By Richard Sullins | richard@rantnc.com
The Lee County Board of Commissioners left a three and a half hour meeting Friday with a patchwork plan that would scrape together enough savings to avoid a proposed five cent property tax increase – against the repeated advice of their county manager.
Commissioners sidestepped recommendations from County Manager Lisa Minter, a move she warned was “highly risky” and “violates every sound budget management practice that I can think of.”
Officially, the budget is still scheduled for a vote at the board’s final meeting of the fiscal year on June 15. Friday’s improvised plan gave commissioners enough confidence to adjourn after just over three hours, believing they now have a path to meet the state’s June 30 deadline. Another meeting could still be called, but for the moment, the board appears back on track.
A political storm since May 18
The turbulence began when Minter presented her recommended budget on May 18. Public reaction was swift and unmistakable: taxpayers were in no mood for a five cent increase. For context, a five cent increase on a $250,000 home would add roughly $125 a year to a homeowner’s tax bill — a meaningful jump in a county where many residents are already feeling the strain of rising costs.
The task Friday was to reconcile projected revenues for Fiscal Year 2026–27 with the expenses Minter and her finance team say the county will face. Her $128 million proposal called for raising the property tax rate from 65 to 70 cents per $100 of valuation.
And the timing could hardly be worse. A countywide property revaluation is scheduled for early 2027, with new values hitting mailboxes next summer. State law requires counties to revalue property at least once every eight years to keep tax values aligned with market conditions. With home prices rising sharply in Lee County, many residents are bracing for higher valuations — and higher bills — even without a tax rate increase. A tax increase followed by a revaluation is the kind of rare planetary alignment that budget watchers dread.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul
Since becoming county manager three years ago — and even earlier as the county’s chief financial officer — Minter has warned commissioners that shifting money between funds to plug holes is poor fiscal practice.
As The Rant reported last year, then Chairman Kirk Smith asked Minter at the eleventh hour to produce an alternative budget that avoided a tax increase by relying on transfers and one time fixes. That plan, she cautioned, severely limited the county’s ability to grow with its population.
Friday’s strategy was a near copy of that approach. Commissioners tossed handfuls of fiscal spaghetti at the wall, hoping enough would stick to hold the tax rate steady. But relying on one time funds to cover recurring expenses can create structural deficits — gaps that grow larger each year and become harder to close without significant cuts or future tax increases.
Minter stepped in with the same warning she’s delivered for years.
“I have to caution you about using money we’ve put away for rainy days, because it will only be there for one year,” she said. “Then all you have left is a bigger hole.”
Cuts residents will feel
If the plan holds long enough for Monday’s vote, some cuts will be noticeable. Sheriff Brian Estes is among those affected after commissioners removed funding for a new drug enforcement sergeant. Estes attended Friday’s meeting to explain what that loss means for a community fighting the opioid crisis on multiple fronts — treatment, prevention, and enforcement.
The opioid crisis has hit Lee County particularly hard in recent years, prompting a mix of enforcement, treatment, and prevention efforts. Losing a dedicated drug enforcement position doesn’t halt those efforts, but it does slow the county’s ability to respond to emerging trends in trafficking and addiction.
“We are losing money for this drug officer because we don’t have a representative on the regional drug enforcement task force,” Estes said. “There is drug activity everywhere, it seems. Activity on the street above ground may seem calm, but there are activities moving underground that are deeper and stronger. If we are to address that problem, we need your help to find the money to make this happen.”
Despite such testimony, commissioners appear poised to adopt the revised plan Monday with little further debate — and with little acknowledgment of how readily the county manager’s data driven recommendations were set aside.
Minter’s original 114 page budget proposal is available online.
Your article makes it sound like Lee County *has* to revalue in 2027, because of the statute. Is that the case? How many times in the last 8 years have our property taxes gone up because of revaluation?
Jay, they “Have” to revaluate every 8 years. The county chooses every 4 years.
County commissioners need to wake up and realize who they were elected to serve- longterm Lee Co citizens, the foundation of this county. Here, the elderly live on small, fixed incomes. Now, with higher gas prices, more expensive car and home insurance policies, increasing grocery costs, as well as higher heating/cooling expenses and exponentially increasing taxes, YOU are pricing them right out of the homes they have worked their whole life to pay for! All this, while welcoming new developers, who take our fields and farms, and let the longterm citizens foot the bill for all the new highways and schools that must be built!
