Board authorizes architect for Fire Station 2 and obligates about $4.8M in photo-enforcement revenues amid debate over tax rebate vs. public safety

The New Kent County Board of Supervisors authorized two financial items on June 29: (1) authorization for the county administrator to execute an agreement with RRMM Architects PC for design services for Fire Station 2 and (2) an obligation of roughly $4.8 million in photo-speed-enforcement revenues to several purposes, including a proposed $1.9 million real-estate tax rebate, $1.3 million for a fire engine and $1.6 million for sheriff'9s capital expenditures.

Architect agreement: Rodney Hathaway, who presented the fire-station procurement, said the county received 14 proposals and interviewed four finalists before recommending RRMM Architects PC for architectural and engineering services with a not-to-exceed fee of $736,943. The board voted by roll call to authorize the county administrator to execute the contract in a form approved by the county attorney; the motion carried.

Photo-enforcement funds: Hathaway told the board staff now anticipates FY26 photo-enforcement (camera) revenues totaling about $8.7 million and that $3.44 million had already been proposed in the FY26 budget. After accounting for budgeted uses, staff recommended obligating an unobligated balance of about $4.88 million. To preserve statutory flexibility for funds collected before June 30, staff proposed a resolution that (as presented) would obligate $1.9 million as a real-estate tax rebate equivalent to a three-cent tax-rate reduction, $1.3 million for a fire-engine purchase and $1.6 million for sheriff capital expenditures; final appropriations would return to the board for separate action.

Board debate and vote: Several board members expressed preference for dedicating more of the funds to deputies or capital for public safety rather than a broad tax rebate. Sheriff Bailey strongly opposed the proposed rebate, arguing the sheriff'9s office needs deputies and equipment and that the photo-revenue funds have been used to replace capital items in the past. "If the board chooses to provide a rebate out of county-related funds, that's the board's decision," the sheriff said, and added, "I do not feel that this is an appropriate use of photo funds to fund those items." (Sheriff Bailey)

The board adopted the resolution obligating roughly $4.8 million in photo-enforcement revenues after roll-call voting that recorded four yes votes and two no votes. Mr. Hathaway emphasized that obligating the funds does not itself authorize spending; departments will return with specific appropriation requests before any money is expended.

What the obligation means: Staff explained that money collected prior to June 30 and obligated before that date can be used for a broader set of purposes; funds collected after June 30 will be restricted by state law to traffic-enforcement and transportation uses and unused amounts must be returned to the state. Staff said they will return with specific appropriation ordinances for any capital purchases or other spending.

Next steps: The board will receive appropriation requests and specific spending plans at future meetings if it wishes to proceed with purchases (fire apparatus, sheriff equipment) or to finalize the mechanics of a tax rebate/credit on property bills. The sheriff and fire chief will also participate in those follow-up requests.