The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
What’s in? Increased taxes, higher fees and cuts in positions.
What’s out? A trash fee, furloughs and layoffs.
City Manager Jim Spore unveiled his $1.8 billion spending plan on Tuesday, calling it “by far the most difficult budget we’ve had to bring forward.”
The proposal is nearly a 7 percent reduction from this year’s budget and would include:
- A 3-cent real-estate tax increase to 92 cents for every $100 of assessed value. The owner of home worth $290,500 – the average assessed value in the Beach – would pay $79 less in real estate taxes under Spore’s plan due to assessments decreasing an average of 5.75 percent.
- A 10-cent increase on private vehicle personal property taxes to $3.80 for every $100 of value.
- A 4-cent increase on the cigarette tax, bringing it to 65 cents per pack.
The taxes would bring in $17.8 million.
The city had to cover a $111 million shortfall, which is up from the $84.4 million that officials had projected in the fall. The city’s share of the gap remains about $40 million. The increase is due primarily to the school budget, which took a blow in state funding.
Under Spore’s budget, 200 positions would also be cut, half of which are vacant. But Beach officials don’t anticipate layoffs, as employees whose jobs are eliminated would be transferred to open positions. Officials estimate the cuts would save $19.4 million. The city would see additional revenue from parks and recreation and permit fee increases and savings from reductions in training and renegotiated vendor contracts.
Spore dropped his recommendation for a trash fee for now, after several council members opposed it. If the City Council wants to build and staff a new animal shelter and a recreation center in the Bayside district, Spore suggests raising the tax rate by another 1.1 cents.
“I think it’s a balanced approach,” said Catheryn Whitesell, the Beach’s budget director.
Some council members were more skeptical.
“There is no need for a tax or fee increase,” Councilman Bill DeSteph said.
DeSteph and Vice Mayor Louis Jones said they want to see if the city can draw on savings from certain programs, like the agricultural land preservation and Sandbridge beach replenishment efforts, to avoid the real estate tax increase.
Virginia Beach is the only South Hampton Roads city so far to propose a tax increase to balance the 2010- 11 budget. Chesapeake and Portsmouth city managers have presented budgets that avoid real estate tax increases.
Still, most residents would see their tax bills decrease because of the drop in home values, and the increased rate would be the second-lowest in the region, Whitesell said.
“The cost of the government on this community has decreased,” she said.
But one in three residents would not get any real estate tax relief or could see some increase in their payments, because their home assessments didn’t fall drastically, Whitesell said.
Spore said his input from residents indicated that most were willing to pay additional taxes and fees as long as the city reduced spending. With the proposed reduction in library hours, less frequent mowing of the resort area, and delays in building renovations and road projects, residents would feel the cuts, Beach budget officials said.
The City Council is scheduled to vote on the budget on May 11. Deirdre Fernandes, (757) 222-5121, deirdre.fernandes@pilotonline.com

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Get the facts straight
Pontificating Politician. Solve the problem simply or KISS.
Fire the top 200 wage earners, watch how quickly those underneath find savings. Education = Understanding, Understanding = Committment.
Educate those who spend the money that if they don't cut costs, they will be cut just as the 200 before them. Simple. Stop putting taxpayer money into politico and business friends pockets.
charlatan
here's a little addendum to your "recovery has begun" proclamation, straight from a leftist news source......
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36131608/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
Get the facts straight
Ok, then read this:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/Metro/metro_monitor/2010_03_metro_monitor/2010_03_metro_monitor.pdf
This report indicates we are among the 20 strongest performing metro areas of the 100 areas measured. Further, we are among only a select few that had lost less than 3% of our jobs from their employment peak, and we ranked 7th as we lost onoly 1.8%. In fact, relative to gross metropolitan product, the figure I alluded to in my post, we rank 7th of only 28 nmetro areas that posted new highs in output in the fourth quarter of 2009, exceeding our pre-recession peak output levels. So while your disaster scenario is necessary to support your anti tax views, the facts simply don't back you up.
