Public hearings planned for real estate and meals tax increases

Facing a FY 27 deficit of at least $5.2 million as of April 10, the King George Board of Supervisors approved advertising a 68 cent real estate tax rate, which would equate to a 12 cent increase if ultimately adopted.

Supervisors said the advertised rate is intended only to provide flex‑ibility during the budget process. Under Virginia law, a locality may adopt a tax rate lower than the adver‑tised rate, but not higher. Still, a tax increase is likely, according to the discussion.

Based on the draft budget as of April 10, County Administrator Matt Smolnick suggested that a 10 cent increase could be needed to close the gap between projected expenditures and revenue for the upcoming fiscal year.

Smolnick noted that the FY 27 budget has grown to $145 million, up from $138.4 million in FY 26, on trend with the increase in recent years. With the current reassessment, the county now has $5.2 billion in taxable assets, compared to $4.1 bil‑lion last year.

The budget gap—the difference between proposed expenditures and projected revenue—stood at about $7.8 million during the April 10 bud‑get work session. However, Smolnick presented an option to reduce the gap to $5.2 million.

Waste Management has previously requested an increase in the allowable tonnage at the county landfill. The current annual tonnage is 1,248,000 tons, for which the county receives $5 per ton. Beginning in calendar year 2027, that rate will increase to $6 per ton.

Smolnick explained that for the first half of FY 27 (June through December 2026), the county stands to receive $3.12 million. From January through June 2027, if the landfill operates at maximum tonnage, rev‑enue could exceed $3.7 million. Combined, that would total more than $6.8 million at current tonnage levels.

If the county approved an increase to 1.6 million tons and Waste Management goes along with that, it would shorten the landfill’s life‑span but “frontload the money now,” Smolnick said. That change could generate an additional $1.9 million, though he said a more realistic esti‑mate is $1.3 million.

That additional $1.3 million would reduce the budget gap to approximately $5.2 million, assuming all cuts identified as of April 10 were accepted. Under that scenario, the county would be looking at a 10 cent real estate tax increase.

Currently, the real estate tax rate is 68 cents. Because this is a reassessment year, the equalized rate—the rate that would generate the same amount of revenue as last year despite higher property values—is 56 cents. A 10 cent increase from the equalized rate would be 66 cents.

However, the Board agreed to advertise the current 68 cent rate to maintain flexibility, knowing they may adopt a lower rate but cannot go higher. Supervisor Cathy Binder noted that advertising a rate reflecting a 12-cent potential increase will likely draw a crowd to upcoming meetings, but the Board will need to clearly communicate the reasoning behind it.

Supervisor Bryan Metts pointed out that a 10 cent increase would be consistent with the last reassessment year, FY 23, when the equalized rate was 54 cents but the county adopted 64 cents. The following fiscal year, the rate increased to 68 cents, where it has remained for the past three fiscal years, Smolnick added.

The Board has requested that Smolnick present a chart at the next meeting showing revenue projections for various tax rates within the advertised range.

Smolnick plans to present that information, along with a balanced proposed budget, at the April 22 meeting. A public hearing on a proposed meals tax increase to 6% will also be held that evening.

The current schedule calls for a May 5 public hearing on the operating budget and tax rates, followed by adoption of the budget and tax rates on May 19, along with appropriation of funds.