Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By The Numbers
What Government Costs in
North Carolina Cities and Counties
FY 2008
M I C H A E L LOWR EY
M A R C H 2 010
By The Numbers
What Government Costs in
North Carolina Cities and Counties
FY 2008
M I C HAE L LOWR EY
March 2 010
2 Foreword
3 Executive Summary
4 Introduction
6
Rankings of N.C. Counties by
Combined Local Tax & Fee Burden
10
Rankings of N.C. Counties by
Combined Property Tax Burden
11 Appendix A: County-by-County Data
28 Appendix A Summary
30 Characteristics of N.C. Counties
32
Appendix B: Local Cost of Government
by Municipality and Population
42 Appendix C: Municipalities That Operate
Utility Systems
Appendix D: What Is Included in County
43
and Municipality Cost Averages
by the numbers | FOReWORD
Foreword
The current economic recession has contributed to the fiscal crises faced by most cities and coun-
ties in North Carolina, making this edition of By the Numbers (BTN) must reading for government officials
and taxpayers alike. With the facts given here, county commissioners and city council members can easily
compare their area’s tax burden to similarly situated cities or counties. For taxpayers, BTN is a starting
point for questions about taxes and spending, enabling them to hold their elected and appointed officials
accountable. This year, as in previous years, policy analyst Michael Lowrey continues the meticulous data
collection and reporting that make BTN an essential starting point for discussions of city and county finances
in North Carolina.
As always, readers should consider the numbers presented here in context. Cities and counties
differ in many ways, making cross-comparisons tricky. For example, not all cities provide solid waste
service, recreation facilities, or convention centers. In addition, property tax revenue bases differ. Some
coastal and mountain cities and counties have large numbers of part-time residents with seasonal homes;
they are not counted in the population figures, but they still pay property taxes. The differences matter, so
we recommend that readers make comparisons with cities and counties with similar demographics.
There is no doubt that the recession has reduced local revenues. Its impact is beginning to be
reflected in the period covered in this report, Fiscal Year 2008. The median county revenue per capita was
down slightly from $1,355 to $1,331 per capita. That figure represents a significant burden for a family of
four of $5,324, especially given the high levels of state and federal taxation and the high unemployment
during the current recession.
The John Locke Foundation urges local government officials and taxpayers to continue to ask
key questions: What is the proper role of local government? What are essential services, and what are
unnecessary frills? North Carolina’s families must face those kinds of questions every day in determining
what are the essential expenses and unnecessary frills for their own households. Most people would prob-
ably agree that local government’s core services are fire, police, and sanitation. But would they agree that
core services also include taxpayers’ subsidies to golf courses, convention centers, whitewater parks, and
even restaurants? Especially in times of economic recession, these questions become even more important.
While BTN does not answer these questions, it provides a baseline for discussing them. We at the John
Locke Foundation believe that a lively public debate is healthy, and we are glad to provide this report to
help foster and inform that debate.
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
Counties and towns are critical levels of gov- inflation during the first half of calender year 2008,
ernment in North Carolina, providing or admin- with prices peaking in June and July, just as the fiscal
istering many services while taking in billions of year ended. The price level as this report goes to
dollars of revenue. This is especially true as the print is lower.
state government has increasingly shifted more Nominal (non–inflation adjusted) local govern-
taxing authority to localities to make up for money ment revenues were up by some $600 million in FY
kept by the state. While the importance of county and 2008 as compared to the previous year. This increase
municipal government is great, obtaining compara- came almost entirely from increased property tax
tive data is difficult. To help address this problem, receipts; sales taxes revenues were up by nearly $100
By The Numbers provides information of how million, and other revenues actually decreased.
much local government costs in every city and Local tax and fee collections per capita stood
county in North Carolina. at $1,330.51 in the median county, compared with
an inflation-adjusted $1,355.25 the year previous.
That amounts to 4.71 percent of per-capita personal
Methodology
income, down from 2007 when it was 4.74 percent
Using the most recent data available on prop-
of per-capita personal income.
erty taxes, sales taxes, and miscellaneous taxes and
In FY 2008 the median total property tax burden
fees from the State Treasurer’s Annual Financial
by county in North Carolina was 2.29 percent of
Information Report (AFIR), we calculated county
personal income, or $650 per person. The range was
and municipal tax and fee burdens in two ways: 1)
from $1,919 per person in Dare County to $345 per
as a percentage of income (for counties), and 2) per
person in Swain County. County rates ranged from
capita (for counties and municipalities). We then
5.41 percent of personal income in Dare County to
constructed a set of rankings to view the cost of local
1.30 percent in Onslow County.
government more clearly.
It is important to note that incomes vary among
Although this analysis is by no means definitive,
counties and within counties over time, and this
it gives citizens more useful information for grap-
can affect the rankings. Counties of similar size and
pling with this complicated issue.
tax collections can vary in their burden because
of differences in per-capita incomes. Differences
Findings
among counties can also reflect the rate and extent
North Carolina collected $19 billion in state tax
of annexation, which places more taxpayers onto
and fee revenues for Fiscal Year 2008 (from July
municipal tax rolls.
1, 2007 to June 30, 2008), the latest year for which
Furthermore, data in this report are subject to
data are available. This represented 6.2 percent of
other reporting issues, which include revisions of
the personal income of the state’s citizens. In addi-
per-capita personal income estimates and localities
tion, local governments collected an additional
filing their required AFIR reports in an untimely
$15.1 billion in property, sales, and other taxes and
manner. For that reason, the figures for previous
fees, representing another 4.9 percent of personal
years in this edition of By The Numbers may not
income. Combined, they represent a state and local
exactly match those reported in previous editions. As
tax and fee burden of 11.1 percent. Federal collec-
such, the current edition’s figures take precedence.
tions raise the total tax burden on North Carolinians
to approximately 30.6 percent of personal income,
on average.
