Chesterfield County, Virginia · Non-partisan · Volunteer-run
All data from county records, reports, and FOIA responses
Open now The comprehensive plan rewrite and zoning ordinance modernisation are on a nine-month timetable. Roughly four months of public influence remain. How to weigh in
The Record

What we asked, and what came back

Every request we have made to Chesterfield County, with the reply printed in full where we received one — and the clock still running where we did not. We publish the county's own words rather than our summary of them.

Answered · disputed Met 8 Jul 2025 · Analysis sent 8 Sep 2025 · Answered same day

What did the Meadowville development return to taxpayers?

Meadowville is the county's flagship economic development site — Amazon, Niagara, and LEGO's billion-dollar plant. We met the Director of Economic Development twice asking for figures that would let anyone calculate a return on the public money spent there. Of four major projects we asked about, only Meadowville came back with usable data.

Working from those figures plus records obtained under FOIA, we put total investment at $191.6M — $91.2M of land and $100.4M of infrastructure — and calculated a payback period of roughly 41 years. For comparison, a private company evaluating a capital project of that size would typically require payback inside five years.

The county's reply, in part

The Director disputed two figures. On $32.4M of utilities spending, he said the investment serves the entire Meadowville pressure zone rather than the park alone, that lines inside the park were paid for from land sale proceeds, and that our analysis credited none of the water revenue or connection fees received since. On $27.7M of road work, he said it was paid for out of land sale revenue and so should not count as additional investment.

He then wrote that it was clear we did not wish to understand the business of government, and would manipulate whatever information the county provided. He declined further discussion.

Where this stands. Those are substantive objections and we are not dismissing them. Both figures are marked disputed in our records, and the payback figure above depends on them. We have asked for the water revenue and connection fee totals that would let us test his first point — those numbers would change the calculation, and we would publish the revised figure whichever way it moved.
Answered Asked 19 Jul 2026 · Answered 21 Jul 2026 · 2 days

Google data center economic model

We asked the Director of Chesterfield Economic Development for the economic and financial model he referenced at a public discussion — total project costs, tax breaks and abatements, and the associated taxpayer benefits.

The county's reply, in part

Google pays the same real estate rate as every other property owner, 89¢ per $100, and the same business tangible personal property rate, $3.35 per $100, on everything other than data center equipment. Data center computer equipment is taxed at 24¢ per $100. Should that rate be increased, Google's rate is frozen at 24¢ for 10 years, with two 10-year renewal periods. The county projects more than $4.3 million annually per $1 billion of data center development.

What remains open. The projections came from a statewide agency using statewide averages, not Chesterfield-specific figures, and they cover direct revenue only — no power, water, road, or public safety costs. The reply also does not address total project cost or the abatements we asked about.
Answered Asked 2 Aug 2026 · Answered 3 Aug 2026 · 1 day

Infrastructure concerns, case 25SN1314

A member and 78-year county resident wrote to the incoming County Administrator raising infrastructure concerns attached to a pending case.

The county's reply, in part

The Administrator acknowledged the issue, said it would receive the attention it deserves, and noted he would meet with staff on arrival.

What remains open. A substantive response on the infrastructure question itself.
No response Asked 3 Aug 2026 · 11 days and counting

The arithmetic behind the 1% sales tax

We asked a member of the Board of Supervisors for the county's own figures on the proposed 2-cent real estate reduction and 10% personal property reduction, so a net total could be calculated — and for verification of the claim that 30% of the tax would be paid by non-residents.

Why it matters. Residents are being asked to support a tax on the strength of a 30% figure that has not been shown publicly. We are not disputing it. We are asking to see the arithmetic.
Request in preparation Opened 26 Jul 2026

County revenue projections

The county has used a figure of $65–70 million where our own calculation from the audited annual report lands near $75.9 million. A formal records request is being prepared for the calculations behind the county's number.

Note. A gap of this size usually means the two sides are measuring different things. We would rather establish which than argue past each other, and we will publish whichever way it resolves.
No action First presented 2 Jul 2024 · Over two years

Cost reduction and continuous improvement plan

Presented to the Board of Supervisors in July 2024, then to every individual member, then to county administration in 2025.

Status. No action has been taken on any recommendation. That is the reason this page exists.