[{"_1":2,"_118":-5,"_119":-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",[32,75,87,99,110],{"_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",6564393,"mediaKeyId","3289671-4ecf841dcde690ab053abb59b8a4b1f0","parentId",3289671,"title","Powell Creek solar-extension request postponed after public comments on decommissioning and bonds","audioSeconds",10569,"startMs",211000,"endMs",10780000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3289671-4ecf841dcde690ab053abb59b8a4b1f0&start=211&end=10780","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3289671-4ecf841dcde690ab053abb59b8a4b1f0/thumbnail_211000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6564393/Prince-George-County/Virginia/Powell-Creek-solar-extension-request-postponed-after-public-comments-on-decommissioning-and-bonds","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564393-58d2837cd7dc1eabab9644dc3ecd83e7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770935957&Signature=LZ~bARV1~6X3hIMEJaNZJp3eqdCtxTIKWfOzhj-DM3QIBzQRIXRBNl8rQFhXdTGyPxoP4mOvCzzP6VRzasfZfWQobVcdOYKVDELRAoFlC6b6tKoyC2Eokljmh6qOHHzCZFKKsfeYTNoeaslUa2WN0M~1XGxDkz6gJjURt8zxxKtURN3pab7h0qfYEyT5A7UNn2kzIO2urGSZHK5r-Q~VLA8sLEA0lJJ2sWgdsxHRsB7vyq7rezmKw3dndBGLF0IQabdfMBkXU0H6ARaIEduhMGbX6DHyg-SdS75fptUZCZsm2WLAxaI6Bjpfxa1E1uTPtJMq0NKRTJSRvDHZ81SELQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prince George County","date","2025-05-13T00:00:00Z","article","An applicant that earlier received a special-exception approval for a photovoltaic project asked Prince George County supervisors Wednesday to allow a later meeting presentation on a time-extension request; the board agreed to postpone consideration until May 27 after residents raised concerns about decommissioning and financial surety.

Why it matters: Public commenters said any extension should not proceed unless the applicant can demonstrate a binding, inflation-adjusted decommissioning plan and a surety (bond) adequate to cover end-of-life removal and site restoration. County staff noted the request will be placed on the board’s May 27 agenda so the applicant can present in person.

Public comment: Multiple residents asked supervisors to deny an extension for the Powell Creek (Summit Ridge/Summit Bridal) solar special exception that was originally approved in 2022. A speaker who identified a County Line Road address asked the board to “protect the citizens” and said the development should have provided a decommissioning bond to cover dismantling and restoration 30–40 years after construction; the speaker added: “Taxpayers and citizens should not be on the hook for end-of-life costs.” Bill Steele and Rick Tetherton echoed concerns and urged the board to suspend approvals until a county-wide policy is adopted.

Applicant request and board action: County counsel and the applicant’s representative (Mr. Ball) asked the board to accept the applicant’s request to appear at the May 27 meeting to explain the extension request. The board voted to postpone the matter to May 27 to allow the applicant to present details and for the board to consider public comments.

Clarifying details: Speakers specifically asked that any decommissioning plan be updated for inflation at least every five years and that a decommissioning surety or bond be a condition of any extended approval. Supervisors instructed staff to place the applicant’s request on the May 27 agenda and to include any written materials the applicant provides.

Ending: The board postponed the Powell Creek time-extension request to May 27; residents and supervisors urged a heightened focus on decommissioning guarantees during the later presentation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Prince George County - Regular Meeting - May 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","An applicant seeking extra time on a special-exception approval for a solar installation asked the board to consider a time-extension request at the next meeting; residents urged denial without stronger decommissioning guarantees and the board postponed the item to May 27.","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},6564398,"Board approves VDOT six-year plan; telefee funds earmarked for Middle–Jefferson roundabout",599,2161000,2760000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3289671-4ecf841dcde690ab053abb59b8a4b1f0&start=2161&end=2760","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3289671-4ecf841dcde690ab053abb59b8a4b1f0/thumbnail_2161000.jpg","/articles/6564398/Prince-George-County/Virginia/Board-approves-VDOT-six-year-plan-telefee-funds-earmarked-for-MiddleJefferson-roundabout","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564398-1494430fefb94a947dbbb64af06f4d64/orig.mp4?Expires=1770935957&Signature=dJLT4PQGOSOCa7crhcjHWIEFmST-wTscSXFcJGKBIWrmld4RCxNEWfMBt3TPCwUWM0eW7bWu6Rc4gDjPLaeyasvUxmHAXcpx5lvEXYrtiwl-vAYcmoPUWLKrVDL7MpGhLurKLQPugz22o5o1eZk1hW~1aEKt1Ua7cbXAsv2cAdxQx6C8nScd8P~TyX-Pp-eFnkJO1yDYH64FzC09H5AqqSO0e4Hvp1MMOSRh23du0oadO-JGlyEGaNp4MEG6TyTfhZW2-oETG1v6ZXFODWzHs-D5jaEe78c8qXypQEUzZU7Vqgx7Cg3vcLTSsOYi4WuY~QNB6NcdRlvwEF2on8CySA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Prince George County Board of Supervisors approved the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) secondary six-year plan Wednesday, which includes telecommunication-fee (telefee) allocations intended to fund a roundabout at Middle Road and Jefferson Road.

