Charles City supervisors approve near $20 million budget for 2014-15

Charles City supervisors approved a $19,948,454 budget for the 2014-15 fiscal year during an April 29 recessed meeting. A four-cent tax increase over an equalized rate on real estate tax also passed unanimously.

The county’s real estate tax rate will increase from 68 cents to 72 cents per $100 of assessed value. Contributing to the new rate is the county’s reassessment, which indicated the value of land increasing by three percent. Currently, the county is charging 70 cents per $100 of assessed value, thanks to a two-cent increase last year to support 24-hour fire and EMS services.

Representatives chose to follow through with the action after hearing three speakers during a public hearing Tuesday night. Those three speakers varied in opinions about the rate.

“The increase puts a burden on me and those who rent property to others,” said Charles Howard. “The reassessment of my land also increased the value of my property, meaning I will have to pay more.”

“I own tree farms in Charles City and renters are scared to death,” chimed in Opie Howard. “When they ask me how much it will cost them, all I can answer is ‘I don’t know.’

“I want to see the county spend the money more wisely,” he concluded.

Judy Ledbetter said that even though she owns a lot of property, she supports the tax increase. However, she voiced displeasure on the county’s stance on utility rates.

“This increase reflects the real cost of government,” she said. “However, I point out the county’s failure to increase utility fees, especially for businesses in Roxbury Industrial Park.

“Taxpayers will be subsidizing $103,000 for businesses who should be paying those fees,” she concluded.

A week before, supervisors conducted a public hearing on the proposed budget. Only one resident spoke at the April 22 regular board of supervisors’ meeting on the issue.

David Ledbetter addressed his concerns on the proposal, highlighting what he deemed as three key areas supervisors should review.

“My principle concern is that the school budget is being reduced by 10 percent,” he said, pointing to the proposed $9.7 million slated to be allocated to schools for the upcoming year. “I understand a lot of funds are from reductions in federal and state funding, but one-third of the decline is from the county side. Our schools need to be strengthened and not bled to death.

“I am also concerned about the reduction of funds for the Center For Local History,” he continued. “That is something I am personally involved with and I believe that it is a very valuable asset to the county.

“The local contributions it provides through preservation and history is what attracts tourists to the county,” Ledbetter added.

While his first two concerns focused on specific line items in the budget, his third consisted of an inquiry about a 2012 DECIDESMART study between county supervisors and the county’s school board.

“This budget ignores the sources and savings that can be found elsewhere as recommended in the DECIDESMART study,” Ledbetter said. “We can find substantial savings by consolidating services and reducing the cost of county government.

“When you adopt this budget, I hope you put personal power aside of who controls what and do what it takes to provide more funding for the schools,” he concluded.

County supervisors also took action on several other items at the recessed meeting:

–Adopted the VDOT secondary six-year plan unanimously.

–Adopted a combined water protection ordinance. The combined ordinance was created to set rules and regulations for three water ordinances. It covers the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, the Erosion Sediment and Control Act, and the controversial stormwater ordinance. The ordinance passed unanimously 3-0, but no fees were adopted in relation to the stormwater act due to the General Assembly revising fees in mid-April.

–Pushed the deadline to file taxes from June 5 to June 12. The vote passed 2-0, with District 3 representative Floyd Miles Sr. abstaining. Miles maintained his stance that citizens will be paying next year’s rate before the fiscal year begins and he is opposed to taxing citizens the new amount.