State of North Carolina Department of State Treasurer

RICHARD H. MOORE TREASURER State of North Carolina Department of State Treasurer State and Local Government Finance Division and the Local Government Commission Memorandum #959 ROBERT M. HIGH DEPUTY TREASURER April 25, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: County Officials and Certified Public Accountants T. Vance Holloman, Director Fiscal Management Section Management of Cash and Taxes Counties For the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2001 This publication provides comparative cash and investment and tax levy information of county governments for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. As in the past, we have added the county assessment-to-sales ratios and have calculated effective tax rates. (Note: the effective tax rate is calculated by multiplying the county-wide tax rate by the assessment-to-sales ratio.) Providing the effective tax rates should result in a better comparison of tax rates between counties, given those counties are at different points on their revaluation cycles. In addition, the average unit-wide effective tax rates for the last five fiscal years are presented. The statistics provide a range of highest and lowest items within a grouping and the mathematical average. Tax collection percentages and average tax collection percentages are presented for all property, all property other than motor vehicles, and for motor vehicles only. This analysis presents information for the State as a whole and the following population groupings: 100,000 and above; 50,000 to 99,999; 25,000 to 49,999; and 24,999 and below. County officials are encouraged to compare their own performances to similar counties and to statewide averages. Such comparisons may identify opportunities for improvement or may indicate improved performances from previous fiscal years. For those counties with below average tax collection rates, collection procedures should be reviewed to determine if more effective means of collection are available. An improvement in tax collection rates provides numerous benefits to counties. It provides more revenues to finance programs, generates additional funds for the investment program, and allows the property tax rate to be lower than it would otherwise have to be. Section 50, Tax Assessment, Billing, and Collection in the Department of State Treasurer Policies Manual, provides information on collection procedures. If you have not ordered a copy of this publication, please contact Margo Pope in our office at (919) 807-2382. Also, the Institute of Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill offers courses in tax collection that may benefit tax collectors in carrying out their statutory responsibilities. Given the role assumed in recent years by the counties in billing and collecting motor vehicle taxes for all residents, including those within municipalities, local officials should strongly consider consolidating the property tax functions of counties and municipalities. Again Section 50, Tax Assessment, Billing, and Collection in the Department of State Treasurer Policies Manual, contains a discussion on consolidated 325 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1385 Telephone: (919) 807-2350 Fax: (919) 807-2352 Website: www.treasurer.state.nc.us An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Memorandum # 959 April 25, 2002 Page 2 property tax functions. In addition, Memorandum #692, Consolidating County and Municipal Property Tax Functions and Memorandum #929, Results of Municipal and County Survey on Consolidating and Billing of Tax Functions, which discuss joint arrangements utilized by many counties and municipalities, are available from our office. Consolidating the property tax functions should provide more economical use of equipment, office personnel, supplies, and postage. A single tax billing and collection office would simplify taxpayers efforts to pay and inquire about the status of their taxes. Also, especially for smaller units, a consolidated office should be able to enforce tax collections (attachment and garnishment, levy and foreclosure) at a lower cost. To be most effective, county tax collectors should periodically provide a listing of delinquent municipal taxpayers to the appropriate municipal officials. Local municipal officials may be able to provide employment information about the delinquent taxpayers to the county tax collector. The local municipality may also have bank account information obtained when the delinquent taxpayer paid a water or electric bill with a check. A cooperative sharing of information should allow the municipality to increase its tax collections. If the county is paid a percentage of the taxes collected, the revenue to the county also increases. The county tax collector also will have information which may be used to collect delinquent county taxes. Certainly, the smaller the local government, the more effective this cooperation is likely to be. All official actions on behalf of