City and County Budget Crises: When in A Hole, First Stop Digging

regional brief No.
73
City and County

Budget Crises
When in a hole, first stop digging
Joseph Coletti and Dr. Michael Sanera

March 2009
Quick Facts
for Truth 200 W. Morgan, #200

Raleigh, NC 27601
• This report documents the change in locally generated revenues of
98 North Carolina counties* and the 30 largest N.C. cities between
2002 and 2007.
• Locally generated revenues increased faster than population and
inflation in 96 of 98 counties and 24 of 30 cities. In Union County,
revenue increased 48 percent faster than population and inflation
over five years.
• For that reason, many counties and cities are having financial dif-
ficulties because they have spent taxpayer revenues on unnecessary
or low-priority projects.
• In addition, the public has recognized that counties must live with
phone: 919-828-3876 in their means. Since 2007, voters have rejected tax increases 66
fax: 919-821-5117 of the 74 times that county commissioners asked for a tax increase.
www.johnlocke.org That is almost 90 percent of the time.
The John Locke Foundation is a • Furthermore, this report provides information that is an essential
501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan research
institute dedicated to improving public
starting point for citizens to hold their elected and unelected offi-
policy debate in North Carolina. Viewpoints cials accountable for their spending decisions.
expressed by authors do not necessarily
reflect those of the staff or board of
the Locke Foundation. • County and city officials must do more to put budget and revenue
information on the Internet in easily accessible formats.
* The counties of Graham and Scotland failed to report revenue information for
Fiscal Year 2007 to the State Treasurer’s Office.
City and county budget crises
Introduction collected 48 percent more than necessary

The current economic recession has left to keep up with population and inflation.
many North Carolina cities and counties An average family of four in Union County
strapped for money. As economic activity needed $1,876 more income in 2007 than
declines, sales taxes, fees, and other revenue in 2002 just to keep up with the increase in
sources decline. Many city councils and county taxes and fees.
county commissions are considering ways A decrease in per-person, inflation-
to increase taxes, a very bad idea during the adjusted revenue is not always what it seems,
recession. Others are asking the federal gov- however. Fayetteville, for example, expe-
ernments to bail them out. rienced a 19 percent decrease in adjusted rev-
Many North Carolina cities and coun- enues between FY 2002 and FY 2007. This
ties have only themselves to blame. During decrease owes in large part to Fayetteville’s
the period (2002-07) before the recession, annexation of about 42,000 people and 27
locally generated revenues in many cities and square miles into the city. Thus the number
counties increased faster than population and of people in the city increased more rapidly
inflation would warrant (see Figures 1 and 2 than the tax revenues generated by those
and Appendices A and B). Instead of cut- people.
ting taxes or putting money into “rainy day” In 2007 the North Carolina General
funds, they started or expanded unnecessary Assembly gave counties the option to raise
or low-priority projects. the sales tax by one-fourth of a cent or to
This report provides graphic illustra- triple the land-transfer tax from 0.2 to 0.6
tions of revenue trends in 98 North Carolina percent, but only after a vote of the people.
counties1 and in the state’s 30 largest cities Since then county commissioners in 57 coun-
(see Appendix). As a baseline, the graphs start ties have tried to make the case that their
with fiscal year (FY) 2002 locally generated counties needed more revenue (see Figure 3).
revenue (excluding transfers from the state In 15 counties, voters rejected a tax
and federal governments) for each county increase more than once. After Hertford
or city. This amount is adjusted for popula- and Henderson voters rejected tax increases
tion growth and inflation through FY 2007 twice, commissioners had the audacity to
(the red line on the graph). We label this line hold a third vote — which they also lost.
“Growth pays for itself ” because even in So 15 counties have asked voters for tax
fast-growing counties, the local government, increases 32 times, and voters have sent a
if it maintained this level, would be receiving resounding message to commissioners by
revenues with the same purchasing power per rejecting tax increases in 31 of the 32 votes.
person as it did in 2002. Since 2007, voters in 57 counties have voted
We also provide a line that shows the 74 times, rejecting tax increases in 66 of
actual inflation-adjusted locally generated those votes (or nearly 90 percent of the time).
revenue collected per person in each county
or city (the blue line). Figures 1 and 2 rank Conclusion
the counties and cities according to growth in Counties and cities obviously have multiple
inflation-adjusted locally generated revenue factors that influence their tax revenues, so
per person, and they show that 96 of the 98 measuring locally generated revenue for an
counties and 24 of the 30 largest cities col- area over time cannot give the full picture.
lected more revenue than what would have But looking at the growth of local govern-
been necessary to keep up with increases in ment revenues adjusted for inflation and
inflation and population. population gives citizens enough information
In some cases they take in significantly to allow them to hold elected and unelected
more revenue. Union County, for example, officials accountable for their taxing and
J o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n
spending decisions. local governments in North Carolina. Those