Why it matters: The six-year plan formalizes which locally selected projects will be considered for VDOT-administered funding and shows how the county plans to allocate limited telefee revenues over the next several fiscal years.

VDOT representative Paul Henson said the county’s six-year plan includes an allocation of telefees — identified in the public presentation as $89,523 (per year allocation for certain years) — to help fully fund the Middle–Jefferson roundabout. He described using allocations in fiscal years 2026–2028 to address a funding gap on that project, and said subsequent telefee allocations would be deposited to a balance-entry account for future use. Henson emphasized that the county selects projects for the plan and VDOT administers the funding and engineering.

Public questions focused on whether the telefee money was limited to new-construction projects or could be used for maintenance. VDOT staff clarified the six-year plan funds are for new construction projects, not routine maintenance; maintenance funding comes through separate channels.

Board action: Following the public hearing, supervisors moved to approve the six-year plan. The motion carried on a roll-call vote (4–0) with the board noting the plan contains only the roundabout project for the funding years presented and that the county retains options for locally administered projects or other funding mechanisms.

Ending: The approved plan commits local telefee allocations to the roundabout and places future telefee receipts in a balance account to help fund projects over the six-year period; residents seeking construction or maintenance funding were directed to discuss project proposals with county staff ahead of the next plan review.","The board approved VDOT’s secondary six-year plan, which allocates local telefee funds toward the Middle Road–Jefferson Road roundabout and places remaining telefee allocations into a balance account for future projects.",{"_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},6564403,"Board approves $2.08 million in school carryover spending and categorical transfers",430,2810000,3240000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3289671-4ecf841dcde690ab053abb59b8a4b1f0&start=2810&end=3240","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3289671-4ecf841dcde690ab053abb59b8a4b1f0/thumbnail_2810000.jpg","/articles/6564403/Prince-George-County/Virginia/Board-approves-208-million-in-school-carryover-spending-and-categorical-transfers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564403-37e59ccf702048ad8d3dd575a091d40b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770935957&Signature=ieXSeT6Xf1w~J2hhNBr~3nudpHCUABauxcD03DjB6ZPbzrI2LKtQjPJuWFfAMH7pQjV~m9kGIL8rBGQkxYivYRdZ5Eyv3waw1vmeOH3~LyGGF9lhc84v6z4oHwxc5Z2nAxg2Rz~EJKGKDaJYSQ8UhdT3u7cT6mqDsN~iKXfIlvZzVkFOpMpdOT1Mn62j3WzjiX-MD2Uk1aWLJJdD67MmMFBC1Lt72JPhOonGK4Tcvs1BFkpKrFH2QW06xZIB0VzLuUrJMcIkufoYxGYVc6yFmcn9-m8cLb1kgqfhfA7B-e49WEhU9x0WAEN9JJXPRfuj-X02CkRIMvvr6aXqYEkB6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Prince George County Board of Supervisors voted Wednesday to appropriate just over $2,082,000 of audited FY2024 school carryover funds for the public school division and to approve school-requested categorical transfers totaling $338,479.13.

Why it matters: The carryover appropriation allows Prince George County Public Schools to complete planned capital purchases and address near-term maintenance and equipment needs without borrowing, and keeps the county’s audited fund-balance well above its 15% target.

County finance staff said the school division reported $3,077,000 in revenues exceeding expenditures for FY2024. The board previously reappropriated roughly $913,000 in purchase orders; the current request would reappropriate the remaining carryover — most of which the schools requested for capital items (awnings, vehicles and school buses, field lights, security and roofing work, audiovisual equipment and other capital and maintenance projects).

