Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents tell supervisors retroactive land‑use assessments and late‑payment rules are causing hardship

Amelia County Board of Supervisors · December 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two residents described unexpected supplemental and retroactive land‑use tax assessments and the loss of tax‑relief status after missing deadlines; board members advised appeal routes and asked staff to review the ordinance language and state law for possible flexibility.

Several residents used public comment time at the Amelia County Board meeting to raise concerns about property tax assessment practices and a change in how land‑use acreage is calculated.

Robert Anderson said he received a notice adding supplemental taxes retroactively for 2022–2025 after the Commissioner of the Revenue recalculated assessments by deed, not by total tract acreage, and said the change represented roughly a 30% increase for his property. He asked whether the commissioner acted within the law and whether there was redress.

Board members explained the commissioner of the revenue is an independently elected constitutional officer and said the board does not control assessments. A supervisor recommended appeals through the Commissioner’s office, the Board of Equalization — which the board appoints — or via private counsel. “You can take it to the Board of Equalization, which we appoint the members of,” one member said.

Mary Ellen Stanley, calling in by phone, described a medical hardship leading her to miss a payment she believed due Dec. 3; she said her tax relief was removed for being late and her bill rose from $815.12 to about $1,859. She said staff told her there was “absolutely nothing” they could do and that she paid the larger amount with a credit card.

Board members agreed to have staff (Jeff) examine the ordinance and whether state law leaves any room for flexibility, and to report back. They noted the existing ordinance language appears to remove tax‑relief status when payment deadlines are missed.