FY 2008 saw the state economy weaken as the
year progressed. In addition, there was significant
policy report
by the numbers | INTRODUCTION
The finances of North Carolina’s counties and sorted by population and ranked in four population
municipalities remain a critical public-policy issue. ranges (under 1,000; 1,000–4,999; 5,000–24,999; and
The state’s persistent budgetary difficulties continue 25,000 and over). Appendix B also gives data on prop-
to place a heavy burden on local governments and, erty, sales, and total local tax and fee collections.
by extension, local taxpayers. At the same time, the Appendix C (page 42) indicates whether munici-
current recession has impacted the amount of rev- palities with populations of 5,000 and above operate
enues localities receive from sales taxes and second- water and sewer systems or operate electrical systems
ary revenues sources. While local governments did or sell natural gas.
obtain more revenue from property taxes in FY 2008 Readers will immediately notice the relatively
than in FY 2007, recent real estate market correc- high per-capita property taxes in many resort com-
tions are likely to limit the ability of many localities munities in North Carolina. Given the nature of
to obtain additional revenue from this source. the data, that is not surprising. Second homes and
resorts certainly do appear on local tax registers.
Calculating burdens Because owners or renters only rarely live in these
Local governments in North Carolina are dwellings year-round, however, such localities typi-
required to file audited financial statements with cally have small permanent populations. High tax
the Department of State Treasurer each year. By values divided by a small permanent population will
The Numbers (BTN) builds upon this information, produce a high per-capita tax burden. Therefore,
which is available online at www.nctreasurer.com/ these numbers are not necessarily comparable to
DSTHome/StateAndLocalGov/AuditingAndReporting/ other tax-burden statistics.
AFIR.htm. A common comment about BTN is that it neces-
BTN examines property taxes, sales taxes, and sarily categorizes communities with higher sales-tax
total local government collections of all taxes and revenues as being high-tax communities. While
fees for counties and municipalities for FY 2008, the sales-tax revenues are (largely) what they are, locali-
latest year for which data are available. For each of ties retain the discretion to determine their overall
the three categories, a revenue-per-capita figure was revenues by altering their property-tax rates and
computed. Countywide figures were also calculated the other taxes and fees they collect. Thus higher
as a percentage of per-capita personal income. The sales-tax revenues allow a community to lower its
specific line-item codes used for each category are property-tax rates, provide more services, or both.
listed in Appendix D (page 43). While BTN shows the cost of local government,
The amount that the average citizen in each it does not attempt to measure the quantity or quality
North Carolina county pays for local government, of services provided in exchange for those dollars.
county and municipal, is presented as a dollar Nor does the report consider the additional out-of-
amount and a percentage of income on pages 6 pocket costs to individuals for services that their
though 10. local government may not provide. In unincorpo-
Appendix A (pages 11-31) focuses on counties rated areas, for example, homeowners may have to
by themselves, including data on property taxes, contract privately for garbage pickup, while those
sales taxes, and total county collections, both per living in a town or city may well receive this service,
capita and as a percentage of per-capita personal paid for through their municipal property and other
income. Counties are also ranked against each other. taxes. Municipalities may also use some of their tax
Summary data (page 28) and a list of municipalities dollars to provide a higher quality of fire protection,
in each county can also be found in Appendix A. which may translate into lower homeowners insur-
Appendix B (page 32-41) presents combined ance rates.
municipal and county tax burdens. Municipalities are Importantly, this means that whether a jurisdic-
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | INTRODUCTION
tion is ranked high or low in cost of government is capita). The counties of Mecklenburg ($2,687),
not the end of the debate over fiscal policy — it is Brunswick ($2,419), Currituck ($2,398), and Durham
merely the beginning. Citizens of North Carolina’s ($2,181) also ranked in the top five in revenue col-
cities and counties must decide whether the services lected per capita by county and municipal govern-
they receive are worth the price they and their fellow ments.
taxpayers (residential and business) are paying in Residents in the counties of Yancey ($770), Gates
local taxes and fees. ($822), Caswell ($859), Greene ($877), and Jones
For comparison, we have included a full set of ($882) paid the lowest average amounts in taxes and
results for counties and rankings for municipalities fees to local governments.
for FY 2007. To make fair comparisons, figures for
earlier fiscal years have been adjusted for inflation.
Local Tax Burden by Fiscal Year
Readers may obtain actual collections in FY 2007
by multiplying the listing by 0.97470. For FY 2006 FISCAL MEDIAN AVERAGE STATEWIDE
YEAR COUNTY COUNTY AVERAGE
partial results are included; the corresponding mul-
tiplier to adjust for inflation is 0.9252. 2006 4.71% 4.85% 5.05%
policy report
by the numbers | Rankings of N.C. Counties by Combined Local Tax & Fee Burden
Rankings of N.C. Counties by Combined Local Tax & Fee Burden Per Person
2008
Combined 2008 2007 Combined 2007 % Change 2006 Combined 2006
County Local Burden Rank Local Burden Rank 2007–2008 Local Burden rank
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Rankings of N.C. Counties by Combined Local Tax & Fee Burden
2008
Combined 2008 2007 Combined 2007 % Change 2006 Combined 2006
County Local Burden Rank Local Burden Rank 2007–2008 Local Burden rank
Note: Data are according to fiscal years. FY 2007 and 2006 values have been adjusted for inflation.
