The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors respectfully urges the Subcommittee to support HB 68. HB68 revises the requirements for informing the public about the interaction between real estate tax rates and the growth in assessed values. Currently, when growth in assessments would result in an increase of more than 1 percent in the total real property tax levied, the governing body must reduce the tax rate accordingly, unless it holds a public hearing. The notice for the public hearing, as well as the notice of change in assessment that is mailed to each property owner, must include a calculation showing the tax rate that would levy the same amount of real estate tax as the previous year when applied to the total assessed value of real property (excluding new construction or improvements). Under current law, this calculation makes no allowance for inflation in the value of real estate, which has often exceeded 1 percent. As a result, by advertising the lowered rate necessary to offset the increased assessment, as currently calculated, localities are communicating to the public a tax rate that would produce a reduction in revenue, when adjusted for inflation. HB68 amends the notice requirements by requiring localities to communicate the lowered rate necessary to generate no more than a one percent increase in real estate tax revenue, after adjusting growth for inflation, which will provide more intuitive and accessible information to the public regarding the proposed tax rate. We thank you for your kind consideration.

RE: HB68 Per the City Assessor for the City of Portsmouth: "I do not believe this bill effectively communicates the intended information to taxpayers. As currently written, it presents a misleading 'projected' tax rate, which many taxpayers tend to interpret as definitive. I'm opposed to any notices that omit factual data. As appraisers, we must adhere to one of the core principles of USPAP: we must not provide misleading information. Including such projections on assessment notices does not constitute meaningful tax reform."

HB68 revises the requirements for informing the public about the interaction between real estate tax rates and the growth in assessed values. Currently, when growth in assessments would result in an increase of more than 1 percent in the total real property tax levied, the governing body must reduce the tax rate accordingly, unless it holds a public hearing. The notice for the public hearing, as well as the notice of change in assessment that is mailed to each property owner, must include a calculation showing the tax rate that would levy the same amount of real estate tax as the previous year when applied to the total assessed value of real property (excluding new construction or improvements). Under current law, this calculation makes no allowance for inflation in the value of real estate, which has often exceeded 1 percent. As a result, by advertising the lowered rate necessary to offset the increased assessment, as currently calculated, localities are communicating to the public a tax rate that would produce a reduction in revenue, when adjusted for inflation. HB68 amends the notice requirements by requiring localities to communicate the lowered rate necessary to generate no more than a one percent increase in real estate tax revenue, after adjusting growth for inflation, which will provide more intuitive and accessible information to the public regarding the proposed tax rate. Phil North , Supervisor Hollins District Roanoke County, VA

Please support HB272!

I am writing in support of bill HB272 to support the growth of the film industry in the beautiful Commonwealth of Virginia. Incentives help to entice studios to produce film projects that provide good paying jobs to Virginian constituents while boosting local businesses and the overall economy across the state and in the localities where filming takes place.

Dear Legislators, Please support HB272 !!!! At the moment there is no film work in Virginia

Funding these bills increases the chance of long term film work within the state of VA. The last few years have seen a weak and non competitive television and film incentive for productions to come and invest in this community. With fights for film worker's rights, threats of AI replacing jobs , and conglomerate studio mergers, US film work even more competitive. Productions have been choosing to out source to work to european countries it makes the pool of work even smaller. We have a strong and talented community of film workers and technicians in this state and we are looking forward to your vote to pass this bill and bring us the work we need and want here. Fund the Arts. Fund bringing work to your constituents. Fund economic growth to VA. Thanks for your time.

It would be great to get some more incentives in Virginia so some work and money could come back into the state so the people who grew up in this area and want to continue to call Virginia a home would like to keep doing but if I can't work I can't afford to live in Virginia much longer

I live in Richmond, and I work in the film industry. My livelihood depends on an increase in these incentives! I am 42 years old, and I have worked in film for nearly 20 years. I need more film opportunities here to survive! Thank you very much for your time.

As a film worker, my livelihood depends on these bills. Once I turn 26 I will need to be in a union to have healthcare. If union jobs don’t come to Virginia, I’ll be forced to leave my home state.

