I support HB10, to allow (not mandate) localities to tax improvements on land at a different rate than the land itself. This idea gives cities more autonomy, so that local governments can make local decisions. Further, this capability gives localities a tool to use that can be used to incentivize development of vacant land - which is a big problem in my hometown of Newport News. Splitting the tax rate by lowering the tax on improvements can incentivize development, and it also just makes sense. Why punish someone for building a nicer house on the same size land as someone who builds a shack? We should be incentivizing efficient development, not punishing it. Similarly, in an area like downtown Newport News, why would we want someone to tax someone more who has invested their money in building a parking garage or commercial complex than someone who is just speculating on land or using it inefficiently as a surface parking lot? To summarize, we should be incentivizing efficient, productive development rather than land speculation, which is what this bill allows localities to do. At worst, it just gives local governments the autonomy to make their own decisions, which is a positive feature in a republic. Please support HB10 moving forward.

HB 10 - Virginia First Cities is supportive of HB 10 as it gives all our cities/local governments the option to reclassify improvements to real property as a separate class for tax purposes. We think this can be a strong tool (a carrot and not a mandate) for encouraging more affordable housing, primarily by incentivizing higher-density development and reducing land speculation. This approach might also help our cities as it can be a disincentive to holding vacant or underutilized land and reward the construction or improvement of housing units.

I was an assessor with the City of Alexandria for 10 years. I am now a retired real estate appraiser. This proposed law has a huge potential for confusing taxpayer. The value of the improvements is much less important than the land value and the total value of a property. The value of the improvements is a hypothetical number. "Improvements" do not sell by themselves. Vacant land sells and improved broperties (land and buildings) sell. The value of the improvements should be the difference between the the value of the land the total value. Will assessors pay closer attention to the highest and best use of each property if this law is implemented? Will it be applied to all properties (residential, commercial, and industrial) if a jurisdiction chooses to implement it? There will be endless arguments about how much of a property's total value should be allocated to the land as opposed to the improvements. Owners of more valuable properties will have "tax reps" and attorneys to argue their cases. Single family homeowners will not. If this proposed law is to be implemented properly, the assessor will need additional staff. It's a bad idea to implement policy through tax rates.

The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors respectfully urges the Subcommittee to support HB 68. HB68 revises the requirements for informing the public about the interaction between real estate tax rates and the growth in assessed values. Currently, when growth in assessments would result in an increase of more than 1 percent in the total real property tax levied, the governing body must reduce the tax rate accordingly, unless it holds a public hearing. The notice for the public hearing, as well as the notice of change in assessment that is mailed to each property owner, must include a calculation showing the tax rate that would levy the same amount of real estate tax as the previous year when applied to the total assessed value of real property (excluding new construction or improvements). Under current law, this calculation makes no allowance for inflation in the value of real estate, which has often exceeded 1 percent. As a result, by advertising the lowered rate necessary to offset the increased assessment, as currently calculated, localities are communicating to the public a tax rate that would produce a reduction in revenue, when adjusted for inflation. HB68 amends the notice requirements by requiring localities to communicate the lowered rate necessary to generate no more than a one percent increase in real estate tax revenue, after adjusting growth for inflation, which will provide more intuitive and accessible information to the public regarding the proposed tax rate. We thank you for your kind consideration.

RE: HB68 Per the City Assessor for the City of Portsmouth: "I do not believe this bill effectively communicates the intended information to taxpayers. As currently written, it presents a misleading 'projected' tax rate, which many taxpayers tend to interpret as definitive. I'm opposed to any notices that omit factual data. As appraisers, we must adhere to one of the core principles of USPAP: we must not provide misleading information. Including such projections on assessment notices does not constitute meaningful tax reform."

HB68 revises the requirements for informing the public about the interaction between real estate tax rates and the growth in assessed values. Currently, when growth in assessments would result in an increase of more than 1 percent in the total real property tax levied, the governing body must reduce the tax rate accordingly, unless it holds a public hearing. The notice for the public hearing, as well as the notice of change in assessment that is mailed to each property owner, must include a calculation showing the tax rate that would levy the same amount of real estate tax as the previous year when applied to the total assessed value of real property (excluding new construction or improvements). Under current law, this calculation makes no allowance for inflation in the value of real estate, which has often exceeded 1 percent. As a result, by advertising the lowered rate necessary to offset the increased assessment, as currently calculated, localities are communicating to the public a tax rate that would produce a reduction in revenue, when adjusted for inflation. HB68 amends the notice requirements by requiring localities to communicate the lowered rate necessary to generate no more than a one percent increase in real estate tax revenue, after adjusting growth for inflation, which will provide more intuitive and accessible information to the public regarding the proposed tax rate. Phil North , Supervisor Hollins District Roanoke County, VA

