 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Annual revenue projections for state-collected, county-authorized revenues Fearless forecast for 2011-12 Every year at this time, we develop forecasts of major county revenues and assemble other information to help county officials put together their proposed budgets for the upcoming fiscal year. Please find here a spreadsheet of all local state-shared revenues from 2009-10. We have also linked all other accompanying materials within this main document for your easy retrieval. If the link cannot be accessed, please see our website, www.ncacc.org/links-budget.html. State and National Economic Outlook While the “Great Recession” officially ended in late summer 2009
after 20 months of the steepest economic decline since the “Great Depression,”
state economic growth has only recently begun to take hold.
In his March 15 economic forecast, Dr. John Connaughton, UNCC’s Babson
Capital Professor of Financial Economics, writes that North Carolina’s economy
continued to lag behind the U.S in 2010, with state GDP growing at 1.3 percent
versus the U.S.’s 2.8 percent growth. With more jobs in manufacturing and
housing, North Carolina suffered more severely, losing 280,000 jobs during 2008
and 2009, and adding only 10,500 jobs last year. Dr. Connaughton does project an
improving job outlook in 2011, although he cautions that it will take 4 to 5
years to regain 2007 employment levels. The State Budget 2010-11 Governor Beverly Perdue took steps early on in this fiscal year to manage potential revenue declines, ordering a 1% hold back in state agency allotments almost immediately after the General Assembly adopted the state’s budget. Further allotment cuts were initiated in December, in an attempt to increase year-end reversions to underpin next year’s budget. The first quarter of baseline sales tax collections was anemic at best, with growth rates less than 2 percent, even when compared against steep year-to-date declines in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Since December, the state has recorded more robust sales, averaging 6 percent monthly increases year over year. Through February, baseline collections are up 2.8 percent. After two years of reporting that year-to-date state revenues were below forecast targets, state revenues through February are slightly ahead of projections. Based on the most recent analysis by the General Assembly’s Fiscal Research Division, state revenue collections through February are $78 million above the $12.15 billion, or roughly 1 percent. All in all, the consensus for this fiscal year’s state revenue surplus is $156.4 million, with a 2.7 percent increase in collections over 2009-10. Baseline tax collections are projected at a 3.1 percent increase, slightly above the budgeted revenue growth of 2.8 percent. Still, post-recessionary expansion has exceeded 9 percent in the past, and economists still predict that North Carolina will not be at 2008 revenue levels until the middle part of the decade. 2011-12 Governor Perdue released her 2011-12 budget request on Feb. 17, and counties have already been in receipt of our comprehensive analysis of her proposal and its impacts on county budgets. We remain especially concerned over the reduction in lottery funds from 40 percent of net lottery revenues to 10 percent or a loss of $131 million. The governor’s budget also recommends the permanent elimination of the corporate tax set aside for school capital needs, for an additional loss of $72 million. Budget proposals shifting state-funded employee workers’ compensation costs for school and community colleges to counties are also very problematic. As of this writing, the governor’s budget bill has not been introduced (only the money report has been distributed), so we cannot speak to any special provisions contained therein. As customary, state budget and legislative fiscal analysts set a consensus general fund growth estimate to undergird budget projections and released their revenue availability target on Feb. 9. Readers may recall the December projection estimating next year’s budget gap at $3.7 billion or 17 percent of total projected spending. An improved economic outlook calling for a larger revenue base and higher revenue growth narrowed the gap to $2.7 billion. For 2011-12, the governor’s budget includes modest revenue growth of 4.6 percent (historical growth averages nearly 6 percent). Baseline sales tax growth is projected at 5.3 percent, which is about the average historical growth rate and is a much welcome relief after two years of near double digit declines. Our recommendations are for more modest sales tax growth, at 3-4 percent growth, given the tragedies in Japan, the turmoil in the Middle East, and the rising fuel prices here in the States. Again, local economic conditions may dictate a lower or higher sales tax growth rate. The governor’s budget also scaled back some required spending estimates—principally employee health