Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Hearing Effective Rate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds required public hearing on effective tax rate after projected assessment gains; no rate set
Summary
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.
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.
