Report of the Virginia Enterprise Zone Work Group Established Pursuant to HB2163 (2025)

Summary

This is the Report of the Virginia Enterprise Zone Work Group, established pursuant to HB2163 (2025), submitted by the Department of Housing and Community Development to the Chairs of the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee in November 2025. It states that the Work Group was established to review the utilization of currently designated enterprise zones and make recommendations on renewals or terminations. The report says that over the past five years the VEZ program has prompted more than $1.7 billion in private investment, and that there are currently 45 zones across the Commonwealth. Its legislative recommendations include that lack of zone utilization should not be the only criteria by which a zone is terminated.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Report to the Chairs of the House
Appropriations Committee and the Senate
Finance and Appropriations Committee




Report of the Virginia Enterprise Zone Work Group
Established Pursuant to HB2163 (2025)

Submitted by:
The Department of Housing and Community Development
November 2025




                                  1
Enterprise Zone Work Group
Findings and Recommendations
Page 1


Executive Summary
The Enterprise Zone Work Group (Work Group) was established by HB2163 (2025) to review the
utilization of currently designated enterprise zones and make recommendations on renewals or
terminations. The Work Group was facilitated by the Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD) and composed of representatives from the Virginia Economic Development
Partnership, Virginia Economic Developers Association, Virginia Association of Counties, Virginia
Municipal League, Virginia First Cities, and local zone administrators. Additional input was
gathered through a survey sent to existing zone administrators and communities without zone
designations.
The Work Group came to a general agreement on several legislative recommendations and
considerations for the General Assembly. Recommendations address zone utilization and how
utilization affects termination, the renewal process, and termination of zones under certain
circumstances.

Background
HB2163 (2025), as approved by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor, directed DHCD,
in collaboration with the Virginia Economic Development Partnership Authority, to convene a
work group to review the enterprise zone program and make legislative recommendations to be
considered during the 2026 General Assembly Session. The Work Group was tasked with
considering:

     i.   Reviewing the utilization of the Enterprise Zone grants by current localities;
    ii.   Reviewing current zone renewal process and if any recommendations should be made to
          the process; and
   iii.   Reviewing the current zone termination process and if any recommendations should be
          made to the process.
The legislation directed the Work Group to consist of representatives from the Virginia Economic
Developers Association, Virginia Association of Counties, Virginia Municipal League, Virginia First
Cities, and other interested parties as deemed appropriate by DHCD. The Work Group also
included local zone administrators (LZAs) from localities that currently have an enterprise zone
and representatives of other localities currently without an enterprise zone.
The Work Group met four times from June to October 2025, and meeting summaries from each of
those meetings are appended to this report (Appendixes 1-6). A survey was also provided to all
Work Group members, all LZAs, and localities that could qualify for an enterprise zone but do not
currently have one. The survey questions and results are appended to this report (Appendix 7).

Program History
The Enterprise Zone Program
The VEZ program is a partnership between state and local government that encourages job
creation and private investment. VEZ accomplishes this by designating Enterprise Zones
throughout the state and providing two grant-based incentives, the Job Creation
Enterprise Zone Work Group
Findings and Recommendations
Page 2


Grant (JCG) and the Real Property Investment Grant (RPIG), to qualified investors and job creators
within those zones, while the locality provides local incentives.
Over the past five years, the VEZ program has prompted more than $1.7 billion in private
investment in economically distressed communities across the Commonwealth, delivering more
than $25 in private capital for every $1 in state support. This performance-driven incentive has also
supported the creation and retention of nearly 15,000 jobs. Importantly, VEZ grants are awarded
only after businesses meet strict eligibility criteria and demonstrate real results, ensuring that
public dollars reward proven performance.
The following table illustrates the impact and fund utilization over the past five years.

Table 1: Enterprise Zone Program Impact

 Grant Year      Appropriation      Total Grant     Total #    Leveraged        Jobs
                                    Funds           Grants     Private          Created
                                    Disbursed                  Investment
                                                               Total
 2024            $15,750,000        $13,688,642     153        $233,617,720     2,957
 2023            $16,250,000        $15,216,949     180        $295,972,629     3,274
 2022            $16,250,000        $11,152,980     142        $470,167,426     2,745
 2021            $14,750,000        $13,582,808     164        $362,610,314     4,115
 2020            $14,500,000        $14,500,000     196        $347,809,651     2,740