and retirement costs, further narrowing the gap to $2.4 billion. It is unclear whether these lowered cost estimates will be incorporated into the House and Senate spending plans. The consensus revenue estimate will be revisited after personal tax collections are tallied in April. The House drafts the first legislative response to the governor’s proposal, although House and Senate appropriations committees and subcommittees have been meeting jointly to consider spending cuts and priorities and have agreed to develop a joint budget proposal. Per the budget calendar published early in the 2011 long session, the House expects to publish its budget by April 17, with House adoption by April 22. The Senate will follow with budget publication on May 8 and adoption May 13. Conferees would meet the last two full weeks of May, to publish the conference report on May 27 with final budget adoption June 1. Medicaid Relief Swap After years of intensive county lobbying, the General Assembly enacted a Medicaid relief swap package in its 2007-08 budget (House Bill 1473) to phase out the county share of Medicaid over three years, with the final components of the relief swap occurring in 2009-10. Prior to the Medicaid relief swap, the state required counties to pay 15 percent of the non-federal share, the last state requiring county financial participation in all Medicaid services. Counties continue to bear the total non-federal portion for Medicaid administrative costs, estimated at $103 million for 2011-12. Counties still need to budget some marginal funds for Medicaid transportation administration and will need to closely track Medicaid eligibility determination error rates. Sustained and habitual errors in eligibility determination may result in the county being responsible for the federal and state pay-back for the Medicaid services costs inappropriately incurred. To help the state absorb the additional Medicaid cost, counties relinquished a half cent of their local sales tax – the per capita portion of the Article 44 sales tax effective with sales made on or after Oct. 1, 2008, and the point of sale portion of Article 44 effective with sales made on or after Oct. 1, 2009. To mitigate state financial exposure, the Article 42 sales tax changed from a per capita distribution to that of a point of delivery basis, beginning with the October 2009 distribution (January payment). Since the per capita food sales tax is no longer statutorily tied to Article 42, it remains distributed on a per capita basis. Counties also are required to hold their cities harmless for their Article 44 loss, adjusted by the Article 42 distribution change. Please remember that sales tax collections and distributions are roughly three months apart—in 2009-10, counties saw Article 44 eliminated with the distribution they received in January 2010. However, as sales tax refunds from hospitals, non-profits, local governments, and other entities are processed, generally with a year or more lag from the sale, the Article 44 posting on the sales tax monthly distribution report may show negative amounts for some time to come. The Medicaid relief swap includes a “hold harmless” provision that guarantees each county will benefit by at least $500,000 in Medicaid relief every year in perpetuity. Eligible counties receive 90 percent of the estimated hold harmless payment by March 15, with a truing up of the actual payment due by Aug. 15. In this and future years, the Medicaid hold harmless payment is based on actual performance – actual Medicaid savings versus actual foregone sales taxes. The fourth annual Medicaid hold harmless report was released March 15 – March 2011 hold harmless report. Also released was a revised August 2010 report, resulting from an incorrect sales tax loss calculation used in the original report. Since the original August report overstated sales tax losses, several counties received more in their 2010 hold harmless payments than were actually due. The N.C. Department of Revenue will be withholding from those counties the 2010 overpayment from the 2011 March preliminary hold harmless payment. Please find here the methodology and estimate for the 2011-12 Medicaid hold harmless payment. The Department of Revenue calculates the city loss monthly and withholds this amount ostensibly from the county’s Article 39 monthly distribution (reduction is actually made against total county allocation). DoR includes the city hold harmless in the city’s monthly distribution. The Local Government Commission recommends that counties book the city hold harmless against their Article 39 receipts. Because the Medicaid relief swap affects Articles 44, 39 and 42, counties must project their sales tax revenues accordingly—the county’s actual loss in Article 44, the city’s loss of Article 44 being deducted from the county’s Article 39, and the county/city impact for Article 42 shifting to a point of delivery basis. Counties receiving the Article 44 hold harmless