New Kent supervisors schedule special meeting on proposed budget

A proposed four-cent real estate tax hike drew minimal comments during a Monday night public hearing after which New Kent supervisors decided to schedule a special meeting on Tuesday, May 21 at 7 p.m. to further consider the proposed FY2013-14.

Supervisors agreed that the $67.3 million budget discussion is to focus on several topics. Among those are how much local money to give to county schools ($12.4 million is proposed for now) as well as the fate of a two percent cost of living pay raise for county employees.

During Monday’s hearing, no one spoke on an eight percent water and sewer fee increase. County administrator Rodney Hathaway’s slideshow depicted that the average household’s cost for consumption of 10,000 gallons would rise from $149.97 to $161.95 bi-monthly. At that rate, the annual increase amounts to $71.88.

When discussion arose on the proposed real estate tax increase from 81 to 85 cents, two people spoke with each taking a side on the matter.

“I support the four cent increase,” said Alease Christian.

“We have a plan for the elderly and disabled who are exempt,” she said, commenting on next year’s real estate reassessment.

However, Stephen Adkins, a Charles City resident with property in New Kent, based his opposition for the increase through documentation and differential over the span of a decade.

“In 2002, I paid $617.78 in real property taxes. In 2012, it was $2,268.38,” said the adamant landowner. “That’s an increase of 366.9 percent.

“My pleas have fallen on deaf ears,” he continued, commenting on his land being surrounded by CSX Railroad, the Department of Forestry, and the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. “I want the board to reconsider this tax increase. I believe it is disingenuous and insensitive.

“Do not put the burden of growth on the back of taxpayers,” he concluded.

County resident Ron Durrer’s comments focused on surrounding counties and how New Kent compares in regard to real estate taxes.

“The problem with this hike to 85 cents is that it is higher than Hanover and it positions us in the upper echelon for this region,” said the District 1 resident.

“Economic development is needed other than gas stations and restaurants,” he continued. “We need to get good industrial development as well.”

Also, Durrer was not in favor of two percent raises for county employees, but did voice support for a two-cent tax increase to 83 cents for the school system, something resident Kathy Gray also hoped supervisors fully support.

“I hope you fund schools fully to facilitate the best education,” said the mother of three. “Children deserve the best technology, the best teachers, the best textbooks, and safe buses for transportation. I am urging you to allocate funds and not a bare bones budget to operate our school systems.”

After hearing from the quartet of public speakers, supervisors added their input.

“As you see, there is a different variety. Even though there are only four speakers you see a wide variety of needs,” said chairman Ray Davis.

District 1 supervisor Thomas Evelyn offered suggestions in addressing the proposed budget.

“I would like to move $850,000 from capital improvement [specifically accounting and finance] and move it to the next fiscal year,” he said. “It won’t affect the general fund but will drop the overall line item.”

“Our 85 cent tax rate is high and the only ones higher are those in Northern Virginia,” said District 4 supervisor Ron Stiers.

“I want to see an increase in schools,” said James Burrell of District 3. “I know schools are getting half of what they requested [for general operating funds].”

“I know what it’s costing my children to provide for my grandchildren,” added District 2 representative Tommy Tiller. “I wish we could fully fund them.”

Evelyn commented on the financial obligations over previous years given by supervisors to the school district. His comments referenced the amount of local dollar contribution for schools.

“Over that span, there has been no tax increase,” Evelyn said. “That is something we can be proud of.”

Still, supervisors agreed that further discussion is needed before rendering any final decision. And by law, the board must wait until seven days have elapsed following the public hearing before taking action.

“This is the toughest budget since I’ve been on the board,” concluded Evelyn.