HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05-23-2019 Item 1-B - Public School Forum Local School Finance Study . . ATTACHMENT B
.. Pit �
N FINANCE STTJDY
PUBLIC SCHOOL
A _ FORUM
> INTRODUCTION
For more than 30 years,the Public School their students'needs.This,coupled with simultaneously making less taxing effort.
Forum of North Carolina's Local School increasing costs for education stemming Because wealthier counties have more
Finance Study has shined a light on from population growth and a changing taxable resources,they are able to keep tax
variations and changes in local spending economy,has forced local districts to take rates low while still generating significant
for public education across the state.The on a larger share of instructional expenses, revenue.Conversely,lower wealth counties
purpose of this annual study is to isolate exacerbating inequalities in educational with fewer taxable resources have to
local spending from state and federal opportunities between those with the least make greater taxing effort to support
spending to examine the capacity and and the greatest need. their schools.Thus,residents living in
actual effort of counties to support public lower wealth districts face substantially
schools.The Local School Finance Study Our research has identified two key trends greater financial burden to support
focuses not only on the amount that in local school finance that have led to public education while at the same time
counties spend on schools,but also on each deepened educational inequality across finding that their schools are more poorly
county's investment in relation to their districts over time. resourced than those in wealthier counties.
taxable resources.
First,there is a widening gap between These funding disparities have tangible
Under North Carolina's school finance wealthier counties and those with lower impacts in North Carolina classrooms.
system born more than eight decades ago, levels of wealth.As a result,there is a Local salary supplements for educators are
it is the state's responsibility to pay for growing disparity in counties'abilities to generally greater in high-wealth and larger
instructional expenses(including personnel) provide their schools with the resources districts,which better positions them to
while county governments pay for capital they need, particularly given the increasing attract and retain top talent.Rural districts,
expenses(buildings and maintenance). role of local spending over time. which already face challenges in recruiting
Cuts to the state budget during the Great and retaining highly skilled teachers,are at
Recession,however,have yet to be restored Second,we demonstrate that wealthier an even greater disadvantage if they are
to pre-recession spending levels,leaving counties are able to allocate more not able to offer competitive pay.In low-
districts across the state struggling to meet local dollars to public schools while wealth districts,schools are often unable
I INTRODUCTION 16 NOTES ON METHODOLOGY
4 HIGHLIGHTS OF • OF ADJUSTED PROPERTY
VALUATIONS PER STUDENT
• •• EFFORT
19 TABLE 2A:SIX-YEAR AVERAGE OF CAPITAL
• OUTLAY AND .
EFFORT•' . FORLOW-WEALTH
z 21 TABLE 4:ABILITY TO PAY
• • PAYS FOREFFORT• GAPS AND T 23 RENDS 2019 •
LOCAL15 ON POLICIES
ATTACHMENT B
> INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED)
to offer the diversity of class offerings found in wealthier counties, most dollars per student averaged $3,200 in local spending per
meaning that some students have restricted access to advanced student as compared with the ten that spent the least,which
courses or electives that are important to a well-rounded averaged $755 per student.That represents a gap of$2,445
education.For example,rural districts in North Carolina have less between the top ten and bottom ten counties in local spending,
than half the number of high school AP course offerings of urban the largest gap since we began tracking this figure in 1987.Of
districts-5.8 versus 11.9'And while higher wealth districts are the state's 100 counties, 59 were below the state average of
able to tap deeper wallets as they cope with decreased state-level $1,652 local dollars per student.
investments,low-wealth districts must scramble to pull together
scarce local resources to pay for basic classroom supplies such as This discrepancy exists primarily because of the variation in
paper,pencils and textbooks. property wealth across the state. In 2016-17, every county in the
top ten spending districts had a per student real estate wealth
In 2016-17,counties spent approximately$3.1 billion to fund capacity above $1.5 million, and together had an average five
instructional expenses,accounting for 24 percent of the combined times greater than the bottom ten counties.The ten wealthiest
federal,state,and local total.Counties provided funding for 809 counties had an average real estate capacity of$1,885,677 per
principals and assistant principals(15 percent of the total),6,313 student, compared with the ten poorest counties,which had, on
teachers(6.7 percent of the total),1,937 teacher assistants(9 average, a real estate capacity of$386,873 per student.
percent of the total),and 3,143 professional instructional support
personnel(20.2 percent of the total).
Under North Carolina's school finance system, it
Given the increasing burden on all local districts to fund is the state's responsibility to pay for instructional
instructional expenses and the rising inequality in funding expenses while counties pay for capital expenses.
capacity across counties, spending disparities between low
wealth and higher-wealth counties have grown substantially in However, In 2016-2017, counties spend approximately
recent years. In 2016-17,the state's ten counties that spent the $3.1 billion to fund instructional expenses.
............................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................
TAXABLE REAL ESTATE WEALTH PER CHILD COUNTY-LEVEL SPENDING PER STUDENT
(2016-17) (2016-17)
3,000 • •
2,000,000
2,500
1,500,000
2,000
1,000,000 1,500
500,000 1,000
500
TEN TEN
WEALTHIEST POOREST
COUNTIES COUNTIES TEN TEN
HIGHEST-SPENDING LOWEST-SPENDING
COUNTIES COUNTIES
The ten wealthiest counties have more than five times the taxable
property wealth per child available than the ten poorest counties. Annual per-student county spending on programs and personnel was
As a result,even though the ten poorest counties tax themselves at $2,445 higher in the ten highest-spending counties than in the ten
nearly twice the rate of the wealthiest counties,the revenue they lowest-spending counties.This gap is wider than last year,when it was
generate through taxation remains substantially lower(See Table 4). $2,364 per student.
North Carolina Rural Center
>2
2016-17 TOTAL LOCAL CURRENT SPENDING FEV MM XI B
Alamance $1,�
Alexander $1,262
Alleghany $1,930
Anson $1,33
Ashe $1,
Avery $2,138
Beaufort $2,024
Bertie $1,240
Bladen $1,399
Brunswick $2,414
Buncombe $2,511
Burke $1,179
Cabarrus F$1,736
Caldwell $1,265
Camden $1,248
Carteret $2,405
Caswell $1,029
Catawba $
Chatham $3,097
Cherokee $1,892
Chowan $1,708
Clay $977
Cleveland $1,368
Columbus $918
Craven $1,
Cumberland $1,
Currituck $2,441
Dare $4,212
Davidson $1,35
Davie $1,700
Duplin $990
Durham $3,211
Edgecombe $1087
Forsyth $1,976
Franklin $1,626
Gaston 1$1,363
Gates $1,851
Graham-$523
Granville $1,534
Greene $755
Guilford $2,425
Halifax $1,090
Harnett $1,097
Haywood $1,912
Henderson F1742Hertfor $Hoke-$555 STATE AVERAGE
Hyde $2,723 ($1,652)
Iredell
Jackson $1,681
Johnston $1,
Jones $1,623
Lee 1,691
Lenoir $1,140
Lincoln $1,407
Macon $1,763
Madison $1,149
Martin $1,414
McDowell $1,406
Mecklenburg $2,514
Mitchell $1,233
Montgomery $1,327
Moore $1,957
Nash
New Hanover $2,677
Northampton 69
Onslow $1,778
Orange
Pamlico $1,945 $5,025
Pasquotank $1,728
Pender $1,523
Perquimans $1,678
Person $1,333
Pitt $1,576
Palk $2,267
Randolph $1,256
Richmond $1,026
Robeson-$534
Rockingham $1,240
Rowan $1,776
Rutherford $1,4
Sampson $1,142
Scotland $1,833
Stanly $1,238
Stokes $1,660
Surry $1,226
Swain-$424
Transylvania $3,114
Tyrrell $952
Union $1,988
Vance $920
Wake $2,414
Warren $1,9831
Washington $1,010
Watauga E $2,792
Wayne $1,022
Wilkes $1,238
Wilson $1,4
Yadkin $1,148
Yancey $1,4
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 500C
3<
ATTACHMENT B
> HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2019 LOCAL SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY
WHAT'S NEW Separately, Governor Roy Cooper established the Commission
This year,the Local School Finance Study includes new additions on Access to Sound Basic Education through Executive Order
in the expanded "Gaps and Trends"section of the report.We 10 in July 2017.The Commission was created to address North
conducted interviews with local school finance officers and Carolina's challenges in meeting its constitutional obligation as
administrators to gain a deeper understanding of the needs of outlined in Leandro.The Commission includes 19 members that
different districts and the impact of local finance inequities in were appointed by the Governor from the fields of education,
different contexts. In three segments,we highlight the voices of business, local government, law, health care,early childhood
development, psychology and counseling,and public safety.The
experts from several rural and urban districts across the state. Commission,working in collaboration with the WestEd
A HISTORIC YEAR FOR SCHOOL FINANCE IN consultants,will develop recommendations for the state.The key
NORTH CAROLINA areas that the Commission will be addressing are:
In 2019,the work of several entities at the state level could lead Staffing each classroom with a competent,well-
to major changes to North Carolina's school finance system. trained teacher;
Below,we provide an overview of the efforts being undertaken by Staffing each school with a competent,well-trained
an independent consultant,WestEd;the Governor's Commission principal;and
on Access to Sound Basic Education;and the General Assembly's Identifying the resources necessary to ensure that all
Joint Legislative Task Force on Education Finance Reform. Each children including those at risk have an equal
of these groups is evaluating how our schools are funded,and opportunity to obtain a sound basic education.
what changes, if any,should be made to the current system.
In addition,The Joint Legislative Task Force on Education
Following the court ruling in the landmark Leandro v.North Reform was created through the 2017 Appropriations Act(Senate
Carolina,which affirmed the state's constitutional duty to ensure Bill 257)in response to a General Assembly Program Evaluation
all children have the opportunity to receive a sound basic Division report on the K-12 education finance system.The task
education,independent consultant WestEd was brought in to force,made up of 18 members of the General Assembly,will
create an in-depth report to be released this year. Based on consider implementing a new weighted-student funding model in
extensive research and analysis of the state's school finance North Carolina after reviewing and analyzing other school finance
system and its goals of adequacy and equity, WestEd will release systems and student need within the state.The task force will
their findings in the spring of 2019. submit a report on the results of its study,including proposed
legislation,to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee.
LOCAL • • 2019: RANKINGS AT-A-GLANCE
showsThe chart on the next page provides a summary of key based on county spending combined with low-wealth and
rankings from our analyses,calculated in the five tables small county supplemental state funding rank highest on this
included in the appendices to this report. measure.This column can be analyzed alongside the second
column to show the impact of supplemental funding on
Property Value Rank:The first column • . rankings. Table
rankingsbased oavailable in each
county. Most local funding for schools comes from property Ability to Pay Rank:The fourth column's rankings reflect an
taxes.Counties ranked higher on this measure have more analysis of each county's fiscal capacity to support public
property available for potential taxation to support educa- schools,taking into account property values(from the first
tion.(See Table 1) column,adjusted using the state's average effective property
tax rate)and non-property tax revenues. Large, urban
columnActual Effort Rank: Rankings in the second column reflect counties that combine high adjusted property valuations with
the actual dollar effort of counties to fund schools,without broad-based economic activity and high per capita incomes
taking into account property wealth.Counties that spend the tend to receive high rankings on this measure.(See Table 4)
most per student rank highest on this measure.(See Table 2)
Relative Effort Rank:The final • •.
Actual Effort Rank II:The rankings in the third column serve Effort(from Table 2)and Ability to Pay(from Table 4).
the same purpose as the second column but take into Low-wealth counties with comparatively high spending levels
account supplemental state funding provided for low-wealth tend to rank highest in this measure.(See Table 5)
and small counties.Counties that spend the most per student
>4
ATTACHMENT B
LOCAL SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY RANKINGS-AT-A-GLANCE
FROM TABLE 1 FROM TABLE 2 FROM TABLE 3 FROM TABLE 4 FROM TABLE 5
COUNTY PROPERTY VALUE RANK: ACTUAL EFFORT RANK: ACTUAL EFFORT RANK II: ABILITY TO RELATIVE EFFORT RANK:
Adjusted Property Total Current Spending Total Current Spending Per ADM with PAY RANK: Current Spending as Percentage
Tax Base Per ADM Per ADM Low Wealth and Small County Funding Revenue Per ADM of Revenue per Student
Dare 1 2 3 1 97
Jackson 2 38 69 7 98
Watauga 3 6 14 3 89
Avery 4 17 13 8 93
Hyde 5 7 1 6 86
Brunswick 6 15 28 4 92
Carteret 7 9 19 2 94
Macon 8 31 59 9 95
Currituck 9 12 24 5 91
Transylvania 10 4 8 12 67
Polk 11 16 12 18 80
Ashe 12 50 38 22 90
Clay 13 92 32 26 96
Alleghany 14 24 10 21 76
New Hanover 15 8 17 10 81
Pamlico 16 23 11 20 78
Buncombe 17 11 23 13 83
Yancey 18 59 33 27 84
Chatham 19 5 9 11 68
Madison 20 80 54 36 88
Haywood 21 25 51 23 73
Warren 22 20 15 40 25
Graham 23 99 36 43 99
Henderson 24 32 64 24 82
Mitchell 25 77 34 46 74
Moore 26 22 48 19 87
Northampton 27 40 16 54 24
Durham 28 3 7 16 56
Cherokee 29 26 39 41 32
Perquimans 30 39 18 32 64
Orange 31 1 2 15 4
Wake 32 14 27 17 75
Mecklenburg 33 10 22 14 79
Person 34 67 93 42 71
Beaufort 35 18 35 34 33
Swain 36 100 99 38 100
redell 37 44 76 25 85
Montgomery 38 68 80 51 61
Jones 39 43 5 48 40
Pander 40 54 57 49 50
Davie 41 36 66 31 66
Lincoln 42 60 92 33 77
Chowan 43 35 20 47 35
Catawba 44 48 82 30 72
Rutherford 45 55 58 61 28
Craven 46 52 78 35 69
Tyrrell 47 93 4 76 65
Guilford 48 13 26 28 20
Stokes 49 41 43 63 10
McDowell 50 61 60 69 21
Rowan 51 30 40 52 18
Wilkes 52 75 87 60 59
Forsyth 53 21 46 29 49
Caldwell 54 69 72 70 36
Caswell 55 87 44 86 53
Washington 56 90 29 79 58
Bladen 57 62 61 78 11
Stanly 58 76 84 55 63
Davidson 59 65 83 59 48
Rockingham 60 73 79 65 52
Yadkin 61 81 85 71 55
Cabarrus 62 33 63 39 51
Bertie 63 74 30 90 13
Camden 64 72 31 58 60
Anson 65 66 37 84 15
Gates 66 27 6 89 2
Union 67 19 41 44 17
Burke 68 79 81 74 43
Alamance 69 45 62 45 47
Cleveland 70 63 68 68 27
Alexander 71 70 74 81 22
Lee 72 37 53 53 23
Onslow 73 29 55 37 44
Pasquotank 74 34 42 56 16
Franklin 75 42 45 83 3
Martin 76 58 47 75 14
Pitt 77 46 56 50 42
Hertford 78 53 21 85 6
Wilson 79 56 67 62 30
Surry 80 78 86 57 62
Randolph 81 71 73 73 34
Gaston 82 64 90 66 31
Granville 83 51 49 82 7
Halifax 84 85 96 87 39
Lenoir 85 83 91 72 54
Edgecombe 86 86 88 91 26
Nash 87 57 65 64 29
Duplin 88 91 89 92 41
Richmond 89 88 77 88 45
Cumberland 90 49 70 67 12
Johnston 91 47 52 80 5
Columbus 92 95 95 95 37
Wayne 93 89 97 77 57
Hoke 94 97 100 98 70
Harnett 95 84 75 96 8
Sampson 96 82 71 94 9
Scotland 97 28 25 97 1
Greene 98 96 50 99 19
Vance 99 94 94 93 38
Robeson 100 98 98 100 46
s<
•-. . 9UN
-• • • •� • -• ' •• • •• •- 1 ra,
t
all 0
e
SOURCES OF LOCAL SCHOOL FINANCE LAW:
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONSTITUTION
Article IX,Sec.2.Uniform system of schools.
