Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the City Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Staff compares Lynchburg to Virginia 15: among lowest real‑estate tax rates; local education spending low per capita

2901305 · April 8, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A staff presentation compared Lynchburg with the 15 largest Virginia cities and found Lynchburg’s real‑estate tax rate at $0.89 is the second‑lowest; per‑capita local contributions to public education ranked lowest among peers in the available APA 2023 data.

City staff presented comparative data on April 8 showing Lynchburg’s real‑estate tax rate at $0.89 per $100 of assessed value — the second‑lowest among the 15 largest Virginia cities — and noted the median single‑family home value in Lynchburg is $219,100, producing an average monthly real‑estate tax bill of about $162.50 for the median household.

Staff used 2023 comparative data from the Commonwealth’s Auditor of Public Accounts, noting the APA figures predate Lynchburg’s more recent rate reduction (from $1.11 to $0.89). The presentation grouped cities that are most comparable to Lynchburg (Roanoke, Harrisonburg, Charlottesville, Danville) and showed that Lynchburg’s combined taxes and fees (real‑estate, personal property, motor vehicle license, trash fee and consumer utility taxes) totaled, in the staff example household, about $232.19 per month — less than a typical residential electric bill cited in the presentation.

The APA per‑capita figures for 2023 showed Lynchburg near the top half of peers for public safety and public works spending per capita, but at or near the bottom for parks/recreation/culture and the lowest per‑capita local contribution to public education among the compared localities, staff said. Presenters noted these APA figures do not include state contributions to K‑12 funding and that differences in enrollment, composite index and local demographics affect comparisons.

Ending: Staff said the comparison is intended to provide context during budget deliberations and recommended further analysis (for example using ADM enrollment or adjusted metrics) if council wants deeper comparisons; councilmembers suggested the data could inform legislative priorities, including advocating for state adjustments to human‑services funding formulas that currently rely on population measures rather than caseload.