policy report
by the numbers | Rankings of N.C. Counties by Combined Local Tax & Fee Burden
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Rankings of N.C. Counties by Combined Local Tax & Fee Burden
2008 Combined 2007 Combined 2006 Combined
County Local Burden 2008 Local Burden 2007 % Change Local Burden 2006
as % of income Rank as % of income Rank 2007–2008 as % of income rank
policy report
10 by the numbers | Rankings of N.C. Counties by Combined property tax Burden
PER X
PER X
AS X
AS X
%
%
CAPITA TA
CAPITA TA
TA
TA
INCOME
INCOME
COMBINED
COMBINED
COMBINED
COMBINED
PROPERTY
PROPERTY
PROPERTY
PROPERTY
BURDEN
BURDEN
BURDEN
BURDEN
COUNTY
COUNTY
RANK
RANK
RANK
RANK
OF
OF
N.C. Median 2.29% — $650.21 — N.C. Median 2.29% — $650.21 —
Dare 5.41% 1 $1,919.36 1 Beaufort 2.25% 51 $657.18 48
Brunswick 4.16% 2 $1,222.84 5 Franklin 2.25% 52 $622.65 56
Avery 3.85% 3 $948.34 15 Martin 2.24% 53 $622.12 57
Hyde 3.83% 4 $1,044.95 9 Lincoln 2.24% 54 $680.66 44
Currituck 3.39% 5 $1,095.12 6 Lenoir 2.22% 55 $658.02 47
Durham 3.30% 6 $1,232.07 4 Henderson 2.22% 56 $744.60 35
Watauga 3.27% 7 $1,001.00 12 Johnston 2.21% 57 $690.13 42
Carteret 3.20% 8 $1,095.09 7 Montgomery 2.19% 58 $574.38 72
Warren 3.07% 9 $669.42 45 Stanly 2.18% 59 $629.31 54
Tyrrell 3.04% 10 $751.32 34 Chowan 2.18% 60 $646.26 50
Mecklenburg 3.03% 11 $1,376.95 2 Polk 2.18% 61 $842.90 24
Person 2.99% 12 $829.77 25 Vance 2.17% 62 $580.11 69
Pender 2.98% 13 $794.04 29 Madison 2.16% 63 $540.28 79
Macon 2.98% 14 $846.65 23 Pitt 2.16% 64 $668.67 46
Orange 2.97% 15 $1,303.66 3 Columbus 2.12% 65 $584.83 66
Guilford 2.93% 16 $1,085.12 8 Duplin 2.11% 66 $531.73 81
New Hanover 2.89% 17 $1,024.79 10 Chatham 2.10% 67 $878.17 19
Lee 2.88% 18 $864.09 20 Caldwell 2.09% 68 $570.35 73
Cabarrus 2.79% 19 $952.93 14 Yadkin 2.09% 69 $576.97 70
Buncombe 2.77% 20 $925.22 16 Washington 2.08% 70 $548.42 78
Transylvania 2.76% 21 $879.66 18 Randolph 2.07% 71 $561.18 76
Northampton 2.75% 22 $780.68 30 Davidson 2.04% 72 $599.67 64
Haywood 2.74% 23 $802.91 28 Yancey 2.04% 73 $464.36 88
Alleghany 2.73% 24 $708.45 37 Nash 2.04% 74 $638.91 53
Iredell 2.70% 25 $856.29 21 Robeson 2.01% 75 $461.46 89
Bladen 2.69% 26 $700.47 39 Davie 2.00% 76 $691.12 41
Union 2.65% 27 $849.70 22 Perquimans 1.99% 77 $560.63 77
Camden 2.65% 28 $803.90 27 Surry 1.99% 78 $568.06 75
Forsyth 2.64% 29 $991.80 13 Pasquotank 1.99% 79 $512.81 84
Cherokee 2.64% 30 $609.42 61 Harnett 1.97% 80 $523.26 82
Scotland 2.63% 31 $640.11 52 Wayne 1.96% 81 $568.66 74
Clay 2.62% 32 $641.99 51 Mitchell 1.94% 82 $459.95 90
Jackson 2.59% 33 $718.33 36 Sampson 1.93% 83 $513.14 83
Gaston 2.56% 34 $809.80 26 Burke 1.93% 84 $532.96 80
Wilson 2.50% 35 $771.34 31 Wilkes 1.90% 85 $582.48 68
Halifax 2.46% 36 $619.14 59 Gates 1.89% 86 $458.37 92
Catawba 2.46% 37 $763.24 32 Stokes 1.87% 87 $507.56 85
Wake 2.44% 38 $1,019.82 11 Cumberland 1.87% 88 $683.09 43
Alamance 2.38% 39 $702.51 38 McDowell 1.86% 89 $454.10 93
Rowan 2.37% 40 $698.31 40 Craven 1.85% 90 $616.02 60
Rockingham 2.37% 41 $654.16 49 Cleveland 1.77% 91 $497.75 86
Richmond 2.36% 42 $603.44 63 Bertie 1.75% 92 $449.35 94
Pamlico 2.35% 43 $752.11 33 Jones 1.69% 93 $486.53 87
Moore 2.35% 44 $886.66 17 Greene 1.66% 94 $389.90 97
Edgecombe 2.35% 45 $624.05 55 Caswell 1.55% 95 $402.43 96
Rutherford 2.33% 46 $621.52 58 Alexander 1.43% 96 $406.13 95
Hertford 2.31% 47 $575.90 71 Swain 1.41% 97 $344.75 98
Anson 2.31% 48 $604.56 62 Onslow 1.30% 98 $458.76 91
Ashe 2.30% 49 $597.99 65 Graham Did not submitted AFIR data
Granville 2.27% 50 $584.02 67 Hoke Did not submitted AFIR data
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix A: County-by-County Data 11
appendi x A
COMBINED COUNTY COUNTY ONLY COUNTY ONLY (RANK IN COMBINED LOCAL
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL (RANK) (RANK) REVENUE PER CAPITA)*
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix A: County-by-County Data 13
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix A: County-by-County Data 15
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix A: County-by-County Data 17
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix A: County-by-County Data 19
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix A: County-by-County Data 21
New Hanover County Rev./Income County Rev./Income Carolina Beach 5,974 (2)
2008 Burden: 6.10% 3.59% (23) 3.75% (19) Kure Beach 2,160 (20)
2007 Burden: 6.44% County Rev. Per Cap. County Rev. Per Cap. Wilmington 100,746 (5)
2006 Burden: 6.64% $1,271.83 (9) $1,324.41 (9) Wrightsville Beach 2,710 (9)
Property Tax/Income Property Tax/Income
Change FY07-08: -5.22% 2.16% (26) 2.25% (18)
Rank: 7 (2008), 7 (2007) Property Tax Per Cap. Property Tax Per Cap.
