Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

SUFFOLK, Virginia — The Suffolk City Council on Wednesday approved its fiscal year 2025-26 operating and capital budget by a vote of 7 to 1, and opted to maintain the current real estate tax rate of $1.07 per $100 of assessed value despite a citywide effective real estate tax increase of 4.71% resulting from recent property reassessments. The decision followed a public hearing where several citizens voiced concerns over rising property tax bills and urged the council to lower the tax rate.

Under Virginia law, localities are required to hold a public hearing or reduce the real estate tax rate if reassessment, excluding new construction, results in an increase of 1% or greater over the previous year’s total real property tax levies. With Suffolk’s assessed value increasing by 4.71% for FY25-26 due to reassessments, a reduction of 3.8 cents per $100 (to $1.03.2) would have been necessary to limit the overall increase in tax levies to no more than 1%. However, the approved budget retains the rate at $1.07.

During the public hearing, residents shared personal impacts of the rising taxes. Keon Lindsey noted his real estate taxes were up 35% in the last four years in his neighborhood, stating, “Just because home values rise doesn’t mean we should be paying more in taxes … The people of Suffolk need you to embrace the motto, when assessments go up, the tax rate must come down”. He highlighted a $53 million increase in city revenue from real estate taxes over the last four years, while overall budget expenditures were up 37%, questioning if services had increased proportionally. Lindsey argued the city should seek more revenue from developers rather than overburdening current taxpayers.

Travis McKenna reported his home value increased by 26% in the last three years, requiring him to set aside roughly $750 a month for property taxes. He questioned the value received for these taxes, citing issues like an unmarked road and speeding without a visible police presence. McKenna referenced the increase in the consumer price index and expressed the stress of rising costs placed on families, hoping for a “bigger tax incentive” than the 0.32-cent reduction he calculated from the tax rate needed to offset the assessment increase.

Another speaker presented figures on the city’s financial position, citing general fund surpluses exceeding $87 million over the last three fiscal years. He argued the city has significant reserves and that a 6-cent tax rate reduction, costing under $10 million, could be achieved by simply not giving departments more money than they requested, referencing over $4 million unspent in the FY23- 24 departmental budget. Webb concluded, “The question isn’t if there’s sufficient funding to reduce a property tax rate. That part is clearly yes. The question is whether council has the courage to do so, to return these excess funds back to taxpayers and not just rubber stamp this budget on through”.

Council Member Timothy Johnson voted against the budget, stating he could not approve it without “some kind of a tax relief program back to the public” because he felt the taxpayer was “left out”. He echoed the public sentiment, saying, “When assessments go up, taxes should go down,” and proposed a two-cent decrease costing $3.3 million, which he felt the taxpayers deserved.

Council Member Leroy Bennett agreed with the concerns about the tax increase and assessments, stating, “we cannot control the assessment we can control the rate”. He felt a reduction would be helpful, but acknowledged the need to approve the school budget by the May 15 deadline.

Council Member John Rector, who made the motion to approve the budget as presented, spoke of sleepless nights considering the budget but felt it was “one of the better budgets”. While acknowledging council controls the rate, he emphasized the “uncertainty that the current environment that we live in” necessitates prudence. He cited rising infrastructure costs and potential funding cuts as reasons to maintain reserves.

Council Member Ebony Wright expressed sympathy for lowering the rate but questioned how services could be maintained given the city’s rapid growth and infrastructure needs. She stated that the current budget is necessary to catch up on needs unless a “defined way” is shown to make the numbers work.

Council Member Shelley Butler Barlow seconded the motion to approve the budget. She stated that discussions were held about potential cuts, but finding a “fair, responsible way” to reduce the rate was difficult. She countered the idea of a “giant surplus,” saying funds are “earmarked” for necessary projects and departments, and the council must prepare for an “uncertain future”.

Mayor Mike Duman addressed the concerns directly, stating the council is not “insensitive to the tax burden” and had reduced the rate by 2 cents in each of the previous three years. He argued that the time to request a rate reduction to be included in the budget process was “several months ago” when reassessments were received, not at the “11th and a half hour” before the school budget deadline. He defended the city’s financial health, explaining reserves are needed for rainy days and capital needs, and year-end surpluses largely roll over into the next year’s budget. He also noted significant commercial development generating tax revenue, shifting some burden away from residential taxpayers. Ultimately, citing “too much uncertainty” in the economy and government funding, he supported the budget as presented, stating that while he would love to do a tax reduction, this year felt too risky.

Despite the real estate tax rate remaining unchanged, the council did approve a motion to explore establishing a personal property tax relief program for the elderly and disabled, directing the city manager to return with a proposed ordinance based on the presented guidelines. This program would provide an alternative tax rate on one vehicle for qualifying residents.