Citizens should ask: Do those revenues counties and cities, however, must do a bet-
pay for essential services such as public safety, ter job at making their operations, budgets,
or are they used for special amenities aimed contracts, and programs more transparent
at a small number of residents, such as golf to their residents. Citizens should be able to
courses and equestrian centers? Are new find county and city budgets, contracts, and
schools being built in the most cost-effective checkbook records on the Internet in eas-
manner, or do the new projectss contain frills ily understandable formats; they shouldn’t
unrelated to providing quality education, have to be CPAs to understand the financial
such as building two-story glass atriums, add- records of their government.
ing middle school performing-arts auditori- Regional Brief No. 73 • March 4, 2009
ums, or buying 100 acres for a high school (Rev. December 8, 2009)
when 50 would do? Are tax increases neces-
The authors wish to thank John Locke Foundation Research
sary, or should the county or city spend pres-
Intern Clint Atkins for his assistance on this report.
ent revenues more efficiently and effectively?
In a representative democracy, citizens
control their governments. But to do so Note
properly, they must have access to informa- 1. The counties of Graham and Scotland failed to
tion on what their governments are doing. report revenue information for FY 2007 to the State
This report helps fill this need for citizens of Treasurer’s Office.
regional brief
Figure 1. Inflation-Adjusted Change in County Revenue Per Person, FY2002-FY2007

Percent Change Change in Revenue Percent Change Percent Change Change in Revenue Percent Change
Rank County* in Revenue (Dollars) in Population Rank County* in Revenue (Dollars) in Population
1. Union 48% $373 30.5% 47. Transylvania 15% $153 3.5%
2. Watauga 43% $314 1.5% 52. Currituck 14% $294 25.0%
3. Clay 39% $282 13.1% 52. Halifax 14% $111 –2.8%
4. Onslow†§ 35% $167 7.7% 52. Dare 14% $334 11.4%
4. Cherokee 35% $248 9.0% 52. Lenoir 14% $99 –1.9%
6. Avery 34% $302 2.9% 52. Gates 14% $93 9.8%
7. Pender 32% $250 15.9% 57. Vance 13% $93 0.4%
7. McDowell 32% $171 2.0% 57. Warren 13% $121 0.0%
9. Hoke 31% $163 21.1% 57. Bladen 13% $185 1.2%
10. Chowan 30% $243 3.6% 57. Duplin 13% $99 5.5%
10. Polk 30% $241 1.7% 57. Stanly 13% $92 0.7%
12. Alamance 29% $161 4.5% 57. Stokes 13% $81 2.6%
12. Sampson 29% $175 4.9% 57. Robeson 13% $78 3.8%
12. Jackson 29% $245 7.9% — County Average 12% $106 8.1%
12. Columbus 29% $184 –0.1% 64. Macon 12% $133 8.6%
16. Perquimans 28% $224 7.6% 64. Lee† 12% $96 9.8%
17. Haywood 28% $217 3.6% 64. Forsyth 12% $96 6.8%
18. Orange 27% $266 4.6% 67. Davie 11% $105 10.2%
18. Buncombe 27% $239 6.2% 67. Yancey 11% $75 1.7%
20. Tyrrell 25% $231 1.5% 67. Carteret 11% $107 6.5%
21. Caswell 24% $137 –0.6% 67. Northampton 11% $98 –2.4%
22. Wilson 23% $168 4.0% 71. Cleveland 10% $64 0.0%
22. Harnett 23% $166 10.5% 71. Alexander 10% $65 6.8%
22. Montgomery 23% $160 1.7% 71. Greene 10% $67 9.3%
25. Edgecombe 22% $150 –4.3% 71. Guilford 10% $82 5.6%
25. Granville 22% $132 7.8% 75. Caldwell 9% $58 1.5%
25. Iredell 22% $158 13.5% 75. Beaufort 9% $78 2.3%
28. Ashe 21% $155 3.9% 75. Camden 9% $81 31.6%
28. Craven 21% $144 3.1% 75. Rockingham§ 9% $63 –0.1%
30. Pitt 20% $137 8.4% 75. Washington 9% $68 –1.6%
30. Alleghany 20% $172 2.2% 80. Wilkes 8% $61 1.0%
30. Madison 20% $118 3.7% 80. Pamlico 8% $72 2.1%
30. Lincoln 20% $187 8.9% 80. Nash 8% $51 4.6%
34. Henderson 19% $160 9.5% 83. Yadkin 7% $47 3.3%
34. Chatham 19% $194 13.0% 83. Hertford 7% $50 3.0%
34. Jones† 19% $107 0.3% 85. Cumberland 6% $46 1.3%
37. Bertie 18% $126 –2.0% 85. Mitchell 6% $46 0.3%
37. Rutherford 18% $118 –0.4% 87. New Hanover 5% $66 12.5%
37. Wayne 18% $111 1.3% 87. Mecklenburg 5% $67 15.5%
37. Cabarrus 18% $143 15.3% 87. Martin 5% $42 –3.5%
37. Richmond 18% $124 0.2% 87. Swain 5% $34 5.8%
42. Moore 17% $141 8.3% 87. Franklin 5% $46 13.3%
42. Brunswick 17% $233 23.9% 92. Wake 4% $40 19.6%
42. Anson 17% $136 0.4% 92. Pasquotank 4% $35 14.3%
42. Gaston 17% $128 3.1% 94. Catawba 3% $28 4.0%
46. Person 16% $148 3.8% 95. Burke 2% $12 –0.6%
47. Surry 15% $116 2.0% 96. Durham 1% $6 7.6%
47. Hyde 15% $253 –3.9% 96. Randolph 1% $4 4.6%
47. Johnston† 15% $115 18.7% 98. Davidson -2% -$15 4.3%
47. Rowan 15% $96 2.0%
* The counties of Graham and Scotland did not provide revenue data for FY 2007 † Excluding Water and Sewer Charges § Excluding Mental Health
Figure 2. Inflation-Adjusted Change in Municipal Revenue Per Person, FY2002-FY2007

