Can a Virginia city reassess a homeowner's property mid-cycle and raise the tax bill before the next annual reassessment?

Plain-English summary

Delegate Kirkland Cox brought AG Cuccinelli a constituent-driven question. The City of Petersburg conducts real-property assessments annually, normally in April. A property owner had received a supplemental bill from the city assessor raising the property's assessed value eight months into the twelve-month cycle. Was that legal?

The AG split the answer in two.

On general reassessments, the answer was no. Virginia law gives localities flexibility in how often they reassess as a baseline. Cities default to a two-year cycle (§ 58.1-3250); counties default to a four-year cycle (§ 58.1-3252); both may move to annual reassessment by ordinance (§ 58.1-3253(B)). Section 58.1-3254 lets a governing body trigger "a general reassessment of real estate" in any year by majority recorded vote, overriding the regular cycle. But the use of "a" is singular. The plain import is that a locality can adopt or override its cycle, but cannot conduct more than one general reassessment in a single year. The General Assembly did not authorize multiple general reassessments per year, and under the Dillon Rule, "any doubt as to the existence of power must be resolved against the locality."

On individual reassessments, the answer was that limited circumstances allow them. Two mechanisms can produce a higher value for a particular property between general cycles:

(1) Board of equalization action. Sections 58.1-3370, -3379, and -3381 establish boards of equalization that can hear appeals and adjust individual assessments. They can increase assessments, not just decrease them. Section 58.1-3385 lets the commissioner of revenue make a supplemental assessment to implement a board's decision.

(2) Correction of factual or clerical errors. Section 58.1-3981 allows a locality to correct an erroneous assessment when the error is factual or clerical (for example, the records show 1,800 square feet of finished space when the actual figure is 3,600).

These are exception paths, not authorizations for a city to rerun its general assessment process mid-cycle. The opinion did not address whether the Petersburg supplemental bill at issue actually fell into one of these exception paths; that was a factual question for local administration, not a legal question the AG would resolve.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify the current versions of §§ 58.1-3250 through 58.1-3981 before relying on any specific rule.

Common questions

Q: How often can a Virginia locality reassess as a baseline?
A: Cities: every two years by default; may move to annual by ordinance. Counties: every four years by default; may move to annual by ordinance. Either may trigger one out-of-cycle general reassessment by majority recorded vote under § 58.1-3254.

Q: Can the locality reassess the same year it just did a general reassessment?
A: No. The opinion read "a" general reassessment as singular: one per year is the cap.

Q: What are the exceptions to the once-per-year cap?
A: Board of equalization decisions that change individual assessments, and corrections of erroneous (factual or clerical) assessments under § 58.1-3981. Both target individual properties, not a re-do of the whole tax roll.

Q: Is a homeowner's recourse to challenge an out-of-cycle increase?
A: Available paths include the board of equalization, administrative correction under § 58.1-3981, or court action to challenge the legal authority for the change.

Q: Does this opinion say the Petersburg supplemental bill was illegal?
A: No. It states the legal framework. Whether the supplemental bill was a legitimate correction or board-driven adjustment, or an unauthorized second general reassessment, would depend on the facts of the specific case.

Background and statutory framework

Chapter 32 of Title 58.1 (§§ 58.1-3200 through 58.1-3389) governs assessment and reassessment of real estate for local taxation. The framework: a general reassessment must determine fair market value (§ 58.1-3201) and cover all real estate in the jurisdiction (§ 58.1-3281). Article 5 (§§ 58.1-3250 to 58.1-3261) sets the cycle rules. Article 13 (§ 58.1-3370 et seq.) creates boards of equalization. Section 58.1-3981 allows for correction of erroneous assessments. The opinion's central move is the Dillon Rule's narrow construction of local power: if the statute does not say a city can do something, the city cannot.

Citations

• Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-3250 (city reassessment cycle: every two years default)
• Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-3253(B) (annual reassessment by ordinance)
• Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-3254 ("a" general reassessment in any year by majority vote)
• Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-3379 (board of equalization may increase assessment)
• Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-3385 (commissioner of revenue's supplemental assessment after board decision)
• Va. Code Ann. § 58.1-3981 (correction of erroneous assessments)
• Nat'l Realty Corp. v. Va. Beach, 209 Va. 172 (1968) (Dillon Rule)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2010/10-003-Cox.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II

900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071

Attorney General

March 17, 2010

The Honorable M. Kirkland Cox
Member, House of Delegates
131 Old Brickhouse Lane
Colonial Heights, Virginia 23834

Dear Delegate Cox:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issue Presented

You ask whether a city that assesses real property on a twelve-month basis has the authority to reassess such real property before the twelve-month period has expired and to change the assessed value of a piece of property.

Response

It is my opinion that the General Assembly has not authorized a city to conduct more than one general reassessment of real property in any one year. A taxpayer, however, may be required to pay a higher corrected assessment in some limited circumstances.

