A BILL to amend and reenact § 58.1-3221.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to real property tax; classification of land and improvements; City of Fredericksburg.
HB72 amends Virginia’s local real property tax classification statute to add the City of Fredericksburg to the list of localities that may treat improvements to real property as a separate class from the underlying land for tax purposes. Under the bill, Fredericksburg’s governing body could, after public notice and a hearing, set a different tax rate for improvements than for the land on which they sit, so long as the rate on improvements is not zero and does not exceed the land tax rate.
The bill also preserves the existing framework for the other listed cities—Fairfax, Richmond, Roanoke, and Poquoson—by restating their authority to use separate rates for land and improvements, while clarifying that the measure does not change how property is valued. In Poquoson’s case, the bill continues the rule that the rate on improvements may be different from the land rate but cannot be zero.
If enacted, HB72 would expand an existing local tax option to the City of Fredericksburg, allowing the city to adopt a split-rate property tax structure for land and improvements. The bill would amend § 58.1-3221.1 of the Code of Virginia, affecting local real property taxation authority in the named cities but not changing statewide valuation rules or creating a new tax classification outside those localities.
The available legislative history suggests little overt controversy around the measure. The bill was ultimately incorporated by Finance through HB282 and advanced by voice vote, which generally indicates broad procedural acceptance rather than a sharply divided debate. No committee transcript or recorded roll-call opposition is provided in the available materials.
The main policy issue is local tax design: whether Fredericksburg should be granted the same authority already available to certain other cities to tax land and improvements at different rates. Any contention would likely center on the practical effects of split-rate taxation on property owners, development incentives, and local revenue policy, but the provided record does not show specific objections or supporters by name.