(1) General and uniform system:term.The General Assembly shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general
and uniform system of free public schools,which shall be maintained at least nine months in every year,and wherein
equal opportunities shall be provided for all students. (2) Local responsibility.The General Assembly may assign
to units of local government such responsibility for the financial support of the free public schools as it may deem
appropriate.The governing boards of units of local government with financial responsibility for public education
may use local revenues to add to or supplement any public school or post-secondary school program.
ATTACHMENT B
Apart from the constitutional provisions,a major change in the Over time the delineations proscribed by the School Machinery
school funding structure occurred during the Great Depression. Acts and the School Budget and Fiscal Control Act have given
Under the School Machinery Act(enacted in 1931 and amended way to increased local investment in instructional expenses. Even
in 1933),the state assumed responsibility for all current expens- so,the North Carolina Supreme Court has made clear that it is
es necessary to maintain a minimum eight-month school term the state that bears responsibility for fulfilling the constitutional
and an educational program of basic content and quality(in- obligation to guard and maintain the right of every North Carolina
structional and program expenses). In exchange for the state's child to receive a"sound basic education."Leandro v.North Caroli-
expanded role, local governments assumed responsibility for na,346 N.C.336(1997).
school construction and maintenance(capital expenses).The
School Machinery Act established counties as the basic unit for
operating public schools,which is maintained today with large The North Carolina Supreme Court has made
county-wide school systems,except in the 11 counties that also clear that it is the state that bears responsibility
have city school systems. for fulfilling the constitutional obligation to guard
In 1975,the General Assembly enacted the School Budget and and maintain the right of every North Carolina
Fiscal Control Act,which delineated responsibility for school child to receive a "sound basic education."
funding:
To ensure a quality education for every child in North Carolina has been engaged in litigation defending its
North Carolina,and to assure that the necessary system of school finance for more than twenty years.The legal
resources are provided, it is the policy of the State action was instigated in part by spending inequities between low-
of North Carolina to provide from State revenue wealth and higher-wealth counties—inequities that persist today.
sources the instructional expenses for current
operations of the public school system as defined
in the standard course of study. It is the policy
of the State of North Carolina that the facilities
requirements for a public education system will
be met by county governments.
SOURCESOF • SCHOOL
ulTHE LEANDRO CASE
governments"Because the North Carolina Constitution expressly states that units of local
responsibility for public education may provide additional funding to supplement the educational programs
provided by the state,there can be nothing unconstitutional about their doing so or in any inequality of
opportunity occurring as a result...Clearly then,a county with greater financial resources will be able to
supplement its programs to a greater degree than less wealthy counties, resulting in enhanced educational
opportunity for .-
Leandro v.State,488 S.E.2d ..
7<
ATTACHMENT B
> SCHOOL FUNDING: WHO PAYS FOR WHAT?
While the state bears responsibility for providing a sound basic ••••••••••••••r...r...r...r...r...............................r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r...r
education to every child, North Carolina schools have three K-12 SPENDING (% OF GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET)
sources of funding. In the 2016-17 school year, North Carolina
public schools spent$13 billion on instructional expenses,using a
combination of state,federal,and local resources.State funding
accounted for 65 percent of expenditures,federal funding 60% K-12 education spending
52.5% represents the largest
accounted for 11 percent,and local funding accounted for 24 part of the state budget,
percent of spending. 50°�° but its share of the overall
state budget has declined
40% 38.7% sharply since 1970.
SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR SCHOOLS IN NC,2016-17 Source:North Carolina
30% Department of Public
Instruction,Highlights of
the North Carolina Public
FEDERAL LOCAL Source:North Carolina
1970-71 2016-17 School Budget.
$1.45 $31 Department of Public
BILLION BILLION Instruction,Financial
�24%� and Business Services,
Statistical Profile,Table
22-North Carolina
STATE Current Expense
$8.5 BILLION Expenditures by Source
of Funds.
WHO PAYS FOR SCHOOL PERSONNEL? 2016-17
FEDERAL FUNDS
Resources from the federal government accounted for 11 percent 100,000
of North Carolina public education spending on instructional STATE:
81,932
expenses in 2016-17,and totaled $1,452,167,878. Federal resources LOCAL:
are given to states in the form of direct grants,state applications, 6,313
state plans,or a combination of the three. FEDERAL:
6,059
80,000
TOTAL:
0 94,304
z
STATE FUNDS
0
In 2016-17,the state provided $8.5 billion to operate 2,614
district, charter,and regional schools in 115 school systems o 60,000
across 100 counties for 1.54 million students.Approximately 93
0
percent of state funds were spent on salaries and benefits for o
z
134,115 state-funded school personnel. E STATE:
Z 15,720
State funding for school operations has increased from $3.44 40,000 LOCAL:
STATE:
billion in 1992-93 to$8.5 billion in 2016-17. But while the level of a FEDERAL: 11,072
fundinghas increased over time,the percentage of the state's 3,971 LOCAL:
p g STATE: 3,143
General Fund dedicated to education has declined. In 2016-17, 4,561 TOTAL: FEDERAL:
38.7 percent of the state's General Fund was appropriated for z LOCAL: 27,628 1,345
20,000 809
K-12 public education, a significant drop from 1970, when it was FEDERAL: TOTAL:
15,560
52.5 percent. If public education were funded at the same
20
percentage of the General Fund as in 1970,districts and schools TOTAL:
5,390
would have an additional $3 billion to educate our students. 1 0
State funding for capital outlays has been relatively small
PRINCIPALS TEACHERS TEACHER PROFESSIONAL
compared with the state's investment in operations, and &ASSISTANT ASSISTANTS INSTRUCTIONAL
compared with what counties invest in facilities. In 2016-17,the PRINCIPALS SUPPORT PERSONNEL
state spent $40 million on capital outlays,compared to$1.1
Source:North Carolina Department of Public Instruction,Statistical Profile
billion spent by counties.
>8
ATTACHMENT B
LOCAL FUNDS
The nearly century-old division of state and local responsibility LOCAL SCHOOL FUNDING:
for school funding still shapes the way North Carolina pays for IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS
public education today, with approximately 65 percent of AND CLASSROOMS
instructional expenditures coming from the state and 97
percent of capital expenses paid at the local level. However,
the division has eroded somewhat over the past 5 to 10 years, Differences in the ability of • to invest in
with counties funding approximately 15 percent of principal their schoolinto dramatically
and assistant principal positions, 6.7 percent of teachers, 9 different options at the sch•• and classroom
percent of teacher assistants, and 20.2 percent of professional As an illustration, •' average class size
instructional support personnel; and with the state paying 3 of • students per •• counties
percent of capital expenses. spend the mostper ''nt would spend,on
average,$63,996 per classroom. By contrast,the
When examining local expenditures on programs and ten counties .- • the least per • would
personnel, in 2016-17 the ten counties that spent the most per spend, . .•- $15,096 .- ..
student averaged $3,200 per student compared to the ten that difference . : ••• per classroom.
spent the least, which averaged $755 per student. That average elementary school - of 490 students,
represents a gap of $2,445 between the top and lowest that translates to . • - of$1,198,054 .-
spending districts. Of North Carolina's 100 counties, 59 fall elementary •• average •
below the state average of$1,652 in funding for school .. - • . . difference .
personnel. Orange County alone spent $396 more than the • .: .- . ..translates
seven lowest-spending counties combined. These statistics
continue the trend of increased responsibility being placed on
counties to fund instructional expenditures as well as capital
outlays. This increased responsibility has resulted in FUNDING FOR SCHOOL BUILDINGS, 2016-17
exasperated inequities already experienced by students of
low-wealth counties.
STATE
One of the primary challenges from the five low-wealth $40 MILLION
plaintiffs in the Leandro case dealt with the inequities (3%)
between varying levels of county support for schools.
However, the state Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that "the
'equal opportunities' clause of Article IX, Section 2(1) of the
North Carolina Constitution does not require substantially
equal funding or educational advantages in all school
districts. Consequently, the provisions of the current state LOCAL
system for funding schools which require or allow counties to $1.1 BILLION
help finance their school systems and result in unequal
funding among the school districts of the state do not violate Lill _��A
constitutional principles."
Source:North Carolina Department of Public Instruction,Statistical Profile.
�Jw
i
t
7 � w
-All�
9<
ATTACHMENT B
> LOCAL SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY 2019: GAPS AND TRENDS
The primary source of revenue for county government is local ...............................................................................................................................................................................
property taxes.This year, our study once again revealed wide WIDENING REAL ESTATE WEALTH GAP
variation between the property values and revenues generated
between the state's wealthiest and poorest counties.This year
also saw the continuation of marked differences in spending per
child across districts.
2,500,000
POOREST COUNTIES TAXED THEMSELVES AT
HIGHER RATES WHILE STILL GENERATING
SUBSTANTIALLY LESS REVENUE FOR EDUCATION 2,000,000
The ten poorest counties taxed themselves at nearly double
the rate of the ten wealthiest counties- $0.81 compared to 1,500,000
$0.44, a 37-cent difference. Despite having higher tax rates
than wealthier districts,the revenue the poorest counties could
generate was still substantially lower than that of wealthier 1,000,000
counties.The poorest counties have raised their tax rates,while
wealthiest counties have been able to lower theirs, and yet the
substantial revenue disparity persists. 500,000
In 2016-2017,the taxable real estate gap between the top and
bottom ten districts was $1.49 million.This discrepancy has
decreased somewhat in the past several years,after peaking
at $1.69 million in 2012-13, following many years of rapidly �o �a��0°00°00 Doti°o�ooaoo`�oo°°o^oo�oo°°.° 01 ti 01�OHO°O�O ti°p
, ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti
increasing wealth inequality. Major factors that contributed to
the narrowing gap included reductions in real estate wealth in
the wealthiest counties, some counties'2011 revaluations, and The difference in real estate wealth capacity between the ten wealthiest
increases in student enrollment in several counties. Still, as and ten poorest counties has grown from$477,477 in 1997 to$1,498,804 in
shown in the graph below,the gap is much more substantial 2017.(See Table 1)
than in earlier years, resulting in widening inequality in the
ability of districts to fund schools to adequately serve their
students' needs.
DISPARITIES IN REAL ESTATE WEALTH PER ADM
'1
TOP QUARTILE
SECOND QUARTILE
THIRD QUARTILE
BOTTOM QUARTILE
>10
TAXED TO THE MAX IN DUPLIN COUNTY
In Duplin County, which ranked 92nd out of 100 counties increased due to changes in student enrollment, the
in terms of its fiscal capacity to support public schools, actual purchasing power of those dollars has actually
district leaders have had to be creative in order to decreased over the past 10 years," said Sutton.That's
mitigate the effects of the increased financial burden they because salary increases that require a match by the local
face at the local level thanks to years of decreased state district, employer retirement rate increases and employer
investment. hospitalization increases have eaten up local budgets.
Finding additional local dollars to meet those requirements
"Our school board is really trying to save the classroom is becoming increasingly hard to do without impacting
by protecting the funds that go directly into instruction," classrooms, Sutton said.
said Duplin County Schools' Chief School Finance Officer
Ashley Sutton. "In the past three years, we eliminated Duplin County's tax base is limited, said Sutton, so raising
three principal positions and three assistant principal additional revenues to make up for decreased state level
positions through school consolidation," said Sutton. investment is extremely challenging. In 2016-17, Duplin
Duplin County closed three of its middle schools and County taxed its residents at a rate of$0.69 — higher than
created an additional four K-8 schools in order to create the state average —yet that was enough to only raise
savings that would help address needs of the district by additional local funds of $990 per student. By contrast,
improving efficiency and maximizing resources. In addition, Wake County taxed its residents at a lower rate of $.60,
district reduction in positions was intended to address but its expansive tax base translated that into local funds
overall decreases in state investment in public schools. of $2,414 per student. The state's low-wealth supplemental
funding allocation helps bridge the gap some, but it's not
"While state dollars allocated in many categories, like enough.
teacher assistants, custodians and central office have
t � `
ATTACHMENT B
> GAPS AND TRENDS (CONTINUED)
LARGE SPENDING DISPARITIES CONTINUE
TO INCREASE
The gap between the highest and lowest spending counties has 25 YEARS AFTER LEAND.
increased dramatically since the mid-1990s. This year's study DISPARITIES REMAIN
found a slightly larger gap than in previous years: $2,445 per
student, compared with $2,364 last year, and $2,316 the year
prior. Orange County, the highest spending district in the state, In 1994,five school districts in low-wealth counties
spends more than eleven times more per student than Swain along with families filed a lawsuit against the state
County at the bottom.The ten highest-spending counties (Leandro v.State of North Carolina)arguing that
spend 4.3 times more per child ($3,200 per child) than the ten their school districts did not have enough money to
lowest-spending counties ($755 per child).
provide an equal education for their children,de-
LOCAL SCHOOL FUNDING: IMPACTS ON L spite the fact that they taxed their residentshigher
SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOMS than average.
