Amherst supervisors vote to advertise 61¢ tax rate as budget gap forces conservative plan

The Amherst County Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 on March 3 to advertise a 61‑cent tax rate per $100 of assessed value as it wrestled with a roughly $3–4 million gap between projected revenues and proposed spending.

At a budget workshop, finance staff presented a corrected total expense budget “of just over $73,000,000,” Miss Morgan told the board. That package, she said, includes about $4.1 million in capital improvement requests, 33 new position requests totaling nearly $3 million if all are approved, roughly $450,000 in equipment, a $500,000 contingency and $5.3 million in debt service.

The finance presentation also recommended trimming revenue estimates compared with last year’s proposal — including reductions to personal property receipts and local sales/use taxes and moving federal revenue that had been posted to a state line. “Halfway through the year, we were not even halfway to that amount,” Morgan said of a previous state sales‑tax estimate, and she recommended lowering that figure.

Chair of the board warned the group that at the equalized 39¢ rate the county would not generate enough revenue to maintain last year’s budget, saying, “we're 2 and a half million dollars in a hole.” Board members and staff modeled scenarios showing that a 3% across‑the‑board raise for current employees combined with a projected health‑insurance increase (staff used a 14.4% figure for planning) and a modest CIP would leave the county hundreds of millions short of the full requested package unless the tax rate changed or spending was cut.

Public safety leaders pressed for targeted additions: Chief Beam explained pressures on dispatch and ambulance coverage and said the county’s 9‑1‑1 fund — a recurring fee derived from cell‑phone collections — currently pays for two dispatch positions and could be used to fund a third or to cover a CAD system. “Call volume continues to go up 6% last year,” Chief Beam said, arguing additional recurrent non‑general‑fund resources could be employed.

After debate over which new positions were essential and which CIP projects to fund, the board prioritized a short list of hires for further consideration: a finance position, a tourism specialist role (a reclassification/reassignment rather than an additional full‑time net new hire in the board’s framing), one dispatcher (to be paid from E‑911 funds) and one firefighter. Board members also asked staff to use $1.5 million as a working “cut line” for CIP funding as they refine the budget.

County attorney Mister Popovich advised the board about advertising requirements: the body must publish the tax rate it intends to advertise and may reduce that advertised rate later but cannot increase it above the published figure without re‑advertising and holding another public hearing. “You’re gonna have to set out a public notice indicating what the tax rate is going to be,” he said, noting that the advertised number should cover the amount the board believes it will ultimately need.

With that constraint in mind and without full O&M totals stripped of all new positions, the board voted to advertise at 61¢ to preserve room to fund services and return with adjusted figures. Supervisor Tucker made the motion to advertise the rate, noting the board did not expect that figure to be the final rate: “I would like to say the 61%, quite frankly, so then we can back down off of it.” The motion passed 4–1.

Next steps: staff will recalculate operating and maintenance totals without the 33 position requests (the board asked to plan for 29 fewer new positions in preliminary work) and will return refined numbers, including a clarified schools request, to the board. The tax‑rate advertisement will be published per the legal timeline so the public hearing process can proceed; the board may reduce the rate later but cannot raise it above the advertised 61¢ without another advertising cycle.