Roanoke County outlines how property reassessments affect tax bills; officials report median assessment at about 94% of sales

Roanoke County officials told the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 10 that the county conducts in‑house reassessments for roughly 46,000 parcels and aims to value properties at 100% of fair market value, but current countywide statistics put the median assessed value at about 94% of recent sale prices.

“We have over 46,000 parcels that we have to assess every year,” County Administrator Richard Kegwood said during a detailed briefing on how assessments are calculated and how they relate to local taxes and the county budget. He added: “As of January 1 … we’re sitting right around 94% as a county.”

Why it matters: real‑estate assessments are the principal local revenue base for Roanoke County and support schools and public safety. Kegwood, joined by CFO Lori Gearhart and Ken Fey, director of real estate evaluation, outlined the mechanics used to set values (comparables, GIS imagery and listing photographs) and the statistical measures the county monitors for fairness, including price‑related differential and coefficient‑of‑dispersion metrics used to detect bias across neighborhoods.

The presentation noted that Virginia law requires localities to target 100% of market value and that acceptable statistical ranges used nationally typically sit near a 100% target (the county cited a commonly accepted ratio range of 91%–105%). County staff told supervisors the county’s price‑related differential is about 1.007, a figure the staff said indicates assessments are balanced across lower‑ and higher‑priced homes.

Board members asked staff for follow‑up materials. Several supervisors praised Ken Fey and appraisal staff for local knowledge of neighborhoods and asked that the briefing be posted to county social media and the website so residents can review the slides and data. One member highlighted that the board has cut the real‑estate tax rate by six cents in recent years and asked staff to circulate an example of what that reduction meant for an individual taxpayer; the presentation used a $275 example of avoided billing tied to the 6¢ reduction.

County staff also explained the appeals process: residents can first contact assessment staff to review the basis of a valuation and, if unresolved, pursue a formal appeal to the Board of Equalization (the county reported nine appeals last year, six of which resulted in valuation changes).

Next steps: the board is balancing assessment results, weaker than‑expected sales‑tax receipts and other revenue pressures as it finalizes the budget. Kegwood told the board a housing study and an upcoming work session will provide policy options — such as adjustments to the real‑estate tax rate, budgeting choices, or operational efficiencies — but the county will not change assessments to meet a revenue target; any change in taxes would be a separate policy decision for the board.

The Board took no vote on tax‑rate changes during the meeting; supervisors directed staff to distribute the presentation materials and to return with additional details at future budget and work‑session meetings.