Powhatan supervisors advance FY26 budget to advertising, debate code enforcement and school pilot funding

The Powhatan County Board of Supervisors on March 27 reviewed the proposed FY26 budget and directed county staff to advertise the plan for a public hearing on April 21 and possible adoption the week of April 28, while supervisors debated whether to add a full‑time code enforcement officer, a public information capacity and how much to transfer to the schools for an alternative‑education pilot.

Finance staff said the proposed general fund increased from about $82.8 million to $84.7 million under the revised tax rate, with the additional three cents in the rate generating roughly $1.8 million in revenue. “So, tonight, this workshop, what we'd be looking to do is, get direction from the board on exactly, what to advertise in the budget,” a finance department presenter said while walking supervisors through the changes.

The presenter told the board staff had reduced one transfer to the Central Virginia Transportation Authority (CVTA) to help pay for a deputy county administrator and identified $170,000 from the capital maintenance reserve to cover vehicle and small facilities purchases in the PAYGo capital program. The presenter also said total proposed expenditure increases in the plan were about $1.9 million and that staff proposed isolating $1.5 million of excess revenue into a new debt service fund to back future bond issues; staff estimated that amount could support roughly $20 million in borrowing on a 20‑year schedule.

Public comment at the start of the meeting focused on budget clarity and transparency. Ranjit Nuzzimdar of the Brooklyn Estates Homeowners Association told supervisors the presentation on the county website lacked detail and urged clearer slides showing major objectives, a flowchart of processes and a waterfall chart explaining the year‑to‑year drivers of expense growth. “The budget presentation available to the residents on the county website does not provide much detail to enable 1 to make or ask meaningful questions,” Nuzzimdar said.

Supervisors spent substantial time discussing personnel and program priorities. Several members asked staff to consider funding a full‑time code‑enforcement position to monitor conditions, permits and conditions on conditional use permits (CUPs); staff estimated the first‑year cost of such a position, with benefits, at about $85,776. Board members also discussed restoring funding for a Public Information Officer (PIO) or assigning public‑outreach duties to a deputy so the county can better communicate budget and program decisions.

School funding was another contested item. Staff described a proposed transfer to the school division that would include a one‑time allocation for an alternative‑education pilot; supervisors debated whether that transfer should be $250,000 or $500,000 and urged staff to confirm the schools’ commitments before the county finalizes the advertised numbers. A supervisor suggested leaving the pilot in the advertised budget and using the weeks before the public hearing to verify school follow‑through.

Several supervisors urged protecting a portion of the additional revenue for future capital projects by creating the separate debt service fund, rather than allocating all new revenue immediately. Staff said setting aside $1.5 million would preserve flexibility and make it easier to issue bonds for projects later; the board did not adopt any bonds at the workshop.

The meeting also included discussion of larger capital items and long‑range projects: the community center project was raised as a multi‑year item with about $2.8 million of architectural/engineering work identified as early‑phase spending to preserve project momentum toward a later construction phase estimated in the tens of millions. School projects previously authorized and listed in school capital plans — a figure supervisors discussed in the $11.3 million range for FY26 projects — were described by staff as earmarked in the schools’ capital funds but not being funded by the county at this time.

Other items raised during discussion included space constraints in county offices, potential shared services with the school division (procurement and transportation were cited as examples), and a request to address substandard furniture in the sheriff’s office; staff said some paint and flooring projects for the sheriff’s offices are funded in the FY25 budget and scheduled to be completed by July 1.

No formal board vote to adopt the budget occurred at the workshop. The only formal recorded vote during the session approved the meeting agenda early in the session. Staff stated they will send the public notice to local papers on the following Monday to advertise the FY26 budget and the April 21 public hearing.

The board left the proposed budget advertised — with the advertised numbers reflecting the additional three cents in the tax rate, the proposed transfers described by staff and the placeholder amounts for school projects — and asked staff to return to the board with follow‑up information before the April public hearing.