Officials OK $37.7 million budget

Later this year, most Madison County residents will be forced to fork over more money to cover their tax bills.

The board of supervisors recently approved a 10 percent increase of the equalized real estate rate – bringing it to 44 cents per $100 of assessed value.

Close to 15 residents and local officials squeezed into the county’s Thrift Road office June 26, to hear the board hash out ways to reduce its budget. In an effort to appease taxpayers – many of whom have called for the supervisors to halt spending – officials shaved off about $200,000 from the county’s proposed expenses, bringing the 2008-2009 fiscal year budget to $37.7 million.

The revised budget includes about $140,000 less within the “contingency reserve” or “rainy day fund.” Officials also cut $110,000 from the county’s capital improvements program – putting half of that money into the Madison County Public Schools budget and removing the rest from the budget completely. The final budget includes about $250,000 more funds for the schools than this past fiscal year.

These actions mirror some of the requests voiced at budget public hearings, including concerns about the sprawling Hoover Ridge athletic field complex project, which included the construction of 11 athletic fields paid for using funds in the 2007-2008 budget.

Residents have criticized the supervisors large spending on the project, which many said produced unsatisfactory fields. Instead of eliminating all future money directed toward the fields – something proposed by Supervisors Vice Chairman James Arrington – officials decreased spending by $25,000, bringing the project’s fund for next year to $75,000, in order to continue field improvements and prevent erosion, officials said. Funds were also reduced for a project to expand the County Administration Center.

Taxpayers had also spoken out against increasing the real estate tax rate to bulk up the county’s “contingency fund,” which is money set aside to pay for unexpected expenses that arise during the year.

Despite recommendations by County Administrator Lisa Kelley and Finance Director Teresa Miller to maintain the fund at its proposed total of $1.17 million to cover unexpected expenses related to the courthouse renovation project and rising electricity and fuel costs, officials approved an approximately 10 percent decrease of the fund.

Cuts passed over

But not all requested cuts were honored. Some citizens, including the supervisors vice chairman, had proposed eliminating any employee salary increases greater than the standard two and a half percent cost of living adjustment. Arrington had also proposed cutting all money for new vehicle purchases.
At the meeting, Supervisors Chairman Eddie Dean, Supervisor Bob Miller and the county administrator all questioned some of the calculations Arrington had provided the board regarding his requested cuts from the proposed budget.

Although the supervisors vice chairman agreed that the numbers might have been wrong, he said he stood by the cuts, regardless of the exact amount of money they would save taxpayers.

After repeatedly stating his case against the budget, Arrington became visibly upset, saying that the tax increases would not affect those participants of the land use program – which includes four out of five supervisors – but instead residents like Arrington’s aunt, an Aroda resident, who had to sell off part of her property to pay her taxes. Her local taxes will likely increase by $200 later this year, more than she can afford, he said.

The supervisors chairman later apologized for “testing the patience” of his fellow board members, some of which had acted frustrated, confused and defensive at points throughout the meeting in reaction to Arrington’s budget criticisms.

Land use misstep

The county’s land use program allows the county to tax certain pieces of property based on its “agricultural use value” – or the value of the crops that piece of land is able to produce – rather than its “fair market value” in order to help preserve agricultural lands by reducing participating property owners’ taxes, according to the Virginia Cooperative Extension Web site.

At the meeting, Dean said that the board “made a huge mistake” when setting the land use values this year and that the values cannot be revised until the next reassessment.

“We have made a mistake in letting the situation with land use move in the direction we have,” he said.

In the future, officials said they hope to better project the amount of money the county will receive from residents who have property in land use by using the commissioner of revenue’s new accounting system.

An initial motion by Miller to set the real estate tax rate at 45 cents per $100 was denied 3-2, with Dean, Arrington and Supervisor Clark Powers voting against the motion.

A second motion to set the rate at 44 cents per $100 was approved 3-2, with Arrington and Powers voting against the motion.

The supervisors then voted 4-1 to approve a $37.7 million 2008-2009 budget – which included revisions to reflect the 44-cent tax rate – with Arrington casting the lone no vote. This fiscal year’s budget is about $3 million more than the 2007-2008 budget, which totaled $34.5 million.