payments from lost reimbursements will continue to receive these funds until the current expiration date of 2012 (2012-13 fiscal year), absent legislative action. Current law requires counties to use 60 percent of Article 42 receipts for public school capital outlay purposes as defined in G.S. 115C-426(f) or to retire any indebtedness incurred by the county for these purposes. The General Assembly modified this requirement in the 2008 “technical corrections” bill (S1704), to require counties whose Article 42 receipts would be less under the point of delivery allocation to earmark enough revenue to make up for the loss of school construction funding. Discussions with General Assembly staff and School of Government faculty indicate that the required school construction set-asides under Articles 40 and 42 do not apply to the food sales taxes previously levied under these articles. A reformatting of the N.C. Department of Revenue’s sales tax distribution report now clearly shows those sales tax collections attributed to food sales. To help counties calculate the monthly required set-aside, please find here a suggested methodology, based on data supplied via the sales tax distribution report. As a reminder, Article 42 and Article 40 set-aside dollars are to be used by counties to meet their statutory obligations regarding school construction and maintenance; this is not a funding stream directly to schools. 2010 Census Population The state will be using the new 2010 census population figures as the base population estimate for the 2011-12 revenue distributions. Please find here a chart that shows the difference between the 2009 certified population estimates and the 2010 census data, to give you some indication of the impact of population changes. Overall, the state population projection model overestimated a declining or flat population in the more rural counties. The 2010 census will rebase all population projections and recalibrate the model to reflect the actual demographic patterns between 2000 and 2010. Federal Health Care Legislation We understand additional funding for county public health departments will be made available through the federal health care reform legislation passed last spring, while the expansion of Medicaid eligibility to all individuals under 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level will greatly increase county DSS eligibility caseloads. The Medicaid expansion does not become effective until 2014. ADM Fund and Lottery Proceeds for School Construction ADM Fund The General Assembly redirected all of the 2009-11 biennium corporate tax set asides for school construction, the statutory revenue s class class="link1"tream for the county ADM Fund, to state public school operating expenses. Absent further legislative action, the corporate tax set asides for school construction will resume with the 2011-13 biennium. The General Assembly's funds diversion did not impact current ADM Fund balances. For your county's balance, please see the ADM Fund "Special Summary Report," under the Public School Building Capital (ADM) Fund link at this site. Lottery Proceeds The 2010-11 state budget took $63 million or roughly one-third of county lottery receipts for state educational expenses, including state classroom operating costs and university scholarships. A special provision allocated the remaining county lottery monies on a straight per pupil basis. As a reminder, net lottery revenues are statutorily allocated with 50 percent to early grade classroom reduction, and at-risk pre-K programs, 40 percent for school capital needs, and 10 percent for university and community college scholarships. The governor’s budget proposal would reduce the county’s 40 percent to 10 percent, increasing the use of county dollars for classroom expenses and university scholarships. Per guidance to the House and Senate Education Appropriations Subcommittee, the level of county lottery funding, and allocation method thereof, is a “big chairs” item, meaning that General Assembly leadership will decide what lottery funds will be set aside for school construction, if any. Counties collectively have prioritized restoration of lottery and ADM funding for school construction needs as one of five top legislative goals. Unless the General Assembly changes the school construction allocation formula, the 40 percent for school capital needs are further divided into two allocations, based on a county’s effective tax rate. It is unknown at this time what allocation method will be adopted, but counties are reminded that a straight ADM allocation has been enacted via special budget provisions over the past several years. Should the statutory formula remain, the first allocation, available to all counties, sets aside 65 percent of the 40 percent based on the school district’s average daily membership. The second allocation sets aside the remaining 35 percent for those counties whose effective tax rates exceed the statewide average