Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxation Reassessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents Press Board on Large Property Reassessments and Tax Rate Options
Summary
Multiple residents told the Surry County Board of Supervisors on March 6 that recent property reassessments produced steep increases. Speakers asked how to appeal reassessments, questioned county audits, and urged consideration of lowering the tax rate given rising assessed values.
Dozens of residents told the Surry County Board of Supervisors on March 6 that recent reassessments increased their home values sharply and asked what the county can do to help.
The comments came during the public-comment portion of the board's regular meeting in the General District Courtroom. Speakers said single-family homeowners and small-business owners are struggling to budget after their assessments rose by tens of thousands of dollars in one cycle.
Judy Little, speaking for the Surry County African American Heritage Society, and other residents urged the board to recognize local figures and also raised reassessment concerns. Lynette Dunigan said her home's assessed value rose by $47,500 and asked what steps she should take to budget for higher taxes and where to get help. Charlone Pierce and Helen Eggleston each told the board their homes rose in assessed value by roughly $39,000 and $40,700, respectively; Eggleston said the increase would force her to consider replacing shingles or selling.
Board members and county staff provided contact information and resources. County Administrator Melissa D. Rollins said printed reassessment FAQs were on a back table and gave two phone numbers for residents seeking explanation: the reassessment office at (757) 294-5207 and the Commissioner of the Revenue at (757) 294-5225. Rollins described the reassessment as a "limited scope reassessment" performed after the county's public-service assessment ratio dropped and said that when that ratio fell to 84% the county faced a potential revenue loss of about $3 million unless the ratio was restored.
Residents and speakers also urged the board to consider lowering the tax rate on the theory that higher assessments could generate sufficient revenue even at a reduced rate. Dr. Charlone Pierce cited a December 2024 University of Virginia comparison of tax rates and asked the board to analyze what revenue new assessments will generate at several lower tax-rate options.
Board members acknowledged the financial pressures. Supervisor Walter Hardy said economic development and revenue from public-service properties are central to balancing county needs and that the reassessment process is complex. Supervisor Amy Drury and other supervisors offered to work offline with residents who asked for follow-up.
The board did not take any formal action on reassessment appeals at the March 6 meeting; Rollins and staff said residents should contact the reassessment office or the board of equalization to pursue appeals.
The board later moved on to its agenda items, including a school budget presentation and votes on separate resolutions.