Ms. Drury told the board that, after the transfers, audited fund balance would remain about $42.58 million, roughly 27.7% of the current-year budget — above the county’s policy threshold of 12.5% and its internal target of 15%.

Public input and vote: There was limited public comment on the appropriation; one speaker asked whether items were “need” versus “nice to have.” Board members and staff said the items are a mix and that staff used the audited balances to identify reasonable carryforward projects. The appropriation and the categorical transfers both passed on roll-call votes (4–0).

Clarifying details: The appropriation was advertised because the amendment exceeded the statutory 1% public-notice threshold for the county’s budget. The school-requested items will be housed within the county’s school capital improvement fund and include vehicle purchases, roofing and security improvements, sports lighting and upgrades to cafeterias and school-stage systems.

Ending: The board approved the carryover appropriation and transfers and asked staff and the school division to proceed with the listed capital and operating purchases using the newly reappropriated funds.","Supervisors approved reappropriation of FY2024 carryover funds for Prince George County Public Schools and passed categorical transfers totaling $338,479.13.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6564407,"Board delays 'trash and clutter' ordinance after hours of public opposition",0,3299000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3289671-4ecf841dcde690ab053abb59b8a4b1f0&start=3299&end=3299","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3289671-4ecf841dcde690ab053abb59b8a4b1f0/thumbnail_3299000.jpg","/articles/6564407/Prince-George-County/Virginia/Board-delays-trash-and-clutter-ordinance-after-hours-of-public-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564407-0e866ed75306a87eab77391d3c23d398/orig.mp4?Expires=1770935957&Signature=gX7ZOUjrh-IBQ9Cm0SMYPPr9GwQmIl~VRaVoz1SGVJHH0AXhbgVE2lOpuH0ubrAuQAj1cqrsMRNlOS6tmKtx6Ikf7ZDFtM~s181MEYNspUFB-dM-yC3QYytiC~lXbPf2X6I9BHxmaGvC61YiODXgYPryjnnYrEccBO5-TR37vK0KWrITr9UBOEm7KbTweyWw2X9DeVTrO61AuUrThvtUbR44EEZbVCwg8-jGw70XNoujCmjCZEy1bAzuZ54arNnKn~HnUagMbN3S5oYNb4ZzhhGLbSecdoZ82W9XibDPzJUzJOUPf78CxiQmRW0ZjdX0BsQ-uK2Tn5JNhCXJzRLpEQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Prince George County supervisors received extended public comment on a proposed ordinance that would add trash and “clutter” to the county’s grass-and-weeds enforcement and would change some penalties from civil to criminal. After more than an hour of public testimony largely opposed to the language, the board voted to postpone the ordinance to the July 8 meeting.

Why it matters: The measure would expand code-enforcement authority to address gutters of refuse and overgrown yards that staff say can create health and safety hazards. Opponents said the language was vague, risked unfairly criminalizing low-income or elderly residents, and could be applied as a de facto homeowners association rule in rural areas.

County Attorney Zerrard explained the proposed changes as intended to give staff a clear legal tool to handle properties with “trash, garbage, refuse, litter and clutter” that, in his view, can threaten public health by attracting rodents or creating other hazards. He also said the proposed height threshold for grass would change from 15 inches to 12 inches and that the change from civil to criminal penalties was intended to produce compliance.

Public response: Dozens of residents spoke against the draft. Several said they worry about elderly or low-income residents who lack the means to remove large items; others warned the term “clutter” is subjective and invite enforcement disputes. Carol Driscoll said she once received a citation for items left on a porch for less than 24 hours and called criminal penalties for yard maintenance “ridiculous.” Barbara Ammons and others raised the risk that property visible only from neighbors’ yards would invite disputes.

Board action and next steps: After the public hearing, supervisors — citing the volume of concerns — voted to postpone the ordinance and asked staff to return with revisions. The board also agreed to re-advertise and hold another public hearing on July 8. Supervisors suggested internal checks, including possibly routing enforcement actions for administrative review before court referral.

What proponents said: The county attorney and code-enforcement staff said the change would not be used for trivial aesthetics and that enforcement is complaint-driven; staff described cases they view as hazardous and beyond mere yard decoration. Zerrard said other localities use similar language and that without an ordinance staff lack the tool to address serious situations.

