This is no April Fool

County property tax rate increase likely

Only two people rose to protest the proposed two cent increase in the Goochland County real estate tax rate at last night’s public hearing on next year’s county budget. Many in attendance left the meeting scratching their heads.

The real surprise of the evening was a proposed budget, presented by interim county administrator Lane Ramsey, recommending county expenditures of $61,167,888 for the 2009-10 fiscal year, which begins on July 1.

Advertisement for the hearing indicated a $57,894,897 budget was up for comment.

Last fall, in anticipation of lean times, county departments were told to prepare flat funded budgets. Raises, new equipment, programs and personnel went out the window. Most travel and educational expense, except that needed for some employees to maintain professional credentials, was removed.

The resulting requested countywide budget was .9 percent lower that that for the current year.

The school system stepped up to the plate and prepared a budget that was smaller than that for the current fiscal year.

All this was undertaken to permit the county to operate on the revenues collected from the prevailing 53 cent property tax rate.

It should be noted that property taxes account for less than half of the revenue used to fund county operations. The proposed school budget, $27,110,064, is more than the $25,262,203 expected to be generated by the 55 cent rate. The remainder is derived from a number of other sources including user fees and funds from state and federal governments.

Ramsey recommended a somewhat bewildering series of moves within the budget, reallocating certain funds in the school budget, for instance, to be supplanted by money expected from the federal stimulus funds.

He also recommended funding of several items in the capital improvement budget including some athletic fields.

Doug Kinney of Maidens, who protested the rate increase, likened the athletic fields to a pedicure, “a little luxury that you can live without.”

School superintendent Dr. Linda Underwood told the board that the rules about using federal stimulus funds are just starting to trickle in. So far, she said, it is clear that stimulus funds may be used for brick and mortar projects used for instructional purposes only. That would preclude their use for the multipurpose rooms planned for Byrd and Randolph elementary schools.

Ramsey recommended removal of contributions to organizations that the county has supported in the past. Most of these, such as the Science Museum of Virginia, CenterStage and Virginia State University are outside the county. The Center for Rural Culture, sponsor of the Goochland Farmers Market, was also removed from the contribution list.

The penny of tax, approximately $425,000, set aside for conservation and open space uses was deleted from the spending plan.

Last month, Ramsey informed the board that there would be an unexpected shortfall in the amount of personal property tax because the value of older vehicles has dropped and fewer citizens are buying new ones. He suggested the two cent increase to cover that deficiency.


The amount of the rate increase, $20 per $100,000 of valuation, $100 on a $500,000 house, does not seem onerous at first blush. However, if it represents the start of a creeping rise in tax rates, it’s troubling indeed. For property owners who have lost jobs or income, every nickel must be squeezed three times before it is spent. The rest of us wonder why the county can’t make ends meet.

It’s hard to tell if this $61 million budget is a more realistic look at the county’s absolute needs for next year than the one created using the 53 cent rate.

A few years ago, the board seems to have decided to hold the rate steady at 53 cents adjusting for reassessments. The supervisors enjoyed looking like fiscal heroes. However, those budgets were supplemented throughout the year, so it was difficult to tell exactly where the bottom line was.

Perhaps, the $61 million budget is real rather than fiscal fiction.

Unfortunately, the last minute increase and switching around may have breached the trust between the various departments and the board. It did nothing to bolster the dwindling citizen trust in elected officials.

Departments that worked hard in good faith to pare their needs to the bone might well be wary to repeat those actions in the future.

The board needs to tread carefully through this economic minefield. It may well be a long slog, because no one knows how long or how deep this fiscal downturn will be.



This is no April Fool
County property tax rate increase likely

Only two people rose to protest the proposed two cent increase in the Goochland County real estate tax rate at last night’s public hearing on next year’s county budget. Many in attendance left the meeting scratching their heads.

The real surprise of the evening was a proposed budget, presented by interim county administrator Lane Ramsey, recommending county expenditures of $61,167,888 for the 2009-10 fiscal year, which begins on July 1.

Advertisement for the hearing indicated a $57,894,897 budget was up for comment.

Last fall, in anticipation of lean times, county departments were told to prepare flat funded budgets. Raises, new equipment, programs and personnel went out the window. Most travel and educational expense, except that needed for some employees to maintain professional credentials, was removed.

The resulting requested countywide budget was .9 percent lower that that for the current year.

The school system stepped up to the plate and prepared a budget that was smaller than that for the current fiscal year.

All this was undertaken to permit the county to operate on the revenues collected from the prevailing 53 cent property tax rate.

It should be noted that property taxes account for less than half of the revenue used to fund county operations. The proposed school budget, $27,110,064, is more than the $25,262,203 expected to be generated by the 55 cent rate. The remainder is derived from a number of other sources including user fees and funds from state and federal governments.

Ramsey recommended a somewhat bewildering series of moves within the budget, reallocating certain funds in the school budget, for instance, to be supplanted by money expected from the federal stimulus funds.

He also recommended funding of several items in the capital improvement budget including some athletic fields.

Doug Kinney of Maidens, who protested the rate increase, likened the athletic fields to a pedicure, “a little luxury that you can live without.”

School superintendent Dr. Linda Underwood told the board that the rules about using federal stimulus funds are just starting to trickle in. So far, she said, it is clear that stimulus funds may be used for brick and mortar projects used for instructional purposes only. That would preclude their use for the multipurpose rooms planned for Byrd and Randolph elementary schools.

Ramsey recommended removal of contributions to organizations that the county has supported in the past. Most of these, such as the Science Museum of Virginia, CenterStage and Virginia State University are outside the county. The Center for Rural Culture, sponsor of the Goochland Farmers Market, was also removed from the contribution list.

The penny of tax, approximately $425,000, set aside for conservation and open space uses was deleted from the spending plan.

Last month, Ramsey informed the board that there would be an unexpected shortfall in the amount of personal property tax because the value of older vehicles has dropped and fewer citizens are buying new ones. He suggested the two cent increase to cover that deficiency.


The amount of the rate increase, $20 per $100,000 of valuation, $100 on a $500,000 house, does not seem onerous at first blush. However, if it represents the start of a creeping rise in tax rates, it’s troubling indeed. For property owners who have lost jobs or income, every nickel must be squeezed three times before it is spent. The rest of us wonder why the county can’t make ends meet.

It’s hard to tell if this $61 million budget is a more realistic look at the county’s absolute needs for next year than the one created using the 53 cent rate.

A few years ago, the board seems to have decided to hold the rate steady at 53 cents adjusting for reassessments. The supervisors enjoyed looking like fiscal heroes. However, those budgets were supplemented throughout the year, so it was difficult to tell exactly where the bottom line was.

Perhaps, the $61 million budget is real rather than fiscal fiction.

Unfortunately, the last minute increase and switching around may have breached the trust between the various departments and the board. It did nothing to bolster the dwindling citizen trust in elected officials.

Departments that worked hard in good faith to pare their needs to the bone might well be wary to repeat those actions in the future.

The board needs to tread carefully through this economic minefield. It may well be a long slog, because no one knows how long or how deep this fiscal downturn will be.