Five questions: Dale District supervisor candidates
The Chesterfield Observer believes it's important for voters to be 

Jim Holland

informed when they go to the polls on Nov. 6. Over the next few weeks leading up to the election, we'll run Q & A's featuring the candidates running for the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors from each district, so constituents can make a side-by-side comparison of where the candidates stand on some of the county's most important issues. This week, we'll focus on the supervisor candidates in the Dale District, Democrat James M. "Jim" Holland and incumbent Republican Kelly Miller. We asked them each the same five questions. Here are their responses.

Do you support the rezonings for Branner Station (4,998 homes and 470,000 square feet of retail) and Roseland (5,140 homes and 1.5 million square feet of office/retail)?

Holland: I am concerned about the pace and size of development in this county. What I do know is that there are many citizens who are unhappy and believe that their voices are never heard. Indeed, my opponent threw out of a public meeting a citizen who was trying to express her opinion concerning development. have certainly heard concerns about the poor ratio between residential and commercial in Roseland, the ongoing issue of phosphorus runoff and the developers' insistence that the county pay for roads normally provided by the developer.

Kelly Miller

Miller: I voted against [Branner Station] for several reasons. The proffers did not adequately address police and fire facilities, libraries and parks. I did not believe the amount of commercial guaranteed by this project was sufficient, and there was far more residential than I would have preferred. The most critical issue for me was that quite a few existing homes would be condemned or otherwise acquired to provide transportation infrastructure to support this project. I could not justify taking people's residences so other homes could be built. I cannot comment on the Roseland project because that case is not before us.

About $24 million in additional funding is necessary for a cloverleaf to provide direct access to I-295 for the Meadowville Technology Park. Should Chesterfield provide funding or financing for the cloverleaf?

Holland: We, as a county, have already invested significant resources in the Meadowville Technology Park. Additionally, much of the commonwealth's official IT work will be done in the county, in this complex. Therefore, it would seem important to get a cloverleaf so the park's use can be maximized. I would personally approach Gov. Kaine to ask for state financial assistance for this project. As a CPA, I believe it is fiscally irresponsible for the taxpayers of Chesterfield to foot the bill and bear the burden.

Miller: The I-295 interchange for the Meadowville Technology Park is absolutely critical to our county's economic development efforts in that area. At the present time, I don't believe that Chesterfield County can finance this interchange entirely on its own. It will require supportive funding from the state and, hopefully, additional funding from Congress. However, Chesterfield should be prepared to provide some financing for this interchange and continue to explore other sources as stated. It must continue to be among our most critical priorities.

How would you provide funding for Chesterfield County's road needs?

Holland: As we all know, Chesterfield County roads are paid for and maintained by the commonwealth. We have billions of dollars of road needs in front of us and, yet, my opponent, the chair of the board of supervisors, never asked our legislative delegation to advocate for our needs. So, this year, the transportation plan that passed does nothing for us. Our fees and taxes increase, but we here in Chesterfield get nothing in return. Our roads get more and more congested and our bridges deteriorate, but my opponent apparently didn't think it was important enough to even ask.

Miller: Chesterfield cannot fund existing road needs with present resources. There are several things we should look at: (A) continue to lobby our state legislature for the necessary funding that I believe is required by the 1932 Byrd Road Act; (B) dedicate a portion of our BPOL revenues by perhaps removing the cap and using the excess funds; (C) look at dedicating $.01-.02 of our real estate tax revenues; (D) require more development contributions; (E) enact impact fee ordinances on zoned but undeveloped property; (F) use toll funding to extend the Powhite Expressway; (G) utilize CDA and/or Transportation Service Districts.

What property tax rate do you favor and why?

Holland: The board of supervisors voted for a reduction in the property tax rate to $.97 per $100. As a certified public accountant, I strongly advocate lowering the tax burden on the homeowner. This can be accomplished by an aggressive, pro-business plan, resulting in a more favorable commercial to residential tax base. But this requires planning, something our county has been sorely lacking. In addition, any lowering of the homeowner tax rate has been offset by spiraling assessments. We must address this "hidden tax" and use every means at our disposal to control this assault against the homeowner.

Miller: I have a consistent record of pushing for the lowest possible property tax rate. In 2006, I was seeking a 5-cent reduction, but we had to settle for 3 cents. Last April, I asked the board to pass a 95-cent rate for 2007, but we came up one vote short and had to compromise on 97 cents. So during the past two years, I have been strongly instrumental in lowering the rate by 10 cents. For the future I will be asking fellow board members for the lowest possible rate consistent with the needs of our citizens.

Should the board of supervisors be expanded to more than five members?

Holland: Although I favor a small, frugal and proactive government, after careful study, I may be in favor of increasing the number of supervisors from five to seven. The primary focus must be on better serving the citizens of the Dale District and Chesterfield County as our population continues to increase.

Miller: I am not currently in favor of enlarging our board of supervisors. This subject has been debated over the years, and much of the discussion has been politically motivated by special interest groups. Before any change, we should consider whether the additional governmental bureaucracy and cost to taxpayers outweighs the benefits, if any, derived. I have had no problem serving my constituents, and none has approached me for a change. Future circumstances may, however, dictate serious consideration if there were substantial citizen support. I would have to be convinced that the public interest would be better served by such an enlargement.