municipalities should begin with the county tax collector who is acting as the municipal tax collector and who should be named in the order of collection. Debt Setoff Program In the latter part of the 2001 calendar year, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and the North Carolina League of Municipalities finalized the framework allowing local governments to submit debtor information to a third party clearinghouse. The clearinghouse will attempt to match the debtor information with North Carolina state income tax return information in an effort to intercept income tax refunds on behalf of the local government unit. In summary, a county may submit a claim for a debt of $50 or more to the NC Local Government Debt Setoff Clearinghouse. The debt must be owed to the county by an individual and have occurred because of contract, subrogation, tort, operation of law or some other legal theory. Delinquent property taxes may be submitted for setoff, as well as delinquent water bills or other amounts owed to a local government. General Statute 105A contains the State laws authorizing and regulating the Debt Setoff Program. The statutes require that a county must inform a citizen in writing that the county intends to use this program to collect the amount due. An appeal process must be available to the citizens wishing to protest the proposed debt setoff. No debt may be submitted to the clearinghouse until 60 days after the debt has been declared delinquent. The submission must include the full name and the Social Security number of the debtor. Each successful debt setoff match will be charged a $15 recovery fee, which cannot be charged to the debtor. There is no cost to the county if no match is made. For example, for the successful collection of an $80 property tax bill, a county would receive $65, and the collection expense of $15 would be recognized. The delinquent taxpayer s account would be credited for the full $80. See the illustrative journal entry below. Cash $65 Collection expense 15 Accounts Receivable $80

Memorandum # 959 April 25, 2002 Page 3 At the time of this memo, the Debt Setoff Program has only been fully operational for a short period. However, early feedback from officials of counties and municipalities provides some additional information which county tax collection officials may want to consider. One county, working with the local newspaper to publicize the program, found some citizens welcoming the chance to catch up on their back taxes and avoid any temptation to spend their tax return on other items. From experience, one participating coastal community believes that their debtors have left the local area but have not left the State, thus making collection efforts on a statewide basis potentially more effective. A county planning to participate should consider such factors as who their debtors are, are they likely to be receiving NC income tax refunds, does the unit have the debtor s Social Security number, etc. This program is currently available only to counties and municipalities. Any county that is contemplating asking for Social Security numbers for possible future use should be aware that currently, no clear legal precedent exists for the gathering of Social Security numbers from North Carolina citizens. If counties do have this information, counties should take every precaution to protect the Social Security numbers from unauthorized use. Local governments collecting this information may want to consult with their local attorney to ensure that the county is not in violation of the State Privacy Act [G.S. 143-64.60] which prohibits denial of any right, benefit or privilege provided by law to an individual because that individual refused to provide his Social Security number. G.S. 143-64.60 requires a disclosure statement on any application form requesting the Social Security number. The disclosure should list the statutory authority for the collection of this information, whether this is a voluntary or mandatory disclosure, and what purpose this information will be used for. Additional information on the program is available from the NC Association of County Commissioners, www.ncacc.org, and the North Carolina Local Government Debt Setoff Clearinghouse, www.ncsetoff.org. Statistical Data The statewide and population grouping tax collection percentages over the last five fiscal years are as follows: Average Current Year Tax Collection Percentages Population Grouping 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Statewide 96.53% 96.59% 96.53% 96.53% 96.44% 100,000 and Above 97.21 97.30 97.15 97.26 97.16 50,000 to 99,999 95.58 95.54 95.57 95.21 95.32 25,000 to 49,999 95.62 95.40 95.55 95.39 95.07 24,999 and Below 93.66 93.80 94.07 93.93 93.68 The statewide tax collection percentage for 2000-01 was slightly lower from the previous year. The high tax collection percentages over the last five fiscal years are good indicators of the quality of county financial management; however, in some individual cases there is still room for improvement.

