The City of Fredericksburg was added to HB72 without any discussion by City Council. There is no public awareness of this within the City. Before the Finance Committee gives this authority to the Fredericksburg City Council, the Council should bring this matter before the voters of the City so they can explain their rationale for doing this and the effects such a change would have. I ask this Committee to turn this bill away and force the Fredericksburg City Council to operate in an open and transparent manner before giving them this authority.

Dear Committee I am a Fredericksburg resident writing regarding HB72, which you are presenting to authorize the City to tax land and improvements at different rates. I do not think this bill is necessary for City of Fredericksburg. After reviewing the bill text, I understand that HB72 is an enabling measure only and does not itself impose a tax. However, I am concerned about the process and potential impacts that could follow if this authority is granted without clear guardrails. Specifically: • There appears to be no public record of City Council discussion or resident consultation prior to requesting this legislation. Given that this authority relates to property taxation, the lack of transparency is troubling to many residents. • While land and improvements are already assessed separately, taxing them at different rates can significantly shift tax burdens. In Fredericksburg, this could disproportionately affect owner-occupied homes on high-value land, historic properties subject to redevelopment limits, retirees on fixed incomes, and residents preserving green or open space. • Existing tax exemptions for subsidized housing and nonprofit uses mean that any redistributed burden would likely fall on remaining taxable properties unless explicit protections are adopted locally. Before HB72 advances, I respectfully ask: 1. Was this request initiated by City Council, city staff, or another party acting on behalf of the City? 2. Were homeowner, historic-district, and fixed-income resident impacts evaluated prior to introducing the bill? 3. Would you support clarifying language or public assurances that any local implementation would include protections for owner-occupied residences and historic properties? I appreciate your service and your attention to these concerns. Transparency and careful deliberation are especially important when legislation involves property taxation authority. Respectfully, Marjorie Lucas

Del Cole, please pull this bill. It does not represent the wishes of the residents of our city.

Dear Representative Cole, I am writing to request that you think twice about pushing forward with this bill for the simple reason that is a half baked notion with little to no imperial proven evidence to understand the impacts of such policies. In theory, it might sound nice, but it has yet to be executed and all ramifications assessed.

Hello Delegate Cole, It has come to my attention that the city council of Fredericksburg requested that you support House Bill 72. I am a long time city resident. Please do not support this bill. This bill did not come from the people of Fredericksburg. Thank you for your work in representing us. Regards, Mike Blashford

Please reconsider House Bill 72 . This did not come the people of Fredericksburg!! By allowing land to be taxed at a higher rate than the buildings that sit on it, this policy shifts the tax burden in a way that penalizes small historic properties while rewarding large-scale redevelopment. In a historic city like ours, where modest homes and small buildings sit on valuable land, owners could see higher tax pressure simply for preserving what already exists. Small houses on larger lots, like Braehead Woods, Confederate Ridge, Mayfield and other areas of town could see much higher taxes on their properties. That creates a dangerous incentive. When land is taxed more heavily than structures, the most “efficient” financial response is often to maximize development, not preservation. Small historic houses become less economically viable, while tearing them down to build larger, denser projects becomes more attractive. Equally concerning is how this could affect privately owned downtown parking lots--which are essential to keeping downtown businesses accessible—they are land-intensive but improvement-light. Under a split-rate tax system, parking lots could become significantly more expensive to maintain, encouraging their redevelopment rather than preservation. That puts additional strain on downtown access, businesses, and residents alike. Over time, this policy risks pushing us toward a city shaped by tax incentives rather than community values—where historic buildings are demolished, parking disappears, and scale and character are sacrificed in the name of “highest and best use.” Fredericksburg’s historic fabric is not an obstacle to overcome; it is an ASSET to protect. Any tax policy that unintentionally encourages demolition over preservation and development over affordability deserves careful scrutiny and a full public conversation before moving forward.

