Dozens of Amherst County residents packed the Board of Supervisors meeting on Dec. 2 to air complaints about a recent countywide property reassessment they said produced steep, sometimes erroneous increases.

Many speakers gave concrete examples. "Our overall assessment went up 790%," said Ron Fisher, co-owner of Pleasant View Ventures, describing a former school property still under renovation that he said was treated as a completed commercial hospitality venue. Fisher said the property has partial occupancy and has produced virtually no rental income and that the assessment therefore conflicts with the state requirement to value property based on "actual physical condition, and actual legal use as of January 1." He said he had scheduled an appeal appointment and would pursue the board of equalization if necessary.

Board members repeatedly tried to clarify the distinction between assessment and tax bills. The chair told the room that Virginia law requires real estate to be assessed at fair market value and that Amherst — a county with fewer than 50,000 residents — may choose reassessment cycles longer than two years. "The average assessment was up 65 to 70%," the chair said, but also cautioned that "none of us will know what the tax rate will be until this Board of Supervisors sets the tax rate."

Residents described a mix of parcel-specific errors and timing-driven sticker shock. David Nash, for example, said Amherst’s GIS had misattributed acreage among neighboring parcels, producing inconsistent percentage changes between adjacent properties. Multiple speakers reported increases in the range of 40%–100% on single-family parcels and urged the county to improve communication about the process and timelines.

County staff and board members urged residents to use the appeal process. The chair and other supervisors repeatedly told people to "come prepared with facts" (comparables from local realtors or online sales records) when meeting assessors. The chair said the last day to call for an appeal appointment is December 10 but added assessors will continue to meet with residents as needed.

The board also acknowledged the public’s frustrations with timing and communications: several speakers recommended better advance notice to residents who would experience large outlier changes. Supervisors said they would discuss reassessment frequency and related budget decisions during the winter budget season. The board approved a motion during the meeting to move reassessment CIP funding into the current fiscal year to cover contract and mailing costs for the reassessment process.

Next steps: residents should contact the reassessment hotline shown on their notice to set an appointment; the board will consider budget and tax-rate decisions during the upcoming budget process in late winter/early spring.