[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6656248,"mediaKeyId","5334393-f66a77f1478b621afe0f107c9153983a","parentId",5334393,"title","Citizen criticizes Lynchburg budget process; staff urges adopting budget now and returning in August to reconcile restorations","audioSeconds",4798,"startMs",914000,"endMs",5712000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5334393-f66a77f1478b621afe0f107c9153983a&start=914&end=5712","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5334393-f66a77f1478b621afe0f107c9153983a/thumbnail_914000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6656248/Lynchburg/Campbell-County/Virginia/Citizen-criticizes-Lynchburg-budget-process-staff-urges-adopting-budget-now-and-returning-in-August-to-reconcile-restorations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6656248-da1f660c5b82c70c2f14c2030e759210/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213850&Signature=VJXzpMA~zmv8bEY5eO~LtUgQXpgCzDBoMmbdo47p9Ya8IxphTGfwROtLLy35KaIPHNSF7sSszIpvvV7bZK2gPfCGUqQE9vkIG0pYlfdyiQDVoBQWITKO2QnfTM902vnfM-fOWo-R96cWnr4gSQer5wjNs01f6iEdgmLIRe7dHpXMaNuzO6C~ubeGB1KOXnOLeQfKvvhI~RL6wpi~N4sUJV04kQzWc9QOoAZaz69jp6C4~elLLJs6FbUVCmTBWTC42xDBZpM5uP6iRe5oChf2HsdJuF89kdycRZLMSRYYnKbOizYuQRyhqvETkFZNYidSWwWqEkm7Lj-80vSo0GrGwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lynchburg","date","2025-07-09T12:51:01Z","article","At Lynchburg City Council’s meeting, Peter Sefarati, who identified himself as a Ward 1 resident, criticized the recently completed budget process as rushed and poorly timed and urged procedural reforms.

“I think many of us…agree that our just completed budget process was, rushed, unorganized, and full of turmoil,” Sefarati said during the public‑comment portion. He recommended several changes including adhering to the budget calendar, providing council timely information, starting with an equalized budget proposal, making department heads available to justify spending requests, and setting the property tax rate by April to reduce contention.

Later in the meeting staff outlined a path forward for the adopted budget and services flagged for restoration. The city manager's presentation recommended that council adopt the second reading of the budget at the same level of expenditures and revenues, include services proposed for restoration, and allow staff to return on Aug. 27 with recommendations to reduce expenditures or identify revenues to sustain those restorations. As staff summarized: “Our recommendation at this point would be that council adopt the second reading of the budget at the same level of expenditure and the same level of revenue and include these services for restoration, and allow staff the opportunity to come back on August 27 with recommendations.”

Council discussion recapped that staff’s approach would permit certain services to continue July 1 while staff works through options to balance the near‑term restorations. Council members disagreed about past handling of the budget timeline and about whether added items had left the budget out of balance; staff and members agreed to return with more detailed options in August.

