Welcome to the Virginia Peninsula Taxpayer's Alliance webpage. Currrently in the forming stages, the VPTA will strive to provide an organizational and support structure to local member tax and civic groups across the Virginia Peninsula region. It will also work to a promote:

1)Unity of overall purpose while respecting the independence of the member groups.

2)The research, accumulation, maintenence, and dissemmination of statistical, strategic, and legal information of a useful nature to its members.

3)The coordination of supportive activities on an "as needed and wanted basis."

4)To seek and develope legal, political, and other strategic methods of fighting for and attaining lower and fairer tax levies, higher efficiency in the use of public funds by local governments, and for adequate transparency and accountability from local departments and officials.

We also seek truthfulness, accuracy, and full disclosure of all information from local departments and officials to its citizens, who possess full and complete rights to such information and disclosure.

A TYPICAL REAL ESTATE TAX QUESTION FROM ACROSS VIRGINIA...NOW HERE IS THE ANSWER

Mr. Prunty

My name is Steve Carroll. I am the Communication Chairman of the Portsmouth Taxpayer Alliance. We have been in operation since July 2007. The VBTA folks were of great help in helping us get started.

I must admit that I am as lost as Hogan's Goat on how Portsmouth malevolently lowers our tax rate but I pay more taxes without reasonable explanation. Can you explain how or is there a legal universal calculation that gets real estate taxes down to the code limit. In the mean time I will try to find old clippings that show how Portsmouth reached its latest tax rate.

Portsmouth has the highest population above age 60 at about 17%. They are being devastated by this vulgar lust for tax dollars that in Portsmouth _I believe_ are being used to subsidize a much too cozy developer/city re-development relationship.

Thanks Steve

Steve:

I would be delighted to answer your question. The dirty little secret is state code 58.1-3321, subsection "B." There is also, of course, a subsection "A" as well. And they are both important. In order to first explain the evil in part B, let me first explain A.

This statute regulates localities as to how to handle real estate tax rates when general reassessments result in an increase. In part A, when total assessments go up more than one percent, the locality must (MANDATORY) lower the RATE to offset that assessment increase. More specifically, they must lower the rate to where it produces NO MORE THAN 101% of the previous year's real estate tax revenues, or "levies." Note that I emphasized the words: "NO MORE THAN." This means that the locality MAY NOT collect more than an extra 1% in real estate tax revenues because of an increase in assessments without lowering the rate to offset that increase. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE THAT ONE PERCENT. IT IS OPTIONAL. Part A provides the language for a formula to calculate the rate reduction for the locality to take that 1%, but it does not provide the language for a formula to NOT take that 1%. An oversimplified example would be:

Your house is worth $100,000 and your rate is $1.00/$100 value. Then Portsmouth comes along and reassesses it up to $120,000, a 20% increase. Since that is more than a 1% hike, they must then lower the rate by 20% down to .80/$100 (or by 19% to .81/$100 if they take that extra 1%, which they ALWAYS DO). The revenues to the locality stay the same and the total tax levies stay the same. The difference between this example and reality is that they do it on a city-wide scale, and not house by house. It is the "total taxable assessed value" of real estate in Portsmouth multiplied by that rate which will produce no more than the total tax revenues from the previous year in Portsmouth. Following this?

Now here is where part B comes in. This says that after the assessments are offset by the rate reduction in compliance with Part A above, the local governing body (Portsmouth city council) may, after only ONE public hearing, vote to raise that rate back up to whatever they want!!! That is where your bill keeps skyrocketing!!! Remember, the assessments have ALREADY BEEN OFFSET AND ACCOUNTED FOR BY ESTABLISHING THAT “LOWERED RATE” OF 80 CENTS/$100. This means that when your bill goes up, that YOUR ASSESSMENTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. But I'll bet your city council and the local news keeps telling you THAT IT IS IN FACT BECAUSE OF YOUR ASSESSMENT INCREASES!!! Yes, they are lying to you. This is the very case for fraud I want to present to the Attorney General. I'm not through making you angry yet.

In the example above, they lowered your rate from $1.00/100 by 20% down to .80/100, which is fair. But what happens afterward is that, using "part B," they will raise it back up to, let's say .95/100. This is now a 15% INCREASE above the revenue neutral rate of .80/$100. There is more still. Because your old rate used to be 1.00/100, THEY ARE NOW TELLING YOU THAT THEY ARE REDUCING THE RATE BY 5% FROM $1.00 DOWN TO .95, instead of telling you they are raising it from .80 UP TO .95!!! This is despicable out and out fraud. And they continue telling you that it is because your assessments are going up when in fact assessments no longer have anything to do with it!!!

They WANT everybody going down to the real estate assessor's office screaming at THEM, instead of coming down to the city council chambers screaming at THE CITY COUNCIL (or county board of supervisors) and KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

If you have any trouble regurgitating any or all of this to your friends or to your organization's membership, I'd be happy to come over and give a presentation. I'm available to meet with or speak to any group in Virginia.

Mike Prunty

(My contact information is on this website.)

THE SIX CRITICAL CRITERIA FOR HONEST REAL ESTATE TAX LEGISLATION ARE:

1) Tax relief must be EQUALLY provided for everyone who pays real estate taxes. Legislation which is SELECTIVE, that which promotes "picking and choosing" one individual over another, or that which promotes the "re-classification" to futher subdivide one individual or group from each other is VERY, VERY WRONG! Everyone is over-taxed. Everyone deserves the same relief.

2) Real estate tax relief legislation should be MANDATORY. Otherwise, it is meaningless. New Laws offering more "LOCAL OPTIONS" are cowardly and a total abdication of responsibility by the General Assembly to address this problem. THEY are the ones who must take this bull by the horns. Some at the local level are worried about "cost shifting." This is "responsibility shifting."

3) All legislation should require full and truthful disclosure of ALL INFORMATION of proposed actions, and ACTUAL actions taken by local governing bodies. They should also be compelled to FULLY AND TRUTHFULLY DISCLOSE all information about assessments and the procedures used to determine them.

4) Real estate tax relief must mean ACTUAL REDUCTIONS in tax levies paid by the citizens, NOT MERE REDUCTIONS IN THE SIZE OF THE INCREASE. This should be by real cuts in rates (roll backs), refunds, and tax credits to be subtracted from future year’s tax bills to homeowners over a period of at least 5 to 7 years. That is how long we’ve been overcharged.

5) State legislation should not only restrain the ability of localities to raise taxes, especially real estate taxes, but should place a cap on the allowed increase of annual budgeted SPENDING to no more than the national rate of inflation, or to a fixed percentage established by the state legislature. Excess revenues collected by local goverments from real estate tax levies should be refunded to the taxpayers, and not retained by the localities.

6) Legislation should establish a limit on local TOTAL DEBT to no more than A STATE ESTABLISHED PERCENTAGE of its net worth. Annual debt service payments should be no more than STATE ESTABLISHED PERCENTAGE of annual operating budgets.