One of the most notable impacts of inadequate local resources • - • •
is that low-wealth school districts have a harder time Halifax, Robeson,Vance and •- •
attracting and retaining high quality and experienced teachers were among the lowest funded in the state, remain
due to their inability to offer competitive salary supplements toward the bottom of our • of
like those offered in wealthier counties. Although these ability to support public schoolson per pupil basis.
counties do obtain funding from the state for instructional Robeson Countyonce again ranks •-•• last
staff, it is not enough to meet growing needs. Along with the ability to pay for •
population,the economy of North Carolina is changing -
meaning that costs associated with hiring and retaining
professionals have increased and state funding has not kept up
with these increased costs.
SPENDING DISPARITIES (2016-17) WIDENING SPENDING GAP
2,500
$5,000
•
$4,000 •
2,000
$3,000
•
$2,000 ROBESON $534 1,500
GRAHAM $523
$1,000
BOTTOM SEVEN COUNTIES O� oi°j 00 O� Off' O� Oa Oy OHO O^ Oz
If the bottom seven counties'total current spending per student were The spending gap between the top ten spending and bottom ten spending
combined,they would still spend$396 less per child than Orange County counties has grown from$1,094 per student in 1997 to$2,445 per student
spends by itself.(See Table 2) in 2017.The gap has increased from last year,when it was$2,364 per
student.(See Table 2)
>12
1
REDUCED PURCHASING POWER RESULTS IN INADEQUATE RESOURCES
IN WILKES COUNTY
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"One of the things that people who look at public education Textbook funding has been down since the Great Recession,
finance struggle with is that when both sides of an issue when lawmakers nearly zeroed out that line item to cope
comment on school funding,they are both right,"said with decreased state revenues. It's crept back up since then,
Wilkes County Schools' chief finance officer, Seth Prevette. but it's still not at pre-recession levels and in many cases
"For example,when the state says they are pumping more district finance officers need to dip into that line item to
money into schools--if you look at total dollars,that's true. purchase digital resources today.There's not enough fund-
But local school finance officers say that while there are ing for the two, says Prevette.
more dollars,those dollars don't purchase what they did
previously," said Prevette. "In Wilkes County,where we have a lot of technology capa-
bilities,we have traditionally taken the textbook funds and
Prevette says increases in teacher salaries, retirement and used them for software and devices," said Prevette. "When
health insurance costs toward which local districts must the funding was cut back in the 2008 timeframe it hurt our
make contributions have eaten into other parts of public ability to make those purchases. More recently the ability to
school budgets,and it's becoming very difficult to avoid a transfer textbooks for purchasing of technology devices has
scenario where classrooms are impacted. been removed. That further hurts our ability to purchase
those type of items."
Additionally,there are many parts of the budget that are
simply inadequately funded by the state. Like Duplin County, Wilkes also has a smaller tax base on
which it can rely to come up with local funds to fill in for
"There is not much money for instructional supplies,"said decreased state investments.Taxing its residents at a rate
Prevette. "When we take that allotment and allocate it to of$0.66, it can only provide local funding at an amount of
schools,and all of your classroom teachers send a list home $1,238 per student, roughly half of what Wake County can
to parents saying we need you to go to Walmart and pur- spend on a per student basis.
chase all these things for your kids--you know at that point,
it's just not enough."
INADEQUATE FUNDING TO MEET
GROWING DEMAND IN WINSTON-SALEM/FORSYTH
In Winston-Salem/Forsyth schools, recently retired school principals were funded at a rate of 1 assistant principal
finance officer Kerry Crutchfield says that the impact of for 700 students. Now that ratio is 1:1000 students, which
decreased state level support for public schools has had results in either a heavier administrative load on principals
an unquestionably significant impact on their local budget, or we have to use other local resources to keep more
even though they are in a county with a larger tax base. assistant principals."
"We've lost over 40 percent of the state funding for teacher Crutchfield says this comes at a time when students have
assistants," said Crutchfield."And we've lost 50 percent more needs than ever before—school leaders in Winston,
of funding for textbooks and instructional supplies.Some he says, are finding that the social-emotional needs of
may think since we've gone to digital resources, we can children are being left behind these days, and schools have
save money that way. But the reality is that we cannot— we to step in to fill that void. "We also don't have sufficient
simply don't have enough money to cover the textbooks we funding instructional support personnel, like school
do still adopt as well as the digital resources." psychologists and nurses,to help,"said Crutchfield.
Crutchfield stresses that it's not "The General Assembly says they have increased funding for
education every year," said Crutchfield."But the major part
just the low wealth or small counties of all of those funding increases is the required matching
that are having a difficult time these benefit rate increase for retirement and health insurance,
This skews the fact that public school funding has been cut
days — everyone is. immensely.The money for retirement and health insurance
costs is included in state per pupil funding rate too,so that
"County funding for Winston Salem/Forsyth schools has also doesn't indicate how much we are really cutting into
declined over the last 10 years on a per pupil basis—our public school budgets."
district has been growing over the past few years while
we've been hit with economic pressures that many locales
have been facing. In addition,10 years ago,assistant
ATTACHMENT B
> LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON SCHOOL FINANCE POLICIES
In our conversations with district officials,we asked them about find innovative ways to address gaps in funding the unique needs
key school finance policies to understand their perspectives on of their schools and classrooms.
what's working well in the context of their district's needs,and
what needs to be improved. We also learned from our conversations with officials in small
and low-wealth counties that supplemental funding remains
Funding for a given number of Position Allotments is crucial, but is insufficient in fulfilling their financial needs. In 1991,
guaranteed to each local school district based on their average the state enacted supplemental funding streams for low-wealth
daily membership(ADM). Because these allotments are allocated and small counties, in part to address the limited capacity that
as positions rather than a particular dollar amount,they can be some counties have to raise revenues through taxation because
used to hire certified educators irrespective of where they fall on of their limited local resources and size. In 2016-17 the General
the salary schedule. Local finance officers and district leaders we Assembly provided an appropriation of$207 million for 68
spoke to,especially those in small and low-wealth districts, low-wealth counties(79 districts)and $40.9 million for 27 small
repeatedly cited position allotments as a lifeline for them. Not counties. However,district leaders that we spoke to said that
being limited to a specific dollar amount allows low-wealth and while these supplements help,their financial needs are much
small counties to hire the best teachers without having to more substantial than what these allocations provide,and all
supplement their salaries with local dollars.Without this districts need increased state funding across the board.
allotment and the guarantee of positions,the ability of low-
wealth and small counties to hire and retain certified and Low-wealth supplemental funding is provided to systems whose
experienced teachers would plummet,exacerbating the already ability to generate local revenue per student is below the state
significant disparities. average.Some of the factors used to determine eligibility are
county adjusted property tax base,square miles in the county,
Stricter limitations on budget flexibility have created and per capita income. In 2016-17, low-wealth eligible counties
additional challenges for districts in recent years.With a goal of received total low-wealth supplemental funding ranging from
building stronger accountability for local finance decisions,the $3,375 to$17.6 million.
General Assembly has placed greater restrictions on the ability of
district leaders to move funding across five key allotment Small county supplemental funding was provided in 2016-17 to
categories:teacher assistants,children with disabilities, those county school systems with average daily membership
academically or intellectually gifted, limited English proficiency, (ADM)less than 3,200.City school districts are not eligible for
and textbooks. In previous years,districts could redistribute this funding. If a school district becomes ineligible due to an ADM
funding allocated for textbooks to use to purchase other greater than 3,200,the funding will be phased out over 5 years.
resources,such as technology;or could use allotments for In 2016-17 eligible counties received between $646,444 and $1.82
teaching assistant positions to fill a vacant teaching spot.Now, million in small-county supplemental funding.
these funds must be used within their specific category
allotment, leaving some local leaders in a bind as they seek to
JL
15<
ATTACHMENT B
> NOTES ON METHODOLOGY
CHARTER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT SALES/ASSESSMENT RATIO
The Department of Public Instruction's Division of School Business' In North Carolina, most residential and commercial property is
Report on Average Daily Membership and Membership Last Day by revalued once every eight years. Prior to 1984 it was difficult to
LEA(ADM&MILD)provides estimates of charter school enrollment compare tax wealth and effort because of this impediment to
in each county.Adding charter school enrollments to the ADM of the estimating the market value of property valuations. In 1984 the
county in which each charter school is located produces a base Department of Revenue completed its first statewide Sales/
calculation of total ADM for each county.However,charter schools Assessment Ratio Study,comparing the market value of recently
may enroll students from across county lines,with local funding sold property with its assessed value.Using the ratio of assessed
flowing from each student's district of residence to the charter property value to market value,the Department calculated an
school he or she attends(this is different from state ADM funding for adjusted property tax rate for each county.The longer it has been
charter schools).These cross-district enrollments are not captured since a county has undergone reevaluation,the more likely it is
by the ADM&MILD report. that the market value of property in the county exceeds its
assessed valuation.
Therefore,the 2019 Local School Finance Study relies on results of a
survey of districts conducted by the Division of School Business in Rapidly growing communities have numerous demands on public
2017 to account for all students within each district who attend services,and the demands tend to outstrip land value increases.
charter schools.Survey data are provided at the Office of Charter Therefore,to meet the increase in demands for additional
Schools website for information only and are not used for any services, local officials must either revalue property more often
financial or budget purposes. or raise taxes. In an effort to make this study as accurate as
CAPITAL SPENDING possible,a three-year weighted average is used to calculate the
adjusted property valuation.This approach is intended to result in
Data from the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer's more accurate valuations for small, rural counties where
Report on County Spending on Public School Capital Outlays was relatively few land transactions might have taken place during
used to calculate a six-year average of county appropriations for any given year.
capital outlay, interest on debt for school construction,and the OTHER REVENUE SOURCES
net change in capital reserves.Withdrawals from the Public
School Building Capital Fund,Grants from the Public School The primary source of local revenue is property taxes. In
Building Bond Fund,and the North Carolina Education Lottery addition to property taxes,this study includes a county's share
Funds have been removed from the county total.The debt service of local option sales taxes and fines and forfeitures. Allotments
includes expenditures for school bond repayment and lease from the ADM fund and grants for school construction have
purchase agreements.The capital outlay is actual spending on been removed to isolate capital spending. Finally,11 counties
capital projects or equipment for buildings. have supplemental school taxes,with additional revenue
totaling $68 million in 2016-17.
r
7
16
TABLE 1: RANKING OF ADJUSTED PROPERTY VALUATIONS41M!RNO
This table reflects the real estate wealth available to counties to support education.The ranking is based on the total adjusted property valuation for each county,divided by
the number of students attending public school in the county.The property valuation was adjusted using a three-year weighted average of the Sales/Assessment Ratios.
