Uh, oh, I may have to eat crow. I’m not eating it yet, but I’m firing up the grill just in case.
During the meals tax debate, I drew attention to soaring home sales prices in Henrico County, suggesting that the county would enjoy a surge in property tax revenues far greater than the 2% increase budgeted. That surge, I suggested, could well obviate the need for a 4% meals tax being put before voters. The Henrico County administration countered that a rise in home price sales, which were concentrated in select neighborhoods, would not necessarily translate into an increase in assessed values across the board. They stuck with their 2% estimate.
The numbers haven’t been announced for Henrico County yet, but they’ve come in for neighboring Chesterfield. It turns out that, according to the Times-Dispatch, that home values increased only 2% and assessed values for all properties (including commercial) increased only 3%. Said the county’s assistant budget director: “Bottom line: It’s good news. It’s not great news.”
The Henrico County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to act on the meals tax in its next meeting, now that voters have approved it in a referendum. I would hope that the Board would not enact the measure until the reassessment results come in, just in case there are some surprises.
As I recall, housing values were a bit stronger north of the James than south of the river, so it’s possible that Henrico will out-perform Chesterfield on the property tax front. There is a very strong chance that Henrico will exceed the 2% budget forecast, creating some budgetary wiggle room. However, I do concede, the reassessment is unlikely to come close to offsetting the $18 million extra in anticipated meals tax revenue.
— JAB