based on current year’s data. A county’s effective tax rate is based on where a county is in its revaluation cycle. For those counties in the first year of revaluation, the effective rate equals the tax rate multiplied by the sales/assessment ratio for that year (generally the ratio is at or is very close to 1). For those counties in the second year of revaluation, the effective rate equals the tax rate multiplied by a weighted average of the sales/assessment ratio for the two most recent years. For counties in the third or later year of revaluation, the effective rate equals the tax rate multiplied by a three-year weighted average of the sales/assessment ratio. The average daily membership of those school districts in qualifying counties will then be used to allocate this second pot of money to individual counties. Effective tax rates are recalculated each year to determine allocations for the following fiscal year. Changes in individual county effective tax rates vis a vis the statewide average effective tax rate drastically impact anticipated lottery proceeds per county, if the statutory formula is used for allocation. Please find here an estimate of county lottery funds based on the 2010-11 statutory allocation (40 percent of net lottery revenues, allocated by the statutory tax rate formula and on a per pupil basis. Once the school capital lottery appropriations are made to the Public School Building Capital Fund, county access to those funds mirrors the process for accessing current ADM Fund dollars in terms of project approval and uses with two major exceptions—lottery dollars do not require a local match and cannot be used for technology projects. Local Government Retirement System At its Jan. 28, 2011, meeting, the North Carolina Local Government Employees’ Retirement System (LGERS) Board of Trustees approved a .53 percentage point increase to the employer annual retirement contribution (ARC). Effective July 1, 2011, the base rate will increase to 6.88 percent of payroll for general county employees, and 6.9 percent for law enforcement personnel (7.35 offset by revised court cost fee of .45 = 6.9). While still costly, this increase is below that anticipated last year, as stock market improvements and new actuarial assumptions have driven down the projected ARC. Each county should have received its notice of employer contribution rates from the N.C. Department of State Treasurer, Retirement Systems Division. As a reminder, the county’s total ARC may also include individually calculated contributions for a death benefit package, if a county elects to offer this enhancement to its employees. The LGERS Board of Trustees’ actions are in response to the LGERS retirement funds loss of $4.8 billion in 2008. The actuary study undergirding the ARC calculation has smoothed the rate increase needed to offset the investment losses over five years. The 2011-12 ARC increase follows last year’s 1.55 percentage point increase above the historical rate of 4.8 percent. County Revenue Streams The following sections outline those county revenue streams that are either collected on behalf of counties or are state-shared, local revenues. Local Option Sales Taxes Our original projections for 2010-11 sales tax distributions recommended a 1-2 percent increase over 2009-10 receipts. Through the March payment, representing December sales, local sales tax distributions are up 1.4 percent year to date, with erratic shifts in monthly payments due to changes in payment processing and early payment of refunds. For example, January and February payments were down from last year’s figures, because the threshold for prepayment for large vendors who prepay their sales taxes within the month of sale increased from $10,000 to $15,000 with October sales. Next October, the threshold increases again to $20,000. Also, the state delayed sales tax refund processing in the past two fiscal years to manage cash flow issues. This year, through December, refund requests are up and are being paid on or ahead of schedule. For the remaining months, sales tax collections are likely to be in the 2 to 3 percent range. While there has been much discussion regarding expanding the sales tax base to include services, the General Assembly only extended the tax to include some digital download products, effective with sales made on or after Jan. 1, 2010. Last year, NCACC worked with state and local organizations to have included in the 2011 state appropriations act language to compel online travel companies to collect sales and occupancy taxes on the retail price of the room rental. This requirement became effective Jan. 1, 2011, although some OTCs have already initiated litigation. The Department of Revenue also took action last spring to require large volume vendors to submit their allocation reports electronically—this helped spur local distribution more accurately and quickly. We reference sales taxes by their statutory citations in General Statute Chapter 105:
