Commissioners hear budget forecast, voice opposition to proposed state legislation
Money and zoning dominated the Davidson County Commissioners meeting Tuesday evening, May 11, as the board heard budget proposals for the next fiscal year. Commissioners also signaled their objection for new housing regulations recently proposed in the state legislature.
Money to come
With Commissioner Don Truell’s absence, county manager Casey Smith offered a possible glimpse into the 2021-2022 fiscal year budget. He characterized the current 2020-2021 budget as one in which the county “took a year off” because of the pandemic and had to reassess due to stalls in tax revenue.
“We’ve done a lot of movement since we started [last year’s budget],” Smith remarked. “Hopefully, we do less this year.”
The budget forecast Smith presented for the upcoming fiscal year came in at a tune of over $146 million. That’s an increase of roughly $9.6 million from last year's budget, but Smith explained it’s not actually a large hike after budget amendments made throughout the current fiscal year.
Smith said one aspect the county is banking on this year is letting the local economy drive revenues from building permits, environmental health permits, the Register of Deeds office and similar avenues.
With the housing market currently abuzz in much of the country, Smith mentioned that recent tax revaluation is showing promising signs in Davidson County. His presentation revealed county tax assessments are clocking in pretty close to actual market values and said the goal is to have an equilibrium between sales price and tax assessment.
Another similarity with national trends is hiring challenges. Smith said he’s having issues finding part-time workers, which the county uses to help address gaps in a department’s workload.
“I have no problem finding full-time [employees],” he said. “It’s finding the part-time people.”
Some departments Smith labeled high priority for hiring include public health, senior services, county legal services, the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office, EMS, building permitting services and the fire marshal’s office. He added that compared to similar counties, Davidson County disperses work across a smaller pool of employees.
“We’re just a minimalistic staff,” he stated.
Smith added that continuing a pay study to find wages that keep people within the county workforce would be beneficial. He wants to avoid a “training ground” where employees are seeking better pay in other counties.
Additionally in the presentation was the ballpark estimate of $63 million for capital improvement projects like the new Davidson County Detention Center, countywide sewer replacement and replacing the roof on the historic courthouse in downtown Lexington.
The current proposed budget will be discussed in a public hearing on May 25.
Not Davidson’s problem
The county commissioners voted 6-to-0 to oppose North Carolina Senate Bill 349 and House Bill 401. The proposed legislation was filed by the state legislature in late March and is an attempt to provide affordable housing in all residential zones in North Carolina.
A main crux of the bills is that every local government must allow “middle housing” in residential zones, including areas categorized for single-family homes.
Middle housing is defined as townhomes, duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes within the language of the bill. Another provision is the inclusion of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), a type of self-contained living area typically called an “in-law apartment” or “granny flat.” The bill allows homeowners the right to build an ADU at their discretion and eschews regulations that deem the addition impractical.
Tighter restrictions for downzoning a property were discussed. Language in the bill states a local government can’t downzone a property “that has access to public water or public sewer, unless the local government can show a change in circumstances that substantially affects the public health, safety, or welfare.”
Lastly, the bill requires jurisdiction to allow space for every type of land use, minus industrial and “nuisance” classifications.
Deputy zoning administrator Lee Crook introduced the resolution and said it’s not fit for statewide implementation.
“It’s my understanding this is pointed at municipalities because some of them across the state will not allow for multi-family developments in their jurisdictions at all,” Crook said. “In a nutshell, it basically will not allow us to differentiate between the multi-family uses of a duplex, townhome, triplex, quadplex and a single-family dwelling.”
He added the bills still recognize deed restrictions but moves enforcement from local government to the subdivision itself.
“This is an overreach,” commissioner Chris Elliott said. “It’s drastic… Instead of taking all 100 counties and throwing them in some legislation like this, if they have problem children, [the state] needs to deal with them. I think we’re better suited to govern on a local basis.”
The commissioners’ decision is similar to other opposition resolutions the town boards of Boone and Jacksonville made in April; passing the resolution is a symbolic gesture of disapproval and has no legislative impact within the county or state.
Other business handled by commissioners included:
Approved rezoning requests in Arcadia and Silver Hill townships
