Citizens of Mount Airy have a higher tax burden compared to other municipalities its size, according to a new report that examines the cost of local government across North Carolina.

Surry County, meanwhile, is ranked as an area with an “average” tax burden in the yearly study by the John Locke Foundation, a government watchdog based in Raleigh.

Its latest report, completed in February, analyzes the 2007 fiscal year, the most recent period for which figures are available, which ran from July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007.

The study reflects audited reports from each county and municipality which are required by state law to be filed with the N.C. Treasurer’s Office, and includes property taxes, sales taxes and total local government collections of all taxes and fees.

Using those numbers, a revenue per-capita figure was determined showing the sums paid by each person among the localities.

The city of Mount Airy is classified as a “high-burden” community in terms of total revenues, ranking No. 18 overall among 90 municipalities in the state with populations of 5,000 to 24,999. Local revenues per capita here amounted to $1,959 for the 2007 fiscal year, which was an improvement from the year before when the city was 15th on the list.

One factor responsible for the city’s ranking is a high sales-tax burden compared to other municipalities in its population group. At $490.74 per person, Mount Airy’s sales taxes were the fifth-highest in the state for the year in question, after being listed sixth for the 2006 fiscal year.

Kill Devil Hills, on North Carolina’s Outer Banks, had the highest sales-tax burden per capita for 2007, $796, and was ranked as the costliest county overall.

For the 2007 fiscal year, Mount Airy’s property tax burden was $1,041 per person, which ranked 24th out of the 90 municipalities examined.

Among other Surry County towns, Dobson is considered a “high-burden” tax area among municipalities with populations of 1,000 to 4,999. It is 16th-highest among 194 towns ranked, falling from 87 on the list the previous year.

Dobson’s per-capita revenues were $2,716 for the 2007 fiscal year. That is partly due a relatively low property-tax burden ($722 per person) but a relatively high sales-tax per capita of $489.

Elkin also is in the high-burden category, but much further down the list at No. 47, unchanged from the previous year.

Pilot Mountain citizens have an “average” tax burden, ranking 50th of the 194 towns in the study, with $1,728 in local revenues paid per capita. Residents there forked over $968 per capita in property taxes for the 2007 fiscal year and $490.73 in sales taxes.

The town listed with the highest per-capita tax burden in the 1,000 to 4,999 group is Nags Head ($5,790).

In addition to property and sales taxes, the municipal rankings include money paid for building permits, inspection fees, business licenses and a long list of other charges.

County Breakdown

Surry’s classification as an “average” county in terms of taxation reflects a combined local burden of $1,240 per person, which ranks No. 55 among North Carolina’s 100 counties for 2007 (data was not available for Franklin and Rowan counties).

The $1,240 figure reflects what the average Surry citizen pays for local government, both county and municipal. The county’s tax burden actually dropped from the 2006 fiscal year, when Surry ranked 38th on the list with a total tax burden of $1,366 per person.

For the 2007 period, county property taxation alone amounted to $442 per person, with per-capita sales taxes listed at $245. County revenue per capita was $899 for 2007, placing it at No. 45 in the state.

Surry compares favorably with other counties of similar populations, such as Lincoln and Moore, both of which placed higher combined revenue burdens on citizens during the study year. Dare County is tops in that category ($4,056), based on the most recent breakdown.

The study from the John Locke Foundation shows the cost of local government, but does not measure the quality or quantity of services provided in exchange for those dollars.

Its author also points out that some localities elect to provide such services as parks and recreation to enhance quality of life, while others don’t, which will result in higher numbers compared with communities that foregoing those expenses.