Please visit the budget website for spreadsheets showing the countywide, and local government, sales tax distributions by Article, including those receipts due to sales tax on food for home consumption. Sales Taxes Changes It’s important to define the sequencing of sales, collections, allocation and distribution to help in projecting sales tax receipts. For example, August “collections” reflect July vendor “sales,” which are processed and “allocated” in September, with a local government “distribution” made on or before Oct. 15. The October payment is the first month’s sales tax distribution allocated to the July-June fiscal year. Put another way, local government sales tax distributions in any given month reflect the actual sales made three months prior. Please note that the 2 percent local sales tax on food—its administration and accounting—is treated as if it is a state sales tax beginning with the Oct. 1, 2003, collections (Jan. 12, 2004, payment report). For allocation purposes, one-half of the food sales tax is distributed on a per capita basis while the other half is distributed proportional to the 1997-98 Article 39 tax on food. The summary sales tax distribution report reflects county sales taxes attributable to food for the point of delivery portion of sales taxes. Overall, food accounted for $123 million per penny in 2009-10, or 12.5 percent of the total. As a reminder, you may access all local sales tax distribution reports from our "Links" page. Sales Taxes Refunds We encourage counties to monitor closely the sales tax refunds debited from their county area distribution, given the growth and expansion of these refunds. Overall, these refunds are now at $179 million for the local share alone. Per G.S. 105-164.14 (f), counties may request in writing to DoR the refund detail for the previous 12 months, and the sales tax distribution report lists the total refunds month by month. Article 40 Article 40 is distributed on a per capita basis, with 30 percent of Article 40 receipts dedicated to school capital. We recommend that counties consider a 3-4 percent growth in their Article 40 sales tax revenues. As noted earlier, discussions with General Assembly staff and School of Government faculty indicate that the required school construction set-asides under Articles 40 and 42 do not apply to the food sales taxes previously levied under these articles. Article 42 Article 42 was converted from a per capita to a point of delivery basis with sales made on or after Oct. 1, 2009. Sixty percent of Article 42 receipts are dedicated to school capital. For Article 42, counties need to decide whether a 3-4 percent growth in sales tax collections appropriately reflects their specific economic conditions such as job losses, changes in net migration, and availability of retail options. The food sales tax receipts originally levied under Article 42, now levied under Article 5, the state’s sales tax legislation, remain distributed on a per capita basis. Article 39 For Article 39, counties need to decide whether a 3-4 percent growth in sales tax collections appropriately reflects their specific economic conditions such as job losses, changes in net migration, and availability of retail options. Article 44 The remaining portion of Article 44 was ceded to the state on sales made on or after Oct. 1, 2009. Counties saw a reduction in their cash-basis distribution in January 2009, and may continue to see Article 44 adjustments as refund requests are processed, and sales tax discoveries are made. Hold Harmless Legislation authorizing Article 44 provided for a hold harmless provision for those local governments whose expected Article 44 receipts do not replace their repealed state reimbursements. Per G.S. 105-521, by May 1 of each year, the Department of Revenue (DoR) and the Fiscal Research Division of the General Assembly must estimate what Article 44 would generate for all local governments, based on their existing allocations for Articles 39, 40 and 42. If a locality’s repealed reimbursements are $100 or more than their anticipated Article 44 receipts, the Secretary of Revenue must submit an annual payment of that difference by August 15, and take the hold harmless funds from the state’s sales tax receipts. The 2004 Appropriations Act (H. 1414) amended 105-521 by guaranteeing hold harmless payments through 2012 (last payment in 2012-13). The Medicaid relief swap continues the Article 44 hold harmless through its existing sunset. The 2010-11 hold harmless payment was $26.7 million, significantly higher than that experienced in the past several years, reflecting much lower estimates for sales tax collections. Given the preliminary consensus forecast of 5.3 percent growth in sales taxes, counties should expect a decrease in state hold harmless funds. Article 46 Article 46 is allocated point of delivery, does not apply to sales on food for home consumption, and is not shared with municipalities. As a reminder, NCACC was