Borrowing from Tomorrow

Moore County may avoid a tax increase this year, but does so by drawing down savings, easing up on debt payments

Opinion • 12:17 p.m. May 26, 2026

Regarding this month’s council meeting, there were several items of note. The council authorized EMS to obtain a new 4x4 vehicle that the director stated was needed for transport in rugged terrain and for towing the mass-casualty trailer. We were told the purchase would be funded solely with grant dollars.

The council also authorized the county to apply for a $400,000 grant, which, if received, could be used primarily for handicap- and mobility-accessible upgrades in private residences.

We also had first or second readings for a few more properties being rezoned to residential.

Jail Repairs and a Familiar Question

The council approved, on first reading, just over $1 million for repairs primarily at the jail, which I first wrote about in May of 2025. The county only received one bid on this job.

In my opinion, based on the scope of the repairs, and the $650,000 to $850,000 we were told last year, the price is inflated by roughly 30%, which is unfortunately about what we have come to expect when the government is paying for anything.

That said, based on what the council was told about where the bids were posted, we may not have many options other than continuing operations under dilapidated conditions.

I cannot speak for the sheriff, but I do not believe he would oppose any citizen scheduling a time to come down and look at the bulk of the areas to be repaired. The necessity of the work is self-evident, even if the price is inflated.

The issue is not whether repairs are needed. The issue is whether taxpayers are getting anything close to a competitive price.

Given all of this information, I was compelled to vote to approve it because at present, based on the information provided, there are currently no other alternatives.

Budget Looks Smaller Than It Is

The larger issue from the meeting, however, was the first reading of the county budget.

Only 11 council members were present for the first reading. Two of those not present are seeking re-election, and the other two have terms expiring this year.

After the first vote failed, a second vote was held following consideration of removing the 2-cent tax increase. Even this modest reduction in spending was unconscionable for four of the typical yes votes.

The proposed budget reflects about $125,000 in additional property tax revenue from growth in the value of the penny.

In other words, even without raising the tax rate, the county is already collecting about 1.4% more in property tax dollars than it did last year.

To be clear, that is property taxes only. It does not mean the county has 1.4% more overall revenue.

Those in charge of this budget worked diligently to produce a budget with little to no visible tax increase. Of that, I am certain.

The proposed tax increase is two pennies, which equals about a 1.1% property tax increase. If passed, the county will collect about 2.5% more in property tax dollars than last year.

Given that the last 12-month CPI (inflation) value is 3.81%, this looks, on its face, like the county is spending less and getting by with fewer dollars, just like everyone else.

Having never personally witnessed the majority of this council or administration make a serious effort to save taxpayers’ money, I dug a little deeper.

Before getting into the numbers, I’ll note that the following does not include the Highway Department, MUD, or the Emergency Communications District.

MUD and the Emergency Communications District do not receive property tax dollars, and the Highway Department only receives about $60,000 from local taxes. Its budget is largely dependent on what the state doles out each year.

Now, I am certain the following has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that there is an election coming up in a few months.

It was intimated by no fewer than two members of the Budget Committee that they have heard from the people that large tax increases are not desired and that smaller, incremental changes should be used to cover necessary increases.

I am also sure this has nothing to do with the pensions that were passed last year without a plan to fund the initial $4.8 million buy-in.

For anyone who has not read anything I’ve put out, the previous three sentences are wholly sarcastic.

This modest tax increase has been, and will continue to be, billed as a necessary increase to fund only the essentials because everything costs more.

If you have paid attention to local policy for the last few years, or if you have read more than two of these articles I have written, and you still implicitly trust that the county is being managed in a manner consistent with your best interests, proper use of your dollars, and transparency, then I suggest you do not waste your time continuing to read.

There is no amount of information that will convince you otherwise.

Bless your heart.

The Quiet Part of the Budget

Here is what the budget actually does.

Across all departments, the proposed budget reduces the projected ending fund balance by roughly $1.5 million. The county must project how much money it expects to have in the bank at the end of the year. Think of this as the amount left in your savings account.

So while the public sees a two-cent tax increase, the county is also reducing projected savings by $1.5 million.

In plain English, the budget is being made to look smaller by spending from our “savings account.”

Given that the value of the penny is about $52,000 next year, that $1.5 million reduction is roughly equivalent to 29 pennies of property tax revenue.

To be clear, this is not a 29-cent tax increase being levied this year. But it is the equivalent amount of revenue being covered by reducing projected fund balances or savings accounts.

That means the real budget pressure is much larger than the 2-cent tax increase suggests.

The tax increase is visible. The fund balance reduction is quieter. But both are part of the same budget.

Now, this is not necessarily a recurring 29-cent problem in perpetuity. At the time of this article, I do not have the full recurring expense available to me.

But given the current rate paid toward the retirement change, I believe we were told $60,000 to $80,000 per year above what we were paying for county employee retirement before the pensions passed. It could be more if there is a significant market downturn.

This budget also includes about a 3% increase for the schools at the same time their savings account is shrinking by more than one quarter of the amount in it.

What this certainly means is that this manner of budgeting is not sustainable.

We also conveniently split the State Retirement Benefits line items between the General Fund and the Capital Projects Fund.

In the General Fund, under State Retirement, the proposed FY27 amount is up to $550,000, compared with $51,109 in the FY25 budget.

In the Capital Projects Fund, under Local Retirement, the proposed FY27 amount is $400,000, up from $0 in the FY25 budget.

Before I am accused of misleading anyone, I am intentionally comparing FY25 to the proposed FY27 to show how much this is costing us over that period.

If you want to see the FY26 value, visit www.concernedcitizensofmc.com and check the expenses section.

Less Debt Payment Does Not Mean Less Debt

In addition, the amount we are paying into our Debt Service Fund is dropping by about $400,000 from just north of $2 million, while the overall principal plus interest is going up.

In other words, it is not that we paid off 20% of our debt and freed up money for other uses.

We are simply paying less toward debt this year to avoid a larger tax increase.

So let’s call this what it is.

The county is borrowing about $2 million from the future to pay for the present.

That is not new. It is essentially what we have done for much of the last decade.

The difference is that now it is being packaged as restraint.

The Bill Will Come Due

You can start demanding answers from your elected officials, or you can continue in the malaise, see Proverbs 6:10, that has fallen over us, and complain for a couple of weeks when the massive tax increase eventually arrives.

Continuing on this path long-term will lead to significantly higher taxes, or we will go broke and be forced into accepting whatever offer any outsider or corporation is willing to give us in order to generate revenue.

I am no historian, but what I do know of history makes me content with being a seemingly lone voice speaking against an established authority structure when that authority structure is leading people toward destruction.

In these instances, there is generally at least a modest contingent of people who can see the errors of those in power but who fail to speak up for a variety of reasons.

Why the existential language?

Because there are myriad ways that we, as a county, can mess this up.

The entrance to the pit is broad, and the outer slope is an easy downhill trek. The problem is that the farther in you go, the steeper the walls become, and your descent picks up speed.

That is where this budget points us.

Not because of one line item. Not because of one department. Not even because of one year.

It points us there because the county is again choosing to delay hard decisions and pretend the bill will not come due later.

It will.

The views expressed in opinion pieces published by the Moore County Observer are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Observer. We encourage a diversity of perspectives and aim to provide a platform for thoughtful community dialogue. Submissions may be edited for clarity and grammar, but the opinions remain those of the contributor(s).

The Moore County Observer welcomes all opinions. If you have an opinion to share, email editor@mcobserver.news.