HB72 Real property tax classification of land and improvements in City of Fredericksburg.
- HB72 Real property tax classification of land and improvements in City of Fredericksburg.
- Status
- Overview
- Summary as Introduced
- Patrons
- House Patrons
- Senate Patrons
- Language
- Opening Statement
- House Subcommittee Statement
- House Committee Statement
- Floor Statement
- Senate Subcommittee Statement
- Senate Committee Statement
- Support and Opposition
- Support
- Opposition
- No Recommendation
- Fiscal Impact
- Summary
- Basis of the Estimate
- Possible Questions
- TL;DR
- Q1: “Is this a split-rate land value tax?”
- Q2: “Does this force Fredericksburg to raise taxes?”
- Q3: “Why does Fredericksburg want this authority?”
- Q4: “Is this changing how property is valued?”
- Additional Information
Status
House Finance | Subcommittee — 1/20/2026
Overview
Summary as Introduced
Real property tax; classification of land and improvements; City of Fredericksburg.
HB 72 amends § 58.1-3221.1 of the Code of Virginia to add the City of Fredericksburg to the list of cities authorized to classify improvements to real property as a separate class for local taxation purposes. The bill permits Fredericksburg, after public notice and a public hearing, to levy a different tax rate on improvements than on land, provided that the tax rate on improvements is not zero and does not exceed the tax rate on the land on which the improvements are located. The bill does not require the City to exercise this authority and does not alter property valuation methods.
Patrons
House Patrons
• Joshua G. Cole (chief patron)
Senate Patrons
• None
Language
The language of HB72 can be viewed here.
Opening Statement
House Subcommittee Statement
Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee—
HB 72 is a straightforward, locality-requested bill.
Current law already allows several Virginia cities to classify land and improvements separately for real property tax purposes. HB 72 simply adds the City of Fredericksburg to that existing list.
The bill does not require Fredericksburg to change its tax structure. It only grants local-option authority. Any decision to use that authority would require public notice, a public hearing, and action by the City Council.
This legislation does not change property valuation methods, does not mandate a tax increase, and does not apply statewide. It allows Fredericksburg—if it chooses—to consider the same tool that Fairfax, Richmond, Roanoke, and Poquoson already have.
This bill was requested by the City of Fredericksburg and approved as part of its 2026 Legislative Agenda.
I ask that the subcommittee favorably report HB 72 to full committee.
House Committee Statement
n/a
Floor Statement
n/a
Senate Subcommittee Statement
n/a
Senate Committee Statement
n/a
Support and Opposition
Support
• City of Fredericksburg
Opposition
• None identified
No Recommendation
• None
Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact statement can be viewed here.
Summary
According to the Department of Taxation, HB 72 has no fiscal impact on the Commonwealth. Any revenue or administrative impact would depend entirely on whether the City of Fredericksburg chooses to exercise the authority granted by the bill. No budget amendment is required.
Basis of the Estimate
• No impact on state revenues
• No impact on state administrative costs
• Potential local revenue and administrative impacts are indeterminate and optional
• Any local action would require public notice and a public hearing before adoption
Possible Questions
This section addresses likely questions raised by members or stakeholders.
TL;DR
Q1: “Is this a split-rate land value tax?”
TL;DR: No. It authorizes separate classification of land and improvements, but does not mandate a land value tax or any specific rate structure.
Q2: “Does this force Fredericksburg to raise taxes?” TL;DR: No. The bill is optional and does not require any tax increase.
Q3: “Why does Fredericksburg need this authority?” TL;DR: It gives the City flexibility to consider development incentives already available to other Virginia cities.
Q4: “Is this a statewide policy change?” TL;DR: No. It applies only to Fredericksburg and only if the City chooses to act.
Q1: “Is this a split-rate land value tax?”
What’s true: The bill allows land and improvements to be taxed at different rates.
What’s misleading: A “land value tax” implies a mandatory or uniform economic model.
Answer you can use: HB 72 does not mandate a land value tax or any specific tax structure. It simply allows Fredericksburg to classify land and improvements separately, consistent with existing authority already granted to other cities.
Q2: “Does this force Fredericksburg to raise taxes?”
What’s true: The bill grants taxing authority.
What’s omitted: The authority is optional and constrained by statute.
Answer you can use: No. The bill does not require any tax increase. The City may choose not to use the authority at all, or could implement it in a revenue-neutral manner following public notice and a hearing.
Q3: “Why does Fredericksburg want this authority?”
Answer you can use: The City is exploring whether different treatment of land and improvements could incentivize development of vacant or underutilized parcels. This is the same policy flexibility already available to several other Virginia cities.
Q4: “Is this changing how property is valued?”
Answer you can use: No. The bill explicitly does not alter valuation methods. It affects only classification for tax rate purposes, not assessed value.
Additional Information
1. Existing Virginia precedent
• Fairfax (2002)
• Roanoke (2003)
• Poquoson (2011)
• Richmond (2020)
Policy implication: HB 72 extends an existing, limited authority rather than creating a new statewide policy.
2. Local control and public accountability
• Public notice required
• Public hearing required
• City Council retains full discretion
Policy implication: Any change would be locally debated and locally adopted, not imposed by the Commonwealth.
3. Economic development flexibility
• Authority may allow the City to consider incentives for development of vacant land
• Any implementation can be tailored to local conditions
Policy implication: The bill expands policy options without predetermining outcomes.