Sefarati urged greater transparency and timely data for future budget cycles, saying, “Provide city council with all requested information and documentation, without any delays.” The council did not change the adopted budget at this meeting; it accepted staff’s plan to proceed and to return with supplemental recommendations later this summer.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lynchburg City Council Meeting 7-8-2025","oneSentenceSummary","A Ward 1 resident told council the recent budget process was rushed and disorganized. City staff recommended adopting the budget at current spending levels, restoring several services now, and returning with options in late August to cover the additional costs.","taxTitle","Lynchburg, Campbell County, Virginia","taxId",3745,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6656253,"Lynchburg council agrees to seek ordinance change after dispute over ‘perpetual’ real‑estate tax language",1930,1268000,3198000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5334393-f66a77f1478b621afe0f107c9153983a&start=1268&end=3198","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5334393-f66a77f1478b621afe0f107c9153983a/thumbnail_1268000.jpg","/articles/6656253/Lynchburg/Campbell-County/Virginia/Lynchburg-council-agrees-to-seek-ordinance-change-after-dispute-over-perpetual-realestate-tax-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6656253-d1ee626ce03876bb4c933edb62c55e88/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213850&Signature=gzSZ8yd013t6DjoK4Ommoiv5WiTcD4csGKID2Lnfy83umQFmr9SiHVxik9Zma-dSKgOxpWGc6EXLr5tCBNok15hPSF-gaHN51YtvkRp4Xx2dvCjUv8s6amlJrT-wU1QeMyq3js6k8baXQUpNdu~pP25AjQldZjUJPTK0RKMg4TBOt~Mhjoz4sc2FQgJ~O13Yxe7v21dMA-xTygdz-PS76g3pQwzJtaQGP5JssLsAIeS2JkWN7v~BZwTZMw1rVtrMrFVFCEvv7vunjfZOc30oyMAlzrEbEfbigLvyb1hTR5m7ex~RGzdNWtpOnEIE3eKiZ5R7Fktkys5clonzZGo35A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lynchburg City Council members spent more than two hours on procedural arguments and policy claims over language in an ordinance that some members said would allow an automatic, recurring real‑estate tax increase.

The debate centered on language in Ordinance 025‑055 that, as written, said the real‑estate tax rate would continue “each and every fiscal year thereafter beginning July 1 and ending June 30 of each such year unless otherwise changed by council.” Council members including Chris Feraldi called that a “magic tax increase” and urged the council to remove it so the council must vote a rate each year.

The dispute touched on state law. Council Member Tammer (identified in the meeting as Council Member Timmer) read aloud Code of Virginia section 58.1‑3321, which describes how a locality should reduce its levy when reassessments would otherwise increase total levies by 1% or more and how the governing body may, after a public hearing, increase the rate above the reduced rate if necessary. Timmer said, “the way that this is written violates the state code,” and supported striking the perpetual‑increase language.

The city attorney advised council members that the technically correct way to change text in an already‑adopted ordinance is to bring a new ordinance showing the proposed amendment rather than to attempt to re‑write a signed ordinance on the dais. The attorney told the council, “If a majority wants to go this road…do a new ordinance instead of revisiting a signed ordinance because the public should be able to have the right to see what we’re presenting at a meeting.”

Council members debated procedure and motives. Feraldi, speaking repeatedly during the discussion, said the text risked removing public accountability: “If we’re gonna go forward with this ordinance the way it is…you’re voting to take away your power to have any influence over it going in the future,” he said. Other members argued the language had long existed in city code and that a new ordinance should be drafted carefully to preserve continuity if necessary.

After extended discussion, Council Member Feraldi withdrew an immediate motion to reconsider the adopted ordinance and instead moved that the council return in August with a properly drafted ordinance to strike the perpetual tax language. Council members agreed to direct the city attorney to prepare a proposed ordinance for consideration at the council’s next regular meeting on August 26, 2025. The city attorney reiterated that the proposed amendment should be presented as a stand‑alone ordinance so that the public can see the exact text being changed.

The council’s debate included a separate procedural vote earlier in the meeting to take up a related calendar item; later in the session the council adopted its calendar item for general business unanimously and confirmed the next scheduled meeting for August 26 at 4 p.m.

The council did not adopt the substance of a new ordinance at this meeting; it instructed staff to prepare and present a draft ordinance for a future vote. Formal change to the ordinance will require an ordinance ordinance vote after the text is published and the public has had an opportunity to review it.","After a contentious public exchange about ordinance language that some council members called a “magic” tax increase, the council directed the city attorney to prepare a new ordinance to remove perpetual tax‑increase language and return with it at the August 26 meeting for formal consideration.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Citizen criticizes Lynchburg budget process; staff urges adopting budget now and returning in August to reconcile restorations

Lynchburg council agrees to seek ordinance change after dispute over ‘perpetual’ real‑estate tax language