As a North River District constituent of Supervisor Dr. Jamieson, I’m writing as a resident of Warren County in response to the April 13, 2026, article, “Debate Continues Over Tax Rate as Supervisor Offers New Option.” While I understand the desire to limit the increase, I support the proposed 10-cent increase for now, given the financial uncertainties the county is facing.

Audits from FY24 and FY25 remain incomplete, leaving no fully verified baseline for available funds, obligations, or reserves. Any plan that relies on those figures should be approached with caution until they are confirmed. The county has approved additional funding to complete the reconciliation process, which is a necessary step forward, but greater transparency—such as regular public updates—would help build confidence that progress is being made in a timely manner.

It is also important to distinguish between a working financial model and a verified financial position. AUMA’s analysis may provide a useful model, but it remains a model. Audits establish what is known; projections estimate what is expected. When policy decisions rely on projections rather than verified data, it becomes less clear where accountability lies if those assumptions prove inaccurate.

The article also references a “bridge period” supported by expected future economic development, and characterizes the current budget as a “one-time” spike. While economic development shows promise, the revenue isn’t immediate or guaranteed, and timelines may be extended as appropriate safeguards are put in place. Similarly, adjusting the county’s debt repayment approach may provide short-term flexibility but does not reduce the underlying obligation and may increase total cost over time. Arguing for a smaller tax increase while extending long-term commitments may shift financial pressure forward rather than resolve it—particularly as federal, state, and intergovernmental revenues have declined.

While reviewing the budget, I identified areas that raise questions about increased spending—particularly within Parks and Recreation. Although the overall increase is relatively modest, around $500,000, several operational line items show significant percentage increases compared to prior years, including laundry and janitorial supplies, building maintenance supplies, fuel for vehicles and powered equipment, and other operating supplies, with some rising from approximately 600% to over 2,000%. If these increases reflect ongoing operational costs rather than one-time expenses, they may continue in future budgets, which raises questions about whether the current budget can be accurately described as a temporary spike. This is precisely why completed audits matter — without a verified baseline, it is difficult to determine whether increases of this magnitude reflect genuine need, deferred costs, or changes in classification.

At its core, this discussion is about accountability. Before adjusting the proposed increase or relying on future projections, the county should prioritize completing its audits, confirming its financial position, and ensuring decisions are grounded in verified information.

Lewis Moten
Warren County, VA

After Publication: Ongoing Discussion & Clarifications

2:50 PM

At 2:50 PM, Supervisor Jamieson sent me a short email attaching a complete Letter to the Editor responding to my position. He noted it had already been submitted for publication, but wanted me to consider it in the meantime. What stood out was not just the content, but the timing: I was being asked to respond to a public-facing rebuttal before the public had access to it. The attachment wasn’t exploratory—it was a finalized, point-by-point counterargument to my letter, framed for a broader audience.

One part jumped out at me as a philosophical divide, reframing my position: raising taxes “preemptively because success is not guaranteed” vs. pursuing revenue first

3:21 PM

At 3:21 PM, I replied focusing on sequencing—questioning whether reserves should be used for operating needs now if they are also being considered for capital projects like roof repairs after audits are completed.

I also raised concerns about the visibility of financial system modernization in the budget and how those efforts are being prioritized.

3:27 PM

At 3:27 PM, given the relevance to that evening’s hearings, I shared my response with the full Board and key staff to ensure all stakeholders had the same information.

3:37 PM

At 3:37 PM, Supervisor Jamieson followed up again with what he described as the version of the document provided to the Board, noting that not all elements—particularly graphical components—were included in the Royal Examiner article.

He highlighted a table within the document that outlined a modeled scenario for bridging the budget gap, emphasizing that approximately $1.7 million in “excess reserves” would be used for operating needs, while the remaining balance—around $8 million—would be directed toward capital projects such as roof replacements.

He characterized the model as a structured, year-by-year approach with “no single point of failure,” arguing that taxes could be adjusted in future years if needed rather than increased immediately based on uncertainty.

The version shared at this point included a detailed table and supporting charts that were not present in earlier public materials. While helpful, these elements introduced assumptions and projections that had not been part of the initial discussion, and highlighted how the level of detail available varied depending on how and where the information was shared.

3:40 PM

At 3:40 PM, Supervisor Jamieson sent another follow-up noting that the attached document was the “latest version,” reflecting further revisions to the same analysis and supporting materials.

3:41 PM

At 3:41 PM, Supervisor Jamieson sent yet another follow-up with a revised version of the same document, again identified as the latest iteration.

3:52 PM

At 3:52 PM, after several rapid revisions were shared in succession, I responded to Supervisor Jamieson and included the full Board.

Rather than continuing to engage in back-and-forth revisions, I shifted the focus to process. I expressed that, given the level of detail and the number of iterations, the analysis would be more appropriately presented through the County’s official agenda materials rather than through email or third-party publications.

I also noted that while the Royal Examiner serves an important role in public communication, it is subject to edits, omissions, and timing differences. For that reason, I emphasized that the County’s own platform should serve as the primary source of record for information of this importance.

Finally, I indicated that I would review any further updates during the public meeting that evening, aligning the discussion with the formal decision-making process.

3:57 PM

At 3:57 PM, the Finance Director responded to my earlier questions regarding financial system modernization.

She clarified that the project is funded within an existing $1.5 million allocation and does not require additional funding. She also explained that certain capital and asset replacement funds are carried forward year-to-year, but because the fiscal year had not yet closed, those carryover amounts were not yet reflected in the proposed budget.

This helped explain why some of the funding I was looking for was not clearly visible in the current budget documents.

4:01 PM

At 4:01 PM, Supervisor Jamieson responded again, clarifying that his proposal was not intended to represent a county position or official source of record, but rather a concept he developed independently and shared with the Board before bringing it into the public discussion.

He emphasized that the purpose of sharing it more broadly was to allow for consideration and feedback as part of the Board’s deliberative process.

4:02 PM

At 4:02 PM, I replied to thank the Finance Director for the clarification and noted that the confusion stemmed from how the funding appeared in the proposed budget.

I acknowledged the importance of financial system modernization and appreciated the explanation that the project funding was already accounted for, even if not clearly visible in the current documents.

4:04 PM

At 4:04 PM, the Finance Director followed up, reiterating that the financial system modernization is a priority and expressing confidence in continuing progress into FY27.

5:05 PM

At 5:05 PM, I checked Supervisor Jamieson’s blog to see whether additional materials had been posted.

While the original article, “2027 Tax Rate Options,” was available with the more detailed materials, his follow-up response had not yet been published there.

5:22 PM

At 5:22 PM, Supervisor Richard Jamieson’s formal rebuttal to my earlier letter was published in the Royal Examiner, Debate Continues Over Tax Rate as Supervisor Offers New Option. The published version mirrors the PDF response he sent directly, with no substantive changes—only minor formatting differences.

6:00 PM

At 6:00 PM, the Board of Supervisors meeting was scheduled to be held at the local high school rather than the Government Center.

The change in venue reflected the level of public interest, as a larger crowd was expected for discussion of the proposed budget and tax rate. The Government Center, while large, was not expected to accommodate the anticipated turnout.

The high school auditorium was large and seemed to have multiple levels. In reality, not many people showed up, were spread out, and the meeting only lasted two hours. I’ll post about the event itself separately.