COUNTY RANK PREVIOUS LAST YEAR EFFECTIVE COUNTY 2016-17 ADJUSTED 2016-17 ADJUSTED PROPERTY
YEAR'S RANK REVALUED TAX RATE PROPERTY TAX BASE FINAL ADM TAX BASE PER ADM
Dare 1 1 2013 $0.40 $13,956,307,248 5,006 $2,787,915.95
Jackson 2 2 2016 $0.39 $8,733,486,221 4,015 $2,175,214.50
Watauga 3 3 2014 $0.31 $8,989,298,936 4,553 $1,974,368.31
Avery 4 4 2014 $0.41 $4,026,733,714 2,063 $1,951,882.56
Hyde 5 5 2009 $0.69 $1,085,837,805 580 $1,872,134.15
Brunswick 6 7 2015 $0.49 $23,780,614,320 13,496 $1,762,049.08
Carteret 7 8 2015 $0.32 $14,357,561,013 8,343 $1,720,911.06
Macon 8 6 2015 $0.38 $7,420,995,265 4,367 $1,699,334.84
Currituck 9 10 2013 $0.45 $6,400,930,685 4,004 $1,598,634.04
Transylvania 10 9 2016 $0.51 $5,715,008,197 3,670 $1,557,222.94
Polk 11 13 2009 $0.53 $2,895,925,551 2,263 $1,279,684.29
Ashe 12 11 2015 $0.45 $3,790,227,911 2,997 $1,264,673.98
Clay 13 14 2010 $0.48 $1,660,793,999 1,331 $1,247,779.11
Alleghany 14 12 2015 $0.53 $1,665,295,355 1,344 $1,239,059.04
New Hanover 15 15 2012 $0.57 $33,173,903,046 27,211 $1,219,135.76
Pamlico 16 17 2012 $0.57 $1,790,422,413 1,505 $1,189,649.44
Buncombe 17 19 2013 $0.53 $33,750,345,412 30,570 $1,104,034.85
Yancey 18 16 2016 $0.60 $2,339,934,189 2,160 $1,083,302.87
Chatham 19 20 2009 $0.63 $10,098,922,498 9,617 $1,050,111.52
Madison 20 24 2012 $0.46 $2,382,920,944 2,314 $1,029,784.33
Haywood 21 22 2011 $0.56 $7,528,796,541 7,479 $1,006,658.18
Warren 22 21 2009 $0.85 $2,314,682,614 2,372 $975,835.84
Graham 23 23 2015 $0.58 $1,131,808,716 1,172 $965,707.10
Henderson 24 25 2015 $0.56 $13,383,918,384 13,957 $958,939.48
Mitchell 25 26 2014 $0.54 $1,719,926,653 1,843 $933,221.19
Moore 26 27 2015 $0.47 $12,032,668,348 13,180 $912,949.04
Northampton 27 29 2015 $0.93 $1,974,976,030 2,188 $902,639.87
Durham 28 31 2016 $0.74 $35,096,009,338 39,323 $892,505.90
Cherokee 29 28 2012 $0.54 $3,054,095,824 3,461 $882,431.62
Perquimans 30 18 2016 $0.57 $1,441,984,370 1,654 $871,816.43
Orange 31 30 2009 $0.87 $17,098,385,950 20,275 $843,323.60
Wake 32 34 2016 $0.60 $141,453,296,691 169,329 $835,375.49
Mecklenburg 33 32 2011 $0.72 $135,061,730,262 163,530 $825,914.08
Person 34 36 2013 $0.72 $4,479,605,823 5,633 $795,243.36
Beaufort 35 38 2010 $0.62 $5,490,662,102 7,065 $777,163.78
Swain 36 35 2013 $0.38 $1,568,302,468 2,025 $774,470.35
Iredell 37 37 2015 $0.52 $22,277,209,621 29,057 $766,672.73
Montgomery 38 40 2012 $0.62 $3,055,029,021 4,001 $763,566.36
Jones 39 33 2014 $0.76 $845,739,323 1,110 $761,927.32
Pender 40 39 2011 $0.68 $6,896,491,905 9,259 $744,841.98
Davie 41 45 2013 $0.74 $4,470,659,902 6,199 $721,190.50
Lincoln 42 42 2015 $0.60 $8,866,162,483 12,666 $699,997.04
Chowan 43 43 2014 $0.71 $1,435,707,699 2,079 $690,576.09
Catawba 44 46 2015 $0.58 $16,365,788,176 23,707 $690,335.69
Rutherford 45 44 2012 $0.62 $6,088,369,414 9,117 $667,804.04
Craven 46 47 2016 $0.54 $9,167,198,665 14,058 $652,098.35
Tyrrell 47 41 2009 $0.97 $384,630,542 596 $645,353.26
Guilford 48 48 2012 $0.73 $49,262,510,399 77,659 $634,343.87
Stokes 49 49 2013 $0.62 $3,800,210,116 6,089 $624,110.71
McDowell 50 52 2011 $0.54 $3,741,679,600 6,176 $605,841.90
Rowan 51 51 2015 $0.69 $11,744,948,593 19,565 $600,304.04 B
Wilkes 52 54 2013 $0.63 $5,706,537,044 9,511 $599,993.38 B
Forsyth 53 53 2013 $0.72 $34,116,245,435 57,067 $597,827.91
Caldwell 54 58 2013 $0.62 $6,826,185,720 11,706 $583,135.63
Caswell 55 59 2016 $0.68 $1,630,036,065 2,817 $578,642.55
Washington 56 55 2013 $0.82 $915,614,534 1,587 $576,946.78
Bladen 57 57 2015 $0.81 $2,758,322,584 4,794 $575,369.75
Stanly 58 63 2013 $0.62 $4,847,113,848 8,645 $560,684.08
Davidson 59 56 2015 $0.55 $13,653,925,669 24,531 $556,598.82
Rockingham 60 62 2011 $0.72 $7,066,653,223 12,766 $553,552.66
Yadkin 61 64 2009 $0.68 $2,936,804,409 5,312 $552,862.28
Cabarrus 62 60 2016 $0.69 $21,700,377,236 39,613 $547,809.49
Bertie 63 67 2012 $0.81 $1,324,500,647 2,422 $546,862.36
Camden 64 50 2015 $0.74 $1,005,651,977 1,843 $545,660.32
Anson 65 76 2010 $0.84 $1,796,213,135 3,337 $538,271.84
Gates 66 77 2009 $0.84 $852,845,077 1,592 $535,706.71
Union 67 61 2015 $0.79 $23,772,078,402 44,378 $535,672.59
Burke 68 71 2013 $0.67 $6,629,381,563 12,422 $533,680.69
Alamance 69 70 2009 $0.61 $12,741,087,626 23,938 $532,253.64
Cleveland 70 73 2016 $0.72 $8,339,422,301 15,673 $532,088.45
Alexander 71 65 2015 $0.78 $2,602,703,487 4,899 $531,272.40
Lee 72 69 2013 $0.78 $5,243,144,069 9,969 $525,944.84
Onslow 73 66 2014 $0.67 $13,719,026,715 26,116 $525,311.18
Pasquotank 74 72 2014 $0.77 $3,031,845,932 5,787 $523,906.33
Franklin 75 74 2012 $0.87 $4,892,304,219 9,388 $521,123.16
Martin 76 68 2009 $0.80 $1,840,246,759 3,565 $516,198.25
Pitt 77 75 2016 $0.69 $12,439,472,364 24,246 $513,052.56
Hertford 78 78 2011 $0.99 $1,431,350,329 2,880 $496,996.64
Wilson 79 79 2016 $0.74 $6,621,765,317 13,394 $494,382.96
Surry 80 80 2016 $0.58 $5,552,246,297 11,348 $489,270.91
Randolph 81 81 2014 $0.63 $10,954,478,639 22,536 $486,087.98
Gaston 82 82 2015 $0.89 $15,559,087,893 33,281 $467,506.62
Granville 83 86 2010 $0.88 $4,135,984,132 8,851 $467,290.04
Halifax 84 83 2015 $0.78 $3,586,443,662 7,681 $466,924.05
Lenoir 85 85 2009 $0.88 $4,090,786,949 8,856 $461,922.65
Edgecombe 86 84 2009 $0.97 $3,165,577,883 6,858 $461,589.08
Nash 87 88 2009 $0.68 $7,396,914,185 16,225 $455,896.10
Duplin 88 90 2009 $0.69 $4,358,546,885 9,561 $455,867.26
Richmond 89 92 2016 $0.80 $3,267,003,794 7,297 $447,718.76
Cumberland 90 87 2009 $0.78 $22,751,372,015 51,030 $445,843.07
Johnston 91 89 2011 $0.76 $15,868,963,950 36,192 $438,466.07
Columbus 92 93 2013 $0.77 $3,816,562,221 8,762 $435,581.17
Wayne 93 91 2011 $0.66 $8,158,872,414 19,096 $427,255.57
Hoke 94 94 2014 $0.75 $3,433,578,210 8,731 $393,262.88
Harnett 95 95 2009 $0.78 $7,970,045,197 20,775 $383,636.35
Sampson 96 96 2011 $0.85 $4,268,524,635 11,260 $379,087.45
Scotland 97 97 2011 $1.06 $2,111,483,171 5774 $365,688.11
Greene 98 98 2013 $0.79 $1,103,360,612 3,100 $355,922.78
Vance 99 99 2016 $0.91 $2,579,639,870 7,385 $349,308.04
Robeson 100 100 2010 $0.77 $6,497,771,766 23,181 $280,305.93
State Total/Average •.
17<
TABLE 2: ACTUAL EFFORT
This table reflects the actual dollar effort of communities to fund schools,without taking into account property wealth.This ranking is based on 2016-17 total current
spending for each county(including supplemental school taxes)divided by the number of students attending public school in the county.High-wealth communities with
corresponding high levels of spending tend to rank highest in this measure.
COUNTY RANK PREVIOUS 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 TOTAL 2016-17 2016-17
THIS YEAR'S CURRENT CURRENT SPENDING SUPPLEMENTAL CURRENT SPENDING FINAL TOTAL CURRENT
YEAR RANK SPENDING PER ADM SCHOOL TAXES (WITH SUPPLEMENTAL) ADM SPENDING PER ADM
Orange 1 1 $78,515,154 $3,873 23,362,157.00 $101,877,311 20,275 $5,025
Dare 2 2 $21,084,323 $4,212 $21,084,323 5,006 $4,212
Durham 3 3 $126,261,485 $3,211 $126,261,485 39,323 $3,211
Transylvania 4 4 $11,427,315 $3,114 $11,427,315 3,670 $3,114
Chatham 5 5 $29,782,532 $3,097 $29,782,532 9,617 $3,097
Watauga 6 6 $12,713,137 $2,792 $12,713,137 4,553 $2,792
Hyde 7 8 $1,579,548 $2,723 $1,579,548 580 $2,723
New Hanover 8 7 $72,855,604 $2,677 $72,855,604 27,211 $2,677
Carteret 9 10 $21,964,000 $2,633 $21,964,000 8,343 $2,633
Mecklenburg 10 9 $411,193,792 $2,514 $411,193,792 163,530 $2,514
Buncombe 11 15 $67,838,836 $2,219 $8,928,186.00 $76,767,022 30,570 $2,511
Currituck 12 12 $9,773,759 $2,441 $9,773,759 4,004 $2,441
Guilford 13 11 $188,360,398 $2,425 $188,360,398 77,659 $2,425
Wake 14 14 $408,760,031 $2,414 $408,760,031 169,329 $2,414
Brunswick 15 13 $32,574,103 $2,414 $32,574,103 13,496 $2,414
Polk 16 16 $5,129,788 $2,267 $5,129,788 2,263 $2,267
Avery 17 18 $4,410,013 $2,138 $4,410,013 2,063 $2,138
Beaufort 18 25 $14,300,984 $2,024 $14,300,984 7,065 $2,024
Union 19 19 $88,244,363 $1,988 $88,244,363 44,378 $1,988
Warren 20 17 $4,703,326 $1,983 $4,703,326 2,372 $1,983
Forsyth 21 20 $112,778,008 $1,976 $112,778,008 57,067 $1,976
Moore 22 22 $25,790,792 $1,957 $25,790,792 13,180 $1,957
Pamlico 23 27 $2,927,659 $1,945 $2,927,659 1,505 $1,945
Alleghany 24 24 $2,593,661 $1,930 $2,593,661 1,344 $1,930
Haywood 25 21 $14,296,456 $1,912 $14,296,456 7,479 $1,912
Cherokee 26 29 $6,546,803 $1,892 $6,546,803 3,461 $1,892
Gates 27 26 $2,946,500 $1,851 $2,946,500 1,592 $1,851
Scotland 28 23 $10,583,013 $1,833 $10,583,013 5,774 $1,833
Onslow 29 30 $46,427,268 $1,778 $46,427,268 26,116 $1,778
Rowan 30 36 $34,754,776 $1,776 $34,754,776 19,565 $1,776
Macon 31 28 $7,701,204 $1,763 $7,701,204 4,367 $1,763
Henderson 32 34 $24,320,004 $1,742 $24,320,004 13,957 $1,742
Cabarrus 33 31 $68,783,915 $1,736 $68,783,915 39,613 $1,736
Pasquotank 34 41 $10,000,000 $1,728 $10,000,000 5,787 $1,728
Chowan 35 35 $3,550,000 $1,708 $3,550,000 2,079 $1,708
Davie 36 39 $10,539,765 $1,700 $10,539,765 6,199 $1,700
Lee 37 40 $16,862,278 $1,691 $16,862,278 9,969 $1,691
Jackson 38 32 $6,750,023 $1,681 $6,750,023 4,015 $1,681
Perquimans 39 57 $2,775,000 $1,678 $2,775,000 1,654 $1,678
Northampton 40 44 $3,650,000 $1,668 $3,650,000 2,188 $1,668
Stokes 41 38 $10,108,278 $1,660 $10,108,278 6,089 $1,660
Franklin 42 42 $15,265,283 $1,626 $15,265,283 9,388 $1,626
Jones 43 37 $1,801,988 $1,623 $1,801,988 1,110 $1,623
Iredell 44 33 $40,932,646 $1,409 $5,850,456.00 $46,783,102 29,057 $1,610
Alamance 45 45 $38,264,189 $1,598 $38,264,189 23,938 $1,598
Pitt 46 47 $38,213,340 $1,576 $38,213,340 24,246 $1,576
Johnston 47 48 $56,842,825 $1,571 $56,842,825 36,192 $1,571
Catawba 48 46 $36,990,800 $1,560 $36,990,800 23,707 $1,560
Cumberland 49 43 $79,463,109 $1,557 $79,463,109 51,030 $1,557
Ashe 50 49 $4,641,903 $1,549 $4,641,903 2,997 $1,549
Granville 51 55 $13,576,889 $1,534 $13,576,889 8,851 $1,534
Craven 52 52 $21,478,139 $1,528 $21,478,139 14,058 $1,528
Hertford 53 50 $4,398,524 $1,527 $4,398,524 2,880 $1,527
Pender 54 51 $14,104,466 $1,523 $14,104,466 9,259 $1,523
Rutherford 55 53 $13,598,146 $1,492 $13,598,146 9,117 $1,492
Wilson 56 54 $19,482,452 $1,455 $19,482,452 13,394 $1,455
Nash 57 59 $22,483,204 $1,386 $463,164.00 $22,946,368 16,225 $1,414
Martin 58 58 $5,039,164 $1,414 $5,039,164 3,565 $1,414
Yancey 59 56 $3,040,863 $1,408 $3,040,863 2,160 $1,408
Lincoln 60 60 $17,818,484 $1,407 $17,818,484 12,666 $1,407
McDowell 61 66 $8,685,390 $1,406 $8,685,390 6,176 $1,406
Bladen 62 65 $6,707,735 $1,399 $6,707,735 4,794 $1,399
Cleveland 63 64 $9,674,600 $617 $11,760,316.00 $21,434,916 15,673 $1,368
Gaston 64 63 $45,351,704 $1,363 $45,351,704 33,281 $1,363
Davidson 65 62 $30,282,523 $1,234 $2,978,001.00 $33,260,524 24,531 $1,356
Anson 66 67 $4,460,784 $1,337 $4,460,784 3,337 $1,337
Person 67 61 $7,509,582 $1,333 $7,509,582 5,633 $1,333
Montgomery 68 68 $5,307,968 $1,327 $5,307,968 4,001 $1,327
Caldwell 69 69 $14,810,575 $1,265 $14,810,575 11,706 $1,265
Alexander 70 76 $6,181,900 $1,262 $6,181,900 4,899 $1,262
Randolph 71 71 $22,731,515 $1,009 $5,576,951.00 $28,308,466 22,536 $1,256
Camden 72 78 $2,300,000 $1,248 $2,300,000 1,843 $1,248
Rockingham 73 70 $15,834,840 $1,240 $15,834,840 12,766 $1,240
Bertie 74 74 $3,003,000 $1,240 $3,003,000 2,422 $1,240
Wilkes 75 75 $11,778,330 $1,238 $11,778,330 9,511 $1,238
Stanly 76 77 $10,699,243 $1,238 $10,699,243 8,645 $1,238
Mitchell 77 72 $2,272,622 $1,233 $2,272,622 1,843 $1,233
Surry 78 73 $11,945,896 $1,053 $1,966,487.00 $13,912,383 11,348 $1,226
Burke 79 79 $14,645,400 $1,179 $14,645,400 12,422 $1,179
Madison 80 85 $2,659,740 $1,149 $2,659,740 2,314 $1,149
Yadkin 81 80 $6,100,725 $1,148 $6,100,725 5,312 $1,148
Sampson 82 81 $11,030,084 $980 $1,833,125.00 $12,863,209 11,260 $1,142
Lenoir 83 82 $10,100,000 $1,140 $10,100,000 8,856 $1,140
Harnett 84 84 $22,557,139 $1,086 $241,725.00 $22,798,864 20,775 $1,097
Halifax 85 83 $3,325,058 $433 $5,048,153.00 $8,373,211 7,681 $1,090
Edgecombe 86 87 $7,451,618 $1,087 $7,451,618 6,858 $1,087
Caswell 87 92 $2,900,000 $1,029 $2,900,000 2,817 $1,029
Richmond 88 90 $7,485,000 $1,026 $7,485,000 7,297 $1,026
Wayne 89 86 $19,515,456 $1,022 $19,515,456 19,096 $1,022
Washington 90 88 $1,603,000 $1,010 $1,603,000 1,587 $1,010
Duplin 91 89 $9,465,600 $990 $9,465,600 9,561 $990
Clay 92 94 $1,300,000 $977 $1,300,000 1,331 $977
Tyrrell 93 93 $567,595 $952 $567,595 596 $952
Vance 94 91 $6,790,525 $920 $6,790,525 7,385 $920
Columbus 95 95 $8,041,043 $918 $8,041,043 8,762 $918
Greene 96 96 $2,342,000 $755 $2,342,000 3,100 $755
Hoke 97 98 $4,847,979 $555 $4,847,979 8,731 $555
Robeson 98 99 $12,375,000 $534 $12,375,000 23,181 $534
Graham 99 97 $613,169 $523 $613,169 1,172 $523
Swain 100 100 $858,674 $424 $858,674 2,025 $424
State Total/Average $28,597,073 $1,614 00•
>18
TABLE 2A: SIX-YEAR AVERAGE OF CAPITAL OUTLAY AND &Tffpl��M�jNT El
This table provides a six-year average of capital outlay and debt service,ordered according to the rankings from Table 2.In previous years'studies,this data was
included in Table 2.
