Board delays vote on what tax rate to advertise

Supervisors on Tuesday dispensed with the question of what rate to advertise Prince William County’s fiscal 2009 tax in quick time.

Within a span of about three seconds — and that’s barely an exaggeration — board members let die two separate motions that would have given the go-ahead to advertise what the highest rate of property tax for this coming year could be. To paraphrase Chairman Corey Stewart, R-at large, it went something like this: “Can I get a motion? No? Moving on. Can I get a motion? No? Moving on.”

The result was that the board will not vote on the tax rate to advertise until their March 18 meeting — but really, that was the plan they spelled out two meetings ago.

On March 4, supervisors voted to no avail four times on four separate rates, ultimately agreeing to postpone decision until the last meeting before the rate had to be advertised to maintain the budget schedule. They did put the issue on the March 11 agenda in case new or pressing information necessitated talks.

Five School Board members, meanwhile, arrived early in the afternoon Tuesday to address supervisors on the tax rate issue; they were not part of the agenda but were allowed 20-plus minutes to speak before the citizen’s time portion.

Vice Chairman Grant Lattin read a resolution approved by School Board members, 7-1, during their March 5 meeting that was also published in the Potomac News on March 8 that pressed, indirectly, for a high enough tax rate to meet educational needs. Three of the four proposed tax rates to advertise will cut the school’s budget by $6 million.

School Board member Gil Trenum, Brentsville representative, was the sole dissenting voice on this resolution, which also criticized some supervisors for questioning certain school expenditures. Trenum could not be reached for comment before deadline.

The four tax rates to advertise that were previously discussed range from $1.032 per $100 of assessed values to 96.8 cents. According to a brief run-down at the evening meeting —just minutes before supervisors agreed by silence to let the vote go until March 18 — the $1.032 tax rate equates to an average 10 percent increase in tax bills, or $327 a year, but fully funds the school superintendent’s budget proposal.

The other three rates leave the schools $6 million short of the superintendent’s request.

The $1.012 rate translates into an 8 percent, or $258, average yearly increase, but is recommended for adoption by the county executive. The 99 cents rate reflects an average 6 percent increase, or $193 more per bill, but leaves the county short $4.3 million of its executive’s proposal, and the schools $11.6 million shy.

The 96.8 cents rate, meanwhile, would result in shortfalls of the proposed county and school budgets to the tune of $10 million and $20 million, respectively. That rate reflects a 3 percent, or $107, average increase from last year.

Still, these rates are being tossed about as discussion items for advertisement only. The advertised rate is neither proposed nor adopted rate, but rather the ceiling amount from which supervisors will then forge the fiscal budget.

At Tuesday’s meeting, budget presentations kicked off, and a dozen different departments brought forth their initial numbers. The budget proposal in its entirety is posted at the county supervisors’ Web site, but in general, a good portion of any projected tax increase can be attributed to adoption and implementation of the immigration resolution — a fiscal outcome the supervisors said they made clear last year, prior to its approval.

Largely unexpected, though — or at least uncertain — was the extent of the drop in the housing market, which is still on the downswing and will continue to impact county revenues into this fiscal year.

As such, and until state funding numbers paint a clearer picture, the county is looking at a tightening fiscal future.

More departments are due to present their budget requests at the March 18 meeting.

Also coming up next week is discussion of raising the price for motor vehicle decals. Currently, the decals cost $24 for cars and trucks and $12 for motorcycles; supervisors will consider upping these amounts to $38 for passenger vehicles, $19 for motorcycles. The money, as intended by “the spirit” of the state law granting localities the authority to take such action, said county executive Craig Gerhart, will be used for transportation purposes.

Supervisors gave little verbal indication on how they would fall on this issue, though Michael May, R-Occoquan, did question the difference between a “tax and a fee.”

Staff writer Cheryl Chumley can be reached at 703-670-1907 or cchumley@potomacnews.com.