More than a dozen speakers at a Sept. 12 public hearing urged Surry County supervisors against switching to twice-a-year billing of personal property and real estate taxes on grounds that the change would adversely affect farmers.

In response to the opposition, supervisors at a follow-up Sept. 17 meeting proposed a slate of changes to the plan.

Currently county residents pay one annual bill on Dec. 5 for the calendar year, and would still owe the full amount for 2024 on their personal property and real estate bills on that date. 

The change, if approved, would take effect as of the mailing of the June 5 bills next year.

The original proposal called for residents to owe half their annual taxes for 2025 on June 5. Under a revised plan put forward at the Sept. 17 meeting, only personal property taxes would be collected in June.

Several speakers at the Sept. 12 meeting identified themselves as farmers or landlords to farmers who lease cropland.

“As a farmer, I pay my taxes and land rents from my cash proceeds of my crops, which are harvested in the fall,” said Glenn Slade, a farmer from the county’s Bacon’s Castle District. “My resources are very limited in June as it takes a lot of money to buy seed, fertilizer, chemicals and pay other farm expenses to grow a crop.”

Brad Monahan, a fifth-generation farmer from the Carsley District, said his family works roughly 1,000 acres of owned and rented land across Surry and Sussex counties. 

“Over the last three years, our farming operation currently sees an average of 25% of our annual expenses in June and July,” Monahan said. “With that being said, we typically only receive 5% of our average income in June and July. An additional expense during the summer months for half of our real estate tax liability is certainly another burden.”

“Not only are you proposing that I have to pay half of my property taxes in June instead of December, several of my landlords have indicated that they’re going to want part of their rent in June so they can pay their taxes,” said Henry Goodrich, a farmer from the county’s Dendron District. “All of this is going to be passed down to the farmer, and we have no one else to pass it down to. I’m a mid-sized farmer at best but between property taxes and early rent payment, I’m looking at potentially $30,000 to $40,000 of expenses in June that I normally don’t incur until December. That’s not an insignificant amount of money for me.”

Of the 18 speakers who provided over 40 minutes of commentary, two said they favored twice-a-year billing, and only one urged the supervisors to move forward with the change despite the opposition.

“I do hear the plight of the farmers” but “am in support of twice-yearly billing,” said Elva Clayton of the county’s Claremont District.

Under the revised Sept. 17 proposal, real estate taxes would remain due in full in December to keep farmers on the same pay schedule to which they’ve become accustomed. The supervisors have scheduled another public hearing on Oct. 3 on the revised proposal.

According to County Administrator Melissa Rollins, the proposed change to twice-a-year billing originated as a means of easing the burden on residents who, in addition to the cost of Christmas and other December holidays, currently owe the full tax burden for the year that same month.

Rollins said making the change would require the supervisors to set the tax rates in April rather than concurrently with adopting a budget in June for the coming fiscal year.

Rollins said the original plan to collect real estate taxes in June would also have required moving the deadline to apply for tax relief for the elderly and disabled from May 1 to April 1. Households that earn up to $45,000 and have a net worth of up to $125,000 excluding the value of their primary residence and one acre can qualify for up to $1,000 in real estate tax relief by filling out an application at the Commissioner of the Revenue’s Office.

Under the Sept. 17 revisions, the income threshold for tax relief would be raised to $54,000.

County residents, regardless of age or disability status, have the option of prepaying some or all of their taxes ahead of the current Dec. 5 due date, and would continue to have that option under twice-a-year billing, but would not be able to skip the June 5 due date and only pay in December without incurring a late fee.

The Sept. 17 revisions to the twice-a-year billing proposal call for a one-time 90-day extension to pay personal property taxes without penalty to provide relief to taxpayers who would otherwise have to come up with half their tax burden for 2025 only six months after paying the full amount for 2024.

The real estate bills due this December will be based on real estate values assessed in 2023. The 2025 real estate bills would be based on new valuations that will take effect Jan. 1 following the “limited scope” reassessment contract county supervisors approved at the Sept. 12 meeting.

Rollins said the original plan to bill twice a year for real estate and personal property taxes would have resulted in Surry County seeing a one-time windfall of $13.5 million for the 2024-25 fiscal year. The estimated influx was based on the county receiving 100% of what it normally would under annual billing for 2024 plus 50% of 2025’s revenue before the June 30 end of the current fiscal year.

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 10:40 a.m. on Sept. 19 to correct the spelling of Glenn Slade’s name.