COUNTY ACTUAL EFFORT 2016.17 TOTAL SIX-YEAR SIX-YEAR 2016-17 CAPITAL DEBT
RANK THIS YEAR CURRENT SPENDING PER CAPITAL OUTLAY CAPITAL DEBT FINAL OUTLAY SPENDING PER SERVICE
(FROM TABLE 2) ADM(FROM TABLE 2) AVERAGE SERVICE AVERAGE ADM ADM PER ADM
Orange 1 $5,025 11,792,937 14,742,621 20,275 581.65 727.13
Dare 2 $4,212 $2,340,345 $7,790,952 5,006 467.51 1556.32
Durham 3 $3,211 $21,821,419 $11,387,435 39,323 554.93 289.59
Transylvania 4 $3,114 $1,630,133 $2,123,080 3,670 444.18 578.5
Chatham 5 $3,097 $5,446,032 $4,219,092 9,617 566.29 438.71
Watauga 6 $2,792 $405,550 $6,549,276 4,553 89.07 1438.45
Hyde 7 $2,723 $429,889 $223,337 580 741.19 385.06
New Hanover 8 $2,677 $14,267,818 $18,260,685 27,211 524.34 671.08
Carteret 9 $2,633 $3,687,427 $6,824,850 8,343 441.98 818.03
Mecklenburg 10 $2,514 $100,670,226 $122,470,621 163,530 615.61 748.92
Buncombe 11 $2,511 $31,525,363 $14,970,248 30,570 1031.25 489.7
Currituck 12 $2,441 $1,238,450 $806,709 4,004 309.3 201.48
Guilford 13 $2,425 $53,089,608 $51,856,949 77,659 683.62 667.75
Wake 14 $2,414 $170,900,602 $176,861,804 169,329 1009.28 1044.49
Brunswick 15 $2,414 $5,725,463 $5,447,499 13,496 424.23 403.64
Polk 16 $2,267 $483,216 $896,678 2,263 213.53 396.23
Avery 17 $2,138 $820,133 $1,293,413 2,063 397.54 626.96
Beaufort 18 $2,024 $1,139,981 $2,454,781 7,065 161.36 347.46
Union 19 $1,988 $10,511,643 $42,793,581 44,378 236.87 964.3
Warren 20 $1,983 $482,421 $136,890 2,372 203.38 57.71
Forsyth 21 $1,976 $22,252,557 $29,756,076 57,067 389.94 521.42
Moore 22 $1,957 $3,384,321 $5,483,314 13,180 256.78 416.03
Pamlico 23 $1,945 $147,832 $409,849 1,505 98.23 272.32
Alleghany 24 $1,930 $431,584 $686,286 1,344 321.12 510.63
Haywood 25 $1,912 $827,270 $2,072,143 7,479 110.61 277.06
Cherokee 26 $1,892 $614,881 $813,791 3,461 177.66 235.13
Gates 27 $1,851 $171,649 $661,092 1,592 107.82 415.26
Scotland 28 $1,833 $392,956 $645,488 5,774 68.06 111.79
Onslow 29 $1,778 $4,445,487 $8,135,206 26,116 170.22 311.5
Rowan 30 $1,776 $3,849,242 $8,605,683 19,565 196.74 439.85
Macon 31 $1,763 $2,960,629 $4,370,025 4,367 677.95 1000.69
Henderson 32 $1,742 $3,192,442 $5,423,435 13,957 228.73 388.58
Cabarrus 33 $1,736 $23,148,211 $29,239,613 39,613 584.36 738.13
Pasquotank 34 $1,728 $1,282,408 $2,593,484 5,787 221.6 448.16
Chowan 35 $1,708 $219,324 $668,981 2,079 105.49 321.78
Davie 36 $1,700 $10,607,953 $3,295,193 6,199 1711.24 531.57
Lee 37 $1,691 $2,217,744 $7,025,291 9,969 222.46 704.71
Jackson 38 $1,681 $3,667,627 $2,002,986 4,015 913.48 498.88
Perquimans 39 $1,678 $257,494 $687,021 1,654 155.68 415.37
Northampton 40 $1,668 $447,527 $716,205 2,188 204.54 327.33
Stokes 41 $1,660 $3,969,512 $3,157,010 6,089 651.92 518.48
Franklin 42 $1,626 $2,681,240 $8,343,973 9,388 285.6 888.79
Jones 43 $1,623 $581,179 $63,732 1,110 523.58 57.42
Iredell 44 $1,610 $13,807,261 $25,391,088 29,057 475.18 873.84
Alamance 45 $1,598 $991,659 $5,674,062 23,938 41.43 237.03
Pitt 46 $1,576 $1,390,110 $7,901,219 24,246 57.33 325.88
Johnston 47 $1,571 $9,893,919 $31,038,087 36,192 273.37 857.6
Catawba 48 $1,560 $12,076,440 $15,927,621 23,707 509.4 671.85
Cumberland 49 $1,557 $9,578,065 $6,876,503 51,030 187.69 134.75
Ashe 50 $1,549 $691,807 $1,589,031 2,997 230.83 530.21
Granville 51 $1,534 $3,834,257 $5,101,011 8,851 433.2 576.32
Craven 52 $1,528 $1,186,750 $4,234,610 14,058 84.42 301.22
Hertford 53 $1,527 $667,037 $- 2,880 231.61 0
Pender 54 $1,523 $6,858,683 $5,637,387 9,259 740.76 608.85
Rutherford 55 $1,492 $548,998 $4,143,560 9,117 60.22 454.49
Wilson 56 $1,455 $1,070,780 $3,359,184 13,394 79.94 250.8
Nash 57 $1,414 $5,075,130 $1,511,822 16,225 312.8 93.18
Martin 58 $1,414 $2,905,389 $955,124 3,565 814.98 267.92
Yancey 59 $1,408 $426,197 $- 2,160 197.31 0
Lincoln 60 $1,407 $2,890,987 $6,291,751 12,666 228.25 496.74
McDowell 61 $1,406 $2,494,516 $1,043,518 6,176 403.9 168.96
Bladen 62 $1,399 $416,667 $1,664,170 4,794 86.91 347.14
Cleveland 63 $1,368 $3,564,225 $1,354,675 15,673 227.41 86.43
Gaston 64 $1,363 $16,770,968 $11,975,907 33,281 503.92 359.84
Davidson 65 $1,356 $13,938,694 $8,094,318 24,531 568.21 329.96
Anson 66 $1,337 $332,481 $202,358 3,337 99.63 60.64
Person 67 $1,333 $1,664,540 $1,885,723 5,633 295.5 334.76
Montgomery 68 $1,327 $552,237 $1,280,499 4,001 138.02 320.04
Caldwell 69 $1,265 $2,136,585 $1,275,272 11,706 182.52 108.94
Alexander 70 $1,262 $337,810 $1,044,177 4,899 68.95 213.14
Randolph 71 $1,256 $3,788,591 $8,867,427 22,536 168.11 393.48
Camden 72 $1,248 $124,370 $599,107 1,843 67.48 325.07
Rockingham 73 $1,240 $1,837,660 $2,918,736 12,766 143.95 228.63
Bertie 74 $1,240 $541,824 $1,150,629 2,422 223.71 475.07
Wilkes 75 $1,238 $1,958,475 $3,694,696 9,511 205.92 388.47
Stanly 76 $1,238 $2,238,279 $1,226,273 8,645 258.91 141.85
Mitchell 77 $1,233 $445,377 $208,541 1,843 241.66 113.15
Surry 78 $1,226 $2,307,755 $4,090,139 11,348 203.36 360.43
Burke 79 $1,179 $2,754,325 $3,654,766 12,422 221.73 294.22
Madison 80 $1,149 $1,335,437 $251,610 2,314 577.11 108.73
Yadkin 81 $1,148 $420,988 $1,677,815 5,312 79.25 315.85
Sampson 82 $1,142 $4,156,152 $5,432,540 11,260 369.11 482.46
Lenoir 83 $1,140 $685,290 $2,562,599 8,856 77.38 289.36
Harnett 84 $1,097 $6,888,719 $9,539,774 20,775 331.59 459.19
Halifax 85 $1,090 $1,268,270 $1,812,339 7,681 165.12 235.95
Edgecombe 86 $1,087 $854,255 $722,069 6,858 124.56 105.29
Caswell 87 $1,029 $327,500 $286,450 2,817 116.26 101.69
Richmond 88 $1,026 $2,027,854 $820,054 7,297 277.9 112.38
Wayne 89 $1,022 $13,158,111 $1,500,611 19,096 689.05 78.58
Washington 90 $1,010 $585,898 $- 1,587 369.19 0
Duplin 91 $990 $8,930,494 $1,487,605 9,561 934.05 155.59
Clay 92 $977 $329,197 $97,674 1,331 247.33 73.38
Tyrrell 93 $952 $70,371 $127,867 596 118.07 214.54
Vance 94 $920 $1,924,895 $1,481,607 7,385 260.65 200.62
Columbus 95 $918 $2,203,935 $368,707 8,762 251.53 42.08
Greene 96 $755 $2,486,051 $435,374 3,100 801.95 140.44
Hoke 97 $555 $3,877,372 $1,647,474 8,731 444.09 188.69
Robeson 98 $534 $3,870,063 $164,553 23,181 166.95 7.1
Graham 99 $523 $19,196 $358,899 1,172 16.38 306.23
Swain 100 $424 $451,676 $1,013,434 2,025 223.05 500.46
State Total/Average $1,652 $718,130,287 $830,618,420
19<
TABLE 3:ACTUAL EFFORT WITH SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR LOW-WEA&TITAIKOHME -EaNTIES
This table uses many of the same figures as Table 2,but adds state supplemental funding for low-wealth and small counties to the total current spending.Counties are
ranked based on their total current spending combined with low-wealth and small county supplemental funding.
