Summary: Last week, new state legislation forced Buncombe County Commissioners to choose between reverting to older, less equitable property values to maintain their adopted budget, and using the updated values and absorbing a $24.8 million revenue loss. Commissioners chose to maintain the budget. The meeting showed that County leaders understood the potential harms of both options, but lacked a systematic way of comparing who would bear those harms and what could be done to reduce them. This is precisely the kind of unexpected, consequential decision that demonstrates the need for an anti-displacement analysis framework.

The Facts: Two state laws enacted after Buncombe County had already adopted its FY27 budget required the County to choose between continuing to use the older 2021 property values or using the updated 2026 values under conditions that would create an approximately $24.8 million budget gap.

Commissioners faced two options, which they explored at a July 14 special meeting:

• Option 1: Use the older 2021 property assessments and adjust the tax rate to preserve the adopted budget.
• Option 2: Use the updated 2026 assessments, creating an approximately $24.8 million budget gap that would have to be eliminated through spending reductions or additional funding.

At the special meeting, the Board unanimously chose the first option, citing the importance of preserving education, public safety, services for vulnerable residents, community investments, and other County functions. Because municipalities use property values established by the County, the decision also required Asheville and other local governments to adjust their tax rates.

County staff reviewed the budget and illustrated how reverting to the older values would affect homeowners differently. For a home valued at $350,000 under the 2021 appraisal:

• A 25% increase in assessed value would result in approximately $264 more in County property taxes under the option selected.
• An increase of approximately 42% would result in about the same tax bill.
• Increases of 60% to 75% would result in approximately $265 to $492 less in County property taxes.

Commissioners acknowledged these differences. Commissioner Parker Sloan described revaluation as essentially the only tool available to North Carolina local governments to make property taxes less regressive or more progressive. Commissioner Jennifer Horton also identified the County’s new General Assistance Program as a resource for qualifying homeowners and renters facing temporary difficulty with housing or utility expenses.

Separately, at their July 21 meeting, Commissioners will consider authorizing two applications for federal commercial-district recovery funding: $10 million for approximately two miles of sidewalks along Highway 70 in Swannanoa and approximately $9 million to remediate storm-damaged commercial properties in unincorporated Buncombe County. The applications identify recovery, safety, accessibility, economic revitalization, and benefits to low- and moderate-income areas among the projects’ purposes.

Our Assessment: The state imposed an extraordinary burden after the County had already adopted its budget and gave officials little time to respond. The July 14 meeting showed that Commissioners understood either option could harm residents and wanted to minimize that harm.

But recognizing potential harm is different from having the data and analysis needed to measure and compare it.

County staff presented concrete examples of how reverting to the older property values would affect homeowners whose appraisals increased by different amounts. Those examples showed that the decision shifts relative tax burdens toward properties whose values increased less and away from properties whose values increased more.

That matters because the effects were not evenly distributed. The Asheville Watchdog reported in March that the steepest property-value increases were concentrated predominantly among higher-value homes, although many lower-value homes also experienced sharp increases. Commission Chair Amanda Edwards also cited studies finding that the older appraisals disproportionately affected low- and moderate-income residents.

The public did not receive an equally detailed analysis of the budget-reduction option. Because no specific $24.8 million reduction package was presented, Commissioners and residents could not see which programs might be reduced, who relies on them, which communities would face the greatest effects, or how the reductions might influence housing stability and displacement.

An anti-displacement analysis framework could have helped the County develop two impact statements:

• For the older-values option: Which homeowners and renters would face higher costs? Where are they located, how many already experience housing-cost burdens, and what assistance could protect those most at risk?
  
• For the budget-reduction option: What combinations of reductions were possible? Who relies on the affected services, and which cuts would pose the greatest risks to housing stability?
  

The resulting analysis could estimate who would be harmed under each option, by how much, and what could be done to reduce that harm.

Such a framework might have supported the decision Commissioners made. The framework’s value is not that it guarantees a different outcome. It is that it provides a more comprehensive and transparent basis for choosing between competing forms of harm.

The July 14 decision also demonstrates the limits of relying on existing planning processes alone. (Buncombe County leaders have previously suggested that they address anti-displacement through their planning process.) The County’s Comprehensive Plan and the Plan, Protect, Preserve, Produce framework each provide important guidance for long-range growth, housing, and land-use decisions. But this most recent dilemma arose suddenly from state legislation and required an immediate decision about taxation, public services, and the adopted budget. It could not have been anticipated through a comprehensive planning process alone.

The need for decision-specific analysis is already arising again: At their July 21st meeting, Commissioners will consider nearly $19 million in proposed commercial-corridor recovery investments. These projects could provide important recovery, safety, accessibility, and economic benefits. They could also affect property values, redevelopment pressure, commercial tenants, and locally owned businesses.

