Every year bills are filed with the North Carolina General Assembly to expand the reach of our state’s three residential property tax relief programs, the elderly/disabled homestead exclusion (GS 105-277.1), the circuit breaker exclusion (GS 105-277.1B), and the disabled veteran’s … Read more

Note: Updates regarding ongoing litigation are included at the bottom of this blog post. Overview On January 21, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14173, entitled Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (the “EO”). The EO states that practices … Read more

What if I said there’s a process that, when regularly performed, provides the following benefits: (1) increased accuracy in financial reporting, (2) early fraud detection, and (3) less time spent preparing for the annual financial audit—would you believe me? It probably sounds too good to be true. But, luckily, it’s not. Such a process exists—it is the bank reconciliation process.

Yup, you guessed it, today’s blog post is on revenue forecasting!  My current blog series is about some of the non-legal finance issues that are out there and revenue forecasting, while required by law, is a really important one!  There are many people that are involved with revenue forecasting in local governments. While many outside of government may just assume that there is some accountant or budget wonk sitting in a back room who is somehow magically able (or has some very scientific formula) to predict how much money is going to be coming in next year, we know better.

Consulting and updating your revenue manual is the first step of the administrative process for revenue forecasting.  At least, that is what I say when I teach revenue forecasting.  Of course, when I then turn to the course participants and ask how many of them have revenue manuals in their jurisdiction only one or two raise their hands.  In fact, there are some years when no one raises their hand.

Taxes are a necessary aspect of any modern society, as they provide the government with the resources needed to provide public goods and services such as infrastructure, healthcare, education, and security. However, not all taxes are created equal, and policymakers must take into account various criteria when designing and implementing tax policies. In this blog post, we will discuss five tax criteria: economic efficiency, equity, adequacy, feasibility, and transparency.

A county ambulance crew member calls Fiona, the county finance officer, at 9pm on Sunday night. The crew just responded to their third call of the night and he needs to refuel the ambulance. Fiona grabs a copy of the county’s budget ordinance and a printout of current expenditures and encumbrances and rushes out the door to meet the ambulance crew at a gas station several miles from her home. When Fiona arrives the crew member gives her an estimate of the amount of gas needed. Fiona notes the current per-gallon price and calculates the total cost to be $72.65. She quickly glances at the budget ordinance. It allocates $100,000 for ambulance fuel for the fiscal year. She also checks to see that there is $43,000 remaining in that appropriation. She gives the crew member the ok and he fills up the tank. Fiona uses a county-issued fuel card to pay the $72.65 owed. When the receipt prints at the pump, Fiona stamps it with the following statement, “This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.” Fiona then signs her name to the receipt and hands it back to the crew member. (The crew member will later submit the receipt, through his supervisor, to the county’s finance department to reconcile with the monthly fuel card bill.)

In recent years local governments and public authorities (collectively, local units) have struggled to comply with the statutory preaudit (G.S. 159-28(a)) and disbursement (G.S. 159-28(b) & (d)) processes, in particular when making web-based purchases, or when using credit cards, purchase cards, and fuel cards. In 2013 the North Carolina Court of Appeals made compliance even more difficult when it interpreted the provisions of G.S. 159-28(a) to require that all obligations subject to preaudit be in writing. See Howard v. County of Durham, 748 S.E.2d 1 (NC Ct. App. 2013), disc. rev. den’d, 367 N.C. 238 (N.C. 2013); Executive Medical Transportation, Inc. v Jones County Department of Social Services, 735 S.E.2d 352 (NC Ct. App. 2012), disc. rev. den’d, 737 S.E.2d 378 (N.C. 2013). This raised additional difficulties for units when dealing with electronic transactions and also when hiring, or changing the compensation of, at-will employees.