Memorandum # 959 April 25, 2002 Page 4 An overall trend that can be noted is that tax collection percentages for counties vary according to population, with the largest counties having the highest tax collection percentages. This trend is consistent for the four preceding years and continues to be so. Within each population grouping, there may be substantial variation in collection rates, meaning that not all small counties have lower tax collection rates and vice versa. Average 2000-01 Tax Collection Percentages Population Grouping Excluding Motor Vehicles Motor Vehicles Statewide 97.67% 86.95% 100,000 and Above 98.26 88.36 50,000 to 99,999 96.83 84.56 25,000 to 49,999 96.46 84.93 24,999 and Below 95.21 82.54 The 1997-98 fiscal year was the first year collection rates for motor vehicles and property other than motor vehicles were separately reported. These figures are included in the report because the methods of billing and collecting taxes differ between motor vehicles and other classes of property. The same trend noted for all property is noted for motor vehicle taxes also. Tax collection percentages for counties vary according to population, with the largest counties having the highest tax collection percentages. We spoke with tax collectors from those counties that had the higher collection percentages for motor vehicles. Those tax collectors indicated that they send out multiple late notices for vehicle taxes. Some of those counties also aggressively attached and garnished the wages of a delinquent taxpayer. Units that rely solely upon the block upon subsequent year registrations placed with the Division of Motor Vehicles should eventually collect a high percentage of motor vehicle taxes, but their current year collection percentages of motor vehicle taxes will probably be lower. The statewide and population grouping statistics on the unit-wide property tax rates over the last five fiscal years are as follows: Average Unit-Wide Tax Rates (per $100) Population Grouping 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Statewide $.6696 $.6658 $.6591 $.6671 $.6520 100,000 and Above.6876.6838.6749.6882.6601 50,000 to 99,999.6289.6148.6119.6013.6091 25,000 to 49,999.6397.6470.6475.6536.6640 24,999 and Below.6775.6752.6563.6755.6781 The averages shown above for all five fiscal years are calculated on a dollar-weighted basis. For most counties the tax rate is lower in the fiscal years immediately following revaluation. Tax rates usually increase as a county moves through the revaluation cycle, reaching a peak immediately before revaluation. Except for a slight increase in the year 1999-00, the overall trend shows a decrease in tax rates.

Memorandum # 959 April 25, 2002 Page 5 Average Unit-Wide Effective Tax Rates (per $100) Population Grouping 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Statewide $.5888 $.5797 $.5696 $.5787 $.5728 100,000 and Above.6054.5944.5909.6019.5989 50,000 to 99,999.5476.5415.5160.5233.5151 25,000 to 49,999.5708.5587.5465.5479.5392 24,999 and Below.5904.5843.5568.5631.5430 The above table shows the effective tax rates. The effective tax rate equals the property tax levy divided by the estimated market value of assessed property. The averages in the above table are also dollar weighted. The above table shows an overall decline in effective tax rates. Sources The statistics presented in this report were gathered from various sources. The investment earnings, cash and investments, tax collection rates, and uncollected tax amounts were compiled from the 2001 Annual Financial Information Reports (LGC-36 or AFIR) submitted to the Department of State Treasurer. In some cases, this information was obtained from the audited financial statements of the unit. The assessed valuation, tax rate, and last year of revaluation for each county were compiled from the Assessed Valuation and Property Tax Levies for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001 Reports (TR-1-00) submitted to the Department of Revenue. The N.C. Department of Revenue calculates the assessment-to-sales ratios annually for each county. This ratio is based on a sample of selected real estate transactions within a county and equals the assessed valuation divided by the actual sales price. The county populations were provided by the Office of State Budget and Management and are certified estimates as of July 1, 2000. The tax rate equivalents and effective tax rates were calculated by the staff of the Department of State Treasurer. The average tax rates in this year s report are calculated on a dollar-weighted average basis. All data included in this report are the most recently available information. If you have any questions concerning this memorandum, please contact John Herron at (919) 807-2397.

