Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Accomack County administrator proposes 5¢ real-estate tax increase to shore up EMS fund; cigarette tax, COLA and health premiums also highlighted

2629029 · February 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County Administrator Mike Mason presented Accomack County’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget on Feb. 3, asking the Board of Supervisors to approve a 5¢ real-estate tax increase dedicated to emergency medical services and a 10¢ increase to the county cigarette tax to stabilize EMS funding and cover rising costs.

County Administrator Mike Mason presented Accomack County’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget to the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 3, asking the board to consider a 5¢ increase in the real-estate tax dedicated solely to the county’s Emergency Medical Services fund and a 10¢ increase in the county cigarette tax to address shortages and rising costs.

Mason emphasized that the proposal is balanced and framed the tax increases as narrowly targeted adjustments tied to specific needs. “This budget is balanced,” Mason said. He said the proposed 5¢ real-estate tax increase “is designated for emergency medical services” and would not expand services, but would stabilize a fund where personnel costs currently far outstrip dedicated revenue.

The proposal also includes a 3% cost-of-living adjustment for full- and part-time county employees effective July 1, 2025, and anticipates a sharp rise in health-insurance premiums. Mason told the board his planning assumption for FY 2026 is a roughly 20% increase in the county’s employer share of health premiums and said some recent vendor data placed that number closer to 24%.

Why it matters

Mason said the EMS fund is structurally imbalanced: it relies primarily on local real-estate and personal-property taxes and already covers compensation for roughly 65 full-time career staff and related benefits. He laid out multi-year fund-balance projections showing the EMS fund moving into deficit in FY 2026 unless revenues are increased or expenditures reduced. “If we don’t do the tax increase, we have to find savings somewhere else to cover it,” Mason told the board when asked about alternatives. A supervisor framed the choice bluntly: “Either increase the rate or lay off EMT.”

Key details and initiatives

- EMS tax: Mason proposed increasing the county real-estate tax by 5¢ dedicated to EMS. He said 1¢ of the county real-estate tax generates about $517,000 in revenue; a 5¢ increase would therefore yield roughly $2.6 million annually. Mason said the increase is intended to address multi-year deficits driven largely by personnel and benefit costs, including overtime and rising PPE and medical-director expenses.

- Cigarette tax: The proposal raises the county cigarette tax from $0.20 per pack to $0.30 per pack. Mason noted Virginia law caps county cigarette taxes at $0.40 per pack and that neighboring localities such as Northampton and the town of Chincoteague have adopted higher rates.

- Employee compensation and benefits: The budget includes a 3% cost-of-living adjustment for county employees and state-supported local positions to align with the governor’s proposed state pay actions. Mason warned the health-insurance premium increase will be a major driver of costs: under the shared-cost model used by the county the employer and employee shares would both rise if premiums increase.

- Staffing: The proposed FY 2026 budget keeps total full-time equivalents near current levels (Mason said the county has 366 FTEs) and recommends adding two positions (an animal-control officer and an EMS drug-box compliance/manager position), bringing the total to 368 FTEs.

- One-time capital and program requests: Mason identified about $8.9 million available for one-time initiatives (drawn from unassigned fund balance and projected investment income) and listed a number of priority capital or one-time projects, including $3.55 million for wastewater needs in northern Accomack, $900,000 for an access road at Wilds Research Park (near Wallops/NASA property), $500,000 for ERP software implementation restart costs, $250,000 for a needs-based PPE grant program for volunteer fire and rescue companies, and $1.15 million for parks and recreation projects (including an amphitheater and senior programming).

- Schools and mandates: The presentation includes a projected additional $314,000 for the Accomack County Public Schools, driven by the county’s existing formula (Mason said roughly 52% of recurring growth in qualifying general-fund revenues is shared with the schools). Mason noted some state and federally mandated items such as Comprehensive Services Act costs and the county’s comprehensive-plan update.

Board reaction and next steps

Supervisors pressed Mason for details about alternatives, timelines and the consequences of inaction. When asked if a failure to raise the EMS tax would require layoffs, Mason replied that the county would have to “find savings somewhere else to cover it,” and a supervisor later said publicly he did not support laying off EMS staff.

The board set a schedule for continuing budget work. Mason and the board discussed upcoming departmental presentations and dates for deliberation and adoption; Mason said the county must advertise the budget and hold a public hearing, and he projected an earliest practical adoption date in late March if scheduling allows.

Other discussion highlights

- Volunteer fire-and-rescue support: Supervisors discussed the county’s financial relationship with volunteer companies and asked staff to compile historical data about county contributions to volunteers and how those contributions have changed. Mason proposed a $250,000 one-time needs-based PPE grant program for volunteer companies.

- Landfill and debt: Mason described landfill capacity and timing for new cell construction; the county’s current debt levels provide room to borrow if necessary, and no new debt issuance is proposed in FY 2026.

What was not decided

The presentation is the board’s receipt of the proposed budget; no final adoption of the FY 2026 budget occurred at the Feb. 3 meeting. The board voted only to adopt the meeting agenda at the start of the session. Any tax-rate changes or appropriations would require later board action after public notice and a hearing.

Ending

Mason told the board the FY 2026 proposal reflects the county’s strategic priorities and that staff will return with department-level requests and more detailed worksheets during the scheduled budget sessions. The supervisors agreed to continue deliberations in the coming weeks toward advertisement, a public hearing and eventual adoption.