$764.64 (13) $792.64 (9)
Population: 189,922 Sales Tax/Income Sales Tax/Income
Per Capita Income: $35,461 0.82% (26) 0.88% (21)
Rank: 9 (Pop.), 12 (PCI) Sales Tax Per Capita Sales Tax Per Capita
$289.53 (6) $312.24 (6)
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix A: County-by-County Data 23
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix A: County-by-County Data 25
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix A: County-by-County Data 27
Appendix A Summary
COUNTY REVENUE As % of Prop. Tax Revenue As % of Sales Tax Revenue As % of
County PER CAPITA (RANK) PCPI (Rank) PER CAPITA (RANK) PCPI (Rank) PER CAPITA (RANK) PCPI (Rank)
Alamance $775.71 (80) 2.62% (84) $450.63 (81) 1.52% (86) $191.94 (68) 0.65% (64)
Alexander $761.14 (84) 2.68% (83) $388.33 (93) 1.37% (94) $202.87 (53) 0.72% (52)
Alleghany $1,099.04 (22) 4.24% (12) $677.66 (24) 2.62% (9) $227.27 (29) 0.88% (16)
Anson $810.61 (70) 3.09% (54) $521.70 (51) 1.99% (35) $153.95 (95) 0.59% (81)
Ashe $942.73 (45) 3.63% (22) $536.62 (48) 2.07% (30) $240.68 (17) 0.93% (12)
Avery $1,292.04 (8) 5.24% (5) $833.22 (7) 3.38% (4) $328.46 (3) 1.33% (2)
Beaufort $866.64 (55) 2.97% (63) $555.24 (44) 1.90% (43) $228.54 (26) 0.78% (36)
Bertie $737.75 (91) 2.88% (75) $422.08 (86) 1.65% (77) $154.78 (94) 0.60% (76)
Bladen $1,780.15 (4) 6.84% (3) $602.26 (40) 2.31% (18) $205.09 (48) 0.79% (34)
Brunswick $1,396.60 (5) 4.75% (7) $974.87 (4) 3.32% (5) $231.91 (22) 0.79% (33)
Buncombe $1,161.17 (17) 3.48% (26) $697.00 (20) 2.09% (29) $266.87 (14) 0.80% (32)
Burke $668.09 (97) 2.42% (95) $414.75 (88) 1.50% (89) $99.64 (98) 0.36% (98)
Cabarrus $1,011.35 (34) 2.97% (65) $632.76 (32) 1.86% (52) $224.50 (32) 0.66% (62)
Caldwell $747.93 (89) 2.75% (81) $455.36 (79) 1.67% (73) $176.69 (81) 0.65% (65)
Camden $1,227.72 (12) 4.04% (15) $803.90 (9) 2.65% (8) $168.21 (88) 0.55% (90)
Carteret $1,227.52 (13) 3.58% (24) $769.41 (11) 2.25% (20) $276.99 (11) 0.81% (28)
Caswell $764.97 (83) 2.95% (67) $389.33 (92) 1.50% (90) $171.68 (85) 0.66% (61)
Catawba $974.43 (39) 3.14% (50) $531.59 (49) 1.71% (69) $230.11 (23) 0.74% (42)
Chatham $1,226.14 (14) 2.93% (70) $824.51 (8) 1.97% (37) $209.71 (44) 0.50% (94)
Cherokee $1,042.51 (30) 4.51% (8) $556.29 (43) 2.41% (17) $266.95 (13) 1.15% (3)
Chowan $1,085.42 (25) 3.67% (19) $553.90 (45) 1.87% (51) $228.01 (27) 0.77% (37)
Clay $1,105.07 (20) 4.51% (9) $632.96 (31) 2.58% (11) $279.65 (9) 1.14% (4)
Cleveland $721.67 (92) 2.56% (90) $390.45 (91) 1.39% (93) $163.01 (90) 0.58% (85)
Columbus $870.69 (54) 3.16% (48) $516.39 (54) 1.87% (50) $185.78 (74) 0.67% (58)
Craven $857.07 (58) 2.58% (88) $440.94 (83) 1.33% (96) $208.82 (45) 0.63% (73)
Cumberland $827.78 (65) 2.26% (97) $489.35 (63) 1.34% (95) $177.94 (78) 0.49% (95)
Currituck $2,163.21 (2) 6.69% (4) $1,095.12 (2) 3.39% (3) $346.33 (2) 1.07% (7)
Dare $2,590.24 (1) 7.30% (1) $1,416.96 (1) 3.99% (1) $535.11 (1) 1.51% (1)
Davidson $742.70 (90) 2.53% (92) $471.84 (67) 1.61% (79) $175.52 (83) 0.60% (78)
Davie $997.45 (37) 2.88% (74) $624.03 (37) 1.80% (58) $192.64 (65) 0.56% (89)
Duplin $844.91 (61) 3.35% (32) $464.25 (72) 1.84% (56) $185.60 (75) 0.74% (44)
Durham $1,107.07 (19) 2.97% (64) $798.30 (10) 2.14% (27) $220.10 (37) 0.59% (79)
Edgecombe $819.41 (67) 3.08% (55) $464.10 (73) 1.74% (64) $155.26 (93) 0.58% (84)
Forsyth $968.11 (40) 2.57% (89) $643.61 (29) 1.71% (70) $217.01 (38) 0.58% (86)
Franklin $960.12 (43) 3.47% (27) $578.85 (42) 2.09% (28) $198.52 (60) 0.72% (51)
Gaston $967.55 (41) 3.06% (56) $611.25 (39) 1.94% (40) $196.15 (61) 0.62% (74)
Gates $757.55 (85) 3.12% (52) $458.37 (76) 1.89% (46) $176.46 (82) 0.73% (49)
Graham Did not submit AFIR data
Granville $750.00 (88) 2.91% (71) $482.40 (65) 1.87% (49) $162.22 (92) 0.63% (72)
Greene $689.57 (95) 2.94% (68) $369.78 (95) 1.58% (81) $170.80 (86) 0.73% (46)
Guilford $961.46 (42) 2.60% (85) $665.03 (26) 1.80% (59) $191.19 (69) 0.52% (93)
Halifax $841.66 (62) 3.35% (34) $481.39 (66) 1.91% (42) $201.40 (55) 0.80% (31)
Harnett $876.64 (53) 3.29% (36) $417.64 (87) 1.57% (85) $194.13 (63) 0.73% (45)