Percent Change Change in Percent Change Percent Change Change in Percent Change
Rank Municipality in Revenue Revenue (Dollars) in Population Rank Municipality in Revenue Revenue (Dollars) in Population
1. Mooresville 41% 469 35.8% Municipal
2. Burlington 33% 291 4.2% — Average 10% 132 14.3%
3. Thomasville 24% 160 7.3% 17. Wilson 8% 297 7.9%
3. Jacksonville 24% 114 12.5% 17. Durham 8% 78 12.3%
5. Asheville 23% 259 6.3% 19. Greenville 7% 261 18.1%
5. Chapel Hill 23% 158 1.9% 19. Winston-Salem 7% 67 7.0%
5. Goldsboro 23% 181 -2.9% 21. Apex 6% 114 31.4%
8. Raleigh 22% 198 23.2% 22. High Point 5% 110 10.6%
9. Rocky Mount 20% 511 0.7% 23. Salisbury 4% 47 15.0%
10. Charlotte 18% 222 15.9% 24. Cary 1% 8 21.9%
10. Matthews 18% 66 14.7% 25. Gastonia 0% -2 4.6%
12. Kannapolis 16% 105 9.3% 26. Wilmington -1% -11 8.3%
12. Huntersville 16% 97 27.7% 27. Statesville -2% -42 8.4%
14. Greensboro 14% 147 7.1% 28. Hickory -3% -41 5.9%
15. Concord 12% 250 16.2% 29. Monroe -4% -122 22.2%
16. Sanford 10% 109 13.8% 30. Fayetteville -19% -408 39.9%
Figure 3. County Tax Referenda and Outcomes, 2007-08

County Result(s) of Tax Vote(s) County Result(s) of Tax Vote(s)
Alexander Passed Lee Failed
Anson Failed Lenoir Failed
Ashe Failed Lincoln Failed
Avery Failed Macon Failed
Brunswick Failed Martin Passed
Burke Failed Mitchell Failed
Caswell Failed Moore Failed Twice
Catawba Passed Nash Failed
Chatham Failed Onslow Failed Twice
Cherokee Failed Orange Failed
Chowan Failed Pender Failed
Clay Failed Person Failed
Columbus Failed Twice Pitt Passed
Cumberland Failed, then Passed Polk Failed
Davie* Failed Twice Randolph Failed
Duplin Failed Robeson Failed
Edgecombe Failed Rockingham Failed
Gaston Failed Rutherford* Failed Twice
Gates Failed Twice Sampson Passed
Graham* Failed Twice Stanly Failed
Greene Failed Twice Surry Passed
Guilford Failed Twice Swain Failed
Harnett* Failed Twice Tyrrell Failed Twice
Haywood Passed Union Failed
Henderson Failed 3 Times Washington Failed
Hertford Failed 3 Times Wayne Failed
Hoke Failed Wilkes Failed
Johnston* Failed Twice Wilson Failed
Jones Failed
* Voters in these counties rejected a sales tax and a land-transfer tax increase on the same ballot.
Source: N.C. Association of County Commissioners
regional brief
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: AlAmAnCe A.ACounty
through very Charts: Alamance to Avery
Notes on
Notes on the
the graphs:
graphs: Each
Each Growth
Growth pays
pays for
for itself
itself (red)
(red) line
line isis aa baseline
baseline established
established by
by using
using FY
FY 2002
2002 locally
locally generated
generated revenues
revenues adjusted
adjusted for
for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation
inflation each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
This line
This line represents
represents the
the revenue
revenue amount
amount that
that the
the local
local government
government needed needed in
in order
order to
to maintain
maintain thethe same
same purchasing
purchasing power
power per
per person
person over
over those
those five
five years.
years. Each
Each Amount
Amount actually
actually collected
collected (blue)
(blue) line
line
isis the
the amount
amount of of locally
locally generated
generated revenues,
revenues, again
again adjusted
adjusted for for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation,
inflation, that
that the
the local
local government
government actually
actually collected
collected each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
Alamance County Alexander County

Locally generated revenue per person, adjusted for inflation (FY 2002–07) Locally generated revenue per person, adjusted for inflation (FY 2002–07)
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$750 $760
$716
$700
$720
Amount actually collected $701
Amount actually collected
$650
+29%
$161 $680
+10%
$600 $65
Growth pays for itself Growth pays for itself
$640
$550
$555 $636
$572
$500 $600
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
By FY 2007, a family of four needed an additional $919 in income By FY 2007, a family of four needed an additional $572 in income
to keep up with the growth in county revenue over the past five years. to keep up with the growth in county revenue over the past five years.
Source: N.C. Dept. of State Treasurer Source: N.C. Dept. of State Treasurer
Alleghany County Anson County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,100 $1,000
$1,023 $942
$950
$1,025 Amount actually collected
$900
Amount actually collected +17%
$950 +20% $136
$172 $850
$136
$875 Growth pays for itself

