Budget hearing: no tax increase proposed; supervisors debate taking over tribe-funded security light, motion fails on tie

The Southampton County Board of Supervisors on May 14 held a public hearing on the proposed FY26 budget, heard multiple public commenters and took several budget-related actions.

A staff presenter summarized the proposed budget total as $87,887,099, with no proposed increase to general property taxes for FY26. The presentation broke the proposed total into fund-level figures, including a general fund of $28,189,486, an enterprise water and sewer fund of $4,977,323, a building fund of $11,370,568, a public assistance (social services) fund of $3,313,525, and a school fund figure cited in the packet. The presenter also noted proposed $5 increases to water and sewer rates and that the solid-waste fee would remain at $200 annually.

During the public-comment portion Chief Walt Redhawk Brown, identifying himself as chief of the Cheroenhaka Nottoway Indian Tribe and chairperson of the Cheroenhaka Nottoway Indian Heritage Foundation, described a long-running litter and safety problem at a state-maintained cul-de-sac. He said the tribe paid to install a security light that stopped illegal activity and reduced littering, and he requested that the county either reimburse the tribe’s installation costs ($3,259.48) or take over the ongoing monthly utility cost (he said the monthly average was about $60). County staff reviewed the submitted invoices and told the board the installation was a one-time $3,259.48 expense and the accumulated bills the speaker submitted totaled roughly $3,497 through six months of 2026.

Board members debated options, including reimbursing the installation or placing the monthly service in the county’s streetlight account starting July 1. A motion to take on the ongoing electric bill was made and seconded; in a subsequent roll-call-style show of hands the vote was three in favor and three opposed, meaning no majority was reached and the motion did not pass.

Amanda Hall, a resident who said she reviewed the school division’s budget book, urged the supervisors to require clearer presentation of audited ‘‘actual’’ revenues and expenditures. Hall said the division’s published budget showed budgeted (pre-audit) figures and that the county audit listed about $1,884,493 more in expenditures for 2023–24 than the budget book’s totals, leaving a roughly $1.8–$1.9 million discrepancy that she asked the school division to explain before final appropriations.

The board also discussed funding for the Western Tidewater Community Services Board, which has a state match requirement; members agreed it was important to maintain the local match so state funding would not be reduced, and a motion to fund the organization at the requested level passed unanimously. Separately, staff presented a proposed space-needs and facilities master-plan study for the county administration complex (a one-time study estimated below $100,000). Some supervisors suggested tabling the study to prioritize nearer-term needs.

The public defender’s office thanked the board for prior support and asked continued funding to retain experienced attorneys, citing cost savings and courtroom efficiency that flow from retaining staff.

What happens next: staff said if the board wants to take on any ongoing streetlight costs they would increase the streetlight budget line and bring a budget amendment for adoption at a subsequent meeting. The FY26 budget hearing record will be part of the board’s adoption process in the coming meetings.