Washington County board reviews FY25-26 revenue estimates, approves multiple budget tabs

The Washington County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday reviewed county FY25-26 operating budget revenue estimates, heard a presentation from county finance staff and Washington County Public Schools leadership, and approved multiple budget tabs by unanimous voice votes.

County finance staff presented conservative revenue estimates tied to this year’s reassessment, saying the county’s total taxable value rose from about $4.69 billion in 2024 to about $7.03 billion in 2025. The staff presentation noted an average assessed increase for residential property that dropped from an early 67% advertised number to a 49.91% net increase after assessor hearings. The presenter said one penny on the tax rate would bring roughly $655,000 in revenue.

The nut of the matter for supervisors was how much of the reassessment-driven growth to use in next year’s spending plan. County staff said roughly $13 million of new revenue would materialize if the board left the current 60¢ tax rate unchanged; the proposed budget before the board uses about $2.6 million of that growth (about four cents, at roughly $650,000 per penny) for new obligations and priorities.

Major near-term cost drivers outlined by county presenters included debt service on recent capital projects and a $17 million contract for a county radio system. The county’s courthouse project was described as a roughly $29.6 million project (with about $19 million of debt service and $10 million from local funds). The budget also includes an estimated $1.2 million increase tied to the regional jail and a $400,000 increase tied to the Children’s Services Act.

Washington County Public Schools Superintendent Doctor Perrigan urged the board to consider the school division’s state-recommended local funding increase. Perrigan said the schools’ initial request was about $1.6 million and later described the budget request as roughly $1,544,277 before adjustments, and explained that state-required increases — including local shares of compensation supplements, a special-education add-on and basic aid — are recurring. “Every single penny that that you put, I promise you we’re putting it to good use to our students,” Perrigan said, adding that if the board funds only the recommended $400,000 increase included in the county proposal, the school division would need to consider delaying projects, cutting proposed personnel, or reducing the employee raise amount.

Board members debated conservative revenue assumptions, collection rates (staff used a 95% collection assumption for property taxes), and the timing of notices and tax bills. County staff reminded the board that hotel and motel lodging tax revenue rose after the county increased the lodging tax rate from 5% to 7% effective July 1 and that personal-property and public-service tax collections are affected by market changes and lagged assessment timing.

Supervisors took a series of formal votes during the meeting. Motions to approve the meeting agenda and to approve budget tabs passed unanimously with six votes in favor and no opposing votes. The board approved, by 6-0 voice votes, motions to approve (motions as stated in the meeting record): - Approval of the meeting agenda (vote announced as 6-0). - Tab 1 (motion to approve tab 1; vote announced as 6-0). - Tab 2 (motion to approve tab 2; vote announced as 6-0). - Tab 4 (motion to approve tab 4; vote announced as 6-0). - Tab 6 (motion to approve tab 6; motion by Mr. Rush, second by Mr. McCall; vote announced as 6-0). - Tab 10 (motion to approve tab 10; vote announced as 6-0). - Tab 11 (motion to approve tab 11; motion by Mr. Rush, second by Mr. Stevens; vote announced as 6-0). - Tab 12 (motion to approve tab 12; vote announced as 6-0).

During the public-comment period that immediately followed the tab votes, resident Randy Robertson said his property’s reassessment notice showed an increase he described as a 65% rise and asked whether anything could be done. Commissioner of the Revenue Hamley Crabtree and other county staff explained appeal options: taxpayers may contact the commissioner’s office and may request a hearing before the Board of Equalization to seek an adjustment to the assessed value.

County staff and board members flagged several follow-up items for supervisors: finalize the advertised tax-rate range and publish the legal notice for the budget hearing (advertisement scheduled to run before the public hearing on April 8 in the meeting record), continue monitoring regional jail costs and state per-diem reimbursements for state-responsible inmates, and finalize debt-service schedules for planned projects. Staff also noted uncertainty in some state budget items because the governor had announced potential amendments to the state budget that could change local funding obligations.

The board recessed and scheduled a continuation meeting to finalize tax-rate decisions and complete the budget process.

Ending: The meeting closed after the board approved the listed tabs and set a continuation to complete the budget/tax-rate decision; staff were directed to proceed with the advertised legal notices and to continue work on outstanding budget clarifications.