Montgomery County approves 76¢ property tax rate; board adds 1¢ to school funding in 5-2 vote

The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors on April 21 adopted a real-estate tax levy of 76 cents per $100 of assessed value and approved allocating an additional penny of that rate to the school operating fund, a move the board said will add $1,244,860 to school funding for fiscal year 2025–26.

The action came after a work-session discussion of the county’s proposed $270,810,991 budget and a public-address period in which residents largely urged the board to raise revenue for schools. The budget resolution passed the board 5–2; Supervisors King and Fidzikowski voted no.

The extra penny, the board’s resolution states, increases advertised funding to the school operating fund from $152,255,875 to a total approved amount of $153,500,735. County staff and school officials told the board that the county’s proposed budget already includes $3,100,000 in additional county funding tied to the superintendent’s earlier “statement of need,” and the penny is meant to further support priorities the schools identified.

Several residents used the public-address period to urge the board to approve the increase. Sarah Jacob, a resident of District E, said, “I want to support the 1¢ per hundred dollar assessed value tax increase.” Dr. Derek Rountree, who identified himself from 2737 Old Fort Road, said he supported “the 1¢ rate increase in support of our special education, teacher retention, and student nutrition.” Anna Vijayan of District A, who identified herself as holding a Ph.D. in mathematics, presented calculations she said show the six-year average yearly tax increase would be about 1.4% if the penny is approved and urged the board to add the revenue to schools if other budget cuts cannot be found.

Board members debated the scope of the schools’ request and the county’s ability to meet it without a tax increase. County Administrator Angie Hill explained that the county’s proposed budget was built to meet the superintendent’s stated needs submitted in January and that the county had added $3,100,000 toward those needs in the proposed budget. Board members and staff clarified that the school board later revised its request upward during its own deliberations; the transcript records an initial superintendent statement of need at $4,700,000 and a later school-board recommendation reaching $5,650,000 at one point, while the county’s funding additions and state funding together account for an overall multi-year increase in school revenues.

School Superintendent Braden (identified in the record as "Dr. Braden") described program-level uses for additional funding the school division requested: 10 additional special-education teachers to expand the continuum of services (focused on middle-school sections where students struggle), an emerging dual-language kindergarten program at Price’s Fork Elementary School (two Spanish-language kindergarten sections and two English-language sections, about 40 students total), additional 504 coordinators to relieve school counselors of administrative load, and proposed expansion of no-cost school meals. On DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) concerns, Superintendent Braden said the division will file a certification by the posted deadline that the division does not discriminate and that the division’s equity office focuses on access and supports rather than preferential treatment.

Board members pressed staff and the superintendent for implementation detail and fiscal trade-offs. Supervisor King noted that without a county tax increase the schools would still receive a substantial increase this year from a combination of county and state funding and questioned whether some of the school board’s additional requests were “above and beyond” the superintendent’s original statement of need. Vice Chair Fidzikowski and King both expressed opposition to the tax increase, citing concerns about recurring incremental tax increases and specific line items in the schools’ request. Other supervisors said their constituents, particularly in Blacksburg, had sent substantial written support for the increase.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Adopt advertised property tax rates (real estate 76¢ per $100; mobile homes 76¢; personal property $2.55; machinery & tools $1.82; aircraft $1.23). Outcome: Approved. Tally: 5 yes, 2 no. Yes: Miss Biggs, Mr. Graskey, Mr. Kitts, Miss Bohm, Chair DeMott. No: Supervisor King, Supervisor Fidzikowski. (Mover/second: not specified in the transcript.)

- Motion: Adopt fiscal year 2025–26 budget with 76¢ real-estate tax rate and allocate 1¢ additional to school operating fund (adds $1,244,860 to schools, total approved school operating funding $153,500,735). Outcome: Approved 5–2. Yes: Miss Biggs, Mr. Graskey, Mr. Kitts, Miss Bohm, Chair DeMott. No: Supervisor King, Supervisor Fidzikowski. (Mover/second: not specified in the transcript.)

- Procedural: Motion to go into work session for budget discussion. Outcome: Approved (roll call recorded as unanimous for that motion earlier in the meeting).

During the meeting board members and staff also discussed hiring challenges for certain positions the schools requested. Superintendent Braden and other school staff said special-education teachers are difficult to recruit, that the 10 additional special-education teachers would expand pull-out and targeted support primarily at the middle-school level, and that adding two additional 504 coordinators (the transcript cites a combined cost of about $142,898 including benefits) would relieve counselors whose mandated duties require them to spend a set percentage of time in direct student counseling.

Superintendent Braden told the board the school division is working on summer meal plans to address food insecurity outside the regular school year; he also said six county schools already run community eligibility programs that provide free meals to all students at those sites. He acknowledged anecdotal evidence of food insecurity in the county and said the district is assembling additional plans and partnerships to address summer feeding.

Public comments at the meeting included both support for and opposition to the increase. Bob Beard of Christiansburg explicitly told the board he opposed increasing the tax rate, predicting it would lead to further increases; several other residents—Carla Haas and Martha Ann Stallings among them—spoke in favor of the increase on the grounds that schools need funds for teacher pay, special education, and student nutrition. Anna Vijayan supplied specific calculations about average assessment growth and percentage impacts; the transcript records her urging the board to approve the penny if alternative cuts cannot be found.

The budget and tax rate take effect for fiscal year 2025–26. The board adjourned to its next scheduled meeting on Monday, April 28. The transcript shows follow-up items the board and staff may address at the upcoming joint meeting with the school division, including capital improvements and the division’s demographic and facilities study.