COUNTY RANK PREVIOUS 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17 SMALL 2016-17 TOTAL 2016-17 2016-17 TOTAL CHANGE IN SPENDING
YEAR'S TOTAL CURRENT TOTAL CURRENT LOW-WEALTH COUNTY FUNDING CURRENT SPENDING FINAL CURRENT SPENDING PER PER ADM W/LOW
RANK SPENDING(FROM SPENDING FUNDING W/LOW WEALTH& ADM ADM W/LOW WEALTH WEALTH&SMALL
TABLE 2) PER ADM SMALL COUNTY &SMALL COUNTY COUNTY
Hyde 1 1 $1,579,548.00 $5,025 $1,710,000 $3,289,548.00 580 $5,672 2,948
Orange 2 2 $101,877,311.00 $4,212 $101,877,311.00 20,275 $5,025 $0
Dare 3 3 $21,084,323.00 $3,211 $21,084,323.00 5,006 $4,212 $0
Tyrrell 4 4 $567,595.00 $3,114 $155,247 $1,710,000 $2,432,842.00 596 $4,082 $3,130
Jones 5 5 $1,801,988.00 $3,097 $132,143 $1,820,000 $3,754,131.00 1,110 $3,382 $1,759
Gates 6 6 $2,946,500.00 $2,792 $754,231 $1,548,700 $5,249,431.00 1,592 $3,297 $1,447
Durham 7 7 $126,261,485.00 $2,723 $126,261,485.00 39,323 $3,211 $0
Transylvania 8 9 $11,427,315.00 $2,677 $11,427,315.00 3,670 $3,114 $0
Chatham 9 10 $29,782,532.00 $2,633 $29,782,532.00 9,617 $3,097 $0
Alleghany 10 11 $2,593,661.00 $2,514 $1,548,700 $4,142,361.00 1,344 $3,082 $1,152
Pamlico 11 8 $2,927,659.00 $2,511 $1,548,700 $4,476,359.00 1,505 $2,974 $1,029
Polk 12 12 $5,129,788.00 $2,441 $1,560,000 $6,689,788.00 2,263 $2,956 $689
Avery 13 14 $4,410,013.00 $2,425 $1,560,000 $5,970,013.00 2,063 $2,894 $756
Watauga 14 13 $12,713,137.00 $2,414 $12,713,137.00 4,553 $2,792 $0
Warren 15 15 $4,703,326.00 $2,414 $357,926 $1,560,000 $6,621,252.00 2,372 $2,791 $809
Northampton 16 18 $3,650,000.00 $2,267 $797,213 $1,600,000 $6,047,213.00 2,188 $2,764 $1,096
New Hanover 17 16 $72,855,604.00 $2,138 $72,855,604.00 27,211 $2,677 $0
Perquimans 18 26 $2,775,000.00 $2,024 $1,600,000 $4,375,000.00 1,654 $2,645 $967
Carteret 19 22 $21,964,000.00 $1,988 $21,964,000.00 8,343 $2,633 $0
Chowan 20 17 $3,550,000.00 $1,983 $346,403 $1,560,000 $5,456,403.00 2,079 $2,625 $917
Hertford 21 20 $4,398,524.00 $1,976 $1,358,459 $1,548,000 $7,304,983.00 2,880 $2,536 $1,009
Mecklenburg 22 19 $411,193,792.00 $1,957 $411,193,792.00 163,530 $2,514 $0
Buncombe 23 30 $76,767,022.00 $1,945 $76,767,022.00 30,570 $2,511 $0
Currituck 24 24 $9,773,759.00 $1,930 $9,773,759.00 4,004 $2,441 $0
Scotland 25 21 $10,583,013.00 $1,912 $3,492,401 $14,075,414.00 5,774 $2,438 $605
Guilford 26 23 $188,360,398.00 $1,892 $188,360,398.00 77,659 $2,425 $0
Wake 27 28 $408,760,031.00 $1,851 $408,760,031.00 169,329 $2,414 $0
Brunswick 28 25 $32,574,103.00 $1,833 $32,574,103.00 13,496 $2,414 $0
Washington 29 29 $1,603,000.00 $1,778 $585,189 $1,548,700 $3,736,889.00 1,587 $2,355 $1,345
Bertie 30 27 $3,003,000.00 $1,776 $1,216,456 $1,470,000 $5,689,456.00 2,422 $2,349 $1,109
Camden 31 31 $2,300,000.00 $1,763 $374,531 $1,600,000 $4,274,531.00 1,843 $2,319 $1,071
Clay 32 35 $1,300,000.00 $1,742 $1,548,700 $2,848,700.00 1,331 $2,140 $1,164
Yancey 33 34 $3,040,863.00 $1,736 $1,560,000 $4,600,863.00 2,160 $2,130 $722
Mitchell 34 37 $2,272,622.00 $1,728 $40,394 $1,600,000 $3,913,016.00 1,843 $2,123 $890
Beaufort 35 43 $14,300,984.00 $1,708 $524,664 $14,825,648.00 7,065 $2,098 $74
Graham 36 32 $613,169.00 $1,700 $3,375 $1,820,000 $2,436,544.00 1,172 $2,079 $1,556
Anson 37 33 $4,460,784.00 $1,691 $1,828,262 $646,444 $6,935,490.00 3,337 $2,078 $742
Ashe 38 38 $4,641,903.00 $1,681 $1,548,000 $6,189,903.00 2,997 $2,065 $517
Cherokee 39 51 $6,546,803.00 $1,678 $576,777 $7,123,580.00 3,461 $2,058 $167
Rowan 40 45 $34,754,776.00 $1,668 $5,446,072 $40,200,848.00 19,565 $2,055 $278
Union 41 36 $88,244,363.00 $1,660 $1,558,367 $89,802,730.00 44,378 $2,024 $35
Pasquotank 42 47 $10,000,000.00 $1,626 $1,628,355 $11,628,355.00 5,787 $2,009 $281
Stokes 43 40 $10,108,278.00 $1,623 $2,050,252 $12,158,530.00 6,089 $1,997 $337
Caswell 44 65 $2,900,000.00 $1,610 $1,205,433 $1,498,000 $5,603,433.00 2,817 $1,989 $960
Franklin 45 44 $15,265,283.00 $1,598 $3,401,473 $18,666,756.00 9,388 $1,988 $362
Forsyth 46 41 $112,778,008.00 $1,576 $112,778,008.00 57,067 $1,976 $0
Martin 47 39 $5,039,164.00 $1,571 $1,278,077 $663,882 $6,981,123.00 3,565 $1,958 $545
Moore 48 46 $25,790,792.00 $1,560 $25,790,792.00 13,180 $1,957 $0
Granville 49 49 $13,576,889.00 $1,557 $3,594,551 $17,171,440.00 8,851 $1,940 $406
Greene 50 52 $2,342,000.00 $1,549 $2,061,403 $1,548,000 $5,951,403.00 3,100 $1,920 $1,164
Haywood 51 42 $14,296,456.00 $1,534 $14,296,456.00 7,479 $1,912 $0
Johnston 52 50 $56,842,825.00 $1,528 $12,226,558 $69,069,383.00 36,192 $1,908 $338
Lee 53 48 $16,862,278.00 $1,527 $2,126,754 $18,989,032.00 9,969 $1,905 $213
Madison 54 56 $2,659,740.00 $1,523 $183,627 $1,470,000 $4,313,367.00 2,314 $1,864 $715
Onslow 55 55 $46,427,268.00 $1,492 $1,100,023 $47,527,291.00 26,116 $1,820 $42
Pitt 56 54 $38,213,340.00 $1,455 $5,779,614 $43,992,954.00 24,246 $1,814 $238
Pender 57 70 $14,104,466.00 $1,414 $2,476,206 $16,580,672.00 9,259 $1,791 $267
Rutherford 58 59 $13,598,146.00 $1,414 $2,708,164 $16,306,310.00 9,117 $1,789 $297
Macon 59 53 $7,701,204.00 $1,408 $7,701,204.00 4,367 $1,763 $0
McDowell 60 71 $8,685,390.00 $1,407 $2,203,437 $10,888,827.00 6,176 $1,763 $357
Bladen 61 66 $6,707,735.00 $1,406 $1,682,202 $8,389,937.00 4,794 $1,750 $351
Alamance 62 63 $38,264,189.00 $1,399 $3,572,503 $41,836,692.00 23,938 $1,748 $149
Cabarrus 63 57 $68,783,915.00 $1,368 $355,341 $69,139,256.00 39,613 $1,745 $9
Henderson 64 62 $24,320,004.00 $1,363 $24,320,004.00 13,957 $1,742 $0
Nash 65 60 $22,946,368.00 $1,356 $5,269,645 $28,216,013.00 16,225 $1,739 $325
Davie 66 64 $10,539,765.00 $1,337 $143,441 $10,683,206.00 6,199 $1,723 $23
Wilson 67 68 $19,482,452.00 $1,333 $3,242,264 $22,724,716.00 13,394 $1,697 $242
Cleveland 68 72 $21,434,916.00 $1,327 $5,092,129 $26,527,045.00 15,673 $1,693 $325
Jackson 69 58 $6,750,023.00 $1,265 $6,750,023.00 4,015 $1,681 $0
Cumberland 70 75 $79,463,109.00 $1,262 $6,190,814 $85,653,923.00 51,030 $1,679 $121
Sampson 71 67 $12,863,209.00 $1,256 $5,962,920 $18,826,129.00 11,260 $1,672 $530
Caldwell 72 69 $14,810,575.00 $1,248 $4,584,062 $19,394,637.00 11,706 $1,657 $392
Randolph 73 73 $28,308,466.00 $1,240 $8,676,056 $36,984,522.00 22,536 $1,641 $385
Alexander 74 93 $6,181,900.00 $1,240 $1,794,025 $7,975,925.00 4,899 $1,628 $366
Harnett 75 79 $22,798,864.00 $1,238 $10,901,422 $33,700,286.00 20,775 $1,622 $525
Iredell 76 61 $46,783,102.00 $1,238 $46,783,102.00 29,057 $1,610 $0
Richmond 77 76 $7,485,000.00 $1,233 $4,236,314 $11,721,314.00 7,297 $1,606 $581
Craven 78 83 $21,478,139.00 $1,226 $844,715 $22,322,854.00 14,058 $1,588 $60
Rockingham 79 74 $15,834,840.00 $1,179 $4,408,328 $20,243,168.00 12,766 $1,586 $345
Montgomery 80 80 $5,307,968.00 $1,149 $963,827 $6,271,795.00 4,001 $1,568 $241
Burke 81 87 $14,645,400.00 $1,148 $4,783,642 $19,429,042.00 12,422 $1,564 $385
Catawba 82 81 $36,990,800.00 $1,142 $36,990,800.00 23,707 $1,560 $0
Davidson 83 85 $33,260,524.00 $1,140 $4,855,143 $38,115,667.00 24,531 $1,554 $198
Stanly 84 78 $10,699,243.00 $1,097 $2,701,201 $13,400,444.00 8,645 $1,550 $312
Yadkin 85 86 $6,100,725.00 $1,090 $2,114,019 $8,214,744.00 5,312 $1,546 $398
Surry 86 77 $13,912,383.00 $1,087 $3,427,757 $17,340,140.00 11,348 $1,528 $302
Wilkes 87 84 $11,778,330.00 $1,029 $2,598,168 $14,376,498.00 9,511 $1,512 $273
Edgecombe 88 88 $7,451,618.00 $1,026 $2,902,560 $10,354,178.00 6,858 $1,510 $423
Duplin 89 82 $9,465,600.00 $1,022 $4,704,403 $14,170,003.00 9,561 $1,482 $492
Gaston 90 92 $45,351,704.00 $1,010 $3,868,829 $49,220,533.00 33,281 $1,479 $116
Lenoir 91 89 $10,100,000.00 $990 $2,977,008 $13,077,008.00 8,856 $1,477 $336
Lincoln 92 96 $17,818,484.00 $977 $713,942 $18,532,426.00 12,666 $1,463 $56
Person 93 90 $7,509,582.00 $952 $524,824 $8,034,406.00 5,633 $1,426 $93
Vance 94 91 $6,790,525.00 $920 $3,715,955 $10,506,480.00 7,385 $1,423 $503
Columbus 95 97 $8,041,043.00 $918 $4,274,397 $12,315,440.00 8,762 $1,406 $488
Halifax 96 94 $8,373,211.00 $755 $2,311,283 $10,684,494.00 7,681 $1,391 $301
Wayne 97 95 $19,515,456.00 $555 $6,903,682 $26,419,138.00 19,096 $1,383 $362
Robeson 98 99 $12,375,000.00 $534 $17,669,815 $30,044,815.00 23,181 $1,296 $762
Swain 99 98 $858,674.00 $523 $137,061 $1,600,000 $2,595,735.00 2,025 $1,282 $858
Hoke 100 100 $4,847,979.00 $424 $5,148,561 $9,996,540.00 8,731 $1,145 $590
0•
>20
TABLE 4: ABILITY TO PAY
This is a measure of a county's per student fiscal capacity to support public schools.It is a combined measure of revenue that wou d have been genera e a the state
average tax rate based on 2016-17 property valuations per student(adjusted to reflect current market prices and to account for differences in income levels)and the value
of non-property tax revenues.Each county's mandated social services payments were also subtracted from total adjusted revenues.Large,urban counties combining high
adjusted property valuations with broad-based economic activity and high per capita incomes tend to rank highest on this measure.
COUNTY RANK PREVIOUS 2016-17 2016-17 ADJUSTED 2016-17 NON- 2016-17 2016-17 TOTAL 2016 PER PERCENT 2016-17 2016-17 2016-17
YEAR'S ADJUSTED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE PROPERTY TAX MANDATED REVENUES LESS CAPITA OF STATE INCOME FINAL ADM REVENUE PER
RANK TAX BASE (BASED ON STATE AVG. REVENUE SOCIAL SERVICES SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME** AVERAGE ADJUSTED ADM
EFFECTIVE PROPERTY PAYMENTS* PAYMENTS PER CAPITA TOTAL
TAX RATE OF 0.6540) INCOME REVENUES
Dare 1 1 13,956,307,248 93,786,384.71 32,318,011.26 5,295,666.43 $120,808,730 $51,643 120.90% $146,086,712 5,006 $29,182.32
Carteret 2 2 $14,357,561,013 $96,482,810.01 $25,828,265.98 $4,950,356.21 $117,360,720 $46,654 109.20% $128,207,250 8,343 $15,367.04
Watauga 3 3 $8,989,298,936 $60,408,088.85 $19,145,251.49 $2,371,895.22 $77,181,445 $34,295 80.30% $61,979,012 4,553 $13,612.79
Brunswick 4 5 $23,780,614,320 $159,805,728.23 $37,458,912.32 $7,045,587.28 $190,219,053 $40,128 94.00% $178,732,062 13,496 $13,243.34
Currituck 5 6 $6,400,930,685 $43,014,254.20 $10,578,976.76 $2,553,270.55 $51,039,960 $43,101 100.90% $51,510,837 4,004 $12,864.84
Hyde 6 8 $1,085,837,805 $7,296,830.05 $1,454,151.62 $739,557.27 $8,011,424 $38,538 90.20% $7,229,360 580 $12,464.41
Jackson 7 4 $8,733,486,221 $58,689,027.41 $12,163,528.88 $2,622,779.00 $68,229,777 $30,761 72.00% $49,144,547 4,015 $12,240.24
Avery 8 9 $4,026,733,714 $27,059,650.56 $5,834,050.13 $1,384,447.74 $31,509,253 $33,620 78.70% $24,804,858 2,063 $12,023.68
Macon 9 7 $7,420,995,265 $49,869,088.18 $11,735,713.49 $1,688,732.71 $59,916,069 $37,286 87.30% $52,310,641 4,367 $11,978.62
New Hanover 10 11 $33,173,903,046 $222,928,628.47 $100,086,292.96 $17,588,855.39 $305,426,066 $43,071 100.90% $308,029,271 27,211 $11,320.03
Chatham 11 12 $10,098,922,498 $67,864,759.19 $14,798,329.11 $3,914,187.77 $78,748,901 $58,451 136.90% $107,779,802 9,617 $11,207.22
Transylvania 12 10 $5,715,008,197 $38,404,855.08 $8,386,103.49 $2,361,336.12 $44,429,622 $38,988 91.30% $40,560,613 3,670 $11,051.94
Buncombe 13 16 $33,750,345,412 $226,802,321.17 $119,086,084.06 $31,574,814.13 $314,313,591 $44,434 104.00% $327,023,910 30,570 $10,697.54
Mecklenburg 14 14 $135,061,730,262 $907,614,827.36 $496,158,391.14 $83,521,385.04 $1,320,251,833 $55,304 129.50% $1,709,677,744 163,530 $10,454.83
Orange 15 13 $17,098,385,950 $114,901,153.58 $43,694,669.23 $10,989,517.37 $147,606,305 $60,152 140.80% $207,900,683 20,275 $10,254.04