successful in having legislation enacted to change the implementation date of Article 46 collections to begin in the next calendar quarter, with 90 days notice to the Department of Revenue. e-911 Fees State legislation, effective Jan. 1, 2008, preempted local authority to set an e-911 landline fee and substituted a statewide rate of 70 cents on all voice communications service connections, including landline, wireless and voice over internet protocol (VoIP). The 911 Board— the statewide entity charged with overseeing the 911 service charge and its use, reduced the monthly rate to 60 cents effective July 1, 2010, but did not reduce the monthly distributions made to eligible PSAPS. An annual allocation of $63.3 million has been distributed to counties and cities via monthly allotments and was based on the PSAP’s 2006-07 landline receipts and wireless allocation. After years of county legislative efforts to expand the use of e-911 fees for call taking and call dispatch, the 2010 General Assembly enacted House Bill 1691, which added telecommunicator furniture and any dispatch equipment located exclusively within a building where a PSAP is located to the list of eligible expenditures. HB 1691 also expanded the 911 Board to include additional local government representation. HB 1691 also directed the 911 Board to develop a new funding formula that is “equitable and sustainable” and “that ensures distributions for eligible operating costs and anticipated increases for all funded PSAPs.” The monthly e-911 distribution based on a snapshot in time amount creates a static funding stream that will not accommodate new technologies or current spending patterns. And, given a limited list of eligible expenditures, most PSAPs accumulated large fund balances within their emergency telephone funds. HB 1691 enables counties and cities with eligible PSAPs to spend 50 percent of their emergency telephone fund balance on any public safety expense, including field radios. Such expenses must be incurred within fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The remaining fund balance is reserved for eligible categories of expense. HB 1691 can also restrict the amount of carryover from year to year to 20 percent of annual distributions. The Board convened a working group, which included county representation, to study and propose a new distribution formula. The new formula as adopted by the 911 Board at its December 2010 meeting provides for a five-year rolling average of expenditures as a base amount for the 2011-12 distribution, with a total allocation of $46.4 million. Counties may petition the board for additional funding, and separate grant funding opportunities are also available for large capital investments or consolidation activities. The board will also be adopting minimum standards for PSAP operations—the draft plan published March 18 requires a minimum of two telecommunicators be available at all times. Video Programming Revenues House Bill 2047, effective Jan. 1, 2007, eliminated county and city government authority to award or renew local franchise agreements for cable services (G.S. 66-351). To replace lost local cable franchise fee revenues, G.S. 105-164.44I requires DoR to distribute part of the state sales tax collected on video programming and telecommunications services to counties and cities on a quarterly basis. For municipalities and counties that did impose a cable franchise tax, the amount is based on the cable franchise tax and PEG channel subscriber fee revenue imposed from July 1 through Dec. 31, 2006. For those that did not impose a cable franchise tax before July 1, 2006, the amount is based upon population. In 2009-10, $25.2 million was distributed to counties, a 1 percent decrease over the prior fiscal year despite a slight uptick in total video programming revenues. Year to date revenues for all local governments in this fiscal year are down 3.6 percent. Decreased collections are mainly evident in the telecommunications services piece of the video programming revenues, which may be driven by declining landline devices. Next fiscal year, state economists project flat or declining revenues. Counties with qualifying public, educational and governmental (PEG) channels are also entitled to supplemental PEG operating funds for up to three certified channels. HB 1691 (see e-911 fees above) increased the allocation for county and city PEG channels by $2 million, bringing the total allocation to $4 million. HB 1691 also eliminated the $25,000 per PEG channel ceiling, and instead allocates the $4 million proportionately across all certified PEg channels. Using the current number of certified peg channels – 116 – would equate to roughly $35,500 per channel. Please bear in mind that the additional $2 million comes from the current statutory set-aside of state telecommunications taxes so an increase in the PEG channel allotment reduces the video programming allotment by a like amount. Please also remember that