County Governments in North Carolina Summary of Cash and Investments and Property Tax Levies For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001 Latest Yr/ January 1, 2000 Assessment 2000-01 2000-01 2000-01 Percent Collected 2000-01 2000-01 Cash & Investment Tax Rate Next Yr of Re- Assessed Tax -to-sales Effective Percent Excluding Motor Vehicles Tax Tax Rate County Population Investments (1) Earnings (1) Equivalent Valuation (2) Valuation (3) Rate Ratio Tax Rate Collected Motor Vehicles Only Uncollected Equivalent 100,000 and Above Alamance 131,398 33,485,377 2,719,469.0413 1993 / 2001 6,589,914,514.5250 70.15.3683 97.63 98.99 89.43 824,507.0125 Buncombe 207,152 62,732,051 4,538,082.0338 1998 / 2002 13,425,249,453.6300 87.88.5536 98.26 98.89 92.91 1,481,003.0110 Cabarrus 131,983 104,973,224 4,656,419.0450 1999 / 2003 10,353,820,610.5900 98.74.5826 95.40 96.14 88.58 2,690,643.0260 Catawba 142,318 78,232,523 5,484,398.0503 1999 / 2003 10,904,402,753.4950 93.75.4641 97.24 98.55 86.96 1,470,274.0135 Cumberland 303,892 101,842,503 8,577,495.0679 1996 / 2003 12,628,049,778.9000 95.82.8624 96.00 97.92 81.80 4,517,483.0358 Davidson 147,754 33,712,408 2,304,847.0298 1997 / 2001 7,724,150,632.5300 92.18.4886 96.18 98.04 84.26 1,560,523.0202 Durham 224,490 57,148,014 6,169,602.0445 1993 / 2001 13,860,658,726.9297 71.20.6619 96.68 98.17 83.38 4,318,884.0312 Forsyth 307,116 57,456,157 4,168,885.0198 1997 / 2001 21,033,493,795.6745 90.54.6107 97.99 98.93 90.43 2,854,738.0136 Gaston 190,735 38,825,315 2,712,192.0280 1997 / 2003 9,697,033,298.8250 88.09.7267 94.48 96.03 83.59 4,440,617.0458 Guilford 423,005 167,843,096 13,502,594.0450 1996 / 2004 30,010,127,980.6372 88.50.5639 99.03 99.63 94.12 1,870,276.0062 Iredell 123,446 30,782,290 2,171,226.0221 1999 / 2004 9,817,388,826.4700 97.18.4567 96.09 96.87 89.40 1,815,330.0185 Johnston 123,074 57,731,987 3,203,742.0552 1995 / 2003 5,805,342,143.8500 82.25.6991 95.36 97.08 85.67 2,314,814.0399 Mecklenburg 700,622 199,621,794 16,071,416.0252 1998 / 2002 63,784,745,179.7300 94.27.6882 97.28 98.35 87.17 12,747,921.0200 New Hanover 161,306 110,873,484 5,770,924.0360 1999 / 2004 16,008,537,352.6100 95.05.5798 98.01 98.80 88.57 1,939,450.0121 Onslow 149,698 55,700,314 3,453,824.0663 2000 / 2008 5,212,734,201.6300 100.00.6300 96.09 97.53 85.38 1,295,546.0249 Orange 118,854 41,694,190 2,770,764.0376 1997 / 2001 7,369,881,507.9290 83.02.7713 98.52 99.13 92.31 1,076,159.0146 Pitt 134,480 53,562,481 3,280,987.0548 1996 / 2004 5,987,372,081.6800 85.76.5832 95.59 97.30 85.40 1,792,155.0299 Randolph 131,095 37,914,700 4,888,024.0803 1993 / 2001 6,088,877,575.5125 63.91.3275 97.22 98.93 88.64 876,680.0144 Robeson 123,794 40,498,166 2,941,707.0810 1996 / 2004 3,633,962,384.8100 81.00.6561 86.38 90.55 67.51 3,948,559.1087 Rowan 130,802 24,935,797 1,887,342.0250 1999 / 2003 7,542,379,912.6350 95.52.6066 95.39 96.32 88.44 2,210,734.0293 