ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, January 22, 1997 TAG: 9701220044
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAN CASEY STAFF WRITER
MEMO: ***CORRECTION***
Published correction ran on January 23, 1997.
Real estate assessments for most Roanoke property owners increased
less than 5 percent in the city's recent real estate reappraisals. But
more than 7,000 Roanoke property owners received increases greater than
5 percent, said Will Claytor, director of real estate valuation. A story
Wednesday incorrectly quoted Claytor as saying no assessment increased
more than 5 percent.
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL is talking about lowering the real estate tax rate by several cents. Will it actually do it?
No sooner was the ink dry on city real estate assessment increases than Roanoke City Council members began talking about cutting the real estate property rate:
* There was Carroll Swain, at Tuesday afternoon's council meeting, with what he called a "dead serious" proposal to cut 4 cents off the current $1.23 rate in the next fiscal year.
Swain said he would like council to consider cutting the rate 2 cents each year for the following four years - a total rate cut of 12 cents over five years.
* Outside council chambers, Councilman Jim Trout sided with a 10-cent cut, spread over the next five years. That would take the real estate rate down to $1.13, the same as Roanoke County's.
* In his office after the meeting, Mayor David Bowers grabbed his 1995 "State of the City" address and pointed to the section where he called for nearly the same thing.
"Had council followed through on my suggestion 18 months ago, we'd now be in the second year of a long-term tax reduction schedule," Bowers said. "I'd like to have a real estate rate comparable to Roanoke County, Salem and the surrounding jurisdictions."
* Even Councilman William White seemed to favor the idea, although he phrased his support more cautiously.
"What I would like the administration to do is to look at it on a long-term basis, the effect on [our bond rating], and the possible impact on our debt service," White said. "We do have to try to find a way to relieve the burden of real estate taxes on our citizens."
White also asked the city administration to look into ending part of a tax break that exists for land zoned agricultural within Roanoke.
That seems to be four votes out of seven, enough to swing some sort of real estate tax cut in the near future. The suggestions were referred to a March 8 budget "retreat," where council will examine Roanoke's fiscal picture over the next year, and to budget study sessions in the spring.
It appears that assessment notices, which were mailed out Friday, prompted the tax-cutting talk.
At least for tax purposes, appraisals of real estate in the city increased an average 3.2 percent in the most recent round of annual reappraisals. That means real estate owners will pay an average of 3.2 percent more in taxes beginning July 1, even if the tax rate itself didn't change.
Will Claytor, director of real estate valuation, said no assessment jumped more than 5 percent.
A 3 percent increase on a house valued at $50,000 would mean the owner would pay $18.45 more in taxes next year than the $615 now paid. For the owner of a home valued at $75,000, the increase would be $27.68 annually.
Each penny council cuts from the current rate means about $350,000 less into city coffers. Thus, Swain's proposal for a 4-cent cut would mean $1.2 million less in real estate tax revenues next year. It would also essentially wipe out increased taxes next year resulting from the higher assessments.
Swain says he heard lots of talk about the tax rate when he was campaigning for council last spring, "and none of it was pleasant."
"I was subsequently hearing some things when [Claytor's] reassessment notices went out last weekend," he said. "That was not pleasant, either."
Trout calls his push for a tax cut "a bottom-line strategy." By that, he means taxpayers' bottom line, not the city's.
"Even when the rate doesn't change, if you will look at your checkbook, you will find you're writing a bigger check for increased taxes year after year," Trout said.
But all the talk did prompt some rather acid comments.
City Councilman Jack Parrott suggested the talk of cutting taxes was politically motivated.
"Since I'm running for office next time, as long as you're `just looking' at a tax decrease, why don't you look at [cutting it] 50 cents?" Parrott observed acidly. "Don't do anything - just look at it." After the meeting, he said he had been joking.
Out of council's earshot, one of its appointed officers suggested a headline for this story be "Council considers cutting taxes at the expense of teachers' salaries." The reference was to the city teachers' angry reaction 18 months ago to Bowers' proposed tax cut. They believed it would slow the School Board's efforts to raise their salaries to the national average.
And Vice Mayor Linda Wyatt, a city schoolteacher, noted that council spent most of the rest of its afternoon meeting asking City Manager Bob Herbert to spend money on items such as traffic signals, a parking lot for Lakewood Park and giving city workers an extra holiday on Christmas Eve.
"If my memory serves me correctly, council made six referrals to the city manager for services or items our citizens are needing." Wyatt said. "The reality of it is, you can't take a source of revenue out of one hand and increase the request for services on the other and keep a balanced budget."
In reality, City Finance Director Jim Grisso noted, council has been cutting the real estate tax rate and others for the past 20 years. Council last voted a cut in 1993; that took effect in 1994, when the rate went from $1.25 to $1.23.
In 1977, the city real estate rate was $1.64. Council has cut it by 41 cents per $100 of assessed valuation - or 33 percent - since then.
"I doubt you'll find a city in this country that has a record that can match that," Herbert said.
Of course, those cuts have been more than offset by assessments. The city's tax base has tripled in the same period, from roughly $1 billion in 1977 to about $3 billion today.
LENGTH: Long : 110 linesby CNB