Haywood $1,066.33 (26) 3.63% (21) $654.76 (28) 2.23% (21) $243.07 (16) 0.83% (25)
Henderson $1,061.06 (27) 3.17% (47) $630.88 (33) 1.88% (47) $227.75 (28) 0.68% (57)
Hertford $798.15 (74) 3.20% (41) $460.42 (75) 1.85% (54) $213.76 (42) 0.86% (18)
Hoke Did not submit AFIR data
Hyde $1,896.02 (3) 6.94% (2) $1,044.95 (3) 3.83% (2) $298.17 (5) 1.09% (5)
Iredell $1,006.86 (35) 3.17% (45) $614.83 (38) 1.94% (39) $238.59 (19) 0.75% (39)
Jackson $1,186.23 (15) 4.27% (11) $680.27 (23) 2.45% (15) $299.65 (4) 1.08% (6)
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | appendix a summary 29
Johnston $939.90 (46) 3.01% (59) $579.41 (41) 1.85% (53) $225.08 (31) 0.72% (50)
Jones $700.98 (93) 2.43% (94) $457.90 (77) 1.59% (80) $162.70 (91) 0.56% (88)
Lee $958.12 (44) 3.19% (43) $655.54 (27) 2.18% (23) $200.22 (58) 0.67% (59)
Lenoir $846.04 (60) 2.86% (76) $510.42 (56) 1.72% (66) $203.20 (51) 0.69% (56)
Lincoln $1,045.93 (29) 3.43% (28) $625.55 (36) 2.05% (31) $221.81 (36) 0.73% (47)
Macon $1,249.97 (11) 4.39% (10) $728.23 (15) 2.56% (12) $287.45 (7) 1.01% (8)
Madison $778.87 (78) 3.11% (53) $487.25 (64) 1.95% (38) $146.96 (97) 0.59% (82)
Martin $894.35 (49) 3.22% (39) $505.44 (58) 1.82% (57) $235.68 (20) 0.85% (19)
McDowell $768.24 (82) 3.14% (49) $401.15 (90) 1.64% (78) $221.94 (35) 0.91% (14)
Mecklenburg $1,383.36 (6) 3.04% (57) $929.13 (6) 2.04% (33) $286.80 (8) 0.63% (70)
Mitchell $793.98 (76) 3.35% (33) $407.31 (89) 1.72% (67) $239.06 (18) 1.01% (10)
Montgomery $796.65 (75) 3.03% (58) $492.17 (61) 1.87% (48) $169.87 (87) 0.65% (66)
Moore $977.62 (38) 2.59% (87) $629.98 (34) 1.67% (74) $222.99 (34) 0.59% (80)
Nash $754.63 (87) 2.41% (96) $470.74 (68) 1.50% (91) $188.07 (71) 0.60% (77)
New Hanover $1,271.83 (9) 3.59% (23) $764.64 (13) 2.16% (26) $289.53 (6) 0.82% (26)
Northampton $1,126.17 (18) 3.97% (16) $714.20 (17) 2.52% (14) $153.21 (96) 0.54% (91)
Onslow $666.04 (98) 1.89% (98) $332.94 (97) 0.95% (98) $206.66 (46) 0.59% (83)
Orange $1,317.06 (7) 3.00% (60) $957.95 (5) 2.18% (22) $178.08 (77) 0.41% (97)
Pamlico $1,089.23 (23) 3.40% (30) $694.08 (21) 2.17% (25) $203.04 (52) 0.63% (69)
Pasquotank $863.69 (56) 3.34% (35) $384.08 (94) 1.49% (92) $216.93 (39) 0.84% (22)
Pender $1,001.01 (36) 3.75% (18) $673.90 (25) 2.53% (13) $200.36 (57) 0.75% (41)
Perquimans $892.51 (50) 3.17% (46) $519.45 (53) 1.85% (55) $187.33 (73) 0.67% (60)
Person $1,162.20 (16) 4.19% (13) $723.05 (16) 2.61% (10) $223.08 (33) 0.81% (29)
Pitt $803.23 (73) 2.59% (86) $466.94 (69) 1.51% (88) $195.17 (62) 0.63% (71)
Polk $1,103.22 (21) 2.85% (77) $734.37 (14) 1.90% (44) $200.19 (59) 0.52% (92)
Randolph $693.49 (94) 2.55% (91) $427.65 (85) 1.57% (84) $177.28 (79) 0.65% (63)
Richmond $814.73 (68) 3.19% (44) $503.57 (59) 1.97% (36) $192.23 (67) 0.75% (40)
Robeson $680.04 (96) 2.96% (66) $361.57 (96) 1.58% (82) $192.42 (66) 0.84% (23)
Rockingham $808.55 (72) 2.93% (69) $489.91 (62) 1.78% (60) $175.33 (84) 0.64% (68)
Rowan $811.14 (69) 2.76% (80) $521.22 (52) 1.77% (61) $167.88 (89) 0.57% (87)
Rutherford $862.19 (57) 3.23% (37) $512.64 (55) 1.92% (41) $214.46 (40) 0.80% (30)
Sampson $789.86 (77) 2.97% (62) $453.75 (80) 1.71% (71) $193.37 (64) 0.73% (48)
Scotland $886.31 (52) 3.64% (20) $552.99 (46) 2.27% (19) $214.21 (41) 0.88% (15)
Stanly $809.37 (71) 2.81% (78) $493.69 (60) 1.71% (68) $176.74 (80) 0.61% (75)
Stokes $755.02 (86) 2.78% (79) $457.50 (78) 1.69% (72) $190.56 (70) 0.70% (53)
Surry $913.08 (47) 3.20% (40) $449.06 (82) 1.58% (83) $249.45 (15) 0.88% (17)
Swain $839.91 (63) 3.43% (29) $313.11 (98) 1.28% (97) $229.77 (25) 0.94% (11)
Transylvania $1,261.89 (10) 3.96% (17) $768.50 (12) 2.41% (16) $267.71 (12) 0.84% (21)
Tyrrell $1,019.54 (33) 4.13% (14) $700.84 (18) 2.84% (7) $201.15 (56) 0.81% (27)
Union $1,024.73 (32) 3.19% (42) $698.76 (19) 2.18% (24) $204.58 (49) 0.64% (67)
Vance $833.36 (64) 3.12% (51) $461.82 (74) 1.73% (65) $226.48 (30) 0.85% (20)
Wake $1,048.55 (28) 2.51% (93) $693.12 (22) 1.66% (75) $187.45 (72) 0.45% (96)
Warren $1,040.35 (31) 4.78% (6) $635.47 (30) 2.92% (6) $182.37 (76) 0.84% (24)