Union 124,793 113,667,665 7,152,570.0802 2000 / 2004 8,920,994,930.4705 98.14.4617 97.66 98.57 91.56 996,363.0112 Wake 633,288 406,084,485 26,618,241.0448 2000 / 2008 59,373,927,027.5640 99.59.5617 98.50 99.00 94.27 5,094,229.0086 Wayne 113,524 38,808,588 2,314,498.0552 1995 / 2003 4,193,219,560.6500 77.94.5066 94.22 96.22 83.66 1,565,210.0373 Total $ 1,948,126,609 $ 137,359,248 $ 339,966,264,216 $ 63,702,098 Group Statistics: 100,000 and Above Range: Lowest.0198.4700 63.91.3275 86.38 90.55 67.51 Highest.0810.9297 100.00.8624 99.03 99.63 94.27 Average.0404.6601 90.73.5989 97.16 98.26 88.36 Page 6

County Governments in North Carolina Summary of Cash and Investments and Property Tax Levies For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001 Latest Yr/ January 1, 2000 Assessment 2000-01 2000-01 2000-01 Percent Collected 2000-01 2000-01 Cash & Investment Tax Rate Next Yr of Re- Assessed Tax -to-sales Effective Percent Excluding Motor Vehicles Tax Tax Rate County Population Investments (1) Earnings (1) Equivalent Valuation (2) Valuation (3) Rate Ratio Tax Rate Collected Motor Vehicles Only Uncollected Equivalent 50,000 to 99,999 Brunswick 73,692 62,914,870 3,428,041.0349 1999 / 2003 9,818,026,178.5650 93.21.5266 95.45 96.23 82.70 2,529,014.0258 Burke 89,498 18,212,974 576,548.0156 1994 / 2001 3,696,675,929.5900 66.13.3902 96.07 97.64 87.31 856,141.0232 Caldwell 77,575 10,854,903 866,324.0245 1997 / 2001 3,531,072,347.5829 77.78.4534 95.01 96.71 86.45 991,806.0281 Carteret 59,527 13,746,965 1,120,544.0191 1997 / 2001 5,881,075,940.5100 77.15.3935 96.39 97.25 85.20 1,039,757.0177 Cleveland 96,571 34,688,156 2,307,075.0477 2000 / 2005 4,841,496,289.6200 91.56.5677 93.65 95.74 79.27 1,888,476.0390 Columbus 54,857 11,357,443 971,038.0395 1997 / 2005 2,459,615,582.7200 80.57.5801 90.88 93.20 75.94 1,624,883.0661 Craven 91,595 23,941,806 1,727,926.0387 1994 / 2002 4,460,700,203.5700 83.30.4748 97.29 98.48 89.98 690,000.0155 Edgecombe 55,594 18,220,383 1,036,149.0519 1993 / 2001 1,996,546,007.9100 73.23.6664 92.58 95.11 78.85 1,380,797.0692 Halifax 57,371 11,953,053 1,190,142.0444 1999 / 2003 2,679,170,874.6900 92.31.6369 94.48 96.54 78.13 1,024,090.0382 Harnett 91,574 38,812,196 2,425,919.0695 1997 / 2003 3,489,906,609.7300 94.74.6916 92.32 94.87 78.53 1,960,972.0562 Haywood 54,212 13,870,622 826,574.0255 1996 / 2004 3,236,967,609.6100 73.30.4471 95.88 97.69 82.68 816,876.0252 Henderson 89,660 33,576,152 1,782,409.0257 1999 / 2003 6,927,361,568.5000 95.96.4798 96.41 97.46 87.63 1,239,235.0179 Lenoir 59,699 9,805,087 628,724.0219 1997 / 2001 2,868,909,808.7300 87.07.6356 93.55 94.85 84.94 1,356,827.0473 Lincoln 64,124 19,725,057 1,765,638.0423 2000 / 2004 4,176,943,426.5100 97.56.4976 96.91 97.87 90.39 661,518.0158 Moore 75,164 18,534,597 1,599,101.0308 1995 / 2003 5,198,857,877.5300 81.24.4306 98.52 99.51 91.07 404,338.0078 Nash 87,669 29,738,268 2,164,977.0509 