An anti-displacement analysis would not presume that these projects should be delayed or rejected. It would help the County identify potential risks, determine whether existing residents and businesses will share in the benefits, and incorporate appropriate protections. And it would help County residents know that when Commissioners vote “yes,” they are doing so with confidence rooted in careful and transparent analysis.

The County does not need another comprehensive plan or an elaborate new process. It needs a practical framework that can be scaled to the decision: a rapid assessment for an urgent fiscal choice or a more detailed analysis for a major infrastructure investment.

County leaders already understand the importance of protecting residents from displacement. An anti-displacement analysis framework would give them a stronger tool for putting that commitment into practice whenever consequential decisions arise.

Things to do: Use our template to contact the County Commissioners to ask them to review and respond to our special report, “Building on Buncombe County’s Commitment to Preventing Displacement,” and consider developing an anti-displacement analysis framework.

Email Template: You can send an email to the Buncombe County Commission by filling out the form below. Our email tool will send an individually addressed email to the recipients, and enable us to track how many emails were sent overall in the campaign. If you prefer to write your own email, you can copy and paste (and adapt) our template text – please cc: or bcc: info@gapavl.org on your individualized email, so we can better track how many emails were sent.

Important: If you receive a response to your email, please forward it to us at info@gapavl.org so we can reflect that in the report back.

To: alfred.whitesides@buncombecounty.org, amanda.edwards@buncombecounty.org, drew.ball@buncombecounty.org, jennifer.horton@buncombecounty.org, martin.moore@buncombecounty.org, parker.sloan@buncombecounty.org, terri.wells@buncombecounty.org

CC: or BCC: info@gapavl.org

Subject: Please consider an anti-displacement analysis framework

Dear Commissioners,

Thank you for your work during the difficult property appraisal and budget decision created by the recent state legislation.

The July 14 meeting showed that you understood both options could harm Buncombe County residents. Commissioners acknowledged that delaying the revaluation would make the property-tax system less fair, while reducing County revenue by approximately $24.8 million could jeopardize schools, support for older adults and vulnerable residents, and other programs people rely on every day.

The meeting also demonstrated why a scalable anti-displacement analysis framework would be valuable. County staff explained how returning to the older property values would affect homeowners with different appraisal increases. But because no specific budget reduction package was presented, Commissioners and the public did not receive a comparable analysis of who would be most affected by $24.8 million in potential cuts, how those effects could influence housing stability, or what protections could reduce the harm under either option.

This is not a criticism of the decision the Board made. The state imposed an extraordinary burden after the County had completed a lengthy, public budget process. An anti-displacement framework would not have made the choice painless or dictated the outcome. It would have provided another layer of information to help the Board compare the human consequences of both options.

The need for this kind of analysis is continuing. On July 21, the Board will consider applications for nearly $19 million in commercial-corridor recovery investments, including sidewalks along Highway 70 in Swannanoa and remediation of damaged commercial properties. These projects could bring important benefits while also affecting property values, redevelopment pressure, tenants, and locally owned businesses. An anti-displacement analysis could help the County identify risks and incorporate protections without delaying needed recovery investments.

Please review and respond to GAPavl’s special report proposing such a framework: https://gapavl.org/building-on-buncombe-countys-commitment-to-preventing-displacement-full-report/

I encourage the Commission to direct staff to explore a practical anti-displacement analysis framework for major budget, tax, land-use, infrastructure, and public-investment decisions. Existing plans and policies are important, but the decisions of July 14—and those already appearing on the July 21 agenda—show why an additional, decision-specific tool is needed.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

Report Back

Coming Soon!

Report Back

On July 14, Buncombe County Commissioners unanimously chose to use the 2021 Schedule of Values and set the County property-tax rate at 61.54 cents per $100 of assessed value. This preserved the FY27 budget rather than reducing County revenue by approximately $24.8 million. Commissioners cited the need to protect education, public safety, human services, and other essential County functions.

During the meeting, staff demonstrated that the decision would affect homeowners differently depending on how much their values increased during the 2026 reappraisal. Commissioners also acknowledged that delaying the revaluation would make the property-tax system less fair. Following the County’s action, Asheville amended its own tax rate because it must use the property values established by the County.

It’s important to note that while County staff presented some analysis of how the shift in property taxes would affect homeowners, it did not publicly present any options for budget reductions or a comparable, resident-level analysis of what that impact might be. We examine what this means – and why it strengthens the case for an anti-displacement analysis framework – in our new report.

Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 16

Recipients and Responses:

Buncombe County Commission

• County Commission Chair Amanda Edwards: No response
• County Commissioner Al Whitesides: No response
• County Commissioner Drew Ball: No response
• County Commissioner Jennifer Horton: No response
• County Commissioner Martin Moore: No response
• County Commissioner Parker Sloane: No response
• County Commissioner Terri Wells: No response

Summary: Buncombe County Commissioners are required to make an extraordinarily difficult decision, one largely created by circumstances beyond their control. They must choose between preserving County services by continuing to use older property values, or implementing new property values and reducing County spending by approximately $24.75 million. Neither option avoids harm. The challenge is that the consequences of these two choices are not equally understood. The inequities associated with the older property values have been studied and quantified: Independent analysis found that the old property appraisals overcharged lower-income homeowners by approximately $1.5 million annually while underassessing higher-value properties by $4 million. In contrast, the impacts of a $24.75 million budget reduction remain largely undefined because County staff have not publicly identified what would be cut. Without a clearer understanding of the consequences of both options, residents and elected leaders alike are being asked to make an extraordinarily difficult decision with only part of the picture.

Last month, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted legislation placing a temporary moratorium on the use of newly completed property reappraisals in counties where appeals remained unresolved. The political pressure that led to this legislation was driven largely by concerns about substantial tax increases on higher-value properties that had experienced above-average appreciation. Because Buncombe County’s reappraisal appeals had not yet been finalized, the legislation effectively prevents the County from implementing its new values without significant budget cuts.

As a result, Buncombe County now faces two options:

Option 1: Continue using the older property values and return the County tax rate to approximately 61.54 cents per $100 of assessed value. County staff have recommended this approach because it would preserve the County’s adopted Fiscal Year 2027 budget and avoid approximately $24.75 million in budget reductions.

Option 2: Implement the new reappraisal values and adopt the revenue-neutral tax rate of approximately 40 cents per $100 of assessed value. This would require the County to close a $24.5 million deficit that was part of their approved 2027 budget. The County would need to revise that budget in order to eliminate that deficit.

County staff have not publicly identified what programs, services, or investments would be reduced under Option 2.

An independent analysis conducted by Urban3 found that Buncombe County’s previous assessment system substantially undervalued many higher-value properties while overvaluing many lower-value homes – the definition of a regressive tax. According to the analysis, the County was collecting approximately $4 million less in property taxes from higher-income homeowners than it otherwise would have because those properties were underassessed, while lower-income homeowners were paying approximately $1.5 million more in taxes than they should have because their homes were overassessed. Lower-income homeowners in Buncombe County are disproportionately people of color.

The County’s agenda materials include an example showing the impact of the legislation on a home valued at $350,000 in 2021. Because that example property’s appreciation is close to the countywide average, the estimated tax differences between the two options are relatively modest. The materials do not provide comparable examples of properties that experienced substantially above- or below-average appreciation, including lower-valued homes that may have been historically overassessed or higher-valued homes that may have been historically underassessed.

Our Assessment: This is not a choice between a good option and a bad one. It is a choice between two competing forms of harm.

Under one scenario, the County preserves important public services but does so using property values that disproportionately tax owners of lower- and moderately-valued homes. Under the other, the County implements a more equitable tax structure but may need to reduce spending in ways that could affect services many residents depend upon.

In order to choose, we must understand the consequences of each path equally well, and we cannot without transparency.

The consequences of continuing to use the older property values have been studied and, at least to some degree, quantified. By contrast, the consequences of a $24.75 million budget reduction remain largely unknown because the County has not publicly identified how those reductions would be achieved. Perhaps such reductions would disproportionately affect vulnerable residents. But perhaps there are ways to absorb these reductions while minimizing harm. At this point, we simply do not know.

This incomplete picture extends beyond the potential budget reductions. As described above, the County’s presentation includes an example showing the impact of the legislation on a home whose appreciation was close to the countywide average and therefore experiences relatively modest differences under either option. Residents have not been shown comparable examples illustrating how these choices affect properties whose values diverged significantly from the average – including lower-valued homes that may have been historically overassessed or higher-valued properties that may have benefited from undervaluation. As a result, the public has been given only a partial view of the tax equity implications of this decision as well.

When difficult decisions involve competing harms, transparency becomes especially important. Residents and elected leaders should be able to compare the likely consequences of both options before determining which path causes the least harm.

We do not raise these concerns to suggest that County leaders should have anticipated this extraordinary situation. Nor are we advocating for a particular outcome. Rather, we believe the public deserves a fuller understanding of the implications of both options before this decision is made.

Moments like this further strengthen the case for stronger analytical tools that help leaders understand who is likely to be affected by difficult decisions and by how much. Building the capacity to evaluate and compare potential harms before the next crisis arises may be one of the most important investments our community can make.

Things to do: Use our template to contact the County Commissioners to thank them for their service during this difficult moment and encourage them to ask their staff for a more complete public accounting of the consequences of both options before making this important decision.