Speed enforcement funds in New Kent obligated despite heavy discussion, opposition from sheriff

New Kent’s Board of Supervisor has obligated $4.8 million in funds from speed enforcement funds to three areas. But the decision came with heavy discussion and debate on how to use them.

Supervisors voted 3-2 to obligate funds towards the areas of purchasing a fire engine, New Kent Sheriff’s Office capital expenditures, and a real estate rebate during Monday morning’s work session.

During the June 8 regular board meeting and public hearing, conversation was held to determine how to use speed enforcement funds, with leaders designating just over $3.4 million toward public safety at that meeting. At Monday’s meeting, approximately $4.8 million was up for additional discussion.

In a recommendation from staff, $1.3 million would be utilized for the purchase of a fire engine, while $1.6 million would be used to assist New Kent Sheriff’s Office with capital expenditures. However, much of the debate came when it involved the remaining $1.9 million, which was proposed to be issued as rebate on real estate.

The discussion kicked off when District 2 Supervisor John Moyer commented about feedback from his constituents. Moyer said that many of them would prefer the extra security and law enforcement present in the county.

“Many of my residents would like to see deputies in front of their house,” the District 2 leader said. “On a $400,000 house, that rebate would be approximately $120. My district would rather see that money applied to deputies than in their pocket.”

District 3 Supervisor Amy Pearson felt the opposite way, saying that her constituents need every financial break they can receive.

“I don’t have a lot of residents with $400,000 homes, so their rebates would be lower,” she said.

Pearson referenced her district consisting of many residents living on New Kent Highway (Route 249). She said that when Interstate 64 is at a standstill, it’s her constituents that suffer the most.

“Residents are trapped in driveways when Interstate 64 is backed up,” Pearson added, referencing the jam the road has. “Most of my residents wouldn’t receive the $120, but a little bit back makes up for the inconvenience.”

County Administrator Rodney Hathaway told supervisors that any rebate would appear as a credit on tax statements. For other supervisors, the conversation continued to determine if the $1.9 million should go to the citizens or emergency services.

“While everybody knows how I feel about law enforcement, if this rebate is split this way it goes to help more people,” said District 5 Supervisor Jordan Stewart.

“I agree with Mr. Moyer,” said District 4 Supervisor and board chairman Ron Stiers. “Crime is ticking up. It is more beneficial to have a sound sheriff’s department than a few more bucks kicked back.”

District 1 Supervisor Thomas Evelyn commented that he believes New Kent Sheriff’s Office has a sound sheriff’s office but understands their struggles. At that point, New Kent Sheriff Lee Bailey approached the lectern, speaking out about the true struggles his department is facing and how he believes funds should be utilized.

“The calls aren’t getting better, they are getting worse,” he said, referencing how recent car break-ins resulted in homeowners being shot at by suspects. “I don’t feel that the photo funds should be used for tax rebates.

“If the board chooses to issue rebates, it should be out of the county related funds,” Lee continued, referencing how the photo enforcement funds are essentially one-time use funds, with everything after July 1 having to be specifically designated to traffic enforcement or transportation projects. “I don’t mind if it’s used to help the fire department because that’s public safety and they respond to as many calls as we do. I just don’t believe that these funds are being used appropriately.”

Moyer chimed back in, saying that if the general assembly passes legislation that requires those speed enforcement violators to appear in court, then that would add at least 20,000 court dates for those violators. For Bailey, he reiterated comments from the June 8 meeting.

“The speed enforcement was not about the money, it was about the safety,” the sheriff said. “It was about reducing the number of crashes, which is has.”

Additional discussion continued, ultimately leading to Pearson to make the motion to adopt the resolution to obligate speed enforcement funds for the rebate, the purchase of the fire engine, and capital expenditures for New Kent’s Sheriff’s Office as it was presented. The motion passed 3-2, with Pearson, Stewart, and Evelyn in favor, while Stiers and Moyer opposed it. Once the new year starts, the appropriation for the new funds for the fire engine and New Kent Sheriff’s Office will appear on an upcoming agenda. The $1.9 million does not have to be appropriated according to Hathaway.

In an unrelated issue, a joint meeting between New Kent’s Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission yielded a timeline for updates to zoning and subdivision ordinances.

Berkley Group Principal Planner Caroline Vanterve made a presentation to the two boards regarding a timeline to help the county’s ordinances come into compliance with the state. Vanterve commented that the Berkley Group completed the first phase, which is the investigation phase, by reviewing ordinances of both zoning and subdivision that either comply or do not comply with state regulations. She added that the next phase, which is ordinance drafting, will take a year. The final phase, which is a review and refining of ordinances, is expected to be completed by Fall 2027.

Vanterve says along the way, her group will provide recommendations and provide them publicly as progress is ongoing. During that process, community feedback is being received and implemented.

Pearson commented that the Technology Overlay District (TOD) and data center ordinances are different, subsequently asking Vanterve if they are going to do anything about it. Vanterve deferred to New Kent County’s staff, where Director of Community Develop Josh Airaghi commented that they are keeping that separate from Berkley’s responsibilities for the time being, but if that comes up that Berkley will be involved in it. Pearson responded, saying that she wants to make sure that Berkley can review any ordinance that involves data centers is presented will be reviewed to make sure it falls within state guidelines.

Berkley concluded their presentation with feedback from the community of things they would like to see. Among top priorities from the small sample group include no data centers, more of a variety for grocery stores and restaurants, and keeping the rural nature of New Kent County. Berkley’s next public hearing is scheduled for Fall of 2026, where they will make their first recommendation of ordinances that specifically tailor around the state guidelines and making sure New Kent is in compliance with them at the local level.