$800
Growth pays for itself $850 $806
$800
$750
$725 $700
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
By FY 2007, a family of four needed an additional $1,109 in income By FY 2007, a family of four needed an additional $942 in income
Ashe County Avery County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,183
$950 $1,200
$879
$1,100
$850
+21% $302
$1,000
$155
$750
Growth pays for itself
$724
$881
$650 $800
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
By FY 2007, a family of four needed an additional $977 in income By FY 2007, a family of four needed an additional $1,641 in income
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: BeAufort throughA. County Charts: Beaufort to Burke
Burke
Notes
Notes on on the
the graphs:
graphs: Each
Each Growth
Growth pays
pays for
for itself
itself (red)
(red) line
established by
by using
using FY
FY 2002
2002 locally
locally generated
generated revenues
revenues adjusted
adjusted for
for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation
inflation each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
This
This lineline represents
represents the
the revenue
revenue amount
amount that
that the
the local
local government
government neededneeded in
in order
order to
to maintain
maintain the
the same
same purchasing
purchasing power
power per
per person
person over
over those
those five
five years.
years. Each
Each Amount
Amount actually
actually collected
collected (blue)
(blue) line
line
isis the
the amount
amount of of locally
locally generated
generated revenues,
revenues, again
again adjusted
adjusted for for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation,
inflation, that
that the
the local
local government
government actually
actually collected
collected each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
Beaufort County Bertie County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$980 $850
$814
$922 Amount actually collected

$920 $775
+18%
+9% $126
$78
$860 $700 Growth pays for itself
$688
$844
$800 $625
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Bladen County Brunswick County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,750 $1,750
$1,621 $1,650 $1,615

$1,600
+13% $1,550
+17%
$185 $233
$1,450
$1,450 Growth pays for itself
$1,436
$1,350 $1,382
$1,300 $1,250
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
By FY 2007, a family of four needed an additional $1,448 in income By FY 2007, a family of four needed an additional $1,614 in income
Buncombe County Burke County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,150 $1,122 $640

$1,080
$620
$1,010
+27% $610
$239
+2%
$940
$600
Growth pays for itself $12
$598
$870
$883
$800 $580
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
regional brief
Appendix A. County ChArts: CAppendix A. County

AbArrus through CAtAwbA Charts: Cabarrus to Catawba
Notes on the graphs: Each Growth pays for itself (red) line is a baseline established by using FY 2002 locally generated revenues adjusted for population growth and inflation each fiscal year through 2007.
This line represents the revenue amount that the local government needed in order to maintain the same purchasing power per person over those five years. Each Amount actually collected (blue) line
is the amount of locally generated revenues, again adjusted for population growth and inflation, that the local government actually collected each fiscal year through 2007.
Cabarrus County Caldwell County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,000 $725
$944
$950 $686
$900 Amount actually collected $675

+18% +9%
$850
$143 $58
$800 $625
$802
$750
$700 $575
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Camden County Carteret County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,030 $1,150
$978 $1,082
$970 $1,075
+9%
$81 +11%
$107
$910 $1,000
$975
$850 $925
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Caswell County Catawba County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$703 $875
$700

$850
$650
+24% $830
$137
$825
$600 +3%
Growth pays for itself Growth pays for itself $28
$800
$550 $566
$802
$500 $775
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Appendix A. County ChArts: CAppendix A. County

hAthAm through ColumbusCharts: Chatham to Columbus
Notes on
Notes on the
the graphs:
graphs: Each
Each Growth
Growth pays
pays for
for itself
itself (red)
(red) line
established by
by using
using FY
FY 2002
2002 locally
locally generated
generated revenues
revenues adjusted
adjusted for
for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation
inflation each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
This line
represents the
the revenue
revenue amount
amount that
that the
the local
local government
in order
order to
to maintain
same purchasing
purchasing power
power per
per person
person over
over those
those five
five years.
years. Each
Each Amount
Amount actually
actually collected
collected (blue)
(blue) line
line
is the amount of locally generated revenues, again adjusted for population growth and inflation, that the local government actually collected each fiscal year
is the amount of locally generated revenues, again adjusted for population growth and inflation, that the local government actually collected each fiscal year through 2007. through 2007.
Chatham County Cherokee County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,250 $975 $950

$1,209
$1,200 $925 Amount actually collected
$1,150 $875

$1,100
+19% $825
$194 $248
$1,050 $775
$1,000 Growth pays for itself $725 Growth pays for itself
$1,015
$950 $675 $702
$900 $625
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Chowan County Clay County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,052 $998
$1,075
$1,000
$1,025
$950
$975
$900
$925
+30% +39%
$850
$243 $282
$875 $800
$825 Growth pays for itself $750

$775
$808
$700
$716
$725 $650
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Cleveland County Columbus County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$720 $850 $826

$692
Amount actually collected $800 Amount actually collected

$680
+10%
$64
$750
+29%
$640
$700
$627
$600
$650
$642
$560 $600
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
regional brief
10 City and county budget crises
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: CrAven through dA.
AvieCounty Charts: Craven to Davie
Craven County Cumberland County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$839
$850 $850

