work Session May 19, 2026: Reduced Resources and EMS Strain
The Durham County Board of Commissioners confronts an unusually tight 2026–27 budget, with minimal revenue growth, a proposed two-cent property tax increase, and tough tradeoffs around schools, debt, and transit service. Commissioners also hear alarming EMS data on long ambulance wait times, staffing and pay pressures, and potential new response models to keep up with Durham’s rapid growth. 46mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Tuesday, May 19th, 2026
15613.675688
Board of County Commissioners on 2026-05-19 9:00 AM - Budget Work Session - Day One
In This Video
-
-
-
Budget staff outlined the county manager’s priorities of maintaining long-term fiscal stability with limited use of fund balance, recommending at most a modest tax rate increase, protecting funding for Durham Public Schools and filled employee positions, meeting key public safety and capital needs, and doing so in the context of minimal growth in core revenues and a personnel- and education-heavy expenditure base.
-
Budget staff explained that extensive property tax appeals after revaluation significantly reduced the taxable base compared to what had been budgeted, so despite roughly 3% real value growth, budget-to-budget growth was only about 0.1%, leaving just $391,000 in new property tax revenue for the coming year.
-
A tax administration representative explained that an extended appeals deadline led to thousands more property tax appeals than projected, complicating budget estimates alongside hard-to-predict tax relief impacts and differences between how commercial and residential properties could be valued for appeals.
-
Budget staff reviewed the sharp drop in new property tax revenue for 2026–27 compared to prior years, explained that slow property and sales tax growth and reduced intergovernmental funds led to a recommended two-cent tax rate increase for the general and capital financing funds, and used this context to address questions about where recent revenue growth had gone.
-
-
Budget staff illustrated that a proposed 2-cent property tax rate increase would add about $80 annually for a $400,000 home, generate roughly $17.1 million in new revenue to support items such as Durham Public Schools and EMS, and would occur in the context of historically low county tax rates but higher property values and recent combined city–county tax hikes.
-
-
Budget Director Lane contrasted several recent years of strong revenue growth without tax hikes with the 2026–27 budget, explaining that modest sales tax gains were more than offset by losses in intergovernmental funding and other revenues, resulting in a net decline of about $8 million going into the new budget.
-
Budget Director Lane summarized the 2026–27 budget as showing less than 1% overall growth, with the general fund increasing by about $10 million entirely due to a $10.9 million Durham Public Schools allocation and other priority expenditures including pre-K expansion, employee benefits and compensation, and public safety needs.
-
Budget Director Lane outlined that the county faced about $111 million in annual debt service and additional cash-funded capital costs for building upkeep, while also paying long-term debt tied to Durham Public Schools, Durham Technical Community College, and the Museum of Life and Science facilities and exhibits.
-
Director of Organizational Effectiveness John Kiefer introduced the performance and strategy team and outlined three fiscal year 2026 priorities: fully cataloging county programs, strengthening the validity of performance measures, and improving the clarity and depth of performance reporting for leaders and the public.
-
Transit staff summarized a challenging year marked by revenue shortfalls and funding gaps, reported that a draft work program for addressing transit needs had been sent to the staff working group for recommendation, and noted that final approval by the Board of Commissioners and GoTriangle Board was expected in June alongside an updated bus operations request.
-
-
-
-
In discussing regional transit approvals, Commission Chair Mike Lee asked how Durham’s decision would affect Orange and Wake counties, and a speaker explained that Orange had delayed action pending Durham’s vote while GoTriangle committed not to use Wake or Orange funds for the DRX route until Durham approved so that whichever county acted first was not penalized.
-
A speaker reported that GoTriangle’s proposal had been endorsed by the Audit and Finance Committee and was headed for consent agenda inclusion, while Chair Lee and Ellen Beckman clarified that the full board had not yet received the full work program even though related priorities like Routes 800 and DRX had been presented multiple times since November.
-
Transit staff explained that GoTriangle’s FY 2027 request to allocate $216,000 for service improvements would be a cost-neutral rebalancing of future-year funds with recurring operating impacts and potential trade-offs in later projects, while commissioners stressed the need to clearly explain these changes to residents.
-
-
A speaker explained that starting in 2030 some GoTriangle operating funds in the Durham County transit plan would otherwise go unused, so staff recommended reallocating them to current priorities while noting that earlier project shifts stemmed from operator, vehicle, and funding constraints and distinguishing between initially promised frequent service and later expansion phases already partially delivered.
-
Risk Manager Wilson reviewed risk management’s role in protecting Durham County through its major insurance policies—covering liabilities, property, workers’ compensation, and cyber risks—and described an aggressive, hands-on approach to working with brokers to ensure coverage fits the county’s risk appetite.
-
Risk Manager Wilson reported restructuring insurance coverage by eliminating duplicative policies, increasing the county’s cyber liability limit while keeping premium growth modest, and lowering ambulance deductibles in a way that shifted repair costs to insurers and produced an estimated $120,000 in savings.
-
-
Director Lockhart reported that Emergency Management had managed multiple storms while advancing a countywide radio project, and that EMS had responded to rising call volumes by completing a gap analysis and beginning implementation of a data-driven, tiered response model using both basic and advanced life support resources.
-
Director Lockhart reported that the Fire Marshal’s office had completed a comprehensive update of its inspectable properties list, met inspection requirements for hazardous occupancies and schools, created and staffed new positions while launching a community risk reduction program, and also described growing workload, budget and fleet pressures, and efforts to boost ambulance revenue through improved insurance contracts and a proposed rate increase.
-
Chief Komansky described how rising 911 call volumes were overloading the EMS system, leading to longer call-hold times, staff burnout, reduced unit reliability, and the need to pull a shift commander off street supervision to manage calls in real time while seeking a dedicated position for that role.
-
Chief Komansky described EMS recruitment and pay challenges, noting the loss of a strong paramedic candidate to a neighboring county with lighter call volume and similar compensation, an improved yet still significant 8.3% vacancy rate (15 positions), and starting wages for EMTs, advanced EMTs, and paramedics that lagged behind surrounding counties by up to about $3 per hour.
-
-
Commissioners discussed the absence of a county EMS station on the east side, the challenge of defining needed facilities and response targets without national medical response-time standards, and the need to develop local benchmarks focused on patient outcomes and triage-based prioritization during peak demand.
-
Assistant County Manager Brinson explained that staff were exploring interim options such as quick-response vehicles to get paramedics on scene faster, noting that many 911 calls did not require transport and that expanding brief on-site care and treat-without-transport models could more quickly improve EMS response times while longer-term system changes were underway.
More from this government
Nearby governments