1993 / 2001 4,256,321,255.6900 70.29.4850 95.90 97.49 87.25 1,205,763.0283 Rockingham 92,059 31,032,927 1,924,063.0386 1999 / 2003 4,987,136,190.6600 92.90.6131 96.64 98.01 86.99 1,113,839.0223 Rutherford 63,042 13,347,664 1,137,248.0362 1994 / 2002 3,142,438,460.6300 76.98.4850 95.74 97.17 84.00 839,644.0267 Sampson 60,499 20,734,315 1,033,912.0433 1995 / 2003 2,388,242,467.6950 71.01.4935 93.01 96.40 77.26 1,186,624.0497 Stanly 58,331 20,879,032 1,470,578.0591 1993 / 2001 2,490,384,945.7575 66.83.5062 96.03 96.96 90.94 742,785.0298 Surry 71,466 15,492,306 1,844,695.0444 1999 / 2003 4,153,943,306.5700 100.00.5700 95.60 97.25 84.40 1,005,441.0242 Wilkes 65,786 28,884,762 647,719.0175 1998 / 2003 3,711,027,818.5350 91.64.4903 94.59 96.27 85.01 1,076,631.0290 Wilson 74,027 33,269,681 2,041,977.0466 2000 / 2008 4,380,896,504.6600 100.00.6600 95.23 96.62 84.87 1,391,579.0318 Total $ 533,593,219 $ 34,517,321 $ 94,773,717,191 $ 27,027,036 Group Statistics: 50,000 to 99,999 Range: Lowest.0156.5000 66.13.3902 90.88 93.20 75.94 Highest.0695.9100 100.00.6916 98.52 99.51 91.07 Average.0364.6091 84.56.5151 95.32 96.83 84.56 Page 7

County Governments in North Carolina Summary of Cash and Investments and Property Tax Levies For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001 Latest Yr/ January 1, 2000 Assessment 2000-01 2000-01 2000-01 Percent Collected 2000-01 2000-01 Cash & Investment Tax Rate Next Yr of Re- Assessed Tax -to-sales Effective Percent Excluding Motor Vehicles Tax Tax Rate County Population Investments (1) Earnings (1) Equivalent Valuation (2) Valuation (3) Rate Ratio Tax Rate Collected Motor Vehicles Only Uncollected Equivalent 25,000 to 49,999 Alexander 33,762 13,130,095 377,881.0273 1994 / 2002 1,384,845,613.6500 69.92.4545 94.86 96.51 86.43 461,765.0333 Anson 25,328 7,282,032 586,384.0628 1994 / 2002 933,543,242.8700 63.78.5549 96.49 97.99 88.19 292,558.0313 Beaufort 45,030 12,659,887 452,087.0171 1994 / 2002 2,650,613,276.6300 82.04.5169 92.76 94.51 79.09 1,197,067.0452 Bladen 32,376 8,224,242 498,857.0289 1999 / 2007 1,723,994,807.8425 87.47.7369 94.65 96.48 81.26 770,104.0447 Chatham 49,588 22,103,582 1,381,987.0464 1995 / 2001 2,979,307,993.8500 70.30.5976 96.94 98.48 86.10 787,901.0264 Dare 30,154 46,373,752 2,946,737.0583 1998 / 2006 5,056,579,785.4900 88.89.4356 97.67 98.09 89.23 578,145.0114 Davie 35,024 32,962,200 1,090,149.0522 1994 / 2001 2,088,368,825.6300 81.89.5159 95.89 96.81 90.33 543,677.0260 Duplin 49,319 18,593,775 1,345,038.0666 1994 / 2001 2,018,467,333.7750 59.40.4604 92.26 95.45 73.16 1,198,500.0594 Franklin 47,545 21,837,519 1,297,899.0602 1998 / 2006 2,155,649,818.8800 76.63.6743 95.09 96.57 85.69 929,327.0431 Granville 48,812 19,687,614 1,736,839.0904 1994 / 2002 1,921,618,441.7350 70.14.5155 94.69 96.64 83.95 756,670.0394 Hoke 33,976 8,524,508 482,863.0421 1998 / 2006 1,148,065,758.7400 95.78.7088 94.23 94.55 91.83 