Surry County adopts 2026–27 budget, holds tax rate steady at 51.3 cents while funding schools, landfill reserve and DSS positions

The Surry County Board of Commissioners voted on June 2 to adopt the recommended 2026–27 budget, keeping the countywide tax rate at 51.3 cents and approving a package of school allocations, capital purchases and limited personnel additions.

County Manager Chris Knoff presented the recommended budget, telling the board the fee and rate changes are intended to keep operations solvent: "We're not here trying to figure out how much we can squeeze out of people on these fees and schedule changes ... we're simply trying to keep up with the cost of doing business," he said. The board adopted the budget on a voice vote after motions and a second from commissioners present.

Why it matters: the adopted package maintains the county tax rate, funds school current expenses and capital lines, restores some capital outlay after conservative cuts in the prior year, directs money toward landfill long-term obligations, and allows targeted staff increases in the Department of Social Services (DSS).

Key allocations and decisions
- Tax rate: The recommended and adopted rate remains 51.3 cents. Staff reminded the board that the 2025 revaluation yielded a revenue-neutral rate of 49.6 cents and that the first formal forecast tied to the audit is expected in the fall/early 2027 audit cycle.
- Schools: The recommended current expense per pupil is $1,355 (up from $1,330). Capital per pupil is recommended at $339 (up from $330). The three-county-schools supplement remains recommended at $350,000 (the school systems had requested a larger $1.55 million supplement this year). Surry Community College’s recommended allocation is $3,516,000 (current year: $3,355,000); a separate $1 million T-building request would be handled through debt issuance and is not part of the regular allocation.
- Capital outlay: Countywide capital requests totaled nearly $7.3 million; the recommended budget funds $2,137,480 in capital items, including HVAC replacements, server and site-recovery upgrades, ambulance remounts and select vehicle replacements for public safety and county operations.
- Landfill tipping fee and reserve: Staff reported the landfill enterprise fund shows a total net-position deficit (audit) just under $1.7 million and noted estimated landfill closure/post-closure care costs of roughly $8 million. To begin replenishing a landfill capital fund, the recommended tipping fee increase is from $52 to $58 per ton; the proposal splits the $6 increase so $3 covers immediate inflationary costs and $3 is allocated to the landfill capital/closure fund. Staff said additional revenue transfers and longer-term options remain under consideration.
- DSS personnel: The county manager limited new position additions to social services because of caseload and state recommendations. The recommended personnel actions include a quality assurance specialist, a social work supervisor, an investigative assessment and treatment worker, reclassification of two income-maintenance positions, and an optional 2% cost-of-living adjustment. The board will place expansion motions in the June 15 consent agenda.
- Outside-agency support: The adopted budget includes routine outside-agency funding lines; a $40,000 request for the Willow Tree Center (a child advocacy/forensic-interview site affiliated with the county children's center) was presented for consideration as an outside-agency allocation.

What commissioners emphasized
Commissioners repeatedly framed fee changes as necessary to maintain services rather than to increase county revenue beyond costs. Several members expressed support for revenue-neutral school tax decisions where applicable and urged consistent treatment among school-system requests.

Next steps
The manager said motions to expand positions will appear on the consent agenda for the board’s June 15 meeting. Staff will continue to refine enterprise-fund forecasts and return to the board with options to further stabilize the landfill capital fund and with follow-ups on special capital requests from local school systems.

Provenance: The article draws from the budget work session presentation and discussion beginning at the budget introduction (SEG 214) through the motion and voice vote to adopt the budget (SEG 1176–SEG 1191).