Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents say—assessment appeals process stacked against property owners; board hears concerns about vendor's cost model
Summary
Multiple Prince George County property owners told supervisors they cannot effectively appeal assessments because the county's vendor, Vision, used a cost-model approach while the county's appeal form asks for comparable sales. Speakers asked the county to improve transparency and consider biannual assessments or a three-person assessors panel.
Several Prince George County property owners used the board's public-comment period June 10 to press the Board of Supervisors for clearer valuation methods and fairer appeals after recent increases in assessments.
James Keller, a property owner who spoke during the public comment period, said the county's assessment vendor, Vision, used a cost model to set values while the Board of Equalization appeal form asks owners to submit comparable sales — a mismatch, he said, that leaves property owners at a disadvantage. "How does this constraint on the Board of Equalization give the property owner a fair chance to prevail on appeal given the Board may not change the method of valuing properties?" Keller asked, citing the Virginia Department of Taxation Board of Equalization manual.
Molly Samler, a local real-estate attorney, gave a personal example: she said her neighborhood was assigned to an adjacent "Fairwood College" neighborhood for valuation purposes and she cannot see how Vision drew its neighborhood boundaries. She told the board her assessment rose 15% in 2022 and 30% in 2025, a cumulative 45% increase over five years despite no physical changes to her property.
Justin Noblin, another resident and frequent commenter, urged the board to move to biannual reassessments and to consider a three-person local Board of Assessors so valuation decisions would be more locally controlled. "I strongly recommend that y'all go to the biannual assessments," Noblin said during public comment.
County staff and board members acknowledged the concerns during their discussion later in the meeting and held a separate agenda item on whether to keep annual reassessments, shift to biennial, or retain the current schedule. Staff noted Virginia law requires real estate assessments at 100% of fair market value and that each option carries trade-offs: annual assessments track market changes faster but cost more and require more staff; biennial assessments cost less and allow more time for inspections, but can produce larger, less frequent adjustments.
Supervisor comments at the meeting indicated a preference among several board members to move toward biennial reassessments and to hire an in-house assessor rather than rely on a private vendor. The board asked staff to bring back ordinance language and staffing recommendations needed to change the county code if the board formally decides to move to a biennial schedule.
