[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6579198,"mediaKeyId","3089034-dbb71b08358bd17335c87c072aa08360","parentId",3089034,"title","Votes at a glance: April Prince George County Board meeting — key outcomes","audioSeconds",1505,"startMs",4635000,"endMs",6140000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3089034-dbb71b08358bd17335c87c072aa08360&start=4635&end=6140","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3089034-dbb71b08358bd17335c87c072aa08360/thumbnail_4635000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6579198/Prince-George-County/Virginia/Votes-at-a-glance-April-Prince-George-County-Board-meeting-key-outcomes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579198-4a7bd04b343f1d1d3bc6a3346d44c950/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014548&Signature=iw5-92DkrgknuxfH94zfnuLyVCjOL-PfKXQqSZACxGfB2QNNsWN9a6OSlO9OMA5it2TmwSYbNyCtNpcxCcTSpDPH2ovzHlcjDCtU6644rxhUeC~~dpVce22gX7ob5YjzLcw0mCc-t2DIhY6vLcon9syYQ7UQX-JNGvP6DzVYHpVnlmt3TiLkKfYkU0Sw3UFlAEU4NpI1tN73RlgwUB9ZLKKfkYBvHsAUjofve-7ky2GYTDRKsS4bkroJEFgiofP7wFmwJpNgGswZby1ApjBPQBZCvxEo3rbrcCuZWl6YwSqEpJqTVt0176egKgEMg~chXW~R8hqMuejteM6PRc28VA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prince George County","date","2025-04-22T00:00:00Z","article","Here are the principal formal actions taken by the Prince George County Board of Supervisors at the April 2025 meeting, with available vote information and immediate effects.

Adoption of agenda — Board voted to adopt the meeting agenda by motion; roll call indicated the motion carried.

Consent agenda — The board approved the consent agenda by roll call; the packet listed two consent items.

Personal property and machinery & tools tax rates (Version 2) — The board voted to approve tax resolutions for tangible personal property and machinery & tools to allow timely billing for June 5. The motion approved Version 2, which postponed action on real estate and manufactured home tax rates so the county could finalize those later. Roll call recorded the motion passed (members recorded as voting yes during roll call included Mr. Pugh, Mr. Webb, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Womack and Mr. Cox when the clerk called the roll).

Water and sewer user charges and connection fees — The board adopted ordinance changes to water and sewer rates and connection fees to become effective July 1, creating an estimated $242,000 in additional FY2026 utility revenue. Roll call: Mr. Webb — Yes; Mr. Brown — Yes; Mrs. Wymack — Yes; Mr. Cox — Yes; Mr. Pugh — No. Motion carried.

Animal shelter adoption fee ordinance (proposed change denied) — After public comment and discussion, the board voted to deny the proposed ordinance amendment that would have reduced adoption fees and reintroduced post‑adoption sterilization agreements. Roll call recorded: Mr. Webb — Yes; Mr. Pew (Pugh) — Yes; Mr. Cox — No; Mrs. Womack — Yes; Mr. Brown — Yes. The motion to deny carried.

Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA) resolution — The board adopted the annual PPTRA resolution as requested by the commissioner of the revenue. Roll call recorded all members voting Yes for that resolution.

Concept Development (Hollingsworth) renewal request — The board denied a request to renew an existing development agreement with Concept Developments/Hollingsworth Companies. The Economic Development Authority had not voted in favor of the extension; the board’s recorded roll call vote carried to deny the renewal.

Solar siting: Zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan amendments — The board voted to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to limit large‑scale solar energy facilities to M‑3 (heavy industrial) by special exception and to initiate a companion comprehensive plan amendment to reduce any acreage caps and clarify siting policy. Both initiation resolutions passed by roll call.

Adjournment — The board voted to adjourn the meeting by roll call; the motion carried.

Ending — Several actions established follow‑up steps: staff to produce updated assessment numbers and to implement billing under approved tax and utility rate resolutions. The board took no final action on the real property tax rate; that decision will follow when updated assessment figures are available.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Prince George County - Regular Meeting - Apr 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The board approved several administrative and fiscal measures, postponed final real estate rate action, adopted utility rate changes, denied proposed animal shelter adoption fee changes, and initiated zoning and comprehensive plan amendments on large‑scale solar siting.","taxTitle","Prince George County, Virginia","taxId",51064,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6579204,"Board holds required public hearing on effective tax rate after projected assessment gains; no rate set",1247,2445000,3692000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3089034-dbb71b08358bd17335c87c072aa08360&start=2445&end=3692","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3089034-dbb71b08358bd17335c87c072aa08360/thumbnail_2445000.jpg","/articles/6579204/Prince-George-County/Virginia/Board-holds-required-public-hearing-on-effective-tax-rate-after-projected-assessment-gains-no-rate-set","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579204-571c8eac39fc574adc14dedb10c4f27b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014548&Signature=abdn~IuomwVUs7PPiDYBQJdwHCDcDsQ6ktugpNZCAzsUlUX7jfKHEVfKrxGN-lOAr5reFq4mk8WD1s73KjFSww3Dx-xbeUPQk6A43UGoAaH2tn-QnGOMFf-GthTjgZlveo5iZuotgha47mf41KdPVfLJzcwcRl6XTMUuIZTmT9s39EzDTOb3Zjn9b-~4xK5FaShd67Inrj7dX3ruLYj9cNF3C~SQfb0pBCJWsLIv7JG8Tt4SfHlA3KdNQbzwO4kmVf91VJX3hpULwcSBjj7yLisoHKHzFADNd15hxKEeSdagSaZDTYu02IcrDNfEUVGWGl99ywR7oYtUIu~1pJlSEA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a public hearing required by state law, a county staff presenter told the Prince George County Board of Supervisors that preliminary estimates from the county’s contractor indicated net assessed values (excluding new construction) had increased by about 12.3% and that the code of Virginia requires the county either lower its rate to maintain revenues at or below 101% of prior levies or advertise an effective tax increase.