I am a home owner in the City of Fredericksburg, area code 22401. I do not agree that our properties should be taxed at a different rate than the tax imposed on the land. They may have allowed for the public to be heard but the City Council of Fredericksburg did NOT listen to it's constituents and went forth with this bill anyway. This bill will penalizes small historic properties while rewarding large-scale redevelopment which is ALREADY a huge problem in Virginia and Fredericksburg City. Further, any tax policy that unintentionally encourages demolition over preservation and development over affordability is not a viable plan moving forward and deserves much more scrutiny.

I am a home owner in the City of Fredericksburg, area code 22401. I do not agree that our properties should be taxed at a different rate than the tax imposed on the land. They may have allowed for the public to be heard but the City Council of Fredericksburg did NOT listen to it's constituents and went forth with this bill anyway. This bill will penalizes small historic properties while rewarding large-scale redevelopment which is ALREADY a huge problem in Virginia and Fredericksburg City. Further, any tax policy that unintentionally encourages demolition over preservation and development over affordability is not a viable plan moving forward and deserves much more scrutiny.

This bill has not been given public consideration. It should there fore be with drawn. This is being pushed through without the approval of city residents. Our city council has kept this quiet from us.

We ask that you slow down HB72 because everyone we know since finding out about it, has major concerns about how it will affect the character and destroy preservation of historic Fredericksburg. Our unique historic city will be at risk with unforseen consequences, encouraging demolition rather than preservation and development over affordability. With this in mind, this bill should not be rushed and deserves a full public discussion before moving forward. As we are learning from the Trump administration, it's far better to prevent damage than to try to undo it. Press PAUSE and talk with us, the residents!

We ask that you slow down HB72 because everyone we know since finding out about it, has major concerns about how it will affect the character and destroy preservation of historic Fredericksburg. Our unique historic city will be at risk with unforseen consequences, encouraging demolition rather than preservation and development over affordability. With this in mind, this bill should not be rushed and deserves a full public discussion before moving forward. As we are learning from the Trump administration, it's far better to prevent damage than to try to undo it. Press PAUSE and talk with us, the residents!

As a member of the Fredericksburg Neighborhoods Coalition, I object to HB72. Gov Spanberger says: "Virginians want a government that works'. Those of us in FNC want government representatives, like Councilors, that are TRANSPARENT and that we can TRUST. We're not getting it in Fredericksburg. And this HB72 is another example of trying to pull a fast one without public input BEFORE HB72 proceeds. It is disturbing that the city of Fredericksburg is trying to circumvent public discussion, to cut our voices out, once again. Previous effort by the city (Councilors) was to hide behind closed doors at the Fredericksburg Police Dept to hold interviews for the Ward 3 Council appointment. The FPD! not even in Council Chambers. Even if a resident wanted to see if they properly opened/closed the closed door meeting, there are some (including those who have had run-ins with the police) who would feel creeped out to exercise their right to civic engagement by walking inside a Police Station for a public meeting. Was this deliberate? This appointment process used to be out in the open and showed up on Regional Web TV. Susanna Finn participated in this secretive process in which Tier 3/4 candidates, but not any Tier 1s with high qualifications, were interviewed to make her look good. One of them even saw her at the June 20, 2025 Democratic primary and said how shocked he was to even get an interview for being a Councilor since he had just moved into the city. Unheard of. Residents chipped in hundreds of dollars for FOIAs and attorney fees to support the lawsuit by another Ward 3 applicant, long-time College Heights resident Guy Gormley whose request for the candidate applications/resumes was denied by the city until approx 29 min before Finn was sworn in. Mayor Kerry Devine even paired up the reason why the city shouldn't release the information with what she only knows as a school employee, not as an attorney or even the local government law on release of candidate resumes to the public by saying it was a personnel issue and confidential information. No, the public is allowed to see the applications and the resumes of candidates for a public office. City had to settle the court case because they were wrong in what they did to deny citizens information that they had a right to see. Even though no phones were allowed in the Courthouse building (posted on a sandwich sign on the sidewalk and checked at security inside), except for the attorneys in the case, Councilor Jannan Holmes sat inside the courtroom, heard the proceedings of Mr. Gormley's case, and then exited the room to use City Attorney Kelly Lackey's phone. This type of circumvention of what the law says, 'No phones' was appalling. The Virginia Coalition for Open Government was contacted to report what was happening with closing off the appointment interviews to the public. VCOG responded, 'What is happening in Fredericksburg? It never used to be this way'. This HB72 legislation is another example of bypassing public input by the city. It does not matter that the public will comment AFTER it is passed. The other cities that are part of 'the classification of land at a different tax rate', like Fairfax, Richmond, and Poquoson, let their residents know that their city was proposing 'enabling' legislation BEFORE the legislation went forward with being written and entered as a bill. Please rescind HB72. We weren't asked.