you must certify your PEG channels to DoR each year by July 15, by visiting this site. Beer and Wine Taxes As a reminder, the General Assembly withheld 2/3s of the normal beer and wine tax distribution for 2009-10, decreasing the payment in May, 2010. No funds were withheld this fiscal year, and state analysts project a 2-3 percent increase in beer and wine taxes for next fiscal year. By law, the beer and wine distribution must be made within 60 days after March 31. Please also note that the share received by the county government can be affected by changes in population within the county. White Goods and Scrap Tire Disposal Taxes A portion of the tax collected to offset disposal costs for white goods and scrap tires is distributed quarterly to counties on a per capita basis. In 2010, $2.2 million and $10 million, respectively, were allocated in disposal taxes to counties, a 2.5 percent increase in scrap tire receipts and an 8.2 percent decline in white goods. Through the Feb. 2011 payment, white goods distributions were up a whopping 41.4 percent from last fiscal year, reflecting in part some of the federal stimulus credits for purchasing energy efficient appliances, while scrap tire distributions were up 10.7 percent. Continued economic improvement should increase scrap tire tax revenues in 2011-12. As a reminder, state budget action for 2010-11 redirected the special grants programs for these taxes but left intact the direct allocation to counties. Please be mindful that the 2010 census population figures will be used to disburse these funds. $2 Ton Statewide Tipping Fee The General Assembly enacted a $2 per-ton statewide “tipping tax” in 2007 via SB 1492 and SB 6, in conjunction with the rewrite of the state’s solid waste landfill disposal laws. The excise tax went into effect July 1, 2008, and is charged on municipal solid waste and construction and demolition debris that is deposited in a landfill in the state or transferred at a transfer station for disposal outside the state. The proceeds of the tax are distributed as follows: 50 percent to the Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund to help pay for assessment and remediation of pre-1983 landfills (including abandoned, unlined city or county dumps), 18.75 percent to cities on a per capita basis for solid waste management programs and services, 18.75 percent to counties on a per capita basis for solid waste management programs and services, and 12.5 percent to the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund for grants to local governments and state agencies. County per capita figures exclude those persons residing within a city. Proceeds of the tax can only be used to support solid waste programs or services. A city or county is excluded from the distribution if it does not provide solid waste management programs and services and is not responsible by contract for payment of the programs and services, unless it is served by a regional solid waste management authority. A city or county that receives funds and is served by a regional solid waste management authority must forward the amount it receives to that authority. 2009-10 distributions to counties and cities equaled $6.9 million, with quarterly payments at $1.8 million for the last two quarters. State Allotments for Public Schools The N.C. Department of Public Instruction is not publishing budget planning allotments this year, given the growing uncertainty of state funding cuts. You will find here the estimated average daily membership for your LEA(s), and a comparison of continuation allotments versus that proposed in the governor’s budget. Please find here the local salary supplements paid to teachers and other school employees in 2009-10. Charter Schools As of this writing, Senate Bill 8 as currently proposed would permit 50 additional charter schools to be created each fiscal year going forward, and would authorize, but not require, a county to provide direct funding for capital needs to those charter schools serving the county’s students. A county would also be able to share a portion of its lottery funds to those charter schools serving the county’s students, based on a per pupil allotment. The allocation method to share county current expense dollars with charter schools would continue as currently designed – the county would make its current expense appropriation to its LEA(s), and the LEA would share the county’s current expense appropriation with the charter school serving the county’s students on a per pupil basis. State Estimates for Social Services Programs Please find here the DHHS budget estimates for the county share in social services programs. Summary of Revenue Estimates
Department of Revenue Contact List Please find below Department of Revenue staff by area of responsibility. As a reminder, the distribution unit has been combined with the property tax division into the newly consolidated Local Government Division, under the direction of David Baker.
|