$800
$800
$780
+21%
$750 $144
+6%
$750 $46
$700
$695 $734
$650 $700
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Currituck County Dare County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$2,950
$2,500
$2,850
Amount actually collected $2,355 $2,743
$2,350
$2,650
+14% +14%
$2,200
$294 $2,550 $334
Growth pays for itself $2,450 Growth pays for itself
$2,050
$2,061 $2,409
$2,350
$1,900 $2,250
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Davidson County Davie County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$680
$1,050
$670 $1,017
$658
$660
$1,000
–2%
$650
–$15 $950
+11%
$105
$640
$630
$620 $850
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
City and county budget crises 11
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: duplin through gA. County Charts: Duplin to Gaston
Aston
Duplin County Durham County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$900
$875 $1,200
Amount actually collected $1,175

$850
$1,150
+13%
$100 $1,125
$800
Growth pays for itself $1,073
$1,100
+1%
$775
$1,075 Growth pays for itself $6
$750
$1,050 $1,067
$700 $1,025
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Edgecombe County Forsyth County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,000
$850
$950
$800 $907
$900
$750 +22%
$150 +12%
$850 $96
$700
$650 $800
$667 $811
$600 $750
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Franklin County Gaston County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,050 $950
$903
$900
$1,000
+5%
$46
$850 +17%
$970 $800
$775
$750
$900 $700
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
regional brief
Appendix A. County ChArts: GAtesAppendix A. County Charts: Gates to Harnett

throuGh hArnett
Notes
Notes onon the
the graphs:
graphs: Each
Each Growth
Growth pays
pays for
for itself
itself (red)
(red) line
established by
by using
using FY
FY 2002
2002 locally
locally generated
generated revenues
revenues adjusted
adjusted for
for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation
inflation each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
This
This line
line represents
represents the
the revenue
revenue amount
amount that
that the
the local
local government
government needed needed inin order
order to
to maintain
same purchasing
purchasing power
power per
per person
person over
over those
those five
five years.
years. Each
Each Amount
Amount actually
actually collected
collected (blue)
(blue) line
line
isis the amount of locally generated revenues, again adjusted for population growth and inflation, that the local government actually collected each fiscal
the amount of locally generated revenues, again adjusted for population growth and inflation, that the local government actually collected each fiscal year through 2007. year through 2007.
Gates County Granville County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$720
$730
$800
$770 $710
$770 $690
$670
$740
Amount actually collected +14% +22%
$650
$93 $132
$710
$630

$680
$677 $590
$650 $589
$570
$620 $550
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Greene County Guilford County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$950
$780 $919
$734
$900

$720
$82
+10% $850
$67
$837
$660
$667
$800
$600 $750
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Halifax County Harnett County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,020 $892
$900

$850
$920 $895
+23%
$800
$870
$166
$750
$820 $111 Growth pays for itself
$700
$726
$770
$785
$720 $650
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: hAywood A.iredell
through County Charts: Haywood to Iredell
Haywood County Henderson County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$996
$1,000
$984
$950

+28% $900 +19%
$217 $160
$850
$800 Growth pays for itself Growth pays for itself
$800 $824
$779
$700 $750
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Hertford County Hoke County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$880 $720
$688
$680
Amount actually collected Amount actually collected

$820 $640
$798
$600
+31%
+7% $163
$50 $560
$749
$520
$525
$700 $480
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Hyde County Iredell County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$2,100 $950
$889
$2,000 $900
$1,928
$1,900 $850
+15% +22%
$1,800 $800
$253 $158
$1,700 Growth pays for itself $750 Growth pays for itself
$1,675 $731
$1,600 $700
$1,500 $650
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
regional brief
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: JACkson through A. County Charts: Jackson to Lincoln
LinCoLn
Notes
Notes onon the
the graphs:
graphs: Each
Each Growth
Growth pays
pays for
for itself
itself (red)
(red) line
established by
by using
using FY
FY 2002
2002 locally
locally generated
generated revenues
revenues adjusted
adjusted for
for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation
inflation each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
This
This line
line represents
represents the
the revenue
revenue amount
amount that
that the
the local
local government
order to
to maintain
same purchasing
purchasing power
power per
per person
person over
over those
those five
five years.
years. Each
Each Amount
Amount actually
actually collected
collected (blue)
(blue) line
line
Jackson County Johnston County

Locally generated revenue per person, adjusted for inflation (FY 2002–07) Locally generated revenue per person, adjusted for inflation (FY 2002–07)*
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,150 $950
$1,099

$1,050
+29% $850
$950 $245 +15%

$800
$115
$850
$750
$774
$854
$750 $700
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Source: N.C. Dept. of State Treasurer * Excluding water and sewer charges Source: N.C. Dept. of State Treasurer
Jones County Lee County

Locally generated revenue per person, adjusted for inflation (FY 2002–07)* Locally generated revenue per person, adjusted for inflation (FY 2002–07)*
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$670
$680 $950
Amount actually collected $900 $879
$620
+19% $850 Amount actually collected
$107 +12%
$96
$560
$750
$500 $700
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
* Excluding water and sewer charges Source: N.C. Dept. of State Treasurer * Excluding water and sewer charges Source: N.C. Dept. of State Treasurer
Lenoir County Lincoln County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$830 $817
$1,150
$1,130

$770
+14% $1,050
+20%
$99 $187
$1,000

Growth pays for itself $718 $950
$943
$900
$650 $850
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: MACon A.itChell
through M County Charts: Macon to Mitchell
Macon County Madison County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$950 $460
$919
$437
$900
$420
$850 +20% +15%
$151 $56
$381
$750 $768
$700 $340
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Martin County McDowell County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$730 $709
$1,170

