Lynchburg hears hours of public comment on proposed tax increase; council does not adopt a rate

Lynchburg city council spent an evening hearing wide-ranging public comment April 22 on the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget and real property tax rate, with no tax rate adopted at the meeting.

The city manager presented an operating and capital budget that relies on a manager‑proposed real property tax rate (previously discussed in the budget process) and drew both sustained support and sharp criticism during the public hearing. Speakers who urged maintaining the manager’s proposal pointed to school facility needs, library repairs and employee pay. Opponents urged lowering the tax rate to avoid sharply higher bills for homeowners and renters.

Officials debated several formal motions on the council floor. One motion, as read into the record, would have set the tax rate at the equalization rate of 0.767 per $100 of assessed value and directed the city attorney to prepare an ordinance for formal adoption; that motion was discussed but the city attorney advised the council it raised procedural and legal concerns if adopted before all budget public hearings and would likely be out of order. A substitute motion to set the rate at 75 cents per $100 failed for lack of a second. Later attempts to amend the agenda so the council could adopt a rate at the close of the evening’s public hearings were debated and ultimately did not pass. After the debate the council closed the public hearings without adopting a tax rate and scheduled further budget work sessions and meetings for follow‑up.

Residents' remarks reflected sharply different priorities. Ben Copeland, interim superintendent for Lynchburg City Schools, told the council the manager’s proposal “is a significant step in the right direction,” summarizing the division’s request and the proposed city contribution; he said the manager’s budget included a $2.71 million increase to the city’s portion of the schools’ operating budget and multi‑year capital funding. Supporters said facility work, classroom staffing, substitute coverage and pay competitiveness for teachers and staff depend on increased local funding.

Many homeowners and renters urged the council to protect taxpayers on fixed incomes. Several speakers gave personal examples of assessment increases of 30%–50% and said those rising assessments, if paired with the manager’s rate, would produce large year‑over‑year tax increases. Landlords told council they would pass higher property taxes on to tenants. Other speakers argued that cuts to city services would harm the most vulnerable and hamper economic growth.

City officials also sought legal clarity on timing. The city attorney pointed to Virginia Code §58.1‑3321 and explained how advertising and scheduling rules for tax hearings intersect with budget hearings, and staff advised that suspending or accelerating formal vote procedures could pose legal or procedural risks. After the meeting council members and staff said they would use upcoming work sessions to review options, weigh trade‑offs and return with recommendations before the formal readings of the budget ordinance.