Durham 16 17 $35,096,009,338 $235,845,182.75 $159,762,041.91 $27,456,129.21 $368,151,095 $46,357 108.50% $399,615,527 39,323 $10,162.39
Wake 17 18 $141,453,296,691 $950,566,153.76 $352,560,203.34 $43,510,480.99 $1,259,615,876 $54,549 127.70% $1,608,888,155 169,329 $9,501.55
Polk 18 15 $2,895,925,551 $19,460,619.70 $3,629,096.31 $1,403,272.21 $21,686,444 $42,075 98.50% $21,365,517 2,263 $9,441.24
Moore 19 19 $12,032,668,348 $80,859,531.30 $28,879,193.64 $4,056,747.29 $105,681,978 $48,215 112.90% $119,311,976 13,180 $9,052.50
Pamlico 20 20 $1,790,422,413 $12,031,638.62 $2,370,352.23 $1,157,624.38 $13,244,366 $39,191 91.80% $12,153,979 1,505 $8,075.73
Alleghany 21 21 $1,665,295,355 $11,190,784.79 $2,017,949.97 $902,445.34 $12,306,289 $36,324 85.10% $10,466,988 1,344 $7,787.94
Ashe 22 23 $3,790,227,911 $25,470,331.56 $6,778,631.72 $3,645,527.42 $28,603,436 $34,389 80.50% $23,032,373 2,997 $7,685.14
Haywood 23 25 $7,528,796,541 $50,593,512.76 $18,796,929.74 $6,132,673.16 $63,257,769 $37,651 88.20% $55,768,803 7,479 $7,456.72
Henderson 24 24 $13,383,918,384 $89,939,931.54 $29,543,675.29 $8,804,986.75 $110,678,620 $39,950 93.50% $103,533,633 13,957 $7,418.04
Iredell 25 26 $22,277,209,621 $149,702,848.65 $54,111,193.97 $10,332,207.33 $193,481,835 $47,209 110.50% $213,877,911 29,057 $7,360.63
Clay 26 28 $1,660,793,999 $11,160,535.67 $1,949,122.52 $1,184,565.61 $11,925,093 $31,782 74.40% $8,874,500 1,331 $6,667.54
Yancey 27 27 $2,339,934,189 $15,724,357.75 $3,366,679.43 $1,654,542.09 $17,436,495 $33,365 78.10% $13,622,326 2,160 $6,306.63
Guilford 28 29 $49,262,510,399 $331,044,069.88 $168,283,330.04 $30,445,648.20 $468,881,752 $43,405 101.60% $476,545,120 77,659 $6,136.38
Forsyth 29 30 $34,116,245,435 $229,261,169.32 $116,898,819.58 $20,875,398.10 $325,284,591 $45,192 105.80% $344,211,985 57,067 $6,031.72
Catawba 30 32 $16,365,788,176 $109,978,096.54 $56,061,155.06 $19,657,016.34 $146,382,235 $41,691 97.60% $142,899,800 23,707 $6,027.75
Davie 31 33 $4,470,659,902 $30,042,834.54 $8,428,803.77 $2,194,112.68 $36,277,526 $43,987 103.00% $37,364,824 6,199 $6,027.56
Perquimans 32 22 $1,441,984,370 $9,690,134.97 $2,054,842.76 $804,321.28 $10,940,656 $37,672 88.20% $9,650,793 1,654 $5,834.82
Lincoln 33 38 $8,866,162,483 $59,580,611.89 $18,709,555.03 $4,640,528.13 $73,649,639 $42,154 98.70% $72,695,972 12,666 $5,739.46
Beaufort 34 35 $5,490,662,102 $36,897,249.33 $11,642,128.52 $4,829,205.49 $43,710,172 $39,241 91.90% $40,162,757 7,065 $5,684.75
Craven 35 34 $9,167,198,665 $61,603,575.03 $25,589,320.06 $7,343,907.95 $79,848,987 $41,630 97.50% $77,835,328 14,058 $5,536.73
Madison 36 39 $2,382,920,944 $16,013,228.74 $3,282,476.07 $1,997,961.78 $17,297,743 $31,485 73.70% $12,752,463 2,314 $5,511.00
Onslow 37 37 $13,719,026,715 $92,191,859.52 $49,964,183.45 $12,609,090.08 $129,546,953 $45,967 107.60% $139,435,802 26,116 $5,339,09
Swain 38 43 $1,568,302,468 $10,538,992.58 $3,735,437.66 $1,458,606.29 $12,815,824 $35,916 84.10% $10,777,932 2,025 $5,322.44
Cabarrus 39 44 $21,700,377,236 $145,826,535.03 $77,388,934.69 $11,624,365.14 $211,591,105 $42,514 99.50% $210,634,889 39,613 $5,317.32
Warren 40 31 $2,314,682,614 $15,554,667.17 $5,180,378.26 $2,078,386.93 $18,656,658 $28,749 67.30% $12,559,072 2,372 $5,294.72
Cherokee 41 41 $3,054,095,824 $20,523,523.94 $7,447,470.88 $2,351,486.01 $25,619,509 $30,357 71.10% $18,210,865 3,461 $5,261.74
Person 42 42 $4,479,605,823 $30,102,951.13 $8,311,417.97 $3,949,256.87 $34,465,112 $35,400 82.90% $28,568,267 5,633 $5,071.59
Graham 43 36 $1,131,808,716 $7,605,754.57 $1,723,260.89 $794,284.03 $8,534,731 $29,450 69.00% $5,885,401 1,172 $5,021.67
Union 44 48 $23,772,078,402 $159,748,366.86 $49,756,407.61 $12,651,716.31 $196,853,058 $47,729 111.80% $220,001,396 44,378 $4,957.44
Alamance 45 52 $12,741,087,626 $85,620,108.85 $54,868,662.07 $9,375,231.68 $131,113,539 $37,625 88.10% $115,511,436 23,938 $4,825.44
Mitchell 46 45 $1,719,926,653 $11,557,907.11 $3,636,207.53 $3,754,522.24 $11,439,592 $33,186 77.70% $8,889,276 1,843 $4,823.26
Chowan 47 47 $1,435,707,699 $9,647,955.74 $3,126,033.80 $1,124,493.63 $11,649,496 $36,610 85.70% $9,986,373 2,079 $4,803.45
Jones 48 40 $845,739,323 $5,683,368.25 $1,180,575.90 $918,624.29 $5,945,320 $37,800 88.50% $5,262,207 1,110 $4,740.73
Pender 49 50 $6,896,491,905 $46,344,425.60 $11,445,935.61 $4,717,971.00 $53,072,390 $34,708 81.30% $43,131,958 9,259 $4,658.38 .
Pitt 50 51 $12,439,472,364 $83,593,254.29 $52,931,867.50 $11,690,791.65 $124,834,330 $38,535 90.20% $112,639,401 24,246 $4,645.69
Montgomery 51 46 $3,055,029,021 $20,529,795.02 $5,234,199.85 $1,760,531.57 $24,003,463 $32,043 75.00% $18,009,764 4,001 $4,501.32
Rowan 52 53 $11,744,948,593 $78,926,054.54 $33,209,394.96 $8,046,872.31 $104,088,577 $35,692 83.60% $86,991,114 19,565 $4,446.26
Lee 53 55 $5,243,144,069 $35,233,928.14 $18,886,614.51 $3,748,725.42 $50,371,817 $37,407 87.60% $44,120,602 9,969 $4,425.78
Northampton 54 54 $1,974,976,030 $13,271,838.92 $2,449,213.68 $2,661,782.71 $13,059,270 $31,313 73.30% $9,575,126 2,188 $4,376.20
Stanly 55 60 $4,847,113,848 $32,572,605.06 $14,433,873.51 $3,304,411.82 $43,702,067 $36,302 85.00% $37,147,831 8,645 $4,297.03
Pasquotank 56 57 $3,031,845,932 $20,374,004.66 $11,585,697.55 $3,330,835.29 $28,628,867 $36,882 86.40% $24,724,047 5,787 $4,272.34
Surry 57 58 $5,552,246,297 $37,311,095.12 $22,808,507.29 $4,114,964.30 $56,004,638 $36,530 85.50% $47,904,311 11,348 $4,221.39
Camden 58 49 $1,005,651,977 $6,757,981.29 $1,371,856.82 $527,219.40 $7,602,619 $43,042 100.80% $7,662,255 1,843 $4,157.49
Davidson 59 56 $13,653,925,669 $91,754,380.50 $34,219,980.58 $7,611,060.24 $118,363,301 $36,532 85.50% $101,249,165 24,531 $4,127.40
Wilkes 60 61 $5,706,537,044 $38,347,928.94 $16,135,867.62 $5,526,578.59 $48,957,218 $34,084 79.80% $39,072,232 9,511 $4,108.11
Rutherford 61 59 $6,088,369,414 $40,913,842.46 $15,422,902.78 $4,746,173.07 $51,590,572 $30,715 71.90% $37,104,091 9,117 $4,069.77
Wilson 62 63 $6,621,765,317 $44,498,262.93 $23,945,181.75 $8,222,486.56 $60,220,958 $38,045 89.10% $53,647,092 13,394 $4,005.31
Stokes 63 67 $3,800,210,116 $25,537,411.98 $6,820,599.27 $2,644,595.70 $29,713,416 $34,079 79.80% $23,710,480 6,089 $3,893.99
Nash 64 65 $7,396,914,185 $49,707,263.32 $25,430,337.00 $6,198,736.62 $68,938,864 $39,123 91.60% $63,153,468 16,225 $3,892.36
Rockingham 65 66 $7,066,653,223 $47,487,909.66 $18,111,085.37 $6,085,687.97 $59,513,307 $34,854 81.60% $48,569,949 12,766 $3,804.63
Gaston 66 68 $15,559,087,893 $104,557,070.64 $53,250,262.25 $17,788,225.01 $140,019,108 $38,261 89.60% $125,442,459 33,281 $3,769.19
Cumberland 67 64 $22,751,372,015 $152,889,219.94 $100,896,498.43 $30,436,146.78 $223,349,572 $36,032 84.40% $188,440,578 51,030 $3,692.74
Cleveland 68 77 $8,339,422,301 $56,040,917.86 $23,243,723.83 $8,695,227.23 $70,589,414 $34,870 81.60% $57,635,818 15,673 $3,677.40
McDowell 69 69 $3,741,679,600 $25,144,086.91 $9,441,657.15 $3,662,133.00 $30,923,611 $31,236 73.10% $22,617,602 6,176 $3,662.18
Caldwell 70 73 $6,826,185,720 $45,871,968.04 $15,820,907.00 $5,659,530.59 $56,033,344 $32,232 75.50% $42,289,713 11,706 $3,612.65
Yadkin 71 72 $2,936,804,409 $19,735,325.63 $6,382,636.26 $2,658,599.32 $23,459,363 $34,752 81.40% $19,089,605 5,312 $3,593.68
Lenoir 72 71 $4,090,786,949 $27,490,088.30 $13,477,687.55 $4,936,420.05 $36,031,356 $37,142 87.00% $31,336,236 8,856 $3,538.42
Randolph 73 74 $10,954,478,639 $73,614,096.45 $31,127,825.23 $7,281,434.68 $97,460,487 $34,884 81.70% $79,607,831 22,536 $3,532.47
Burke 74 78 $6,629,381,563 $44,549,444.10 $17,787,683.47 $5,860,525.60 $56,476,602 $32,737 76.70% $43,292,072 12,422 $3,485.11
Martin 75 70 $1,840,246,759 $12,366,458.22 $5,612,388.20 $2,056,365.23 $15,922,481 $32,844 76.90% $12,245,252 3,565 $3,434.85
Tyrrell 76 62 $384,630,542 $2,584,717.24 $701,376.83 $493,983.37 $2,792,111 $30,386 71.10% $1,986,585 596 $3,333.20
Wayne 77 75 $8,158,872,414 $54,827,622.62 $28,645,836.15 $7,314,460.10 $76,158,999 $35,623 83.40% $63,526,167 19,096 $3,326.67
Bladen 78 76 $2,758,322,584 $18,535,927.76 $5,851,019.46 $3,535,373.63 $20,851,574 $32,522 76.20% $15,878,776 4,794 $3,312.22
Washington 79 81 $915,614,534 $6,152,929.67 $2,205,155.43 $1,725,378.88 $6,632,706 $33,711 78.90% $5,235,562 1,587 $3,299.03
Johnston 80 85 $15,868,963,950 $106,639,437.74 $42,247,887.68 $11,997,886.62 $136,889,439 $37,249 87.20% $119,394,823 36,192 $3,298.93
Alexander 81 79 $2,602,703,487 $17,490,167.43 $5,802,477.44 $3,022,134.63 $20,270,510 $33,973 79.50% $16,124,992 4,899 $3,291.49
Granville 82 89 $4,135,984,132 $27,793,813.37 $9,718,291.97 $2,931,391.51 $34,580,714 $35,766 83.70% $28,960,447 8,851 $3,272.00
Franklin 83 84 $4,892,304,219 $32,876,284.35 $10,697,310.19 $4,310,028.42 $39,263,566 $33,325 78.00% $30,638,030 9,388 $3,263.53
Anson 84 80 $1,796,213,135 $12,070,552.27 $4,356,551.05 $1,822,148.99 $14,604,954 $31,801 74.50% $10,875,317 3,337 $3,259.01
Hertford 85 82 $1,431,350,329 $9,618,674.21 $5,903,527.54 $2,418,749.61 $13,103,452 $30,574 71.60% $9,380,779 2,880 $3,257.22
Caswell 86 88 $1,630,036,065 $10,953,842.36 $2,188,929.77 $1,621,306.63 $11,521,465 $33,307 78.00% $8,985,540 2,817 $3,189.76
Halifax 87 83 $3,586,443,662 $24,100,901.41 $12,705,376.86 $5,718,444.03 $31,087,834 $33,577 78.60% $24,441,806 7,681 $3,182.11
Richmond 88 92 $3,267,003,794 $21,954,265.50 $10,076,042.57 $2,924,660.13 $29,105,648 $33,124 77.60% $22,574,648 7,297 $3,093.69
Gates 89 87 $852,845,077 $5,731,118.92 $1,287,934.00 $805,605.04 $6,213,448 $33,734 79.00% $4,907,965 1,592 $3,082.89
Bertie 90 86 $1,324,500,647 $8,900,644.35 $2,493,461.12 $1,809,900.82 $9,584,205 $32,427 75.90% $7,277,191 2,422 $3,004.62
Edgecombe 91 90 $3,165,577,883 $21,272,683.37 $10,044,624.30 $5,000,500.90 $26,316,807 $32,374 75.80% $19,949,430 6,858 $2,908.93
Duplin 92 91 $4,358,546,885 $29,289,435.07 $11,334,919.15 $3,325,104.52 $37,299,250 $31,713 74.30% $27,697,359 9,561 $2,896.91
Vance 93 95 $2,579,639,870 $17,335,179.93 $11,616,593.16 $3,508,734.95 $25,443,038 $33,099 77.50% $19,718,995 7,385 $2,670.14
Sampson 94 93 $4,268,524,635 $28,684,485.55 $13,440,444.36 $5,341,537.64 $36,783,392 $34,842 81.60% $30,009,295 11,260 $2,665.12
Columbus 95 94 $3,816,562,221 $25,647,298.13 $10,471,583.45 $3,997,408.25 $32,121,473 $30,605 71.70% $23,019,123 8,762 $2,627.15
Harnett 96 96 $7,970,045,197 $53,558,703.72 $22,546,421.20 $6,808,448.06 $69,296,677 $31,845 74.60% $51,671,920 20,775 $2,487.22
Scotland 97 97 $2,111,483,171 $14,189,166.91 $7,790,148.65 $3,008,467.62 $18,970,848 $30,456 71.30% $13,528,839 5,774 $2,343.06
Hoke 98 98 $3,433,578,210 $23,073,645.57 $5,930,528.18 $3,080,273.52 $25,923,900 $29,052 68.00% $17,635,075 8,731 $2,019.82
Greene 99 99 $1,103,360,612 $7,414,583.31 $2,169,081.66 $1,357,048.70 $8,226,616 $30,476 71.40% $5,870,568 3,100 $1,893.73
Robeson 100 100 $6,497,771,766 $43,665,026.27 $28,393,926.84 $14,438,883.77 $57,620,069 $27,676 64.80% $37,340,320 23,181 $1,610.82
*Beginning with 2016 study,includes only WC302 report.Medicaid payments from WD667 no longer included. **County and state averages from the Bureau of Economic Analysis 21<
TABLE 5: RELATIVE EFFORT ATTACHMENT R
This is a measure comparing Actual Effort(from Table 2)and Ability to Pay(from Table 4).Actual effort includes county appropriations for current expenses,and,when
appropriate,supplemental tax levies for schools.Low-wealth counties with comparatively high spending levels have tended to rank highest on this measure.