484,493.0422 Jackson 33,283 19,595,415 1,775,068.0550 2000 / 2004 3,227,945,640.4800 98.86.4745 95.38 96.50 82.09 740,656.0229 Lee 49,245 15,927,928 1,095,332.0389 1995 / 2003 2,812,492,704.7500 82.38.6179 95.46 96.78 86.40 965,139.0343 Macon 29,968 14,031,368 1,372,167.0380 1999 / 2003 3,606,864,224.4300 93.84.4035 96.45 97.09 86.49 546,458.0152 Martin 25,593 20,216,024 1,452,399.1102 1993 / 2001 1,317,988,645.7700 76.92.5923 93.99 95.89 79.21 610,074.0463 McDowell 42,356 7,275,753 621,460.0346 1995 / 2003 1,797,476,741.6375 75.80.4832 96.39 98.00 87.73 417,533.0232 Montgomery 26,902 10,421,714 614,786.0414 1996 / 2004 1,485,467,745.5900 77.12.4550 96.20 97.90 83.47 334,036.0225 Pasquotank 34,994 8,785,761 606,792.0428 1998 / 2006 1,417,251,621.8600 85.83.7381 93.55 95.52 81.04 791,313.0558 Pender 41,379 17,166,611 1,125,341.0498 1995 / 2003 2,257,989,576.6680 73.90.4937 91.40 91.37 91.57 1,364,838.0604 Person 35,748 7,156,388 533,178.0202 1997 / 2001 2,641,227,498.6700 92.13.6173 96.17 97.22 85.79 679,302.0257 Richmond 46,592 16,257,054 1,083,131.0629 1997 / 2005 1,723,302,289.8200 87.83.7202 94.64 96.10 86.33 755,713.0439 Scotland 36,036 9,041,478 602,990.0384 1995 / 2003 1,568,429,653.9300 86.64.8058 94.46 96.60 80.95 811,644.0517 Stokes 44,892 4,034,928 545,779.0251 1997 / 2001 2,172,255,750.6200 87.67.5436 95.49 97.01 86.20 605,324.0279 Transylvania 29,429 26,438,626 1,440,856.0597 1995 / 2002 2,415,368,004.6410 85.47.5479 97.79 98.36 92.10 342,329.0142 Vance 43,083 6,123,271 463,117.0238 2000 / 2008 1,943,814,744.8400 91.39.7677 91.35 92.58 83.97 1,433,342.0737 Watauga 42,827 21,701,027 1,330,312.0420 1995 / 2002 3,171,034,123.4450 68.21.3035 97.33 98.07 90.51 375,327.0118 Yadkin 36,504 13,021,903 789,885.0371 1999 / 2004 2,131,073,372.5800 91.03.5280 93.31 95.22 75.94 776,200.0364 Total $ 428,574,455 $ 27,649,314 $ 59,751,037,220 $ 19,549,435 Group Statistics: 25,000 to 49,999 Range: Lowest.0171.4300 59.40.3035 91.35 91.37 73.16 Highest.1102.9300 98.86.8058 97.79 98.48 92.10 Average.0463.6640 81.21.5392 95.07 96.46 84.93 Page 8

County Governments in North Carolina Summary of Cash and Investments and Property Tax Levies For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001 Latest Yr/ January 1, 2000 Assessment 2000-01 2000-01 2000-01 Percent Collected 2000-01 2000-01 Cash & Investment Tax Rate Next Yr of Re- Assessed Tax -to-sales Effective Percent Excluding Motor Vehicles Tax Tax Rate County Population Investments (1) Earnings (1) Equivalent Valuation (2) Valuation (3) Rate Ratio Tax Rate Collected Motor Vehicles Only Uncollected Equivalent 24,999 and Below Alleghany 10,711 3,510,556 382,563.0423 1999 / 2007 905,362,905.5100 76.50.3902 95.74 97.00 84.04 203,351.0225 Ashe 24,441 3,571,096 362,759.0213 1998 / 2006 1,706,138,967.5200 84.24.4380 94.03 95.18 84.62 535,948.0314 Avery 17,333 10,478,039 319,823.0210 1994 / 2002 1,526,377,797.5800 76.07.4412 