Accomack supervisors hold hearings on FY 2026 budget; propose 5¢ real‑estate increase dedicated to EMS, cigarette tax doubled

Accomack County Administrator Mike Mason presented the county’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget and two separate public hearings on tax rates, describing a proposal that would raise the county real‑estate tax by five cents to 53.4¢ per $100 of assessed value to address a structural shortfall in the county’s emergency medical services (EMS) fund and raise the county cigarette tax from 20¢ to 40¢ per pack.

Mason said the county would deposit “all revenues generated from this increase … into the county's EMS special revenue fund and [they would be] used exclusively to pay emergency medical services.” He told the board the EMS fund currently faces a structural imbalance and that without recurring revenue the fund is projected to move into deficit in FY 2026.

Why it matters: The county says the EMS tax increase is targeted to cover recurring EMS personnel and operating costs — roughly the compensation for about 65 full‑time career EMS positions — and is intended to stop repeated draws on fund balance. Board members and residents framed the matter as a choice between recurring revenue and cutting services or repeatedly using one‑time funds.

Mason told the board the overall proposed FY 2026 budget is 6.8% higher than FY 2025, driven mainly by an increase in one‑time capital spending (from about $6.0 million last year to $8.5 million proposed for FY 2026). Operating costs are proposed to rise 4.4% while the capital budget would grow about 39.8%. The package includes a $972,000 transfer to the county rainy‑day fund, targeted compensation adjustments and a 3% cost‑of‑living increase for county and state‑supported local positions, and a net increase of about 5.5 full‑time equivalents (FTE) including 4.5 FTE for school resource officers (bringing the county total of SROs to seven) and one compliance officer tied to an EMS drug box program. The proposed total county FTE would rise to about 371 if approved as presented.

On revenue, Mason said the county projects a $2.7 million increase in property tax receipts under the proposal; roughly $2.0 million of that is estimated to come from the proposed EMS component increase. He illustrated taxpayer impact several ways: the county estimated an additional $50 in annual taxes for every $100,000 of assessed value under the full 5¢ increase and said the median improved property (assessed at $151,400) would see taxes rise from about $733 to about $808 annually (about $75 per year) under the new rate.

Citizen comment: Pedro Baez, who gave his address to the board, said he opposed the real‑estate tax increase while affirming that “EMS is an essential service.” Baez urged the board to consider alternatives, including using investment income or other general‑fund sources and increasing the cigarette excise tax further. He also noted a roughly 11% rise in real‑estate taxes from FY 2021 to FY 2025 and described the FY 2026 proposal as part of a larger increase for some property owners.

Board discussion: Supervisors noted legal limits on local revenue sources under state law and the Dillon Rule; Mason and board members explained counties can levy cigarette taxes only up to the 40¢ per pack statutory cap and lack authority to enact a local income tax. Several supervisors said they did not favor raising taxes lightly but that recurring expenditures should not be funded with one‑time reserves. One supervisor warned using one‑time capital funds to cover recurring EMS costs would be “robbing Peter to pay Paul” and said doing so would require further cuts or tax increases later; another said failing to fill the EMS funding gap with recurring revenue could require cutting paid EMS positions and reduce staffing at volunteer stations.

Process and next steps: The board did not adopt the advertised budget or tax rates at the hearing; Mason reminded the board that, per the Code of Virginia, the board is prohibited from adopting the advertised budget before April 14, 2025 (the transcript states a 7‑day no‑action period between the hearing and earliest adoption date). The board scheduled continuing discussion; the presentation and supporting documents are available on the county’s BoardDocs page for public review. The county clerk also announced a 30‑day public comment period and a later hearing on a proposed change to a polling‑place location; the clerk said the public comment period would open in late April and run for 30 days (details and official dates are posted on the county website).