Maybe that is part of the over all plan. Over taxing and making room for a “better” group of voters?
How about some decreases instead of increases ??
Lisa Minter should not lecture the ones that pay way too much. It is bad practice to do that.
THE EXPECTATION SHOULD NOT BE THAT CITIZENS PROVE WHY TAXES SHOULD NOT INCREASE.
THE EXPECTATION SHOULD BE THAT GOVERNMENT PROVES WHY THEY SHOULD.
I have lived in Lee County since 2018. Like many families, I have watched the cost of living rise year after year. My mortgage payment has increased by approximately $600 per month since I purchased my home. Property taxes have increased, insurance costs have increased, utilities have increased, food costs have increased, and healthcare costs have increased.
Now we are being told that Lee County needs another property tax increase while simultaneously moving toward another countywide property revaluation in 2027.
The question every taxpayer should be asking is simple:
**Where did all the money go?**
Because according to Lee County’s own financial records, taxpayers have already provided substantially more money to county government over the last several years.
Let’s look at the facts.
According to Lee County’s audited financial statements:
* Total county revenue increased from approximately **$72.8 million in FY2018** to approximately **$115.4 million in FY2024** — an increase of nearly **$43 million per year**, or roughly **58%**.
* Property tax revenue increased from approximately **$45.4 million** to approximately **$67.3 million** during the same period — an increase of nearly **$22 million per year**.
* County population increased from approximately **60,430 residents** to approximately **67,059 residents** — an increase of roughly **11%**.
Let that sink in.
**County revenue grew approximately FIVE TIMES faster than population growth.**
If growth is the reason government needs more money, then taxpayers deserve an explanation as to why revenue growth has dramatically outpaced population growth.
The county’s own records also show:
* Public safety spending increased from approximately **$13.3 million** to approximately **$21.2 million** — an increase of approximately **60%**.
* County assessed property values increased dramatically after the 2023 revaluation, growing from approximately **$6.9 billion** to approximately **$9.4 billion** in taxable value.
* County reserve levels currently exceed the county’s own policy target levels.
* Major capital projects and debt-funded construction have expanded significantly.
* County employee headcount increased from approximately **451 employees in 2019** to approximately **522 employees in 2024**.
* Average employee salary increased from approximately **$35,368** to approximately **$49,158** during that same period.
Again, these are not accusations. These are numbers from public records.
The burden is not on taxpayers to explain these increases.
**The burden is on county leadership.**
There is another reality that county leadership must acknowledge.
Not every resident of Lee County is benefiting from rising property values.
For many retirees, veterans, disabled citizens, widows, and fixed-income households, rising property values do not create wealth that can be spent. They simply create larger tax bills, higher insurance costs, and higher housing expenses.
According to U.S. Census data, Lee County is home to:
* More than **12,000 residents age 65 and older**
* Approximately **3,600 veterans**
* Thousands of residents living with disabilities
* Nearly **10,000 residents living below the poverty line**
* More than **one-quarter of all households that are already housing-cost burdened**, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs
A retired couple living on Social Security does not receive a 58% increase in income because county revenues increased 58%.
A disabled veteran living on a fixed income does not receive a cost-of-living adjustment large enough to offset repeated increases in taxes, insurance, utilities, and housing costs.
Many of the people most affected by these decisions are not speculators, investors, or developers. They are the people who spent decades working, paying taxes, serving their communities, raising families, and building their lives in Lee County.
The question county leadership should ask itself is not whether residents can afford one more increase this year.
The question is whether the cumulative effect of repeated tax increases, reassessments, rising insurance costs, and rising housing expenses is gradually making Lee County unaffordable for the very people who helped build it.
A community should not become so focused on attracting future residents that it forgets about the citizens who are already here.
Growth should improve the lives of existing residents, not make it harder for them to remain in the homes they worked their entire lives to own.
The county has repeatedly justified spending and borrowing based on future growth.
Well, that growth is here.
According to publicly available development records, thousands of residential units have already been approved, are under construction, or are in the development pipeline. Major developments such as Galvin’s Ridge, Midtown Village South, Laurel Oaks, Deep River East, Deep River West, Broadwell, Ashby Village, The Station Apartments, and numerous other projects represent thousands of future homes and apartments that will enter the county tax base.