Washington $848.73 (59) 3.22% (38) $464.80 (70) 1.77% (62) $206.48 (47) 0.78% (35)
Watauga $1,089.10 (24) 3.56% (25) $627.41 (35) 2.05% (32) $277.97 (10) 0.91% (13)
Wayne $778.65 (79) 2.69% (82) $437.60 (84) 1.51% (87) $201.45 (54) 0.70% (54)
Wilkes $887.75 (51) 2.90% (73) $509.17 (57) 1.66% (76) $235.35 (21) 0.77% (38)
Wilson $895.97 (48) 2.91% (72) $541.33 (47) 1.76% (63) $212.50 (43) 0.69% (55)
Yadkin $827.17 (66) 3.00% (61) $521.81 (50) 1.89% (45) $203.28 (50) 0.74% (43)
Yancey $770.06 (81) 3.38% (31) $464.36 (71) 2.04% (34) $230.05 (24) 1.01% (9)
policy report
30 by the numbers | characteristics of n.c. counties
PER CAPITA POP. % Change TAX RATE REVALUE
County PERSONAL INCOME Rank POPULATION Rank 2000–2008 ACTUAL/EFFECT. YEAR
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | characteristics of n.c. counties 31
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix b: Local Government Costs by Municipality 33
policy report
34 by the numbers | Appendix b: Local Government Costs by Municipality
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix b: Local Government Costs by Municipality 35
policy report
36 by the numbers | Appendix b: Local Government Costs by Municipality
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix b: Local Government Costs by Municipality 37
Brunswick Columbus $1,176.91 164 171 $584.55 174 179 $360.05 101 126
Oak Ridge Guilford $1,160.65 165 169 $804.84 110 107 $227.66 185 188
Sharpsburg Nasha $1,145.54 166 173 $588.92 172 170 $317.46 144 157
Badin Stanly $1,143.74 167 172 $635.22 165 169 $355.62 108 101
Snow Hill Greene $1,117.07 168 174 $559.36 179 177 $267.01 177 182
Yanceyville Caswell $1,107.21 169 170 $523.25 183 186 $226.90 186 190
Drexel Burke $1,095.24 170 177 $583.34 176 180 $287.60 168 178
Franklinville Randolph $1,079.42 171 184 $527.47 182 187 $399.68 62 106
Wesley Chapel Union $1,074.47 172 176 $723.25 137 157 $212.90 188 193
Glen Alpine Burke $1,069.37 173 183 $588.72 173 182 $284.62 172 173
Greenlevel Alamance $1,066.74 174 178 $532.51 181 181 $384.68 78 75
Mineral Springs Union $1,065.44 175 175 $722.58 138 156 $213.67 187 192
Hemby Bridge Union $1,060.32 176 179 $713.78 144 160 $209.63 189 194
Fairview Union $1,049.96 177 180 $712.39 145 161 $209.50 190 195
Windsor Bertie $1,039.62 178 154 $478.35 188 185 $270.82 175 143
Hildebran Burke $1,035.62 179 189 $564.81 178 184 $287.03 169 174
Tobaccoville Forsyth $1,030.77 180 181 $675.79 157 154 $228.25 184 191
Boiling Springs Cleveland $1,008.44 181 182 $565.54 177 178 $236.71 183 189
Polkton Anson $997.96 182 187 $551.01 180 183 $307.15 154 152
Swepsonville Alamance $983.60 183 190 $450.63 191 191 $378.49 81 105
Wentworth Rockingham $983.36 184 185 $489.91 187 188 $350.13 120 118
Wallburg Davidson $978.72 185 192 $512.32 184 192 $350.66 118 119
Stokesdale Guilford $971.35 186 186 $665.03 160 158 $191.19 192 196
Eastoverf Cumberland $957.62 187 — $594.30 171 — $202.70 191 —
Rutherford College Burke $951.54 188 191 $500.87 186 190 $289.30 166 175
Midway Davidson $951.32 189 193 $507.39 185 193 $348.60 123 129
Red Oak Nash $941.25 190 188 $470.74 189 189 $374.21 89 93
Gamewell Caldwell $923.10 191 195 $455.36 190 196 $351.73 116 138
Connelly Springs Burke $908.03 192 196 $447.14 192 194 $287.97 167 172
Belwood Cleveland $729.96 193 197 $390.45 193 195 $163.01 193 197
policy report
38 by the numbers | Appendix b: Local Government Costs by Municipality
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix b: Local Government Costs by Municipality 39
policy report
40 by the numbers | Appendix b: Local Government Costs by Municipality
Winton Hertford $1,159.40 144 141 $631.94 147 145 $295.22 157 147
Linden Cumberland $1,158.27 145 46 $577.16 166 161 $356.24 91 98
Falkland Pitt $1,148.22 146 136 $604.94 157 157 $392.76 50 55
Speed Edgecombe $1,142.59 147 163 $604.24 158 162 $314.84 127 142
Sedalia Guilford $1,132.84 148 153 $785.18 87 73 $226.96 193 198
Everetts Martin $1,129.19 149 148 $664.21 133 119 $310.51 135 169
Walstonburg Greene $1,125.34 150 164 $578.69 165 169 $270.24 173 181
