Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident accuses Roanoke city officials of deceptive handling of proposed real‑estate tax change
Summary
A resident told council the city’s statements at a public hearing mischaracterized a statutory tax-rate reduction triggered by rising revenue, arguing the resolution effectively proposes raising the real-estate tax rate and that the public hearing may have been improperly combined with the budget hearing.
A Roanoke resident told City Council on Thursday that public statements made before a budget hearing misled the public about a possible real‑estate tax increase and flagged a potential violation of state notice rules.
David Garland said council members and the city attorney told the public there was “no proposal to increase the real estate tax rate,” but he argued that under the state code language cited at the hearing the rate would automatically have to fall to $1.13 unless council votes to set the rate at $1.22. “There is an increase in play because the rate would have to become $1.13 or less unless you approve setting the upcoming rate to increase to $1.22,” Garland said.
Garland cited a state code provision in the meeting (transcript reference: “58.1 dash 3 3 21 subsection a”) and pointed to paragraph b of the same section that, he said, requires a separate public hearing if council seeks to increase the reduced rate. He asked whether the city had met that requirement because the public hearing at which the tax matter was considered was held at the same time as the annual budget hearing on April 1, he said.
“Headlines should have read tax rates going down by law unless council votes to raise it,” Garland told the council, adding he opposed setting the rate at $1.22. He also said he would email council a fuller copy of his remarks.
Council and staff did not provide a legal determination during the public comments period. The city attorney and finance staff are the offices that would advise council on statutory compliance; council members directed staff to follow up on public inquiries and to provide responses through the city manager’s office as appropriate.
Garland’s remarks will be part of the public record for the budget process; council members and staff indicated they would review the statutory questions raised and report back to the public.