State population projections show Lee County continuing to grow for decades.
So taxpayers have a legitimate question:
**If thousands of new homes, new businesses, new commercial properties, and future taxpayers are already entering the tax base, why are current homeowners being asked to absorb both a tax-rate increase today and another revaluation in 2027 before that future growth has had the opportunity to generate the revenue county leaders said it would generate?**
Perhaps the most troubling part of this entire discussion is not the proposed tax increase itself.
It is the fact that ordinary citizens are being forced to ask questions that elected officials should have already answered before proposing additional financial burdens on the people they represent.
Why are taxpayers having to investigate revenue growth?
Why are taxpayers having to compare population growth to government growth?
Why are taxpayers having to track staffing increases, payroll increases, debt growth, capital projects, incentive agreements, reserve balances, and future development revenue?
Shouldn’t these be the very first questions asked by county leadership before ever proposing a tax increase?
Before government asks a retired couple for more money, shouldn’t government be able to explain where the last $43 million in additional annual revenue went?
Before government asks a disabled veteran on a fixed income to pay more, shouldn’t government be able to demonstrate that every reasonable efficiency has already been pursued?
Before government increases the financial burden on working families, shouldn’t government be able to show that growth, incentives, staffing, debt, and capital spending have been fully evaluated?
That is the role of leadership.
Taxpayers should not have to conduct their own audit to receive basic answers about how their money is being spent.
“The expectation should not be that citizens prove why taxes should not increase.”
“The expectation should be that government proves why they should.”
There is also a larger issue at stake: Transparency.
County officials will correctly point out that budgets, audits, and financial records are public information.
But public information is not the same thing as transparent information.
The average citizen should not have to read thousands of pages of budget documents, financial reports, meeting packets, and public records to understand how their money is being spent.
The average taxpayer should not have to submit records requests, build spreadsheets, and conduct independent research simply to answer basic questions about government spending.
If county leadership believes taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly, then transparency should not be viewed as a threat.
It should be embraced.
**Every taxpayer dollar should be traceable.**
The citizens of Lee County should have access to a public financial transparency portal showing department budgets, actual expenditures, capital project costs, debt obligations, incentive payments, vendor contracts, reserve balances, and other major financial information in a format that ordinary citizens can understand.
Taxpayers should not be forced to conduct their own investigation to discover where their money is going.
True transparency is not merely making information available.
**True transparency is making information understandable, accessible, and accountable.**
Therefore, before any property tax increase is approved and before any future tax burden is imposed through revaluation, taxpayers deserve answers.
Before Any Tax Increase or Future Revaluation:
1. A complete public report showing where the additional **$43 million in annual county revenue** since 2018 has been spent.
2. A department-by-department spending report showing expenditure growth from 2018 through today.
3. A workforce and payroll growth report showing employee growth, payroll growth, benefits growth, overtime, and management growth.
4. A complete audit of every economic development incentive approved since 2018, including jobs promised versus jobs delivered, wages promised versus wages delivered, and tax dollars committed.
5. A public audit of every capital project over $1 million, including original budget, final cost, debt issued, change orders, and annual operating costs.
6. A Growth Pipeline Fiscal Impact Report showing every approved residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed-use project; projected assessed value; projected annual tax revenue; projected infrastructure costs; and expected break-even date.
7. An independent operational efficiency audit of county government.
8. A requirement that every department produce 5% and 10% spending reduction options before any tax increase is considered.
9. A public explanation of why reserve balances above policy targets are not being used before asking taxpayers for more money.
10. A commitment that future growth will be required to demonstrate how it pays for itself rather than relying on existing residents to subsidize it.
Most importantly, taxpayers deserve a direct answer to one question:
**If county revenue has increased by approximately 58%, property tax revenue has increased by approximately 48%, assessed property values have surged, thousands of future homes are already entering the tax base, county reserves exceed policy targets, and population growth has been only approximately 11%, why is another tax increase necessary?**
Until county leadership answers that question with specific numbers and verifiable evidence, taxpayers have every right to oppose additional tax increases.
The answer to every budget challenge cannot be another tax increase.