94.96 95.82 86.67 422,332.0277 Bertie 19,746 6,927,164 427,791.0575 1996 / 2004 743,851,044.8500 80.53.6845 90.67 93.03 78.71 598,213.0804 Camden 6,911 14,183,501 316,838.0946 1994 / 2001 335,094,536.8500 73.00.6205 93.72 95.72 81.21 198,864.0593 Caswell 23,582 10,499,637 579,447.0561 2000 / 2004 1,032,081,356.6411 97.59.6256 93.27 94.53 83.00 451,841.0438 Cherokee 24,394 7,049,087 417,402.0332 1996 / 2004 1,258,757,537.5700 73.01.4162 91.76 93.04 83.12 590,855.0469 Chowan 14,549 33,289,610 2,931,829.3895 1998 / 2006 752,622,520.6900 96.58.6664 95.35 96.12 89.77 241,393.0321 Clay 8,810 2,382,413 141,096.0223 1994 / 2002 633,369,630.4300 70.55.3034 96.81 97.86 88.27 86,534.0137 Currituck 18,289 44,898,961 2,969,512.1284 1997 / 2005 2,313,417,130.6200 86.34.5353 96.34 97.30 81.59 527,477.0228 Gates 10,546 3,336,229 182,077.0471 1993 / 2001 386,878,283.9200 70.22.6460 91.93 92.38 89.70 287,972.0744 Graham 8,009 1,914,668 102,039.0248 1995 / 2003 410,835,920.6500 61.36.3988 93.93 95.78 82.28 168,723.0411 Greene 19,041 5,217,098 262,293.0410 1997 / 2005 640,495,319.8500 77.16.6559 90.92 93.52 77.48 510,657.0797 Hertford 22,602 3,647,169 231,391.0282 1995 / 2003 821,792,137 1.0300 86.28.8887 92.33 93.04 88.00 653,541.0795 Hyde 5,857 7,197,289 353,709.0873 1995 / 2003 405,076,141.9000 81.49.7334 90.29 91.85 70.64 359,738.0888 Jones 10,392 5,521,799 296,345.0636 1998 / 2006 465,925,848.7100 91.51.6497 91.40 93.14 80.55 283,440.0608 Madison 19,702 4,921,813 195,961.0242 1996 / 2004 809,390,532.7700 57.50.4428 92.58 95.13 77.14 456,887.0564 Mitchell 15,706 1,418,647 296,669.0385 1993 / 2001 770,168,292.5400 66.78.3606 94.68 96.48 82.51 256,052.0332 Northampton 22,105 4,889,791 220,082.0231 1996 / 2004 951,960,501.8800 82.34.7246 95.75 97.40 84.05 358,414.0377 Pamlico 12,958 7,279,622 325,989.0381 1996 / 2004 855,163,602.6943 89.60.6221 94.93 95.19 92.67 290,356.0340 Perquimans 11,392 5,444,339 331,091.0502 2000 / 2008 659,339,331.6200 100.00.6200 94.45 95.65 84.12 227,531.0345 Polk 18,413 2,707,445 255,059.0232 1993 / 2001 1,101,466,159.6563 67.96.4460 94.86 97.06 78.33 367,785.0334 Swain 12,989 2,785,601 171,998.0351 1997 / 2005 490,053,058.5500 91.59.5037 92.66 94.90 77.51 196,133.0400 Tyrrell 4,126 1,580,441 112,423.0524 1997 / 2005 214,627,179.9900 80.00.7920 89.59 91.16 75.19 220,895.1029 Warren 20,094 4,599,682 411,869.0466 1993 / 2001 884,237,363.9500 72.22.6861 93.30 95.02 79.78 569,322.0644 Washington 13,709 3,749,958 291,186.0551 1997 / 2005 528,216,229.9200 92.72.8530 90.84 93.19 78.47 448,732.0850 Yancey 17,831 2,431,699 174,840.0137 2000 / 2008 1,273,761,249.5000 100.00.5000 95.26 96.87 81.81 295,985.0232 Total $ 205,433,354 $ 13,064,081 $ 22,876,460,565 $ 9,808,971 Group Statistics: 24,999 and Below Range: Lowest.0137.4300 57.50.3034 89.59 91.16 70.64 Highest.3895 1.0300 100.00.8887 96.81 97.86 92.67 Average.0571.6781 80.08.5430 93.68 95.21 82.54 Page 9