Staff noted the “equalization rate” — a rate that would offset the higher values — would be about 73¢ per $100 of assessed value, while the introduced FY2026 budget advertised the real estate tax rate at 82¢. The advertised rate sets the legal maximum the board may adopt later; staff told the board there was no action requested at the hearing other than receiving public input.

Public commenters urged supervisors to reduce spending and to lower the advertised rate. Bill Steele urged lowering taxpayers’ bills rather than focusing on the nominal rate: “The rate really is not the issue… It’s are you charging a rate, are you reducing a rate, but still raising the tax bill,” he said. Scott Hamill asked staff to translate countywide penny values into typical dollar impacts for median parcel owners to make tradeoffs clearer to voters. Several speakers, including Justin Noblin and James Keller, urged the county to correct assessment errors before finalizing rates.

Board members and staff said the advertised 82¢ rate merely preserves the board’s ability to lower the rate later; it cannot be raised above the advertised amount. Staff said the county would receive better assessment data in May and that the board could then set a final rate even lower than advertised if warranted.

Ending — The board closed the hearing with no vote on the real estate rate; supervisors said they would review updated assessment numbers before a later vote on final tax rates and budget decisions.","Staff told the board that assessed values (net of new construction) rose in the county’s estimate and that state code requires either equalization or an advertised effective increase; the board opened a public hearing, received comments urging rate reductions and additional review of assessments, and took no action on the real estate rate.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6579207,"Residents and landowners press Prince George supervisors over property assessments and contractor problems",3142,263000,3405000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3089034-dbb71b08358bd17335c87c072aa08360&start=263&end=3405","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3089034-dbb71b08358bd17335c87c072aa08360/thumbnail_263000.jpg","/articles/6579207/Prince-George-County/Virginia/Residents-and-landowners-press-Prince-George-supervisors-over-property-assessments-and-contractor-problems","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579207-7a26992111c071d4cebf42afa65b0fe0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014548&Signature=f~ikFFP3CJOpKuCIaB3zeQ0VIP29Lsf6VFeLK3uoMvQzvSaR5Q1Ma7QQV8MeAr6ZJdLCXfJMyJLHPqJ0wUMPqx9cfzMRA3yIW~PmULYVWAZsryg9iJ~jqQj7dWJWQbAsd8~nBr8tZb6Eei3numEB7qgCQ8yDml~Tdd4teywTdx9PNMnkayBbMJ3bxcGGQA3GEaw6emmngFP3uxqS~iQ-THOZGMr86DSJEy5BJE5TL5ICmInH3xeEb3S3eY~6yJI4S3WP62kLBSi7G7BUGaZeWSsh-s93K529QCbz00qqhD9d7Q4fFA-SQ~2qqDzOd0MxbQJngrYs8aZxGhb~tEDWBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","James Lamb, representing several members of the Binford family, told the Prince George County Board of Supervisors on April 2025 that the property assessment and appeal process is “deeply flawed, opaque, and unfair.” Lamb said the family met with Vision on March 28 about more than 40 parcels and learned this week the Vision representative is no longer with the company, leaving them unsure how an existing appeal would proceed.

Other residents echoed Lamb’s concerns during public comment. Justin Noblin described multiple errors in his own assessment and said the contractor and assessor’s office have not provided the documentation he requested. “There’s a real struggle with this,” Noblin said, adding that county law (cited in public comment as state code 58.1‑3331) requires the assessor provide standards of value and appraisal working papers on request.

Speakers said staffing turnover in the assessor’s office has made the process harder. Lamb and other commenters said they were told county staff could not make adjustments and were directed to the Board of Equalization, which residents expect will be “overwhelmed and under resourced.” Lamb said he had been working with an assessor’s office employee named Tiffany who is no longer with the county and called the current appeals process “broken.”

Board members acknowledged the frustration. Chairman Brown said he would ask County Administrator Jeff Stokes to follow up with the speakers. Supervisor Pugh said he has sent emails to the administration and is pursuing answers; Supervisor Webb said property owners know their parcels best and urged residents to notify staff when they find errors. Several supervisors reiterated that the assessor’s office has relied on Vision Government Solutions as a third‑party contractor because local staff are not licensed to perform mass appraisals.

No board action was taken during the public comment period. Supervisors said they are receiving additional information behind the scenes and will try to provide follow‑up to speakers.

The item remains a county administrative and operational matter: residents requested clearer information about how assessments were calculated, formal points of contact in the assessor’s office, and assurance the county will provide timely appeal procedures.

Ending — The board did not adopt policy changes at the meeting; supervisors directed staff to follow up with named residents and said they will continue to review assessment procedures and contractor performance.","Multiple residents and landowners raised concerns at the April meeting about large increases and errors in county property assessments, the third‑party contractor Vision, and staffing gaps in the assessor’s office; the board promised follow‑up but took no immediate action.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: April Prince George County Board meeting — key outcomes

Board holds required public hearing on effective tax rate after projected assessment gains; no rate set

Residents and landowners press Prince George supervisors over property assessments and contractor problems