Please support this bill as it helps to incentivize film work in the Commonwealth; supporting our state-wide economy and boosting sustainability for trained tradespeople to live, raise families, and work in Virginia.

I am writing to ask that you please consider supporting HB272. As a location scout in the film industry, I have seen how incentive programs like this bring in large scale film productions that not only provide a livelihood for local crews, casts and artisans, but also directly pump money into local economies. These productions contract numerous local vendors for their services and are often among those companies highest spending and most vital customers. Without incentives like this, it is almost certain that these large productions will cease coming to Virginia and that will negatively impact not only the livelihoods of local film workers, but also the numerous vendors services that we contract.

Good morning, distinguished Committee members, I write to you today in support of an issue that will play a vital role in reinvigorating the Virginia film industry, bringing jobs and revenue back to the Commonwealth. I am one of hundreds of workers in Virginia who benefited directly – and indirectly – in years past from Virginia’s support of television and movie production. Passing HB 272, the Film Industry Communities Zone; Local Designation legislation, is critical to the future of Virginia’s economy and helping workers like me. Consider my own story as a camera assistant. A few years ago, movies and television productions routinely came to Virginia. People like me enjoyed well-paying jobs that benefited ourselves and our communities in Virginia. But much has changed since Virginia’s film incentives lapsed. Workers like me must routinely leave Virginia to find work and practice our trade. Tonight, for instance, I am writing this while working in North Carolina, where I just wrapped a day of film production for a Netflix series. While I have been fortunate to still live in Richmond, many of my colleagues have been forced to move to North Carolina and other states to make a living. Skilled artists and technicians who love our state have moved away reluctantly – to follow the work and earn a living. This is a loss for Virginia on many different levels. There is an immediate economic impact. For example, today I saw hundreds of workers in North Carolina – not Virginia – earning good money and spending it in the local community. These are jobs and revenue that a few years ago could have been in Virginia. With this proposed legislation, this well-paying industry could once again return. Movie and film production could become much more common in the Commonwealth. The revenue impact of movie production snowballs throughout a community and the state. The impacts are far-reaching. Beyond tax issues, the potential tourism advertisement that comes from Virginia film goes completely muted without an incentivized reason to bring productions here. A lack of a visible film output in Virginia misses valuable opportunities to bring more public attention to the Commonwealth, with real world economic impact from both tourism and industry. The industry also directly drives the livelihoods, wages, and healthcare of those workers. Film production work often leads to union participation, which in turn subsidizes employee healthcare. However, union healthcare is dependent on participation. As industry opportunities diminish in the Commonwealth, film workers face rising costs of public healthcare options or risk losing their healthcare entirely. Healthcare achieved through union production lessens the burden of public cost health on state taxpayers while at the same time helping Virginia workers. To tie these thoughts together, tonight I write to you from North Carolina as one single member out of a production crew of hundreds of people. Crews of this size earn impressive wages, which are taxed by the state before they are spent on goods and services in the local economy. Instead of this happening in North Carolina, this should be happening in Virginia – and this legislation can help make that happen.

As a local film crew member, I understand the importance and the impact our shows can make on the communities in which we shoot. I have worked on films/shows that have filmed all over the Commonwealth and know the crew and cast have contributed greatly to the municipal, retail, hospitality and service industries. Allowing the communities to find ways to bring this kind of work to their localities is empowering and a great way to stimulate our industry. Our livelihoods. Thank you for your time.

I work in the film industry and my livelihood depends on the boost these incentives give our industry. Please support it! Thank you!