COUNTY RELATIVE EFFORT ABILITY REVENUE EFFORT TOTAL EFFORT AS PERCENTAGE
RANK:CURRENT RANK PER ADM RANK CURRENT SPENDING OF REVENUE PER STUDENT:
SPENDING PER ADM CURRENT SPENDING
Scotland 1 97 $2,343.06 28 $1,833 78.20%
Gates 2 89 $3,082.89 27 $1,851 60.00%
Franklin 3 83 $3,263.53 42 $1,626 49.80%
Orange 4 15 $10,254.04 1 $5,025 49.00%
Johnston 5 80 $3,298.93 47 $1,571 47.60%
Hertford 6 85 $3,257.22 53 $1,527 46.90%
Granville 7 82 $3,272.00 51 $1,534 46.90%
Harnett 8 96 $2,487.22 84 $1,097 44.10%
Sampson 9 94 $2,665.12 82 $1,142 42.90%
Stokes 10 63 $3,893.99 41 $1,660 42.60%
Bladen 11 78 $3,312.22 62 $1,399 42.20%
Cumberland 12 67 $3,692.74 49 $1,557 42.20%
Bertie 13 90 $3,004.62 74 $1,240 41.30%
Martin 14 75 $3,435 58 $1,414 41.20%
Anson 15 84 $3,259.01 66 $1,337 41.00%
Pasquotank 16 56 $4,272.34 34 $1,728 40.40%
Union 17 44 $4,957.44 19 $1,988 40.10%
Rowan 18 52 $4,446.26 30 $1,776 40.00%
Greene 19 99 $1,893.73 96 $755 39.90%
Guilford 20 28 $6,136.38 13 $2,425 39.50%
McDowell 21 69 $3,662.18 61 $1,406 38.40%
Alexander 22 81 $3,291.49 70 $1,262 38.30%
Lee 23 53 $4,425.78 37 $1,691 38.20%
Northampton 24 54 $4,376.20 40 $1,668 38.10%
Warren 25 40 $5,294.72 20 $1,983 37.40%
Edgecombe 26 91 $2,908.93 86 $1,087 37.40%
Cleveland 27 68 $3,677.40 63 $1,368 37.20%
Rutherford 28 61 $4,069.77 55 $1,492 36.60%
Nash 29 64 $3,892.36 57 $1,414 36.30%
Wilson 30 62 $4,005.31 56 $1,455 36.30%
Gaston 31 66 $3,769.19 64 $1,363 36.20%
Cherokee 32 41 $5,261.74 26 $1,892 35.90%
Beaufort 33 34 $5,684.75 18 $2,024 35.60%
Randolph 34 73 $3,532.47 71 $1,256 35.60%
Chowan 35 47 $4,803.45 35 $1,708 35.50%
Caldwell 36 70 $3,612.65 69 $1,265 35.00%
Columbus 37 95 $2,627.15 95 $918 34.90%
Vance 38 93 $2,670.14 94 $920 34.40%
Halifax 39 87 $3,182.11 85 $1,090 34.30%
Jones 40 48 $4,740.73 43 $1,623 34.20%
Duplin 41 92 $2,896.91 91 $990 34.20%
Pitt 42 50 $4,645.69 46 $1,576 33.90%
Burke 43 74 $3,485.11 79 $1,179 33.80%
Onslow 44 37 $5,339.09 29 $1,778 33.30%
Richmond 45 88 $3,093.69 88 $1,026 33.20%
Robeson 46 100 $1,610.82 98 $534 33.10%
Alamance 47 45 $4,825.44 45 $1,598 33.10%
Davidson 48 59 $4,127.40 65 $1,356 32.90%
Forsyth 49 29 $6,032 21 $1,976 32.80%
Pender 50 49 $4,658.38 54 $1,523 32.70%
Cabarrus 51 39 $5,317.32 33 $1,736 32.70%
Rockingham 52 65 $3,804.63 73 $1,240 32.60%
Caswell 53 86 $3,189.76 87 $1,029 32.30%
Lenoir 54 72 $3,538.42 83 $1,140 32.20%
Yadkin 55 71 $3,594 81 $1,148 32.00%
Durham 56 16 $10,162.39 3 $3,211 31.60%
Wayne 57 77 $3,326.67 89 $1,022 30.70%
Washington 58 79 $3,299.03 90 $1,010 30.60%
Wilkes 59 60 $4,108.11 75 $1,238 30.10%
Camden 60 58 $4,157 72 $1,248 30.00%
Montgomery 61 51 $4,501 68 $1,327 29.50%
Surry 62 57 $4,221.39 78 $1,226 29.00%
Stanly 63 55 $4,297.03 76 $1,238 28.80%
Perquimans 64 32 $5,834.82 39 $1,678 28.80%
Tyrrell 65 76 $3,333 93 $952 28.60%
Davie 66 31 $6,027.56 36 $1,700 28.20%
Transylvania 67 12 $11,051.94 4 $3,114 28.20%
Chatham 68 11 $11,207.22 5 $3,097 27.60%
Craven 69 35 $5,536.73 52 $1,528 27.60%
Hoke 70 98 $2,019.82 97 $555 27.50%
Person 71 42 $5,071.59 67 $1,333 26.30%
Catawba 72 30 $6,027.75 48 $1,560 25.90%
Haywood 73 23 $7,456.72 25 $1,912 25.60%
Mitchell 74 46 $4,823.26 77 $1,233 25.60%
Wake 75 17 $9,501.55 14 $2,414 25.40%
Alleghany 76 21 $7,787.94 24 $1,930 24.80%
Lincoln 77 33 $5,739.46 60 $1,407 24.50%
Pamlico 78 20 $8,075.73 23 $1,945 24.10%
Mecklenburg 79 14 $10,454.83 10 $2,514 24.10%
Polk 80 18 $9,441.24 16 $2,267 24.00%
New Hanover 81 10 $11,320.03 8 $2,677 23.70%
Henderson 82 24 $7,418.04 32 $1,742 23.50%
Buncombe 83 13 $10,697.54 11 $2,511 23.50%
Yancey 84 27 $6,306.63 59 $1,408 22.30%
Iredell 85 25 $7,360.63 44 $1,610 21.90%
Hyde 86 6 $12,464.41 7 $2,723 21.80%
Moore 87 19 $9,052.50 22 $1,957 21.60%
Madison 88 36 $5,511.00 80 $1,149 20.90%
Watauga 89 3 $13,612.79 6 $2,792 20.50%
Ashe 90 22 $7,685.14 50 $1,549 20.20%
Currituck 91 5 $12,864.84 12 $2,441 19.00%
Brunswick 92 4 $13,243.34 15 $2,414 18.20%
Avery 93 8 $12,023.68 17 $2,138 17.80%
Carteret 94 2 $15,367 9 $2,633 17.10%
Macon 95 9 $11,978.62 31 $1,763 14.70%
Clay 96 26 $6,667.54 92 $977 14.60%
Dare 97 1 $29,182 2 $4,212 14.40%
Jackson 98 7 $12,240.24 38 $1,681 13.70%
Graham 99 43 $5,021.67 99 $523 10.40%
Swain 100 38 $5,322 100 $424 8.00%
22
ATTACHMENT B
> GLOSSARY
Ability to Pay:A measure of a county's per student fiscal capacity agreements. Using the Public School Capital Outlay report,
to support local public schools.It is a combined measure of withdrawals from the Public School Building Capital Fund and
revenue that would have been generated at the state average tax North Carolina Education Lottery Funds have been removed
rate based on 2016-17 property valuations per student(adjusted from the county total.
to reflect current market prices and to account for differences in
income levels)and the value of non-property tax revenues,such as Debt Service per ADM:Six-year average of debt service spending
the county's share of local option sales tax,local tax aid(including for a county divided by the ADM for the county.
reimbursements for inventory tax revenues,homestead exclusions, Income-Adjusted Total Revenues:The total revenues for a county,
food stamp distribution,and the intangibles tax),and fines and
forfeitures.Each county's mandated social service payments were minus the amount paid in mandated social security payments,
multiplied by the percent of state average per capita income.
subtracted from the total adjusted revenues.(See Table 4.)
Actual Effort: Includes 2016-17 current expenses(including Low-Wealth Funding:Supplemental state funding intended to
supplemental school taxes); reflects the actual dollar effort of enhance instructional programs in counties designated as low-
counties to fund local public schools without taking into account wealth based on a formula that examines the ability to generate
property wealth.(See Tables 2 and 3.) revenue per student below the state average.In addition,the
formula takes into account county adjusted property tax base,
Adjusted Tax Base:The total valuation of real,tangible,and public square miles in the county and per capita income.
utility property for a county,adjusted using a three-year weighted Mandated Social Services Payments:The amount of money
average of the sales assessment ratio. Notes about adjustment and
weighted average:In North Carolina,residential and commercial each county pays in the health and human services categories
propertytypically is revalued once ever eight ears.The longer it mandated by the state. These categories include public
yp y y g y g assistance and Work First services. In previous studies,the
has been since properties in a county have been revalued,the more
likely it is that the market value of property exceeds the assessed Mandated Social Services Payments reported in Table 4 included
county Medicaid payments in addition to other required social
valuation.To help remedy this difficulty of estimating the market
services payments.For the last two years the Local School
value of property valuations,the Department of Revenue computes
an adjusted property tax rate for each county by using the ratio of Finance Study has not included Medicaid payments as part of the
overall Mandated Social Services Payments.The WD667 report
assessed property value to market value.Typically,the longer the
from the NC Department of Health and Human Services Office of
gap between revaluations,the larger the difference between market
and assessed value.In effort to be as accurate as possible,this the Controller,which includes county Medicaid payments, has not
study uses athree-year weighted average to calculate the adjusted been available since 2012-13. In almost every county,the Medicaid
property valuation. total from the WD667 in previous years was less than 0.5%of
the total Mandated Social Services Payments,which itself is a
Average Daily Membership(ADM):The sum of the number of days small piece of the revenue calculation in Table 4.
in membership for all students in each county's local public schools, Non-Property Tax Revenue:Sources of revenue for the county
divided by the number of school days in the term. City school other than property taxes.Examples include the sales tax,fines/
districts are combined with the county system and charter school
enrollment is included(see Charter School Enrollment under"Notes forfeitures,and local tax aid.
on Methodology"). Relative Effort:A measure comparing the Actual Effort of a county
Capital Outlay:A six-year average of public school capital outlay to its Ability to Pay.In general,low-wealth districts with comparatively
using proceeds from local option sales taxes and other sources
high spending levels rank highest in this measure.(See Table 5)
to fund actual spending on capital projects or equipment for Small County Funding: In 2016-17 supplemental state funding
buildings.Withdrawals from the Public School Building Capital was provided to county school districts with ADM less than 3,200.
Fund,Grants from the Public School Building Bond Fund,and the This is a change from previous years,when funding was provided
North Carolina Education Lottery Funds have been removed from to two categories of local education agencies:those with less
the county total. than 3,239 ADM,and those with 3,239-4,080 ADM who have an
Capital Outlay per ADM:Six-year average of capital outlay adjusted property tax base less than the state average.
spending for a county divided by the ADM for the county. State Average Effective Property Tax:The average of all 100
Current Spending:The most recent current expense appropriation counties'adjusted tax rates.
by the county to the public schools,as reported in the audited Supplemental School Taxes:According to GS 115C-501(a), "a
financial statement of the local board(s)of education. special tax to supplement the funds from State and county
Current Spending per ADM:The total amount of spending for a allotments and thereby operate schools of a higher standard by
county divided by the ADM for the county. supplementing any item of expenditure in the school budget."
Debt Service: A six-year average of public school debt service Total Current Spending per ADM:The sum of the current expense
outlay using proceeds from local option sales taxes and other and the supplemental school taxes for a county,divided by the
sources to fund school bond repayments and lease purchase county's ADM.
23<
ATTACHMENT B
> DATA SOURCES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The 2019 Local School Finance Study examines data from the This year's study was authored by Lauren Fox, Ashley
2016-17 school year. Every effort has been made to verify that Kazouh, Lindsay Wagner and Emma Swift Lee.The au-
the data included in this year's study is accurate and reflects thors thank Keith Poston, Forum President and Executive
what it intends to measure. Director; Lauren Bock, Director of Policy and Programs;
The primary source of financial information is the Division of and Dr.Thomas J. Williams, Forum Board Chair;for their
School Business at the Department of Public Instruction, guidance and thought partnership throughout the re-
which provided data on non-property tax revenue, low-wealth search and drafting processes.The Forum also thanks the
and small county supplemental funding information,final following individuals for their insights and contributions
average daily membership(except as noted above for charter to this year's study: Ashley Sutton, Kerry Crutchfield, Seth
school enrollments), effective county tax rate,adjusted Prevette, and Patrick Miller.
revenue tax base, current expense,and other data found in The 2019 Local School Finance Study and prior years'
the Division's Highlights of the NC Public School Budget and versions are available online at http://www.ncforum.org.
online Statistical Profile. Contact the Forum to inquire about pricing information
Other sources include the North Carolina Department of for hard copies of the study.
Revenue's County Property Tax Rates and Revaluation
Schedules and Sales Assessment Ratio Studies, which
provided the 2016-17 property tax valuations and tax rates;
the Department of Revenue's data on Local Government
Sales and Use Tax Distribution;and the North Carolina
Department of State Treasurer's Report on County Spending
on Public School Capital Outlays.The North Carolina
Department of Health and Human Services provided data for
the mandated social services expenditures, and the North
Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts provided data on
fines and forfeitures. Per capita income was obtained through
the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.
PUBLIC SCHOOL
FORUM of -o
Public School Forum of North Carolina
3725 National Drive,Suite 101,Raleigh,NC 27612
Phone:919.781.6833 Fax:919.781.6527
www.ncforum.org