By Michael Copley
Staff Writer

Having presented a balanced county budget for next fiscal year, the board of supervisors is now “watching the revenue picture from the state”  and working with county staff to try to identify further savings, said District 1 Supervisor Joe Walton.

“We’ll continue to watch the state and continue to look at what can be done locally,” said Walton.

District 5 Supervisor Carson Tucker said “All board members are seriously trying find” additional savings. “We owe it to the public.”

Finance Director Stephanie Davis presented the county’s proposed budget- $69 million- at a public hearing March 22. For now, the county is showing just over $19 million budgeted for education spending next year.

In comparison to other localities, Davis said Powhatan is in a “very good position.”

The majority of the audience at Monday’s budget hearing wore orange in support of Powhatan County Schools. 

Nearly 30 people spoke during the public comment period. Some commented on the proposed tax rate increase; most lobbied for addition funding for the school system.

The numbers presented during that hearing are based on a proposed tax-rate increase of 9 cents. Because of diminished real estate assessments, the county will have to raise the tax rate to a revenue-neutral level of 80 cents to generate the same amount of money the 71 cent rate brought in this year.

Residential property values are down 13.2 percent in the latest assessment.

Because of those lower assessments, county leaders insist the rate increase would not mean higher taxes.

A letter to the editor last week from resident Todd M. Rojcewicz, a member of Powhatan Taxpayers Alliance, noted that under the proposed tax-rate increase, property owners would have to pay the same amount of money for “a devalued property.”

“That is the definition of a tax increase,” he wrote.

District 2 Supervisor Marsell Bustos asked residents who attended a town hall meeting March 23 to think about whether they favor the increased rate- to provide the county the same amount of money as this year, he said- or a lower rate and additional cuts to the county’s budget – and “dramatic reductions in services.”

Supervisors said the proposed rate increase was set as a ceiling; the rate the board votes to adopt April 12 could fall anywhere between 71 and 80 cents.

“80 cents is not nailed down,” said Tucker. 

In a show of hands at the March 23 town hall meeting, the majority of residents there indicated they favor the 80-cent rate; Bustos said he expected more of a split.

“I think we’re seeing the tax alliance is a very vocal and motivated group,” he said, but “I’m not sure” that group represents the general opinion in the county. 

School board member Jason Moore reported that the schools are still more than $600,000 from a balanced budget. The board of supervisors has yet to return $517,000 in surplus funds from last year that the school board requested recently in a letter to supervisors.

Moore noted that the return of that money would cover the bulk of the shortfall the schools still face.

Tucker indicated that money would likely be transferred back to the schools when the board of supervisors adopts the county’s budget April 12.

The board of supervisors “is trying to be very, very careful about disbursement” of money, he said.

As stated before by other supervisors, Tucker said any money returned to the schools during this budget process should not be used on recurring costs, and that it cannot be added into the school board’s base budget numbers next year.

“We truly believe next year will be worse than this year, and there’s great trepidation that if we’re not very careful, we’ll be in a worse situation next year,” he said. “It’s not us against them.”

The next budget meeting will be held March 31 at 7 p.m. in the Village Building auditorium.