At some point government must do what every family, every retiree, every veteran, every disabled citizen, every small business owner, and every working household in Lee County does every day:
**Live within its means. Justify its spending. Demonstrate results. And prove that it is being a responsible steward of the money entrusted to it.**
If county leadership cannot answer these questions, cannot provide these reports, and cannot justify these numbers, then the problem is not that taxpayers are unwilling to contribute more.
**The problem is that county government has not yet demonstrated that it has earned the right to ask.**
Don’t take my word for it, Check the numbers for yourselves.
Sources and Public Records
The figures and information referenced above are derived from publicly available records, including:
• Lee County FY2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR)
• Lee County FY2024 and FY2025-2026 Adopted Budget Documents
• Lee County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
• North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management Population Projections
• U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts for Lee County, NC
• Sanford / Lee County Residential Development Activity Tracking Reports
• Sanford / Lee County Project Archive and Development Pipeline Reports
• Publicly available county payroll and compensation data
These documents are available through Lee County government, the U.S. Census Bureau, the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, and related public sources. Citizens are encouraged to review the original records and verify the information independently.
Maybe the county thinks it is like going shopping with a grocery cart filled with twenties?
Impact fees solve a lot of these problems.
After reading both the County Manager’s recommended FY2026-27 budget and this latest article, I believe my original concerns are even more valid today than when I first raised them.
The County Manager has recommended increasing the property tax rate from 65 cents to 70 cents per $100 valuation while proposing a General Fund budget of approximately $127.9 million.
The justification provided includes EMS costs, school funding, deferred maintenance, inflation, growth pressures, debt obligations, and personnel expenses.
I do not dispute that these costs exist.
What I dispute is the assumption that taxpayers should automatically be expected to absorb them.
The recommended budget explains what is costing more.
It does not fully explain why years of substantial revenue growth have not been sufficient to absorb those increases.
According to the county’s own financial records:
County revenue increased from approximately $72.8 million in FY2018 to approximately $115.4 million in FY2024.
Property tax revenue increased from approximately $45.4 million to approximately $67.3 million.
Population increased only about 11%.
County revenue grew approximately five times faster than population growth.
The budget also acknowledges continued personnel growth, increased compensation costs, capital needs, debt obligations, and expanding service demands.
Those are exactly the areas taxpayers have been asking questions about.
The issue is not whether EMS is important.
The issue is not whether schools are important.
The issue is not whether maintenance is important.
The issue is whether county leadership has demonstrated that every reasonable efficiency has been pursued before recommending that taxpayers pay more.
What concerns me most about this latest article is that the public discussion now appears to be focused on two choices:
Raise taxes.
Use reserves and budget workarounds to avoid raising taxes.
Those should not be the only options.
Using reserves to avoid a tax increase may simply postpone the problem.
Raising taxes without fully addressing the underlying spending growth simply transfers the burden to taxpayers.
Neither approach answers the fundamental question.
Where has the substantial increase in county revenue gone, and what specific actions have been taken to control future spending growth?
Before adopting either a tax increase or a reserve-funded workaround, taxpayers deserve:
A detailed spending growth analysis since 2018.
A workforce and payroll growth report.
A capital project and debt analysis.
A Growth Pipeline Fiscal Impact Report showing expected revenue from approved development.
A department-by-department efficiency review.
A public explanation of why growth is not yet paying for itself.
The discussion should not begin with how to raise more money.
The discussion should begin with how to better manage the money already being collected.
As I stated previously:
THE EXPECTATION SHOULD NOT BE THAT CITIZENS PROVE WHY TAXES SHOULD NOT INCREASE.
THE EXPECTATION SHOULD BE THAT GOVERNMENT PROVES WHY THEY SHOULD.
Please run for county commissioner! Run unaffiliated and you have a good chance. I will vote and rally others to vote for you.
You know what commissioners are relying on tax revenue is the new already done deal data center on Lower Moncure Rd. Commissioners , Sanford Growth Alliance along with Central Electric working with Contractors had this planned for a long time behind everyone’s back. Then lied at the rezoning hearings about not knowing what was going in. If I was a business owner in Lee County I would not serve them. Let them pump gas , shop even not treat them at doctors office or hospital. I say boycott them!!
The number of mangers is half of the problem. Fewer means more can be done. Seems like they are very busy playing “stab in the back”.