Gloucester County presents proposed FY26 budget, proposes 4.3¢ real-estate tax increase

Gloucester County staff on Monday presented a proposed fiscal year 2026 budget totaling $188,900,000 and advertised a proposed 4.3¢ real-estate tax increase to maintain current services and fund capital projects.

Miss Steele, a county staff presenter, said the proposal “is a condensed version of the proposed budget” that had been discussed at earlier work sessions and a town hall. The presentation, given with Maria Callaway, the county CFO, listed capital projects, personnel changes and revenue pressures that underlie the request.

The proposed budget would fund two large capital items by borrowing: Gloucester Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station 1 and a substantial HVAC program for the school system. The county also proposes a 3% cost-of-living adjustment for county employees and an additional 6% adjustment for 911 dispatchers that “was forwarded from the state to us,” Callaway said. Utilities rates underpinning the utilities fund were balanced on a previously approved 14% rate increase, staff said.

Why it matters: County officials told residents that limited or flat revenue growth—particularly in real-estate taxes—plus rising expenditures and inflation are driving the request. Callaway said the general fund for operations totals about $88.5 million (the larger county budget totals $188.9 million) and that most general-fund revenue comes from property taxes, explaining the proposed 4.3¢ increase.

More detail from staff: Callaway described the general fund makeup: roughly 48% of the general fund moves to schools and other funds, with the remaining 52% covering operations. Public safety represents the largest single portion of operational spending. The presentation also highlighted a new grant fund budgeted at $2,462,000, of which about $2,000,000 is grant revenue and $396,000 is funded from the general fund. The capital improvement plan includes about $3.8 million in PAYGO funding drawn from fund balance; the board policy aims to keep a 14–16% fund balance. Staff noted about $6 million in financing for a sports complex is not currently funded in the plan.

Public comment: Representatives from local nonprofit and regional service providers addressed the board during the budget hearing. The Bay Aging representative requested that the board consider a 3% increase to maintain services, noting prior-year services for Gloucester included more than 35,000 home-delivered meals and more than 23,000 home-care hours. David Foles, transit director for Bay Transit, asked for a 3% increase for transit operations and described microtransit usage—about 20,639 rides last year—half of which were work-related.

Ken Hickman, finance director for Middle Peninsula Northern Neck Behavioral Health, requested $225,760 (about a 10.8% increase) to meet a 10% local-match requirement imposed on community services board budgets and said his agency provided 60,688 services to 1,154 unduplicated Gloucester clients in FY24. Jim Camp of Gloucester Matthews Humane Society asked the board to restore the humane society’s funding to $97,000 (the organization says funding was cut by $17,370 in FY24). Arlene Armentor of Gloucester Matthews Care Clinic requested a $10,000 (16%) increase to cover growing patient demand and workforce shortages; she said Medicaid patients now make up 47% of the clinic’s caseload but only about 7% of its revenue.

Citizen commenters urged the board to weigh requests carefully amid widespread pressures on household budgets. Several residents recommended tighter internal spending controls and questioned whether across-the-board pay raises are prudent in a year of constrained revenues. Board members acknowledged those concerns and said further deliberations are scheduled.

Board comments and next steps: Several supervisors thanked residents and outside organizations for attending and noted that multiple budget work sessions remain. A supervisor clarified a question about the compensation study: staff said the larger $690,000 figure refers to the cost of implementing recommendations (what staff called “right-sizing” pay), not the survey instrument itself. The board opened and then closed the public hearings for the budget and, separately, for the proposed tax levies; no action on adoption was taken at the meeting. Staff said the board intends to continue budget deliberations in work sessions and aim for adoption on April 30.

Votes and formal actions: The meeting contained no final votes on the budget or tax rates. The only recorded formal motion with an outcome was a motion to adjourn, which the board approved by voice vote.

Ending: The board encouraged residents to attend upcoming budget work sessions (staff scheduled additional meetings in late April) and said the proposed tax and budget rates will be discussed further before any formal adoption.