My name is Victoria Petrone and I live in Richmond, VA and have been in the film industry for 10+ years. I love my job and the community it has given me. Not many people can say that, however, I know just how fortunate I am as well as the community. By supporting HB 272, you are giving back to small businesses, showing how wonderful our city is and just how much we have to offer. The lack of work due to the loss of incentives has been devastating. Richmond was once a place that was booming with new opportunities and future creative projects that allowed everyone from all walks of life to support themeselves and families. Please consider supporting HB 272.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 272. I live in Richmond, VA and have worked on motion picture productions for twenty years alongside hundreds of hard-working local technicians, tradesmen, artists, coordinators, assistants, drivers, office staff, and other workers. Sadly, our once thriving industry is now stagnant because Virginia can’t compete with nearby states. Jobs, a talented workforce, recent graduates and dollars that could have been spent here are forced to go elsewhere. It’s disheartening when a movie or TV show that is set in Virginia is filmed in a nearby state because that state offers more flexible economic support . Virginia has EVERYTHING other states have (great crew, stunning locations, supportive small businesses, etc.); the only thing we lack is the legislation to support our industry. Please help put Virginia BACK on the list of economically viable places to bring film and television production. Please support Virginia’s current AND future workers and businesses by supporting HB 272. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Good afternoon, I'm writing in support of tax incentives for Film in Virginia. I've been a resident of Richmond Virginia since 2002 and have worked in the Film community since 2008 and join the Camera union local 600 in 2013. We have a wonderful, talented and diverse crew here in Virginia who love this city and what we do for our livelihoods. None of us want to travel to NY or Atlanta to work, leaving our significant others and pets here just to support ourselves. Thank you for your consideration. -Eric Eaton IATSE Local 600

Please support HB272! As a film location scout, I understand the importance of localities having the ability to offer their own incentives to attract film production. Film productions have a significant economic impact on the areas they film, especially for the local businesses. Also, film locations have been known to see a boon to tourism.

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.

The Virginia First Cities Coalition is very supportive of Del. Rasoul's HB 474. Brought at the request of VFC member, the CIty of Roanoke, most all of our members have issues with blight/derelict properties and are working diligently with land banks and other nonprofits to efficiently turn over dozens of these properties to private developers and get them back in to productive use --- creating new and rehabilitated homes and affordable housing. The raised $150,000 limit reflects the rise in property values that we've seen across our cities......even for blighted properties with derelict structures. We urge your support for the bill.

Virginia First Cities Coalition supports our member, the City of Roanoke, and thanks Del. Rasoul for bringing the legislation forward. This legislation is helpful to get properties back into productive, tax paying use and also to make way for housing ...... The raised $150,000 limit reflects the rise in property values, even for blighted properties with derelict structures.

Dear Chair Anthony and Members of the Subcommittee I am John Musso, Government Affairs Manager at the Arlington Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the Chamber, I am expressing our support for H.B. 956 (Watts). This bill amends now-outdated language in the code and clarifies tax law related to allowable out-of-state deductions, making straightforward changes to benefit Virginia businesses. I ask that you please report this bill favorably out of the subcommittee tomorrow afternoon.

Comments Document

The Council On State Taxation (COST) supports HB 956, which updates Virginia’s BPOL deduction for receipts attributable to business conducted outside the Commonwealth. Under current law, taxpayers may deduct out‑of‑state receipts only if the other jurisdiction imposes a net income tax. HB 956 modernizes this rule by also allowing the deduction when the taxpayer is subject to a business activity tax measured in whole or in part by gross or net income or receipts, such as gross receipts taxes or margins taxes used in states like Ohio and Texas. COST’s letter explains that BPOL is a local gross receipts tax that relies on deductions to avoid taxing extraterritorial activity. The bill ensures taxpayers are treated consistently regardless of whether other states impose net income taxes or alternative business activity taxes. The letter emphasizes that HB 956: Promotes tax neutrality by eliminating arbitrary differences in treatment between states based on their choice of business tax structure. Provides administrative clarity by defining qualifying taxes and reducing disputes over the deduction’s availability. Aligns BPOL with constitutional standards requiring fair apportionment and preventing taxation of out‑of‑state business activity. Modernizes the statute to reflect today’s multistate tax landscape, where many states have moved away from traditional net income taxes. COST concludes by urging the Subcommittee to support HB 956 as a targeted, reasonable improvement that enhances fairness, consistency, and constitutional integrity without expanding BPOL taxation or undermining local revenues.