Hamilton Martin $1,124.83 151 155 $661.13 134 125 $301.82 150 176
Grantsboro Pamlico $1,120.48 152 191 $715.46 106 140 $210.52 196 204
Alliance Pamlico $1,112.17 153 194 $694.08 114 149 $203.04 198 206
Falcon Cumberland $1,109.52 154 156 $551.37 172 178 $361.21 85 88
Dover Craven $1,103.06 155 172 $536.50 176 185 $255.33 178 185
LOWER BURDEN — LOWER QUARTILE
Leggett Edgecombe $1,102.44 156 171 $581.54 163 164 $320.85 120 139
Cedar Rock Caldwell $1,101.83 157 185 $622.27 150 172 $350.62 99 114
Turkey Sampson $1,094.27 158 168 $525.13 178 183 $386.12 59 51
Red Cross Stanly $1,092.41 159 170 $595.52 162 166 $357.69 89 90
Dobbins Heights Richmond $1,091.52 160 178 $573.90 168 181 $385.86 64 59
Rhodhiss Burke $1,088.09 161 181 $634.51 146 168 $282.19 168 178
Danbury Stokes $1,088.07 162 169 $682.06 120 123 $286.52 165 167
Castalia Nash $1,085.45 163 165 $514.32 182 190 $375.99 75 93
Harrells Sampson $1,077.33 164 177 $505.48 184 193 $387.43 56 69
Wade Cumberland $1,077.26 165 160 $568.46 169 163 $340.55 104 91
Ossipee Alamance $1,073.16 166 174 $521.67 179 184 $384.62 67 68
Grover Cleveland $1,068.82 167 159 $580.53 164 159 $250.76 181 194
Bear Grass Martin $1,064.70 168 150 $622.09 151 117 $287.11 164 172
Powellsville Bertie $1,062.47 169 173 $498.05 189 197 $317.55 125 116
Maysville Jones $1,061.48 170 186 $642.34 142 142 $230.90 192 202
McFarlan Anson $1,058.05 171 189 $612.68 154 175 $309.44 138 128
Boardman Columbus $1,057.03 172 180 $529.66 177 194 $358.85 86 111
Middleburg Vance $1,056.88 173 195 $536.75 175 182 $261.40 175 182
Ansonville Anson $1,054.34 174 167 $599.87 159 174 $308.16 139 146
Peachland Anson $1,054.33 175 146 $596.16 160 177 $317.09 126 126
Roxobel Bertie $1,043.27 176 158 $540.03 174 180 $300.54 151 119
Hoffman Richmond $1,041.53 177 183 $549.70 173 195 $372.76 79 66
Pollocksville Jones $1,040.91 178 182 $696.86 113 112 $247.09 183 195
Hookerton Greene $1,035.29 179 187 $515.28 181 189 $242.48 186 196
Miltone Caswell $1,030.36 180 — $494.35 192 — $253.77 179 —
Proctorville Robeson $1,022.08 181 190 $432.81 200 210 $458.57 30 45
Lumber Bridge Robeson $1,020.73 182 152 $503.06 186 199 $390.88 51 74
Conetoe Edgecombe $1,018.82 183 184 $506.53 183 192 $310.24 137 138
Ellenboro Rutherford $1,012.38 184 201 $595.71 161 187 $252.47 180 192
Trenton Jones $1,005.37 185 176 $668.88 131 118 $245.73 184 184
Hassell Martin $1,001.45 186 188 $574.80 167 155 $272.10 172 187
Askewville Bertie $981.78 187 140 $518.86 180 188 $302.02 149 115
Momeyer Nash $978.10 188 196 $498.47 188 200 $377.37 72 80
Whitsett Guilford $967.08 189 198 $665.03 132 137 $191.19 201 210
Kelford Bertie $963.68 190 179 $502.58 187 186 $299.42 153 122
Staley Randolph $946.31 191 204 $497.80 190 206 $354.65 94 94
East Laurinburg Scotland $941.48 192 193 $552.99 171 171 $214.21 195 203
Cove City Craven $931.55 193 203 $489.43 193 201 $232.09 191 199
Dortches Nash $930.78 194 199 $470.74 196 204 $364.21 82 83
Kittrell Vance $920.33 195 208 $494.45 191 196 $243.79 185 191
Raynham Robeson $913.83 196 202 $405.07 203 215 $382.70 68 77
Rennerte Robeson $898.17 197 — $382.29 206 — $384.75 65 —
Lawndale Cleveland $878.65 198 206 $476.92 195 202 $197.40 199 209
Orrum Robeson $877.17 199 209 $361.57 207 217 $385.99 61 71
Kingstown Cleveland $860.52 200 210 $479.22 194 198 $204.04 197 207
Earl Cleveland $824.39 201 211 $461.48 197 203 $194.31 200 211
Lattimore Cleveland $807.08 202 212 $449.96 198 207 $188.88 202 212
Waco Cleveland $794.08 203 213 $436.46 199 208 $183.25 203 213
Fallston Cleveland $764.94 204 214 $421.11 201 209 $175.62 204 214
Polkville Cleveland $754.83 205 216 $413.27 202 211 $173.35 205 215
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix b: Local Government Costs by Municipality 41
Patterson Springs Cleveland $735.66 206 218 $390.45 204 213 $163.01 206 217
Mooresboro Cleveland $730.55 207 217 $390.45 204 213 $163.01 206 217
Notes:
a) Municipality has at least 1,000 residents in two counties; is listed under county in which the greater number of residents live.
