Hundreds of Amherst County property owners pressed the Board of Supervisors on Dec. 2 over a new countywide property reassessment that produced steep, uneven increases and local "sticker shock." Residents described parcel mix‑ups in GIS, valuation of unfinished commercial renovations as complete, and appraisal values that differ from recent third‑party appraisals.

The board chair explained the county followed state law governing assessments and said the reassessment was completed by Pearson after a competitive RFP. The chair emphasized assessments reflect market value but the tax rate is set separately by the board during the budget process and will be determined in late winter or early spring. "The last day to call for an appeal for an appointment is December 10," the chair said, and staff will continue to meet with residents after that date if needed.

Why it matters: Residents told the board the reassessment will materially affect household finances and local confidence in the county’s approach. The board faces choices about adjusting the tax rate, altering reassessment frequency and improving communication and GIS accuracy.

What residents told the board
Ron Fisher, owner of the former Pleasant View Elementary property being converted to an events venue, said his overall assessment rose "790%" and that the building remains under renovation and not yet producing income. "When an unfinished building is suddenly valued as a completed commercial venue, it not only places undue strain on a young business, it sends the message that local investment may not be protected or valued," Fisher said.

Several residents reported parcel/acreage errors and inconsistent neighborhood outcomes. David Nash described a case where county GIS boundary data appeared to have "crisscrossed the properties," producing implausible acreage and valuation results.

County response and process
The chair reiterated that assessment increases do not automatically translate into equal tax increases because the board will set the tax rate during the budget process. Board members urged residents to use the formal appeal process: make an appointment with Pearson's staff (to present comparable sales or factual corrections), then appeal to the county Board of Equalization if unsatisfied, and finally to the circuit court. The county’s statement and staff repeated that appeal appointments were available and that staff would continue to take calls beyond the stated Dec. 10 appointment deadline where possible.

Budget action tied to reassessment
The board approved a motion to reallocate reassessment CIP funds so the county can pay contractor, mailing, and Board of Equalization costs this fiscal year. Staff said the reassessment contract totals $529,231 and the board moved $200,000 from a later fiscal year into the current year to cover immediate costs.

What’s next
The board committed to improving communications about the appeals process and to reviewing options on reassessment frequency; staff and supervisors indicated they will study whether to move from the current six‑year cycle to a shorter interval. Numerous individual appeals and follow‑up meetings with assessor staff were already underway following the meeting.

Provenance: topicintro SEG 051, topfinish SEG 252

Speakers quoted (first reference with role): Unidentified Speaker (Chair); Ron Fisher (Resident/property owner); David Nash (Resident).