Background

You relate that the city of Petersburg conducts real property assessments once a year, normally in April. You believe that once the yearly assessment is complete, the property will not be assessed until the next annual cycle is due in twelve months. You note a situation where a person's real property assessment value was raised eight months into the initial twelve-month assessment period. Further, you report that such person received notification through a supplemental bill from the City's assessor.

Therefore, you seek clarification regarding the authority for such a reassessment prior to the end of the annual assessment period. Specifically, you ask whether such early reassessment would be legal when the locality assesses real property on a twelve-month basis.

Applicable Law and Discussion

The power of a local governing body, unlike that of the General Assembly, "must be exercised pursuant to an express grant"[1] because the powers of a locality "are limited to those conferred expressly or by necessary implication."[2] "If the power cannot be found, the inquiry is at an end."[3] The Dillon Rule requires a narrow interpretation of all powers conferred on local governments since they are delegated powers.[4] Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of power must be resolved against the locality.[5]

Chapter 32 of Title 58.1, §§ 58.1-3200 through 58.1-3389, comprehensively governs the assessment and reassessment of real estate for local taxation. A general reassessment is a major undertaking, requiring a locality "to ascertain all the real estate in his county or city, as the case may be, and the person to whom the same is chargeable with taxes on that day."[6] The general reassessments must determine the fair market value of the property.[7]

The General Assembly has provided some flexibility to localities with respect to the frequency of reassessments.[8] Section 58.1-3250 provides the default rule for the general reassessment cycle for cities as every two years. For counties, the default cycle is every four years.[9] Section 58.1-3253(B), however, provides that cities and counties may adopt an ordinance that provides for an annual assessment. Consistent with this flexibility, the General Assembly has also authorized the governing body of a locality to direct a reassessment in any given year. Section 58.1-3254 provides, in pertinent part, that:

Notwithstanding any other provision of [Article 5][10] to the contrary, there may be a general reassessment of real estate in any county or city in any year if the governing body so directs by a majority of all the members thereof, by a recorded yea and nay vote.

This provision does not authorize multiple general reassessments in a particular year. Rather, there may be "a" singular, general reassessment in any year, provided that the governing body so directs by majority vote. The plain import of § 58.1-3254 is to permit cities and counties that do not conduct a general reassessment on an annual basis to disrupt the two-year, four-year, or other cycle and allow for a general reassessment to occur. The General Assembly does not contemplate or permit a general reassessment more frequently than once per year.

Although a locality is limited in its ability to conduct a general reassessment in any one year, an individual taxpayer may find his property reassessed at a higher value in some limited circumstances. One of those situations involves action by a board of equalization[11] that results in a higher assessment.[12] Another situation that may result in an increased assessment prior to the general reassessment cycle involves the correction of a factual or clerical error in an assessment.[13]

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that the General Assembly has not authorized a city to conduct more than one general reassessment of real property in any one year. A taxpayer, however, may be required to pay a higher corrected assessment in some limited circumstances.

With kindest regards, I am

Very truly yours,

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General

1. Nat'l Realty Corp. v. Va. Beach, 209 Va. 172, 175, 163 S.E.2d 154, 156 (1968).
2. Bd. of Supvrs. v. Horne, 216 Va. 113, 117, 215 S.E.2d 453, 455 (1975) (noting corollary to Dillon Rule).
3. Commonwealth v. County Bd., 217 Va. 558, 575, 232 S.E.2d 30, 41 (1977).
4. See Bd. of Supvrs. v. Countryside Invest. Co., 258 Va. 497, 504-05, 522 S.E.2d 610, 613-14 (1999) (holding that county board of supervisors does not have unfettered authority to decide what matters to include in subdivision ordinance; must include requirements mandated by Land Subdivision and Development Act and may include optional provisions contained in act); Op. Va. Att'y Gen: 2002 at 77, 78; 1974-1975 at 403, 405.
5. 2A EUGENE MCQUILLEN, THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS § 10.19, at 369 (3d ed. 1996); see also Op. Va. Att'y Gen.: 2002 at 83, 84; 2000 at 75, 76.
6. See VA. CODE ANN. § 58.1-3281 (2009).
7. See § 58.1-3201 (2009).
8. See §§ 58.1-3250 to 58.1-3261 (2009).
9. See § 58.1-3252.
10. Article 5, Chapter 32 of Title 58.1, §§ 58.1-3250 to 58.1-3261 governs the reassessment and assessment cycles in the Commonwealth.
11. See § 58.1-3370(A) (2009) (requiring appointment of board of equalization following general reassessment unless locality has permanent board).
12. See §§ 58.1-3379(A), 58.1-3381(A) (2009) (providing that board of equalization my increase assessments); § 58.1-3385 (2009) (providing that commissioner of revenue may make supplemental assessment based on action of board of equalization).
13. See § 58.1-3981 (2009) (allowing for correction of erroneous assessments).