Alamance County’s manager Heidi York insisted that it wasn’t simply bad luck that has led to the financial predicament which she identified in her budget presentation to the county’s governing board.
Instead, the county manager pointed to some crucial decisions that the board of commissioners made in the aftermath of the last property tax revaluation, which went into effect at the beginning of 2023.
A few months after the reval, a majority of the county’s governing board agreed to lower the property tax rate from 65 to 43.2 cents for every $100 of property value.
The board’s members had enacted this change in order offset the considerable bump that the county’s tax base had received during the recent mass reassessment. In the end, the figure that the commissioners adopted was .61 cents higher than the so-called “revenue neutral,” or break even, rate that they had previously pledged to support. Even so, the county manager treated the change as a bona fide cut in the levy when she addressed the commissioners on Monday.
“There seems to be some confusion about that being a year of increase in taxes. We actually dropped the rate by 22 cents that year. . .
“I can’t blame it all on the tax rate set in 23/24. We also hit the fund balance, and you can’t use your savings to fund recurring expenses.”
– County manager Heidi York
York insists tax rate dropped by 22 cents – without considering “revenue neutral” impact
“There seems to be some confusion about that being a year of increase in taxes,” York said, glossing over the whole issue of revenue neutrality. “We actually dropped the rate by 22 cents that year.”
In a subsequent interview, the county manager stood by her account of the post-reval rate “cut” despite her omission of the revenue neutral figure that the commissioners had used as their target in 2023.
York recalled that the budget she had proposed to the commissioners that year recommended a tax rate of 45.43 cents, rather than the revenue neutral alternative of 42.59 cents, which she had judged inadequate to meet the latest demands on the county’s finances. It’s those demands which, York added, gave context to her explanation on Monday – and which ultimately set the stage for the county’s current difficulties.
“I can’t blame it all on the tax rate set in 23/24,” she acknowledged in a conversation on Wednesday. “We also hit the fund balance, and you can’t use your savings to fund recurring expenses.”
York went on to recount the capital improvements, staff-level pay raises, and emergency allocations to the school system that the commissioners approved in the wake of the revaluation without the revenue adjustments that she deemed sufficient to cover the costs.
In the meantime, she took issue with critics outside county government who she believes may have misled the commissioners through their relentless attacks on her budgetary proposals.
“A lot of that is because of [Alamance News publisher] Tom Boney. I remember that he kept saying I was deaf, blind, and stupid because I wouldn’t give them a revenue neutral tax rate.”
– County manager Heidi York
“A lot of that is because of [Alamance News publisher] Tom Boney,” she said. “I remember that he kept saying I was deaf, blind, and stupid because I wouldn’t give them a revenue neutral tax rate.”
York argued that this rate decrease left the county scrambling to make ends meet despite subsequent property tax increases of 3.7 cents in 2024 and 2.5 cents in 2025. She added that the county’s perennial shortfall was only made worse by subsequent decisions made at other levels of government.
During her pitch to the commissioners, the county manager noted that the county has lost nearly $2.9 million in state and federal subsidies while being saddled with another $2 million in unfunded mandates. York said that these interjurisdictional demands have been aggravated by state and federal policy changes that have imperiled other sources of the general fund’s revenues.
As a case in point, York cited a recent state-level court ruling that has exempted apartment complexes from having to pay property taxes if they have even a sliver of nonprofit ownership. She said that the county can expect to lose $650,000 in property tax revenue thanks to this judicial decision.
York went on to take officials in Raleigh to task for the measures that she said have forced counties and municipalities to increase their reliance on property tax revenue.
“We believe that the best way to reduce the tax rate is for the state to fully fund its obligations,” she argued. “We’re seeing year after year that the county is having to step in for education, for social services, and for public safety to help fill the gap.”
In order to cover this gap, the county manager said she has reluctantly decided to propose a 2.25 cent increase in the county’s property tax rate, which currently stands at 49.4 cents for every $100 of property value.
York told the commissioners that this hike will bring in nearly $6.2 million in revenue given that a penny on the tax rate is currently worth $2,748,694. She added that the resulting impact on property owners will be relatively modest – the equivalent of about $65 a year for a home with the county’s median tax value of $289,000.
“We do not enjoy raising taxes. It is the last resort that we go to. But as far back as 2021, we have not foreclosed on any property that has a resident living in it that was delinquent on its taxes.”
– County manager Heidi York
“We do not enjoy raising taxes. It is the last resort that we go to,” she added. “But as far back as 2021, we have not foreclosed on any property that has a resident living in it that was delinquent on its taxes.”
In addition to York’s proposed tax increase, the commissioners have received requests for property tax hikes from four of the county’s rural fire departments. These proposals include a 2.4 cent hike in the Eli Whitney fire district, whose rate would go from 8.6 to 11 cents as a result, and 3 cents in the Faucette district, which would raise the current 9 cent rate to 12 cents. Meanwhile, the Swepsonville fire department has requested a 1.5 cent increase for both its primary district and the 54/East Swepsonville district which it also serves. The rates in both districts would consequently go from 6 to 7.5 cents.
