[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6683792,"mediaKeyId","5332952-eb6bded60fa451268fb920fe3b5596b2","parentId",5332952,"title","Votes at a glance: Prince William supervisors approve public hearings, permits and settlements on July 8","audioSeconds",7442,"startMs",1878000,"endMs",9320000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5332952-eb6bded60fa451268fb920fe3b5596b2&start=1878&end=9320","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5332952-eb6bded60fa451268fb920fe3b5596b2/thumbnail_1878000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6683792/Prince-William-County/Virginia/Votes-at-a-glance-Prince-William-supervisors-approve-public-hearings-permits-and-settlements-on-July-8","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6683792-1ec11dd44b960b38a99aae3e1d5e86f6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138407&Signature=Mo22N7EBqOScFgs6Y7uniV~Ri5e-En9AoP4urwBlg-1RBwAxqbUqoItaX42kHd2aDXuVX0sov5cz3xtXIDVOjPPg0mn88V6BZwRVCteDcrjNfsYDULgdovPQHr1esldG3XumhfMewHAZACB0JBy7lh7FeMHVJBLugU7EWudJDxGF1-shfPuDu5KdD4j0fek0r82qt0MVjOk0xjfMEiij7h~oFS79bkYoiSsqWO~gMUneDXWcbwaknylFGwjmzrAlXFTOeVkxnCSeIThYeAw~~fHwsz6WB8kfTutFjiTPiYW64QrQ3DBFNVl2vAaZNaxYpTBg~riln-DVmZe81nkp8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prince William County","date","2025-07-08T00:00:00Z","article","The Prince William County Board of Supervisors took several formal votes at its July 8 meeting. Below is a concise summary of motions and outcomes reported in the meeting record.

Summary of votes and motions

- Agenda amendment to allow remote participation: Motion to waive rules and approve remote participation (moved by Supervisor Bodie, seconded by Supervisor Franklin). Vote: unanimous; Supervisors Gordy and Weir were absent from the initial vote but later joined remotely.

- Approval of agenda item 3 (minutes/consent approval): Motion moved and seconded; vote unanimous.

- Proclamations: The board proclaimed July 2025 as Parks and Recreation Month and July 20–26, 2025 as Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week. Proclamations were accepted by department representatives; votes on proclamations were taken as part of regular agenda approvals (unanimous where recorded).

- Consent agenda (items 5a, 5c–5i; item 5b pulled for discussion and later approved): The board approved the consent agenda items including grant applications (e.g., Safe Streets funding application, first responder wellness grant) and related administrative actions. Vote: unanimous.

- Special-use permits and planning items (7a, 7b, 7c): The board voted to approve three planning items including a special-use permit related to a live church and an inline ice rink project that will be funded with proffers (board comments noted no taxpayer burden). Votes: all approved by unanimous votes as recorded.

- Agency item 10a (parks-related MOU / ice-rink partnership): The board approved an MOU and related authorization for Parks and Recreation for an inline rink project. Staff noted the only general-fund expense would be an estimated insurance premium (approximately $10,000, to be confirmed). Vote: unanimous.

- Item 10b (authorize public hearing for soil/foundation management fund): Motion to authorize a public hearing on an ordinance to establish a local foundation and soil management fund (moved by Supervisor Franklin). Vote: passed 5–3 (Gordy, Vega and Weir opposed). This was the most contested item and is covered in detail in a separate article.

- Closed-session report-outs and authorizations:
- Opioid-related settlement participation: The board authorized Prince William County’s participation in the proposed settlement of opioid-related claims against Henry Schein defendants and authorized county counsel to execute documents necessary to participate. Vote: unanimous.
- Woodlawn buyback (7074 Curry Drive, Haymarket): The board directed the county executive to exercise the buyback option and complete purchase documents for a 9.15-acre property in Haymarket; motion passed 6–2 (Supervisor Weir and Supervisor Vega voted nay).

- Adjournment: Motion to adjourn approved (vote unanimous as recorded).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Prince William County - Board of County Supervisors Meeting - Jul 08, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At its July 8 meeting the board approved a set of proclamations and routine consent items, unanimously approved several special-use permits, authorized a public hearing on a soil management fund (5–3), approved participation in an opioid settlement and authorized an option to repurchase a county property.","taxTitle","Prince William County, Virginia","taxId",21018,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6683797,"Prince William supervisors authorize public hearing on local soil management fund after tense debate",3116,4896000,8012000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5332952-eb6bded60fa451268fb920fe3b5596b2&start=4896&end=8012","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5332952-eb6bded60fa451268fb920fe3b5596b2/thumbnail_4896000.jpg","/articles/6683797/Prince-William-County/Virginia/Prince-William-supervisors-authorize-public-hearing-on-local-soil-management-fund-after-tense-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6683797-907b1cee5ff29801fd8b2c8ff435e3be/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138407&Signature=Dt47fddu5jl5gz42Tr1hiFndRTHqKvBQWFtGC25xya9she6Y~ZZNkv8YFJJyyJgKeTXECp6dchxbdfN2wP70jGb5U09wmK9VhE692cxPhaJK-EHOpaFQchzOVPvf8A9j9qRsEb4nx1G6q9N8Rm8M7bJ1rQcyba-mHyl1M9aBpCDagzof4NsB73eeeu3Uq~25R8DrRqdZXnamAjlz8LBWTSGgH9AK~r4SLo1msvJW9iHBgEo9zd3Yci~Pv8bhq9q7NEc0vbK1YJVfSxG6KGgr4u0jGI3w824Qhs7-cPwbD7pVZMyMj5pFziXAlZPvEmtWQPdAXYj~daDxTko3h2SZkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Prince William County supervisors voted 5–3 on July 8 to authorize a public hearing on an ordinance to establish a local foundation and soil management fund intended to help homeowners and condominium/HOA communities with foundation repairs linked to problem soils.