$680
$1,140
$630
+32%
$1,110 $171
$1,092
$1,080
–2% Growth pays for itself
–$26 $530
$538
$1,066
$1,050 $480
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Mecklenburg County Mitchell County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,400 $840
$1,350 $805
$1,326
$782

$1,300 +5% $770
$67 +6%
$1,250 $735
$1,259
$736
$1,200 $700
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
regional brief
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: M ontgoMery A. County
through Charts: Montgomery to Onslow
onslow
Notes
Notes onon the
the graphs:
graphs: Each
Each Growth
Growth pays
pays for
for itself
itself (red)
(red) line
established by
by using
using FY
FY 2002
2002 locally
locally generated
generated revenues
revenues adjusted
adjusted for
for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation
inflation each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
This
This line
line represents
represents the
the revenue
revenue amount
amount that
that the
the local
local government
order to
to maintain
same purchasing
purchasing power
power per
per person
person over
over those
those five
five years.
years. Each
Each Amount
Amount actually
actually collected
collected (blue)
(blue) line
line
Montgomery County Moore County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$950 $1,000
$956
$900 $870 $950
$850
$900
$800
+23% +17%
$141
$160 $850
$800 $815
$700
$709
$650 $750
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Nash County New Hanover County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$750 $1,400
$705 $1,350
$700 $1,298
$1,300
Amount actually collected +8% +5%

$51 $66
$650
$1,232
$1,200
$600 $1,150
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Northampton County Onslow County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$637
$1,050 $650
$1,000
$575
+11% +35%
$950
$167
$98

$903
$470
$850 $425
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Source: N.C. Dept. of State Treasurer * Excluding water and sewer charges and mental health Source: N.C. Dept. of State Treasurer
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: orAnge A.
through p County Charts: Orange to Person
erson
Orange County Pamlico County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,280 $1,060
$1,239

$1,180 $1,010
$985
+27%
$1,080 $960
$266 +8%
$72
$980 $910
$914
$973
$880 $860
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Pasquotank County Pender County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,030
$980 $1,050
$1,000
$950
$931
$950
$920 +4% +32%

$900
$35 $250
$850
$890
$860
$750 $779
$830 $700
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Perquimans County Person County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,086
$1,075 $1,100
$1,018
$1,025
$1,050
$975
+16%
$1,000
$925 $148
+28%
$875 $224
$950

$900
$775 $794
$725 $850
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
regional brief
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: pitt A. County Charts: Pitt to Rockingham
through roCkinghAm
Notes
Notes onon the
the graphs:
graphs: Each
Each Growth
Growth pays
pays for
for itself
itself (red)
(red) line
established by
by using
using FY
FY 2002
2002 locally
locally generated
generated revenues
revenues adjusted
adjusted for
for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation
inflation each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
This
This line
line represents
represents the
the revenue
revenue amount
amount that
that the
the local
local government
order to
to maintain
same purchasing
purchasing power
power per
per person
person over
over those
those five
five years.
years. Each
Each Amount
Amount actually
actually collected
collected (blue)
(blue) line
line
Pitt County Polk County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,045
$875 $1,060

$810
$825
$775
+20% +30%
$900
$137 $241
$725
Growth pays for itself $820 Growth pays for itself

$675
$673 $804
$625 $740
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Randolph County Richmond County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$640 $850
$825
+1% $630 Amount actually collected

$630 $4 $800
$626 +18%
$620 $750 $124
Amount actually collected Growth pays for itself

$610 $700
$701
$600 $650
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Robeson County Rockingham County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$740 $800
$773
$691
$700 $765

+13% +9%
$660 $78 $730 $63
$620 $695
$613
$580 $660
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Source: N.C. Dept. of State Treasurer * Excluding mental health Source: N.C. Dept. of State Treasurer
Appendix A. County ChArts: rowAnAppendix A. County Charts: Rowan to Surry

through surry
Notes on
Notes on the
the graphs:
graphs: Each
Each Growth
Growth pays
pays for
for itself
itself (red)
(red) line
established by
by using
using FY
FY 2002
2002 locally
locally generated
generated revenues
revenues adjusted
adjusted for
for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation
inflation each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
This line
represents the
the revenue
revenue amount
amount that
that the
the local
local government
in order
order to
to maintain
same purchasing
purchasing power
power per
per person
person over
over those
those five
five years.
years. Each
Each Amount
Amount actually
actually collected
collected (blue)
(blue) line
line
Rowan County Rutherford County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$780 $780 $766

$750 $750
$720 $720
+15% +18%
$690 $96 $690 $118
$660 Growth pays for itself $660 Growth pays for itself
$653 $649
$630 $630
$600 $600
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Sampson County Stanly County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$777
$780 $840
$725 $800
+29% +13%
$670 $175 $760 $92

$722
$602
$560 $680
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Stokes County Surry County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$740 $880 $866

$720
$850
$705
+15%
+13% $116
$670 $81 $790
Growth pays for itself $760 Growth pays for itself