Ending: The board gave staff direction to revise the draft ordinance and to return in July; supervisors encouraged citizens to offer written suggestions before the next version is published.","A proposed ordinance to strengthen enforcement against tall grass, trash and so-called 'clutter' drew dozens of speakers; the board postponed the measure to July 8 for revisions and additional outreach.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":102,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":113,"_49":94,"_51":114,"_53":115,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":116,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":117,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6564413,"Residents press board on reassessments as county delays tax-rate decision and trims budget","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3289671-4ecf841dcde690ab053abb59b8a4b1f0&start=2810&end=2810","/articles/6564413/Prince-George-County/Virginia/Residents-press-board-on-reassessments-as-county-delays-tax-rate-decision-and-trims-budget","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6564413-c5d5f7f3409985ec262b0ac815075a3a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770935957&Signature=H423gdAEOy40At5ZNGgqXKbmLyLD3-pgGPZPDPMx9Kt1IgjwlsZhF6Az8E7g4TuHzFwoLJ5aJN~IHfVBYinLBmVYUd2I8Ckk7UTP9F93-0b08ylVGmNV9~1GxmJAKkXI2GVxKKhnBQbrbiWeir2OzE0iaQXGrasinCsTHLjKiVg--M2Kd7wF-Ct7OmY7~oSHW6wjcYBMx9SfQSh2~y8sJT9TWI8TtStcOqwGN~yGwx4El-y8h0BEbyHEHLvhYrqF~n-z9oCcfYxi1LhQRaOUMUsbVumNb~Xh7pX99n33QcTMGUrTD3UtP~I4llwc9c83UqKjpWcKD8Ji0utF2nOBCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Prince George County supervisors heard hours of public comment Wednesday about recent property reassessments and an advertised FY2026 budget, then postponed a final vote on the real-estate tax rate until the board's May 27 meeting.

The board opened a public hearing on the introduced FY2026 budget — which included new positions, pay adjustments and a proposed 82¢ per $100 real-estate tax rate — after several residents described delays and missing explanations from the contractor hired to do the reassessment.

Why it matters: Many residents said reassessment notices arrived with little usable explanation and that the likely tax increase, combined with higher consumer costs, creates financial strain. Board members told speakers the board plans $700,000-plus in cuts and will set a tax rate only after a May 21 budget work session.

Board staff presented the advertised budget and the reassessment updates the county received in May. The advertised general fund budget was $80,143,093; staff said revised assessment numbers reduce projected new real-property revenue from the introduced figure of about $4.2 million to roughly $3.6 million, leaving a shortfall the board will address next week.

Residents urged greater transparency and more local review of assessment work done by a contractor. James Keller, who described repeated requests to the assessor’s contractor for supporting documentation, said the contractor’s worksheets “generally failed to explain in easy to understand language” the adjustments used in assessments. At one point he called the contractor’s technical explanation “hand waving.”

Several speakers and board members also pressed staff about appeal options. County staff said the local assessor’s office remains the first point of contact to correct factual errors (for example, building or lot measurements). The county extended the informal appeal period tied to the contractor’s process and the formal Board of Equalization application deadline to June 30.

Board reaction and next steps: Supervisors said they will discuss specific budget reductions at a May 21 work session and return on May 27 to adopt a final budget and set tax rates. Chairman Brown said postponing the tax-rate vote until after the work session will allow the board to present a finalized set of cuts before establishing the rate. No vote on a real-estate tax rate was taken Wednesday.

What speakers asked for: Multiple residents urged tax relief rather than higher spending, called for local control of reassessments, and asked the board to consider staffing and service priorities that might be reduced. A number of commenters offered to volunteer local expertise to improve the assessment process.

Ending: The board’s action to delay the tax-rate decision gives supervisors one additional public meeting to adopt targeted reductions and finalize the rate; the board also extended residents’ appeal window for reassessments through June 30.","Prince George County residents criticized a recent contractor-led reassessment and urged tax relief as the board opened hearings on the FY2026 budget; the board postponed setting the real-estate tax rate to allow further budget reductions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Powell Creek solar-extension request postponed after public comments on decommissioning and bonds

Board approves VDOT six-year plan; telefee funds earmarked for Middle–Jefferson roundabout

Board approves $2.08 million in school carryover spending and categorical transfers

Board delays 'trash and clutter' ordinance after hours of public opposition

Residents press board on reassessments as county delays tax-rate decision and trims budget