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 housing rehabilitation zone provisions. The bill keeps the Fund in the state treasury as a permanent and perpetual source of grants, loans, revolving loans, and other financing tools for local governments to prepare urban sites for redevelopment, including assembling, clearing, remediating, converting, and repositioning underused commercial properties. The stated purpose is to address the shortage of developable land in urban areas and the high cost of redevelopment, while encouraging those sites to be marketed to private developers and other qualifying entities.
The bill also changes how the program is administered and reported. It shifts guideline development from the Board to the Department of Housing and Community Development and requires a work group to recommend criteria for prioritizing awards, including consideration of local fiscal stress and declines in commercial real estate assessments. Grants would remain capped at $500,000 and would require a 100 percent local match, while loans are intended to be long-term and no-interest where possible. Annual reporting requirements are expanded for both local recipients and the Department, including project locations, costs, and outcomes.
In addition, HB1376 amends the housing rehabilitation zone statute to clarify that localities may create zones with incentives such as reduced fees, tax lien waivers, special zoning, permit flexibility, and other ordinance-based incentives, while preserving limits imposed by environmental laws. It also allows dual designation with housing revitalization zones and states that such zones meet the requirements for economically mixed project financing. The bill repeals Chapter 11 of Title 36, which previously governed housing revitalization zones, suggesting a consolidation or replacement of that framework.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available context is neutral to mildly supportive, but the bill did not advance beyond subcommittee and was continued to the next session on a voice vote. That procedural outcome suggests the concept was still under review rather than broadly opposed or adopted. No committee transcript or recorded votes are available, so there is no direct evidence of floor-level debate or formal partisan division.
The main points of contention likely center on funding structure, local match requirements, and the scope of state involvement in redevelopment incentives. The bill requires a 100 percent local match for grants, which may be difficult for fiscally stressed localities even though the bill seeks to prioritize them. Repealing the existing housing revitalization zone chapter and changing administrative authority from the Board to the Department could also raise questions about program continuity, local flexibility, and whether the new framework duplicates or replaces existing redevelopment tools.
HB1376 would amend multiple sections of the Code of Virginia to expand and restructure the Urban Public-Private Partnership Redevelopment Fund, change administration and reporting requirements, and revise local housing rehabilitation zone authority. It would also repeal the existing housing revitalization zone chapter in Title 36, potentially replacing that framework with revised redevelopment and zoning provisions. The bill would affect local governments, the Department of Housing and Community Development, and qualifying redevelopment partners such as private developers, nonprofits, housing authorities, land banks, and common interest communities.
Based on the available legislative history, the bill appears to have received cautious consideration rather than strong opposition or clear momentum. It was continued to the next session in the Counties, Cities and Towns committee by voice vote, and there are no recorded votes or transcripts indicating a polarized debate. The lack of advancement suggests unresolved policy or fiscal questions, but not necessarily outright rejection of the redevelopment concept.
Likely areas of contention include the 100 percent local match requirement for grants, the practical ability of fiscally stressed localities to participate, and whether the Fund should prioritize localities with declining commercial real estate values. Another possible issue is the repeal of the existing housing revitalization zone chapter, which may be viewed as either a cleanup/replacement or as a loss of an established statutory tool. Stakeholders such as local governments, economic development groups, and housing advocates may differ on how much flexibility localities should have and how much state oversight and reporting should be required.