Scotland County plans two-budget approach as state bills cloud property tax values

Scotland County commissioners on June 11 were warned that competing measures in the state legislature could change how property revaluations are applied locally, leaving county officials to prepare multiple versions of the 2027 budget.

The meeting opened with the chair noting that recent property tax revaluations were state-mandated and reminding residents the county had not initiated those changes. The chair said two bills—referred to in the meeting as House bill 889 and bill 474—are in play and that the county must plan despite not knowing which measure will take effect.

"We had the real tax reevaluations which jacked everybody's tax reevaluations up. Well, I want everybody to know that was state mandated. County Commissioners had nothing to do with that," the chair said during opening remarks.

Tim Newton, who returned from meetings with legislators in Raleigh, told the board that 889 (described as a one-year moratorium measure) had passed the House and gone to the governor, and that 474 had also moved through the legislature. Newton said he had been told the governor was likely to veto 889 but that the legislature appeared to have votes to override a veto, contributing to confusion about which law would govern local tax values.

"889 passed yesterday and now goes to the governor. From what I've been told is he's going to veto that bill," Newton said, while cautioning that the situation remained uncertain.

County staff and commissioners discussed contingency plans. April Sneed, the county manager, said the fiscal-control rules require the county to adopt a budget ordinance by June 30 and recommended publishing a proposed ordinance next week based on the current reevaluation values while delaying formal adoption as long as legally permissible in case the legislature acts.

Sneed said the draft budget she prepared leaves county operations at about $57 million for the coming year and recommended that commissioners move forward with planning under the current values while recognizing the board may have to adjust the ordinance late in June if state action changes the values.

Commissioners discussed tradeoffs between raising the tax rate and drawing on fund balance. Participants referenced a proposed tax-rate figure mentioned in the meeting (discussed as "69.9") and a scenario described during discussion in which reverting to prior-year values could require a tax-rate adjustment discussed in the meeting as a 99-cent figure under old values; speakers emphasized those numbers reflected internal planning scenarios, not final decisions. Commissioners also discussed a possible $1.6 million draw on fund balance and noted reserve policy targets discussed during the meeting (referred to as a 15% policy target and references to Local Government Commission guidance).

By consensus, the board also agreed to stop the monthly diversion of 5% of sales-tax distributions into the fire fund until the matter can be formalized in the budget ordinance and voted on at a subsequent meeting. Staff said they were unable to find a historical minute that documented when the 5% diversion began and proposed the change be recorded in the minutes and included for formal action during budget adoption.

The board scheduled a special meeting on June 29 to finalize budget decisions and to hold a water-board meeting that morning, and left the regular July meeting schedule as previously published. The board recessed to reconvene June 29.

What happens next: staff will publish the proposed budget ordinance and continue to monitor developments in Raleigh; the board reserved the right to alter the ordinance late in June if state legislation changes the valuation rules that govern tax rates.

Provenance: Topic introduced by the chair in opening remarks and discussed through presentations and exchanges led by Tim Newton and April Sneed (transcript segments beginning with SEG 016 for the topic intro and continuing through SEG 261 for the presentation and SEG 262–466 for fund-balance discussion).