$635
$639 $751
$730
$600 $700
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
regional brief
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: swAin through wAkeA. County Charts: Swain to Wake
Swain County Transylvania County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$770 $1,250
$1,204
$750 $1,200
$737
$730 $1,150
+5% +15%
$710 Growth pays for itself $34 $1,100 $153
$703
$690 $1,050
$670 $1,000
$650 $950
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Tyrrell County Union County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,149
$1,200 $1,174 $1,160
$1,150
$1,080
$1,100
$1,000
+25% +48%
$1,050
$373
$231 $920
$1,000

$943
$760
$900 $776
$850 $680
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Vance County Wake County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$825 $1,060
$800 $785
$1,020
$775 $997
$750
+13% $980
+4%
$725 $93 Growth pays for itself $40
$700
$940
$693
$675
$650 $900
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: WArren A.ilson
through W County Charts: Warren to Wilson
Notes on
Notes on the
the graphs:
graphs: Each
Each Growth
Growth pays
pays for
for itself
itself (red)
(red) line
established by
by using
using FY
FY 2002
2002 locally
locally generated
generated revenues
revenues adjusted
adjusted for
for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation
inflation each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
This line
represents the
the revenue
revenue amount
amount that
that the
the local
local government
in order
order to
to maintain
same purchasing
purchasing power
power per
per person
person over
over those
those five
five years.
years. Each
Each Amount
Amount actually
actually collected
collected (blue)
(blue) line
line
Warren County Washington County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,100 $900
$1,045
$1,050 Amount actually collected $860
$850
$1,000
+13%
$121 +9%
$68
$950
$800
$900
$924 $792
$850 $750
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Watauga County Wayne County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,041
$1,050 $775
$729
$950 $725

+43%
$314 +18%
$850 $675
$111

$750 $625
$728 $618
$650 $575
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Wilkes County Wilson County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$880 $950

$850
$828
$880

+8%
$790 $61 $810 +23%
$760
$767
$730
$721
$700 $670
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
regional brief
Appendix
Appendix A. County ChArts: yAdkin through yA. County Charts: Yadkin to Yancey
AnCey
Yadkin County Yancey County

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$780 $750
$730

$745 $733
$700
+11%
+7% $75
$710
$47
$650
$675 $686
$640 $600
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Appendix
Appendix B. City ChArts: Apex through B. City Charts: Apex to Charlotte
ChArlotte
Apex Asheville
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$2,100 $1,400 $1,361
$2,031
$1,300
$2,000
+6% +23%
$1,200
$114 $259
$1,900 $1,917 Growth pays for itself

$1,100
$1,800 $1,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
to keep up with the growth in city revenue over the past five years. to keep up with the growth in city revenue over the past five years.
Burlington Cary
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,200
$1,177 +1% $1,073
$1,080
$8
$1,100
$1,065
$1,040
+33%
$1,000 $291
$900
$1,000
$886
$800 $980
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Chapel Hill Charlotte

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$850 $1,500
$1,434
$800

$1,350
+18%
$750 +23% $222
$158
$700
$1,200
$676
$650
$600 $1,050
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
regional brief
Appendix
Appendix B. City ChArts: ConCord through B. City Charts: Concord to Greensboro
greensBoro
Notes
Notes onon the
the graphs:
graphs: Each
Each Growth
Growth pays
pays for
for itself
itself (red)
(red) line
established by
by using
using FY
FY 2002
2002 locally
locally generated
generated revenues
revenues adjusted
adjusted for
for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation
inflation each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
This
This line
line represents
represents the
the revenue
revenue amount
amount that
that the
the local
local government
order to
to maintain
same purchasing
purchasing power
power per
per person
person over
over those
those five
five years.
years. Each
Each Amount
Amount actually
actually collected
collected (blue)
(blue) line
line
Concord Durham
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$2,400 $1,150
$2,300 $2,259 Amount actually collected

$1,100 $1,081
$2,200
+12% $1,050
+8%
$2,100
$250 $78
$2,000 $1,003
$2,009
$1,900 $950
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fayetteville Gastonia
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$2,300 $1,900
$2,194
$1,850
$2,100
–19%
–$408 $1,800 $1,782
$1,900 Amount actually collected Growth pays for itself 0% $1,784

$1,750
–$2
$1,700 $1,786
$1,700
$872
$1,500 $1,650
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
By FY 2007, a family of four needed an additional $872 in income

to keep up with the growth in city revenue over the past five years.
Goldsboro Greensboro
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$990
$972 $1,250
$1,217
$945
$900
+23% $1,150 +14%
$855 $181 $147
$1,100
$810 Growth pays for itself Growth pays for itself
$791 $1,050 $1,070

$765
$720 $1,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Appendix
Appendix B. City ChArts: Greenville B. KCity
throuGh Charts: Greenville to Kannapolis
AnnApolis
Greenville Hickory
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$4,000 $1,450

$3,900
$3,861

$1,400
–3%
$1,363
$3,800
–$41
+7%
$3,700
$261
Growth pays for itself $1,300 $1,323
$3,600
$3,600
$1,250
$3,500
$3,400 $1,200
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
High Point Huntersville

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$2,400 $750
$707
$700
$2,287
$2,300

$650 $97
+5%
$2,200
$600
$611
$2,100 $550
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Jacksonville Kannapolis
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$610 $596 $800
$758
$570 Amount actually collected $750
+24% Amount actually collected