Please withdraw the bill because this did not come from the people of Fredericksburg. Any tax policy that unintentionally encourages demolition over preservation and development over affordability deserves careful scrutiny and a full public conversation before moving forward. By allowing land to be taxed at a higher rate than the buildings that sit on it, this policy shifts the tax burden in a way that penalizes small historic properties while rewarding large-scale redevelopment.

I am opposed to House Bill 72, because I think it comes at too high a cost, being the negative impact it may have on the historic district in Fredericksburg. I love our old town and live in this part of Fredericksburg. Please choose preservation and support for our historic character rather than profit. Thank you for considering my voice.

HB 72 did NOT come from the people of Fredericksburg. We had no opportunity to discuss it or vote on it ourselves before is was sent to Committee. I respectfully ask you to follow your conscience and not let HB 72 go forward at this time. At the very least, the citizens of Fredericksburg deserve an opportunity to discuss the bill and, ideally, vote on it ourselves before it is enacted into law. Respectfully, Patricia P. Gaske Fredericksburg VA

I am writing this afternoon in regarded to proposed HB 72, which will allow land to be taxed at a separate rate than the improvements upon that land. This bill concerns me, not necessarily as to its impacts, as I don’t have a good feel about what the impacts could be to landowners in the City. As someone who tries to keep up with local government issues, this bill is somewhat of a shock, as Mr. Cole you presented this bill, and there has been ZERO discussion about it at the City Level that I was aware of. I follow all City meetings, read minutes, and could not find a single instance of this ever being talked about. Through the research of a friend, he found the only mention of the City Council possibly wanting to do this at a City work session and that comment/discussion period lasted a total of 30 seconds. And the discussion wasn’t really a discussion, more of the Council asking Staff to look into it. THAT IS IT. Before Del Cole or this Committee gives this authority to the Fredericksburg City Council, the Council should bring this matter before the voters of the City so they can explain their position, rationale, and impacts for doing this. I ask this Committee to turn this bill away and force the Fredericksburg City Council to operate in an open and transparent manner, before giving them this authority. Thank You for your time in this matter. Bryan Stelmok Fredericksburg City Resident

I urge you to reject HB 72 This bill could possibly raise more taxes revenue for our city but it has some huge drawbacks, including removing existing affordable housing stock for our already beleaguered residents. By allowing land to be taxed at a higher rate than the buildings that sit on it, this policy shifts the tax burden in a way that penalizes small historic properties while rewarding large-scale redevelopment. In a historic city like ours, where modest homes and small buildings sit on valuable land, owners could see higher tax pressure simply for preserving what already exists. Small houses on larger lots, like Braehead Woods, minority neighborhoods like -Confederate Ridge and Mayfield, and other areas of town that could see much higher taxes on their properties. This creates a dangerous incentive. When land is taxed more heavily than structures, the most “efficient” financial response is often to maximize development, not preservation. Small historic houses become less economically viable, while tearing them down to build larger, denser projects becomes more attractive. Equally concerning is how this could affect privately owned downtown parking lots. which are essential to keeping downtown businesses accessible—they are land-intensive but improvement-light. Under a split-rate tax system, parking lots could become significantly more expensive to maintain, encouraging their redevelopment rather than preservation. That puts additional strain on downtown access, businesses, and residents alike. Over time, this policy risks pushing us toward a city shaped by tax incentives rather than community values—where historic buildings are demolished, parking disappears, and scale and character are sacrificed in the name of “highest and best use.”

