Residents at Washington County public hearing urge board to limit tax increase as reassessments jump

Board of Supervisors members opened a public hearing March 25 on a proposed real estate tax rate range of 44¢ to 46¢ per $100 of assessed value, required under section 58.1‑3321 of the Code of Virginia. County staff said the county administrator’s recommended operating budget is based on a rate of 44¢ per $100.

The hearing drew more than 20 residents who described steep reassessments, rising utility and insurance costs, and the strain those increases impose on seniors and fixed‑income households. “We are stretched to the breaking point,” said Cindy Patterson, a longtime resident and farmer. “Please cut spending, keep our total tax bill the same, or by all means lower the tax rate.”

Why it matters: A countywide reassessment has raised many residential values by large percentages in 2025, increasing tax bills unless the Board lowers the tax rate. Commenters warned that higher tax bills, combined with rising electric and water costs, risk pushing seniors and longtime residents to leave and could reduce local spending at small businesses.

Public testimony. Sheila O’Quinn, who identified herself as a senior recovering from cancer, told supervisors she could not absorb further increases in housing and grocery costs. Nancy Campbell, another longtime resident, said her assessed value doubled again this year even though she reported no home improvements.

Several speakers described “double taxation” for residents who also pay town taxes (for example, Damascus) and urged the county to use casino revenue and other new income to avoid raising the real property tax. “With the influx of cash that you’re getting from the casino and other places, it wouldn’t be a bad idea” to keep the rate unchanged, Campbell said.

Other themes included concerns about the reassessment process: residents reported difficulty obtaining reassessment data, delays in Board of Equalization hearings, and contested inspections. Janet Rasnick said she was told her appeal would not be heard until September, after tax bills are due in May; she asked how taxpayers can plan under that schedule.

Board responses and clarifications. Supervisors acknowledged the pressure residents described and outlined steps for relief and review. Supervisor (Chair) Mr. Ball said residents should call the Commissioner of Revenue to request appointments and explained the board approved an elderly/disabled tax‑relief ordinance earlier in the year; staff said eligibility is income‑ and net‑worth‑based and that people should apply.

County staff explained some budget drivers residents cited. Supervisors said new debt service — notably a courthouse project and a $17 million radio/tower upgrade for emergency communications — adds roughly three cents to the tax rate. County officials also said Washington County is participating in a regional jail cost‑sharing arrangement; higher inmate populations this year produced an expected additional charge to the county.

Multiple residents questioned why the county keeps a large fund balance (about $29.6 million). Supervisors said the 16% reserve is a locally set policy used to maintain a strong bond rating and secure lower interest rates when the county issues debt; it is not a state mandate.

Process and timing. No final tax rate was adopted at the meeting. Supervisors said they will continue budget deliberations and hear major department budgets (schools, sheriff’s office, EMS/fire) at a Thursday workshop and expect to set the tax rate at that subsequent meeting. “We still have more discussions … we’re trying to find anywhere where there’s room in this budget so that we can take that number as low as possible,” Ball said.

What was not decided. The board did not adopt a tax rate or change reassessment results at the hearing. Several residents requested broader reassessments or judicial review; county lawyers said challenging the mass reassessment would require litigation and that the county must work within existing assessments unless a court orders otherwise.

Ending note. The Board left the public hearing open for the scheduled process but signaled it would continue to weigh requests for relief, including the county’s elderly and disabled tax‑relief options and potential budget adjustments. The tax‑rate decision is scheduled for the board’s next meeting.