Creating Truth in Taxation Act
SB 474 creates a new “Truth in Taxation Act” in West Virginia law by adding a new article to Chapter 11 of the state code. The bill requires county clerks to calculate a “revenue neutral rate” for each taxing subdivision each year, meaning the property tax rate that would generate the same revenue as the prior year based on current assessed values. That rate must be included in budget materials provided to local taxing bodies, and local governments would be restricted from adopting a property tax rate above that level unless they follow a specified public notice, hearing, and vote process.
If a taxing subdivision wants to exceed the revenue neutral rate, it must publish notice in a newspaper and on its website, notify the county clerk by July 15, and ensure taxpayers receive mailed or electronic notice at least 10 days before the hearing. The notice must include detailed information comparing the prior year’s taxes, the proposed rate, the revenue neutral rate, and estimated tax impacts for the taxpayer’s property. A public hearing must be held by September 15, taxpayers must be allowed to comment, and the governing body must approve the higher rate by majority vote before adopting the budget. The bill also requires final certification of the levy by September 20.
The bill’s main legal impact is on local property tax administration and budget-setting procedures for political subdivisions that levy ad valorem taxes. It would add new duties for county clerks and the director of accounts and reports, create a new notice-and-hearing framework for tax increases above the revenue neutral rate, and authorize refunds of over-collected property taxes if a governing body fails to comply. The bill expressly excludes school districts and also exempts taxing subdivisions or districts that receive $5,000 or less in property tax revenue in the current year.
Overall, the bill appears to be framed as a taxpayer transparency and tax-limitation measure, and the available context suggests a neutral-to-supportive legislative posture, though no committee transcript or vote record is provided. Because there are no recorded discussions or votes in the materials, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from lawmakers in the record supplied. The structure of the bill itself suggests likely support from taxpayers seeking more notice and restraint on local tax increases, while local governments and taxing bodies could view it as adding administrative burdens and limiting budget flexibility.
The most notable point of contention is the bill’s restriction on levying a rate above the revenue neutral rate without a formal public process, which could be seen as protecting taxpayers but also constraining local fiscal authority. Another likely issue is the administrative and mailing cost burden placed on county clerks and taxing subdivisions, especially because detailed individualized notices must be sent to property owners. The exemption for school districts and for very small taxing entities may reflect an effort to narrow the bill’s reach and reduce operational impacts.
SB 474 would add a new article to the West Virginia Code governing property tax rate setting for local taxing subdivisions. It would require annual calculation and disclosure of a revenue neutral rate, impose notice and hearing requirements before any local property tax rate can exceed that rate, and create a refund remedy for noncompliance. The bill would affect county clerks, the director of accounts and reports, local governing bodies that levy ad valorem taxes, and property taxpayers, while expressly excluding school districts and very small taxing entities.
No committee transcript or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to measure directly. Based on the bill text, the measure is presented as a taxpayer transparency and tax-limitation proposal, which typically draws support from taxpayers and anti-tax advocates. At the same time, it would likely raise concerns among local governments because it adds procedural requirements, notice costs, and a substantive limit on raising property tax rates without public approval.
The main contention is whether local governments should be allowed to exceed the revenue neutral rate only after enhanced notice, a public hearing, and a majority vote, or whether that framework unduly restricts local budget-making authority. Another likely point of dispute is the administrative burden and cost of individualized taxpayer notices, which the bill assigns to county clerks and taxing subdivisions. The exemption of school districts and low-revenue taxing entities may also be debated as either a practical limitation or an uneven carveout.