Comments Document

attached

RE: HB175 The City of Portsmouth is not opposed to this bill. However, a reimbursement mechanism is needed to help localities offset these unfunded mandates.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB175. Imagine two service members, both mortally injured in the same line-of-duty incident. What is the difference between the first service member, who lingers 15 days in the hospital before dying, and the second one, who lingers 15 months before also succumbing? The first will be categorized as "active duty deceased" while the second will be categorized as a "100% disabled veteran." Can anyone explain why full tax relief for the first surviving spouse is to be decided by the locality (via local ordinance) while full tax relief for the second surviving spouse is guaranteed by the Commonwealth? To make this inequity clearer, imagine the second service member recovers from the incident, is medically retired from active duty, receives their 100% veteran disability rating, and later dies as a result of their own gross negligence unrelated to their service-connected injuries. The veteran's spouse will still qualify for full tax relief. The first service member’s surviving spouse, however, remains subject to the whims of local government for full tax relief, not to mention the line-of-duty designation required to receive any tax relief. This difference in treatment is not a constitutional variance; it was created by the General Assembly with good intention, yet with insufficient consideration. If you’re going to continue offering tax relief to surviving spouses, please treat service members' survivors the same as disabled veterans' survivors and simply provide the same tax relief calculations for both. I respectfully request a re-write of this bill to make it so. Thank you for your civic service and thoughtful consideration of this request.

HB 261 and HB 282 - Virginia First Cities is supportive of both of our members, the City of Charlottesville and the City of Newport News, efforts to be included in the statute to allow the option to reclassify improvements to real property as a separate class for tax purposes. We are also supportive of Del. McNamara's HB 10 which would end the "Christmas tree effect" of localities having to come to the General Assembly year after year to ask for this authority.

HB 261 and HB 282 - Virginia First Cities is supportive of both of our members, the City of Charlottesville and the City of Newport News, efforts to be included in the statute to allow the option to reclassify improvements to real property as a separate class for tax purposes. We are also supportive of Del. McNamara's HB 10 which would end the "Christmas tree effect" of localities having to come to the General Assembly year after year to ask for this authority.

RE: HB 334 The City of Portsmouth is not opposed to this bill as long as it remains a local option, including whether to hold a referendum.

HB334 Stop using taxes for schools when they're getting worse in education and just indoctrination of kids. Paying off the teachers' unions isn't a reason for fraud. Maybe get rid of illegals because so many Americans are homeschooling and doing private school from the crap now, we're better off. HB341 This does nothing for the environment because people will simply ignore it.

HB 334 - VFC strongly supports HB 334 as it empowers local elected leaders and their citizens to address the critical issue of aging school infrastructure of which we have aplenty. This bill does not represent an automatic tax increase and is merely a local option for localities and their citizens to consider. Lastly, we are supportive of ending the year in, year out individual locality requests for this authority.

Abjectly opposed to ANY new taxes for ANY reason. We have an overabundance of money in this state as it is and are taxed enough.

I am writing to express strong support for House Bill 750, which authorizes local governments to offer enhanced Virginia Retirement System benefits for full-time 911 dispatchers. 911 dispatchers are the first point of contact in every emergency. They make rapid, high-stakes decisions, manage traumatic situations daily, and play a critical role in coordinating law enforcement, fire, and EMS responses. Despite these responsibilities, dispatchers are not currently afforded the same retirement recognition as other public safety personnel performing hazardous duty. HB 750 addresses this gap in a targeted and responsible way. The bill is permissive, not mandatory, preserving local control and allowing each jurisdiction to determine whether enhanced benefits make sense based on its workforce needs and fiscal capacity. It does not impose a statewide mandate or create new unfunded obligations. From a policy perspective, this legislation supports workforce stability and public safety effectiveness. High turnover among dispatchers leads to increased overtime, training costs, and staffing shortages that directly impact emergency response times and outcomes. Allowing localities the option to offer enhanced retirement benefits is a preventive investment that helps retain experienced professionals and maintain continuity in emergency communications. HB 750 is a narrow, well-crafted proposal that promotes fairness, strengthens public safety infrastructure, and keeps Virginia competitive in recruiting and retaining qualified emergency communications personnel. I respectfully urge your support for House Bill 750. Sincerely, Timothy K. Fitzgerald County Administrator Augusta County