Not entirely true
Mike,
That's not ENTIRELY true. The Town Center TIF was created in part because Super Target had expressed interest in the site and city leadership thought that would be "a horrible waste of that site."
While a Super Target would not be nearly as pretty as what we have now, it would certainly have generated a LOT of tax revenue for the city - and would not have required any special tax incentives. (The TIF area also includes the Best Best store and several other properties along Bonney Road which CONTRIBUTE to the fund but would be generating tax revenue for the city whether or not Town Center existed.)
By the way, in a recent Pilot article about the after-the-fact economic development grant that was awarded for the new Towne Bank building at the oceanfront, you were mentioned as an "assistant city manager." Was that an error on the Pilot's part, or are you actually on the city payroll?
Well, not entirely true
Well, not entirely true either. The concept of a central business district goes back almost 30 years so it was much more than a reaction to one development proposal. And yes, the TIF does include a wide area, but only involves real estate taxes that exceed the base line. Certainly, the new projects along Bonney were stimulated as a result of Town Center. A super target would have simply taken revenue from other nearby discount stores, while Town Center has attracted a much broader representation. Lastly, the article failed to point out that while I had been an Assistant to the City Manager, I left that position in 1986. Of course now I am CEO of the The Runnymede Corporation and pleased to have paid more in real estate tax in the first year for the office building you mentioned than the amount of the grant to relocate public utilities out of the public right of way.
Lack of leadership
I always thought city government existed to serve the citizens. Instead we have far too many leaders within city government that believe it is the citizens that serve government and they have an entitlement mentality. When was the last time you heard of a city department come in under budget or make voluntary cuts or seek out efficiencies in their departments without being tasked to do so. I have no doubt some department heads do but it would be an exception.
When the real estate bubble came up the city had a windfall of revenue. They immediately increased budgets and spent the money, not because it was needed but simply because they could. And now the bubble has burst and those same so called leaders cant ween themselves off the drug we call tax dollars. In these hard economic times citizens are tightening budgets, making do with no pay raises and just lucky to have jobs. It is time the city makes do with what they have. If that means reductions in services or job losses so be it. Welcome to the real world.
What....
leaders?
Balanced view
Well Russ, as you know, during the period of irrational exhuberance, when people simpy paid much more than they should and assessments reflected that, the Council steadily reduced the real estate tax rate from a high of $1.22 to a low of $0.86. I agree that the amount homeowners paid went up, but nowhere near the percentage increase in the assessments. Remember, the VBTA candidate, which represents the anti tax, low service element of our community, received less than 16% of the vote in the last city wide election. I admit the community represented on this forum is much more representative of the no tax view, but of course, the large majority in this city value the extra services we have, appreciate that we still have the lowest tax rate in the region, use the Sandler Center, the libraries, the recreation centers, the parks, the open space preserved by action of city council, and in essence, show they realize that taxes are the price we pay for community.
..use the Sandler Center...
Pretentious statement. "Sandler Center", paid for by the people those two brothers took to the cleaners, not by the Sandlers. They just stole money from creditors, put it into their checkbook and wrote a check. As I said before, Chicago politicians need to take lessons from the VAB gang.
Reality check
Why is it we see employees of VB standing around and posing for holy pictures? Collecting our tax dollars?
Let’s go back roughly a year ago where VB spent $9K for the Mayor’s speech. We had people on the payroll to develop speeches and Power Point displays. Yet we paid a consultant.
Honestly, how many of you attended this? I struggled to keep my eyes open.
Yes, our Mayor is a businessman. Well, so am I. I’m a businessman of one and am struggling to maintain the current means of doing business.
When my costs increase, so do yours.
I pass my overhead (which consists of insurance, taxes-fed/state/local taxes) onto you the customer/consumer.
Regarding our City Manager…does he really have our best interests at hand or not? I think not.