Surcharge

Surcharge

Continued from page 1

they are upset. They don’t give the best directions. You may have a child on the phone. It’s not something we have to have, but as more people move in they expect the level of service up to the level where they came from.”

Col. Dieter Kneupfer, the county’s emergency services coordinator, also supported the system. “The charge is minimal, and will give a great deal more safety,” he said. “If we wait to get it later, it might be more expensive.”

William Senkewitz was the only person from the public to speak in opposition to the surcharge. He said that he was already paying a lot of tax on his phone bill. “It will be a burden to a lot of people,” he said. He said that his farm had a locked gate at the entrance and that any squad answering a call to his house would have to break through the gate and his door. “Money is free around here now,” he said. “To some people it’s a lot.”

Sheriff John Henry Woodward said that the system w'ould help the dispatchers in his office but “the main benefit is to the public.” He said that many people in the county are already dialing 9-1-1, and surrounding counties have basic 9-1-1. “If they’re in the C&P service area it goes to Culpeper. If they’re in the upper end of the county it goes to Front Royal. All of that is wasting time.”

Sheriff Woodward said that he now is paying $134 per month for a number with the “987” exchange for rescue calls. “Those lines can go out when 9-1-1 comes in,” he said. “We don’t have that many crank calls, but if we did we would know where the call came from. We could weed out crank calls. There’s no way I can hire people who know everybody in this county. If you can get to a phone and dial 9-1-1, we will have directions to the house. It does have its advantages.”

Mr. Hatter pointed out that the information about Mr. Senkewitz’s gate could be included in the data base, so the company responding to the call would know to take bolt cutters or other equipment to get through the gate.

With no more comments from the public, Supervisor Chairman Hubert Gilkey asked for comments from the board. Mr. McCarthy said he is concerned that the county not make a commitment to install the system in two years. The surcharge will raise about $73,000 per year, and the total cost of the system is estimated at $300,000, he said.

With threatened cutbacks in state funds from Richmond, there could be problems, he said. It would take another three years to pay for the system. “It could create cash flow problems,” he said. “We have to be flexible about when installation takes place.”

Hampton District representative Mike Massie said, “When I first heard about it, I felt it was a wonderful idea. If I were a member of a fire or rescue organization, I would be 100 percent behind it, but our job as supervisors is to see that people are taxed fairly ... It is a tax, and a poor person pays the same tax as a rich person. It’s not based on how much property you have. To me it’s a regressive tax. Taxes should be based on people’s ability to pay. It