The measure, requested under new Virginia law (HB 1659), would allow the county to create a program and application process to provide grants or loans to eligible property owners for repairs related to expansive or otherwise problematic soils. The board authorized advertising the proposed ordinance and holding a public hearing at a future meeting; the authorization itself does not create the fund or commit long-term funding.

Why this matters: Supervisors and staff described repeated homeowner complaints and complex cases — notably in Potomac Club, River Oaks and Newport Estates — where latent soil-related foundation failures surfaced years after original construction. County staff and the building official said state law and standard warranties provide limited consumer protection for latent defects, and existing local processes sometimes leave homeowners without recourse when original construction records are unavailable.

County staff said they will meet individually with supervisors during July to refine details before the public hearing, and that implementation timing and long-term funding would come back to the board as part of the budget or through subsequent ordinances and administrative procedures.

Key points from the discussion

- Scope and legal basis: Staff said the ordinance is consistent with HB 1659 from the General Assembly and allows localities the discretion to create a fund; the state did not provide direct funding. (Transcript: item 10 b introduction.)

- Eligibility windows: The draft ordinance language discussed during the meeting would limit eligibility to properties where foundations are at least 10 years old but not older than 20 years; the draft also requires that the property no longer be encumbered by county bond obligations. Supervisors and staff repeatedly flagged that the 10–20 year window is a policy judgment and could exclude some homeowners. (Source: discussion citing draft ordinance language.)

- Funding and fiscal uncertainty: Staff noted an initial, one-time transfer of $200,000 from contingency had been discussed, but long-term funding was not settled. The county executive said detailed funding strategy would be developed during the budget process and that staff would return with application procedures and fiscal impacts after one-on-one meetings with supervisors.

- Consumer-protection limits: Eric Mays, the county building official, described state-required warranties (a one-year general warranty and a five-year foundation warranty under state law as explained in the meeting) and limits on the county’s ability to enforce remedies after certificates of occupancy are issued. He said many foundation problems are latent and can appear a decade or more after construction, and that determining responsibility and funding for repairs is often the most difficult part of remediation.

- Disagreement among supervisors: Several board members urged moving forward to give affected residents a forum to be heard; others warned the proposal could create costly new county liabilities and encroach into private civil matters between homeowners and developers. Supervisor Franklin moved to authorize the public hearing; the motion passed 5–3. Supervisors Gordy, Vega and Weir cast the dissenting votes.

What the authorization does and does not do

- Does: Authorize advertisement of the proposed ordinance language and schedule a public hearing so residents can testify about their experiences and the draft ordinance.
- Does not: Create the fund, appropriate ongoing funding, or adopt the ordinance. Any final ordinance would require a separate vote after the advertised public hearing and might require additional advertisements if the board changes the text.

Next steps and outstanding questions

Staff said they will (1) meet individually with supervisors in July to refine language, (2) produce application procedures and implementation details, and (3) bring back fiscal estimates during the budget process. Board members asked staff to analyze the likely number of eligible properties, the risk of opening the county to large liabilities, and whether developer or other contributions could be required; staff said some of those questions require further legal and fiscal review.

Residents in affected neighborhoods told supervisors they have faced sudden, costly foundation issues and want the county to create a mechanism to help when private contractual remedies are unavailable. Board members who voted to move the public hearing said they wanted affected homeowners to be heard before the board takes final action.

Ending: The board’s authorization only begins a public process. Supervisors and staff said the ordinance could still be revised substantially before any final vote, and several members requested a possible work session to dig into technical, fiscal and legal details prior to final adoption.","The Board of Supervisors voted 5–3 to authorize a public hearing on an ordinance to create a local foundation and soil management fund intended to help homeowners and associations pay for foundation repairs caused by problematic soils; supervisors disagreed on eligibility, funding and potential liability.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Prince William supervisors approve public hearings, permits and settlements on July 8

Prince William supervisors authorize public hearing on local soil management fund after tense debate