$530 $114 $700 +16%
$105
$652
$483
$450 $600
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
regional brief
Appendix
Appendix B. City ChArts: MAtthews throughB. City Charts: Matthews to Salisbury
sAlisBury
Notes
Notes onon the
the graphs:
graphs: Each
Each Growth
Growth pays
pays for
for itself
itself (red)
(red) line
established by
by using
using FY
FY 2002
2002 locally
locally generated
generated revenues
revenues adjusted
adjusted for
for population
population growth
growth and
and inflation
inflation each
each fiscal
fiscal year
year through
through 2007.
2007.
This
This line
line represents
represents the
the revenue
revenue amount
amount that
that the
the local
local government
order to
to maintain
same purchasing
purchasing power
power per
per person
person over
over those
those five
five years.
years. Each
Each Amount
Amount actually
actually collected
collected (blue)
(blue) line
line
Matthews Monroe
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$460 $3,300

$440 $427
$3,200
$420
$3,106
$400
+18% $3,100
$66
$380
–4%
–$122
$360
$362 $2,984
$340 $2,900
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Mooresville Raleigh
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,150
$1,725
$1,093
$1,625 $1,100
$1,525 $1,050
$1,425 $1,000
+22%
+41% $198
$1,325 $950
$469
$1,225 $900
$1,125 $850
$1,137
$1,025 $800
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Rocky Mount Salisbury

(2006 $) (2006 $)
$3,200 $1,400 Amount actually collected

$3,057 $1,365
$1,350 +4%
$2,900 Amount actually collected Growth pays for itself $47
+20%
$1,318
$511 $1,300

$1,250
$2,546
$2,300 $1,200
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Appendix
Appendix B. City ChArts: sAnford throughB. City -s
Winston Charts:
Alem Sanford to Winston-Salem
Sanford Statesville
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$1,350 $2,600
–2%
$1,300
–$42 $2,490
$2,500
$1,188
$1,200 $2,448
$2,400
$1,150
+10%
$109
$2,300
$1,050 $1,079
$1,000 $2,200
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Thomasville Wilmington
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$850 $830 $1,300
$1,250
–1%
$1,200 $1,173
+24% Growth pays for itself –$11
$750
$160 $1,150
$1,161
$700
$650 $670
$1,050
$600 $1,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Wilson Winston-Salem
(2006 $) (2006 $)
$3,900 $1,100
$3,812
$3,800
Amount actually collected Amount actually collected $1,050
$3,700 $1,050
+8%
$297
$3,600
+7%
$67
$3,500 $1,000
$3,400
$983
$3,300 $950
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
regional brief

City and County Budget Crises: When in A Hole, First Stop Digging

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

City and County Budget Crises: When in A Hole, First Stop Digging

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

City and County Budget Crises: When in A Hole, First Stop Digging

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

regional brief No.

City and County

Joseph Coletti and Dr. Michael Sanera

for Truth 200 W. Morgan, #200

Introduction collected 48 percent more than necessary

spending decisions. local governments in North Carolina. Those

Figure 1. Inflation-Adjusted Change in County Revenue Per Person, FY2002-FY2007

Figure 2. Inflation-Adjusted Change in Municipal Revenue Per Person, FY2002-FY2007

3. Thomasville 24% 160 7.3% 17. Wilson 8% 297 7.9%

3. Jacksonville 24% 114 12.5% 17. Durham 8% 78 12.3%

5. Asheville 23% 259 6.3% 19. Greenville 7% 261 18.1%

5. Chapel Hill 23% 158 1.9% 19. Winston-Salem 7% 67 7.0%

5. Goldsboro 23% 181 -2.9% 21. Apex 6% 114 31.4%

8. Raleigh 22% 198 23.2% 22. High Point 5% 110 10.6%

9. Rocky Mount 20% 511 0.7% 23. Salisbury 4% 47 15.0%

10. Charlotte 18% 222 15.9% 24. Cary 1% 8 21.9%

10. Matthews 18% 66 14.7% 25. Gastonia 0% -2 4.6%

12. Huntersville 16% 97 27.7% 27. Statesville -2% -42 8.4%

Figure 3. County Tax Referenda and Outcomes, 2007-08

Alamance County Alexander County

Alleghany County Anson County

$875 Growth pays for itself

Ashe County Avery County

Beaufort County Bertie County

$922 Amount actually collected

Bladen County Brunswick County

$1,621 $1,650 $1,615

Buncombe County Burke County

$1,150 $1,122 $640

Amount actually collected

Appendix A. County ChArts: CAppendix A. County

Cabarrus County Caldwell County

$900 Amount actually collected $675

Camden County Carteret County

Caswell County Catawba County

Amount actually collected

Appendix A. County ChArts: CAppendix A. County

Chatham County Cherokee County

$1,250 $975 $950

$1,200 $925 Amount actually collected

Amount actually collected +35%

$950 $675 $702

Chowan County Clay County

$825 Growth pays for itself $750

Cleveland County Columbus County

$720 $850 $826

Amount actually collected $800 Amount actually collected

Craven County Cumberland County

Amount actually collected

Currituck County Dare County

Davidson County Davie County

Duplin County Durham County

Amount actually collected $1,175

Edgecombe County Forsyth County

Franklin County Gaston County

Appendix A. County ChArts: GAtesAppendix A. County Charts: Gates to Harnett

Gates County Granville County

Growth pays for itself $610