NEWS: York County Supervisors Approve Real Estate Tax Increase for FY26 Budget
$291M budget includes cost-of-living increase for County staff + public safety enhancements
At their meeting on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, the York County Board of Supervisors voted to approve the County’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget totaling $291M on a 4-1 vote. The Board also voted 4-1 to raise the County’s real estate property tax rate to 78 cents per 100 dollars in assessed value, a four cent increase over FY25. The personal property tax rate will also increase to $4 per $100 assessed value. Other increases approved by the Board include increased fees for solid waste, building and zoning.
As previously reported by the Williamsburg Independent, much of the additional funding will be used to provide a 4% cost of living increase as well as an additional one-time $500 bonus. Douglas Holroyd, the Board’s Vice Chair and District 1 Supervisor, spoke about the budget by pointing out the key factors driving its growth. “If I look at just the basic cost of living increase for staff, including the schools, add all that money up, it’s a four-and-a-half cent increase to the budget … And we came in at four … We did our job,” he said. The lone vote against the budget and tax increases came from District 3 Supervisor Wayne Drewry.
The FY 2026 Budget and Appropriation of Funds includes:
General Fund - $200.2M
School system - $78M
Public safety - $59M
Public works - $13M
Internal Service Funds - $33.5M - health and dental, workers’ compensation, vehicle maintenance, information technology
Enterprise Funds - $32.3M - external providers of goods and services like solid waste management
Debt Service Funds - $31.7M - receipt and payment of bonds and loans
Capital Projects Funds - $23.0M - facilities and equipment
Special Revenue Funds - $19.7M - restricted funds for tourism, social services, grants and more
Increased funding focused on staff wages and public safety
The Board of Supervisor approved multiple increases in the budget in several key operational categories including employee compensation and public safety. For example, the FY26 budget includes an additional $2.5M for increased “employee compensation and benefits” as well as $2.4M for “public safety enhancements.”
York County Administrator Mark Bellamy spoke to the impact of the Boards’ budget. “What did you buy in this budget? You bought a fully accredited, award-winning school division. That is first and foremost. We take pride in this and I know you all do,” he said while addressing the Board at the meeting. He continued by stating the County also boasts “[an] accredited and award winning sheriff’s department, and we added five deputies.” Bellamy also pointed to investments in public safety technology, library services as well as public spaces and grass cutting.
Funding for capital improvement
At the meeting, the Board also voted 4-1 to adopt a new 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY26-FY31, which covers the County’s building and equipment needs. Supervisor Drewry was the lone dissenting vote.
A slide presented by Bellamy indicates that the County tentatively expects to spend $218M from the General Fund on these projects over that time period, including:
Schools - $96.9M
Public Works - $50.5M
Fire & Life Safety - $27.9M
Administrative Services - $19.1M
Emergency Communications - $12.6M
Community Services - $10.5M
Sheriff’s Office - $1.0M
Other needs paid by alternate funds may total $47M including stormwater management, sewers and water utilities.
Public input in process
District 5 Supervisor Thomas Shepperd, Jr. commended the County’s efforts to solicit public input during what was described as a 5-month budgeting process. “I go back a couple of years where the only interaction that our community pretty much had with us during the budget, would be to come to the Board meeting if they wanted to make a comment … sometimes no one showed up,” he said. Speaking about more informal events held specifically to get input, he noted “[t]his year we had two meetings, and I thought the meetings were really worthwhile – how strongly people felt about a particular issue. And that was a chance to come up and campaign for it, if you will.”
Another Member of the Board, District 4 Supervisor G. Stephen Roane, Jr. concurred with the assessment of the effectiveness of public outreach efforts. “I was really happy with the amount of engagement with the residents, staff and Board this year, all the extra meetings. I think that really sets a model standard that maybe others can look to about how to work on a budget throughout the process,” he commented.
George’s Note: I used a Google AI tool called NotebookLM to help research information for this article. If you found this post valuable, please consider buying me a cup of coffee.