Southampton County board trims budget, agrees to advertise a 79¢ real-estate rate and raise personal-property rate to $5

The Southampton County Board of Supervisors met April 17 to narrow the county’s proposed fiscal 2025 budget and directed staff to advertise a compromise real-estate tax rate of 79¢ per $100 of assessed value.

The decision followed a presentation by a county staff member of a memo identifying about $1.495 million in potential cuts — including eliminating an economic-development site study ($120,000), deferring a facilities master plan ($100,000) and paring other consulting and program lines — that would allow the board to propose 79¢ instead of the administrator’s earlier 86¢ recommendation.

Why it matters: The board and staff said the cut package balances short-term relief for taxpayers against longer-term needs such as courthouse costs, radio-system maintenance for public safety and employee compensation. Staff warned that some deferred expenses — notably radio maintenance and courthouse work — will still have to be funded in future years.

During public comment before the work session, resident David Irvin ran several examples of how different rates would affect his property and urged the board to reconsider county fees; Mr. Irvin told the board he had been told the county was changing a separate collection fee from $4.70 to $5.00. The board later decided to restore the personal-property tax rate to $5.00, the pre‑COVID figure, saying lower rates would reduce the county’s ability to meet fund‑balance goals.

The public-defender office that serves the county also appeared, with Paul Fritzinger (deputy public defender) and Katie Brown (assistant public defender) asking the board to consider a $10,000 subsidy to help with attorney retention. Fritzinger said the office covers multiple jurisdictions and struggles to recruit and retain attorneys given student‑loan debt and regional pay differentials; Brown said Suffolk supplements its attorneys at roughly $16,000 per attorney, illustrating competitive pressures.

Board members debated whether to spend on consultant-driven studies and professional planning this year or to rely on in‑county talent to draft concept plans. A motion to remove the $100,000 facilities master-plan line item from the memo passed by a show‑of‑hands vote (the transcript records the result as “1 opposed,” with a majority in favor).

Formal decisions recorded in the session included direction to advertise the budget reflecting the 79¢ compromise and a separate board vote setting the personal-property tax rate at $5.00; staff said the budget would be finalized for the April 23 regular meeting and that a public hearing on the proposed budget will be held May 13 with adoption targeted for May 28.

What’s next: The administrator and finance staff will prepare the final advertisement and supporting documents for the April 23 meeting, and the public will have the opportunity to comment at the May 13 hearing. The public‑defender office’s $10,000 subsidy request was discussed as something the board could fund by adjusting a remaining $100,000 line in the memo; board members asked staff to identify precise offsets.

The board stressed the competing priorities — immediate tax relief for residents, long‑term capital and public‑safety needs, and employee retention — and signaled it would revisit some of the deferred items in future budgets.