I believe this bill seeks to only correct one distinct word in paragraph E of the existing State Code 58.1-3221. That is, to correct the one critical word in the phrase ... to contribute to the significance of a registered historic district (not "landmark"). I could be wrong, but I believe this has been a one word error since the original bill was drafted and adopted many years ago. This code deals with commercial and industrial structures. I believe and contend that paragraph E should be and was intended to be the exact mirrored equal to that of paragraph F in the existing code 58.1-3220 Partial exemption for certain rehabilitated, renovated or replacement residential structures. That paragraph F states. "Where rehabilitation is achieved through demolition and replacement of an existing structure, the exemption provided in subsection A shall not apply when any structure demolished is a registered Virginia landmark or is determined by the Department of Historic Resources to contribute to the significance of a registered historic district. In Staunton we have six historic districts: Beverley Historic District, Wharf Historic District, Newtown Historic District, Stuart Addition Historic District, Gospel Hill Historic District, and The Villages Historic District. Someone in one of those districts may choose to demolish and replace one of those existing commercial or industrial structures and attempt to apply for the rehabilitation tax credit program. The property by itself may not be a registered landmark but it may contribute to the historic district which it is within. That is why I believe it is important to have the wording in state code § 58.1-3221 paragraph E to be corrected from “…the exemption provided in subsection A shall not apply when any structure demolished is a registered Virginia landmark or is determined by the Department of Historic Resources to contribute to the significance of a registered historic landmark” to what I sincerely believe was the original intent to be “…the exemption shall not apply when any structure demolished is a registered Virginia landmark or is determined by the Department of Historic Resources to contribute to the significance of a registered historic district.”. That detail could be used against us (and other Virginia jurisdictions) with registered historic districts and rehab programs to qualify for the program if and when they were to tear down and rebuild a property in a registered historic district is the building by and of itself wasn’t also a registered Virginia landmark. "

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a written comment on HB345. I am the City Attorney for Staunton, Virginia. Our locality was approached by a property owner within a historic district in our city and asked about their options for the parcel as well as potential tax abatements for the parcel. The parcel in question is in a historic district, but it does not contribute to the significance of an historic landmark. As we examined the potential options, we noticed that Virginia Code Section 58.1-3321 would permit the demolition of the building on the property to be eligible for a tax abatement if the property was used for a commercial or industrial use. However, Virginia Code Sections 58.1-3220 and 58.1-3220.1 would not offer the tax abatement if the property was demolished and used for residential or hotel/motel uses. Both statutes use the word "district" rather than "structure." Thus, this parcel located in a historic district would be eligible for a tax abatement if it was demolished and made an industrial use, but not for residential or hotel uses. It appeared to the City that this may be a scrivener's error. The current wording would incentivize demolition of properties within historic districts for industrial or commercial uses rather than less intensive residential or hotel/motel uses. Given that we are talking about historic districts, it did not make sense to use that the statutes would incentivize the more intensive use. Therefore, we respectfully are requesting that the General Assembly amend the current statute to equalize commercial/industrial uses with residential and hotel/motel uses in terms of demolishing a structure within an historic district. It seems a rather odd result to maintain the current wording as tax abatements could incentivize demolition of structures in a historic district for a more intensive use. Thank you so much for your attention to this matter. Respectfully Submitted, John C. Blair, II

RE: HB345 The City of Portsmouth suggests the following friendly amendments: Lines 32 and 33 need to be amended to say "The exemption may commence upon completion of the rehabilitation, renovation, or replacement, or on January 1 of the year following completion of the rehabilitation, renovation, or replacement." Explanation of suggested amendment: It would be a nightmare to keep up with any of these that start at completion. They need to start January 1st or July 1st after completion, depending on whether the locality runs a calendar or fiscal year. Outside of that, the bill currently reads like our city's normal rehab program. It would b

HB 345 - Va First Cities thanks our member, the City of Staunton, and their Assessor, for catching what appears to be a scrivener's error in § 58.1-3221.