A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 15.2-2414, 15.2-2415, 15.2-2417, 15.2-2418, and 36-55.64 of the Code of Virginia and to repeal Chapter 11 (§§ 36-157 through 36-170) of Title 36 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Urban Public-Private Partnership Redevelopment Fund; funding requirements; report.
HB1376 revises Virginia’s Urban Public-Private Partnership Redevelopment Fund and related redevelopment statutes. The bill keeps the fund in the state treasury as a permanent and perpetual fund, but clarifies that it is intended to help local governments address the shortage of developable urban land, the high cost of redevelopment, and the transformation of underused or obsolete commercial properties. The fund may provide grants, loans, revolving loans, or other financing tools to local governments for assembling, planning, clearing, converting, repositioning, redeveloping, and remediating sites for eventual redevelopment by private developers and other qualifying entities.
The bill also changes the grant structure and reporting requirements. It caps individual grants at $500,000 and requires a 100 percent local match, while directing the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop guidelines and convene a work group to recommend criteria for administering the program. The work group must consider how to prioritize fiscally stressed localities and those with significant declines in commercial real estate assessments, as well as the type and amount of local match, and report back to the General Assembly by November 1, 2026. The bill further requires annual reporting by local recipients and by the department on funded projects, locations, costs, and outcomes.
HB1376 also amends the housing rehabilitation zone statute to expand and clarify local incentives for redevelopment. Localities may establish housing rehabilitation zones with fee reductions, tax lien waivers, special zoning, special permit processes, and other regulatory flexibility, subject to state and federal law and excluding certain environmental protections. The bill states that such zones may also be designated as housing revitalization zones and will be treated as meeting requirements for economically mixed project financing. Finally, it repeals Chapter 11 of Title 36, which previously governed housing revitalization zones, effectively consolidating and replacing that framework.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to restructure how Virginia supports urban redevelopment and local housing rehabilitation efforts, shifting more of the program’s administration and criteria-setting to DHCD and a stakeholder work group while preserving a strong local match requirement. It would affect local governments, the Department of Housing and Community Development, developers, nonprofit and community entities eligible to participate, and localities seeking to use zoning and financing tools to encourage redevelopment.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was not advanced in committee and was continued to the next session in the Counties, Cities and Towns Committee by voice vote. With no recorded votes or transcripts provided, the overall sentiment appears procedural and cautious rather than strongly supportive or opposed. The main points of potential contention are the 100 percent local match requirement, the size and structure of grant awards, the prioritization of fiscally stressed localities, and the repeal of the existing housing revitalization zone chapter in favor of a revised framework.
HB1376 would amend Virginia’s redevelopment and housing rehabilitation statutes by expanding the Urban Public-Private Partnership Redevelopment Fund, setting a $500,000 cap on grants, requiring a 100 percent local match, and directing DHCD to administer the program with new guidelines and annual reporting. It would also broaden local authority to create housing rehabilitation zones with incentives and regulatory flexibility, while repealing the separate housing revitalization zone chapter and folding related concepts into the revised statutory scheme. The bill primarily affects local governments, DHCD, and redevelopment stakeholders such as private developers, nonprofits, housing authorities, and community associations.
The bill appears to have generated limited visible debate in the available record, and its only documented action was continuation to the next session in the House Counties, Cities and Towns Committee by voice vote. That suggests the measure was treated cautiously and did not have enough consensus to move forward immediately. Because no committee transcript or recorded vote is provided, there is no clear evidence of organized support or opposition in the record beyond the procedural decision to defer it.
The most likely areas of contention are the funding design and eligibility rules. Requiring a 100 percent local match may be difficult for fiscally stressed localities, even though the bill specifically directs prioritization toward those jurisdictions and those with declining commercial assessments. The bill’s repeal of the existing housing revitalization zone chapter may also raise questions about whether the new framework preserves or improves current redevelopment tools. In addition, the balance between redevelopment incentives and environmental or zoning constraints could be debated, since the bill authorizes flexibility but preserves certain state environmental requirements.