An Act to amend and reenact § 10.1-603.29 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund; projects; low-income geographic areas and nature-based solutions.
HB70 amends the Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund statute to refine how loans and grants from the fund are prioritized and administered. The bill keeps the fund as a permanent and perpetual source of financing for resilience-related projects, including money appropriated by the General Assembly, federal resilience funds, loan repayments, investment income, and other designated deposits. It also preserves the Department’s authority, in consultation with the Authority and state resilience officials, to direct funding to particular local governments and set loan terms.
The bill gives additional priority to projects located in low-income geographic areas, projects that use nature-based solutions, and projects in localities with very low community resilience ratings. It also reserves a portion of the fund specifically for hazard mitigation of buildings, making that money unavailable for other uses. In addition, the bill authorizes the Authority to hire staff and consultants, contract with a program administrator, and recover administrative costs through fees capped at five percent of the fund total.
HB70 amends § 10.1-603.29 of the Code of Virginia, affecting the administration of the Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund. It changes the criteria used to weigh projects for funding, adds a reserved portion for building hazard mitigation, requires public comment before new loan or grant offerings, and makes application records publicly accessible. The bill also formalizes an Advisory Review Committee with representatives from multiple state agencies and stakeholder groups to review applications and advise on fund disbursements.
The available record suggests generally favorable or noncontroversial support for the bill, as it was enacted into law and there are no recorded committee transcripts or vote tallies indicating opposition. The measure appears to have been treated as a technical and policy update to improve resilience funding priorities and transparency rather than as a highly contentious proposal. The emphasis on low-income areas, nature-based solutions, and public review likely aligns with broad resilience and environmental planning goals.
No specific objections are documented in the provided materials. Potential points of debate inherent in the bill include the preference for low-income geographic areas and nature-based solutions, the reservation of fund money for building hazard mitigation, and the use of administrative fees and outside program administrators. Stakeholders represented on the advisory committee—such as environmental, housing, agriculture, manufacturing, business, and Chesapeake Bay interests—suggest the bill was designed to balance multiple perspectives, but no recorded dispute is available here.