Residents urge Montgomery County supervisors to reject 5¢ real‑estate tax increase
Loading...
Summary
At an April 9 public hearing, Montgomery County residents told the Board of Supervisors a proposed 5¢ increase in the real‑estate tax (from $0.76 to $0.81 per $100 assessed value) would harm seniors and low‑income households; supporters said the increase funds schools and services.
The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors heard more than a dozen public comments April 9 on a proposed increase in the county's real‑estate tax rate that would raise the levy from $0.76 to $0.81 per $100 of assessed value.
The hearing, held under Section 58.1‑3007 of the Code of Virginia, also reviewed other property levies: personal property would remain at $2.55 per $100, machinery and tools at $1.82, and aircraft at $1.23 per $100. The Chair read the advertised rates and opened the floor to registered speakers and others who wished to comment.
Many speakers asked supervisors not to approve the increase. Angela Acres, a Christiansburg resident, said rising taxes are hurting fixed‑income retirees and working families: “The taxpayers are not ATMs, and I'm just asking you to hold the line where it is now,” she said. Laura Mercier, also a county resident, said she would like to see an audit of school spending after what she described as prior school expenditures that did not produce promised services: “I like to see an audit done on the school systems … showing just where is this money going?”
Chris Obenshain of Blacksburg highlighted the cumulative effect of consecutive increases, saying the proposed 5¢ is the third straight yearly increase and represents roughly an 11¢ rise over three years (about 15%): “Consecutive increase, increase over increase … it hurts families,” he said. Bob Barbetti urged supervisors to consider the political and practical consequences of sustained increases on residents unable to afford additional charges.
Speakers who supported the advertised increase framed it as necessary for schools and county services. Kim Bowman, who described years of operating a local food pantry, cited rising community need and urged investments that maintain services; Cara Lahas (District D) said the county should preserve services for residents who need them most and asked supervisors to review tax‑relief programs. Several commenters asked the board to pursue greater revenue from corporations or state action rather than relying solely on residential property taxes.
The hearing produced no vote. The Chair closed the first public hearing after registered speakers and others finished their remarks and noted the board will discuss the advertised rates at upcoming meetings. The county will accept written comments and materials left with the board clerk.
What happens next: the board scheduled a budget work session on April 13 where the advertised rates and budget will be discussed further; no formal adoption vote was held at the April 9 meeting.