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 believe this bill seeks to only correct one distinct word in paragraph E of the existing State Code 58.1-3221. That is, to correct the one critical word in the phrase ... to contribute to the significance of a registered historic district (not "landmark"). I could be wrong, but I believe this has been a one word error since the original bill was drafted and adopted many years ago. This code deals with commercial and industrial structures. I believe and contend that paragraph E should be and was intended to be the exact mirrored equal to that of paragraph F in the existing code 58.1-3220 Partial exemption for certain rehabilitated, renovated or replacement residential structures. That paragraph F states. "Where rehabilitation is achieved through demolition and replacement of an existing structure, the exemption provided in subsection A shall not apply when any structure demolished is a registered Virginia landmark or is determined by the Department of Historic Resources to contribute to the significance of a registered historic district. In Staunton we have six historic districts: Beverley Historic District, Wharf Historic District, Newtown Historic District, Stuart Addition Historic District, Gospel Hill Historic District, and The Villages Historic District. Someone in one of those districts may choose to demolish and replace one of those existing commercial or industrial structures and attempt to apply for the rehabilitation tax credit program. The property by itself may not be a registered landmark but it may contribute to the historic district which it is within. That is why I believe it is important to have the wording in state code § 58.1-3221 paragraph E to be corrected from “…the exemption provided in subsection A shall not apply when any structure demolished is a registered Virginia landmark or is determined by the Department of Historic Resources to contribute to the significance of a registered historic landmark” to what I sincerely believe was the original intent to be “…the exemption shall not apply when any structure demolished is a registered Virginia landmark or is determined by the Department of Historic Resources to contribute to the significance of a registered historic district.”. That detail could be used against us (and other Virginia jurisdictions) with registered historic districts and rehab programs to qualify for the program if and when they were to tear down and rebuild a property in a registered historic district is the building by and of itself wasn’t also a registered Virginia landmark. "

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a written comment on HB345. I am the City Attorney for Staunton, Virginia. Our locality was approached by a property owner within a historic district in our city and asked about their options for the parcel as well as potential tax abatements for the parcel. The parcel in question is in a historic district, but it does not contribute to the significance of an historic landmark. As we examined the potential options, we noticed that Virginia Code Section 58.1-3321 would permit the demolition of the building on the property to be eligible for a tax abatement if the property was used for a commercial or industrial use. However, Virginia Code Sections 58.1-3220 and 58.1-3220.1 would not offer the tax abatement if the property was demolished and used for residential or hotel/motel uses. Both statutes use the word "district" rather than "structure." Thus, this parcel located in a historic district would be eligible for a tax abatement if it was demolished and made an industrial use, but not for residential or hotel uses. It appeared to the City that this may be a scrivener's error. The current wording would incentivize demolition of properties within historic districts for industrial or commercial uses rather than less intensive residential or hotel/motel uses. Given that we are talking about historic districts, it did not make sense to use that the statutes would incentivize the more intensive use. Therefore, we respectfully are requesting that the General Assembly amend the current statute to equalize commercial/industrial uses with residential and hotel/motel uses in terms of demolishing a structure within an historic district. It seems a rather odd result to maintain the current wording as tax abatements could incentivize demolition of structures in a historic district for a more intensive use. Thank you so much for your attention to this matter. Respectfully Submitted, John C. Blair, II

RE: HB345 The City of Portsmouth suggests the following friendly amendments: Lines 32 and 33 need to be amended to say "The exemption may commence upon completion of the rehabilitation, renovation, or replacement, or on January 1 of the year following completion of the rehabilitation, renovation, or replacement." Explanation of suggested amendment: It would be a nightmare to keep up with any of these that start at completion. They need to start January 1st or July 1st after completion, depending on whether the locality runs a calendar or fiscal year. Outside of that, the bill currently reads like our city's normal rehab program. It would b

HB 345 - Va First Cities thanks our member, the City of Staunton, and their Assessor, for catching what appears to be a scrivener's error in § 58.1-3221.