b) Results could not be calculated in part; municipality had not submitted FY 2008 AFIR by February 1, 2010.
c) Results could not be calculated; municipality did not submit FY 2008 and FY 2007 AFIRs by February 1, 2010.
d) Results could not be calculated; though municipality submitted its AFIRs in a timely manner, the county in which it is located did not.
e) Results for FY 2007 could not be calculated; municipality had not submitted FY 2007 AFIR by February 1, 2010.
f) Results for FY 2007 could not be calculated; municipality incorporated during that fiscal year.
policy report
42 by the numbers | Appendix c: MUNICIPALITIES THAT PROVIDE UTILITIES
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
by the numbers | Appendix d 43
appendi x d
Annual Financial Information Report (AFIR) Line Items Used in Analysis
County MuNIcipality
REVENUE LINE REVENUE LINE
TYPE REF. DESCRIPTION TYPE REF. DESCRIPTION
Property Tax 10 Current Collections of Unit-Wide Levy Property Tax 10 Current Collections of Unit-Wide Levy
11 Current Collections of Special 11 Current Collections of Special
Tax District Tax Districts
12 Prior Years’ Levy Collections 12 Prior Years’ Levy Collections
13 Penalties and Interest 13 Penalties and Interest
14 Collections of Taxes Previously 14 Collections of Taxes Previously
Written Off Written Off
104 Supplemental Schools Taxes Current
Sales Tax 19 1% Local Government Option Sales Levy Collections
20 1/2% Local Government Option Sales 105 Prior Years’ Levy Collections
Tax (Article 40)
21 1/2% Local Government Option Sales Sales Tax 16 1% Local Government Option Sales Tax
Tax (Article 42) 17 1/2% Local Government Option Sales
21.1 1/2% Local Government Option Sales Tax (Article 40)
Tax (Article 44) 18 1/2% Local Government Option Sales
Tax (Article 42)
Total The above plus: 18.5 1/2% Local Government Option Sales
Revenues 15 Animal Tax Tax (Article 44)
16 Deed Stamp Excise Tax
17 Real Property Transfer Tax Total The above plus:
18 Scrap Tire Disposal Tax Revenues 15 Animal Tax
22 Local Occupancy Tax 19.1 Occupational & Business Licensing &
23 Prepared Food Tax Permit Taxes
24 911 Charges 19.2 All Other Privileges and Permits
25 Gross Receipts Tax on Short Term 20 Auto Licenses
Leased Vehicles 21 Vehicle Tax for Public Transportation
26 White Goods Disposal Tax 22 Other Licenses (Including CATV)
27 Privilege Licenses 23 Local Occupancy Tax
28 Other Licenses (Including CATV) 24 Prepared Food Tax
81 Building Permits 25 911 Charges
82 Register of Deeds 26 Gross Short Term Lease and Rental Tax
83 Inspection Fees 71 Building Permits
84 Concealed Handgun Permits 72 Inspection Fees
85 Other Permits 72.1 Amusements Licensing and Permit Taxes
86 Parking Revenues 73 Other Permits
87 Rents and Royalties 74 Parking Revenues
89 Fire Protection Charges 75 Rents and Royalties
90 Solid Waste 77 Fire Protection Charges
91 Ambulance and Rescue Squad Charges 78 Solid Waste
92 Cemeteries 79 Ambulance and Rescue Squad Charges
93 Recreation Service Revenues 80 Cemeteries
94 Library Service Revenues 81 Recreation Service Revenues
95 Other Cultural and Rec. Service Rev. 82 Library Service Revenues
96 Client and Third Party Payments—Health 83 Other Cultural and Rec. Service
97 Mental Health Revenues
98 Social Services 84 Mass Transit — City Operated
99 County Home 85 Other Sales and Services
100 Mass Transit—County Operated 86 Water and Sewer Charges*
101 Other Sales and Services 88.1 Storm water fees
102 Water and Sewer Charges* 91 Special Assessments
105 Special Assessments 92 Private Contributions and Donations
106 Private Contrib. and Other Donations 96 ABC Mixed Drink Surcharge
109 1 Cent and 5 Cent Bottle Tax 97 ABC Profit Distribution
110 Mixed Drink Surcharge 98 Other Miscellaneous Revenues
111 ABC Profit Distribution
112 Other Miscellaneous Revenues * Excluded from municipality- and county-only
analyses.
policy report
About the Author
Michael Lowrey is an economist and a former instructor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte
and Wingate University. A policy analyst in the fields of economics and regulatory policy for the John Locke
Foundation as well as associate editor of Carolina Journal, Lowrey has written numerous articles over the
years on such topics as economic policy, education, welfare, and transportation, and has appeared in over
100 newspapers such as The Christian Science Monitor, The Charlotte Observer, The News & Observer of Raleigh,
and The News & Record of Greensboro. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill and his masters in economics from North Carolina State University.
To pursue these goals, JLF operates a number of programs and services to provide information and analysis
to policymakers, civic and community leaders, activists, and the news media. These services and programs
include research reports on policy issues such as taxes, education, health care, regulation, and economic
development; a media outlet, Carolina Journal, with an audience of 200,000 North Carolinians receiving
print, radio, video, or online editions at CarolinaJournal.com; a quarterly member newsletter, The Locke
Letter, and a variety of blogs, websites, and media outreach efforts; and regular luncheons, policy briefings,
panel discussions, and other events held throughout the year in Raleigh, Charlotte, the Triad, Asheville,
Wilmington, and other North Carolina communities.
The John Locke Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity and is funded solely from voluntary
contributions from individuals, corporations, and charitable foundations. It was founded in 1990. For more
information, visit www.JohnLocke.org.
“To prejudge other men’s notions
before we have looked into them
is not to show their darkness
but to put out our own eyes.”
JOHN LOCKE ( 1632–1704 )
Author, Two Treatises of Government and
Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina