BoS Sets Property Tax Rate

Though budget discussion are ongoing, the Albemarle Board of Supervisors voted unanimously this afternoon to set a property tax rate of $0.68 per $100 of assessed value, the county announced in a press release. After county assessments climbed by 15%, county staff proposed a 5.6% spending increase. Supervisors initially had widely divergent views on what the tax rate should be, with a plurality supporting $0.68, and one member each supporting $0.71, $0.72, and $0.74. (Lowering it to $0.58 would have left the average tax bill unchanged.) The board took a stab at a $0.65 rate, but that didn’t pass.

04/12 Update: Jeremy Borden has an engaging look at how $0.68 was arrived at in today’s Progress. Supervisor Dennis Rooker points out that rate is the minimum required, just enough to fund schools at last year’s levels and provide raises to keep teacher salaries competitive.

12 thoughts on “BoS Sets Property Tax Rate”

  1. A more appropriate headline may have been “BOS Raises Property Tax Rate by 17%.” I wonder what my boss’s reaction will be when I ask for my 17% salary increase this morning?

  2. What we really need is to change the whole paradigm. Voters need to demand that supervisors, state delegates, senators and state-wide officials support an end to the growth tax. Owner-occupied primary homes ought to have their assessments frozen and put the onus of increased valuation on new purchasers of real estate, who should have assessments at their actual purchase price. This would recognize that existing residents have already paid for the infrastructure that new residents benefit from without cost. It would also put the burden of paying for new infrastructure and services on the new residents who create the demand for the increased expenses.

    This quibbling over pennies, which translates into several hundred dollars of additional taxes homeowners is a sucker’s game. Can’t our elected officials have a broader vision of how to achieve some tax equity?

  3. I’m voting against every single incumbent in the next couple of local elections. I’m voting against Rob Bell for failing to do anything in Richmond towards allowing us to stop reassessing real estate and I’m voting against the current BoS for the tax hike.

    “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more.”

  4. Jack I understand your anger and voting against every BOS would send a message. However I haven’t seen a single challenger who called for a lower rate than was passed. The challenger’s silence speaks volumes. I wish local news would ask them how they would have voted now.

    I don’t know how voting for people who would not reduce your taxes would be a positive step. The Supes who voted for 65 cent rate are the ones running for re-election.

    I do hope anyone unhappy with the tax rate will make their voice heard to the supervisors and the folks who are running against them. If this dies down in a month or two it will signal the politicians that voters have no memory.

  5. Perlogik,

    Then I will write-in ‘Mickey Mouse.’ Or better yet, ‘No New Property Taxes.’ I wonder if that would even get tallied if a couple hundred people wrote that in?

  6. The Supes who voted for 65 cent rate are the ones running for re-election.

    That’s true, but even those Supes were in favor of a 12% tax increase. Harry’s absolutely right – putting the growth tax burden on the backs of the people who are not generating it is patently unfair.

    It’s kind of funny to hear the BoS reject a soccer park on the basis of wanting to stick to the comprehensive plan and control growth. I wonder if their decision might have been different if the plan were for a subdivision that would generate tax revenue?

  7. It’s a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to complain about tax rate increases year-to-year. I agree completely that we need accountability – however, there is a continuing growth in unfunded mandates (both federal and state) that must be met, continued growth in insurance, energy, and other costs that must also be met. Here’s a nice document I found that pertains specifically to the impact of unfunded mandates in Fairfax county (sorry, I don’t have a more local version) — it makes for interesting reading:

  8. Big Al, I remember when SOCA got approve for their current site in 1998. At the time they said they would never need more than was being approved. In some ways all the supervisors were doing was holding them to that promise.

Comments are closed.