Legislative History
The current VEZ Program was established in 2005 with the passage of the Virginia Enterprise Zone
Grant Act (the Act) (§§ 59.1-270-59.1-284). Its purpose is to stimulate local economic growth and
revitalization, specifically targeting distressed localities. Prior to 2005, a version of the program
existed that provided tax credits instead of grants. At that time, there were 60 zone designations
available, each of which received a 20-year designation. The Act limited the number of zone
designations to 30 zones, each of which was to have an initial 10-year designation. The Act and its
subsequent amendments provide for potential renewals of both zones designated prior to 2005
and those designated after 2005. Currently, zones designated prior to 2005 retain their initial 20-
year designation and are additionally eligible for two five-year renewal periods for a total of 30
years; zones designated after the Act are eligible for their initial 10-year period and four five-year
renewal periods for a total of 30 years. During the 2024 session, the General Assembly extended all
enterprise zones in effect at the beginning of FY2025 for an additional four years beyond their prior
statutory eligibility period, making all zones eligible for 34 years.
When a zone’s designation concludes and it becomes eligible for a renewal, DHCD assesses each
zone’s application for renewal based on the locality's performance of its enterprise zone
responsibilities, the continued need for such a zone, and its effectiveness in creating jobs and
capital investment. The current Code section (§ 59.1-546) specifies that designated localities that
Enterprise Zone Work Group
Findings and Recommendations
Page 3


are unwilling or unable to provide local incentives shall be terminated. If no business firms have
qualified for incentives within a five-year period, the zone shall be terminated.
As a result of the continued extension of eligibility periods, there are currently 45 zones across the
Commonwealth, with 15 designated prior to 2005 and 30 that have been designated since then.
The last enterprise zone designation round took place in 2016, and the oldest current zones were
designated in 2000, with the oldest enterprise zones in Virginia are set to expire in 2034. If current
zones are successful with all future renewals, the governor could not designate any new zones
until 2038.
Table 2: Enterprise Zone Legislative Timeline

                                                                               Total Eligibility
                 Zones Existing                     Zones Designated          Period (Including
  Year            Prior to 2005                        After 2005                Renewals)
                                                •    10-year designation
                                                     period
 2005        •     20-year designation                                                  20
                                                •    Potential 5-year
                   period
                                                     renewals at years 10
                                                     and 15
                                                •    10-year designation
             •     20-year designation
                                                     period
 2019              period                                                               25
                                                •    Potential 5-year
             •     5-year extension at
                                                     renewals at years
                   year 20
                                                     10, 15, and 20
             •     20-year designation          •    10-year designation
                   period                            period
             •     Potential 5-year             •    Potential 5-year
 2024                                                                                   34
                   renewals at years 20              renewals at years 10,
                   and 25                            15, 20, and 25
             •     Additional 4-year            •    Additional 4-year
                   extension                         extension



Work Group Discussion
Zone Utilization

There are currently 45 designated enterprise zones across the Commonwealth, including 19 joint
zones that are shared by two or more localities. Over the last 10 years, enterprise zones have
supported 1,920 projects including 1,437 Real Property Investment Grants and 483 Job Creation
Grants. Work Group members agreed that the VEZ Program provides value and benefit to the
localities with zones, as well as to the Commonwealth.

Zone utilization is evaluated by calculating an impact score at the time of renewal. Impact scores are
based on the population of the zone locality and the total number of grants awarded by the
state to the enterprise zone locality (state incentive qualification). The median state incentive
qualification for each population classification during the past 5 years is calculated by DHCD.
Zones that achieve state incentive qualification above the median in their population classification
are awarded 100 points. Zones that achieve median qualification are awarded 50 points. Zones that
Enterprise Zone Work Group
Findings and Recommendations
Page 4
experience qualification below the median are awarded 25 points. Zones with no utilization are
awarded 0 points.
Forty-four of the 45 zones have had utilization in the past five years, demonstrating the widespread
impact and relevance of the program. Joint zones are evaluated based on the utilization of all
member localities, which allows localities that are designated as part of a joint zone, but do not
have utilization, to retain their zone designation. Also, localities that are part of a joint zone often
have partnership agreements, including Regional Industrial Facility Authorities, and other
collaborative economic development partnerships and benefits.

Zone Renewal

When enterprise zones become eligible for renewal, DHCD reviews the zones based on the
locality’s/localities’ distress scores and zone utilization, as well as a narrative application.

Currently, the renewal applications are weighted as follows:

    •   50% Narrative—Economic Development Strategy
    •   25% Impact Score—Described above
    •   25% Distress Factor—Calculated using Commission on Local Government’s Fiscal Stress
        Index + Unemployment +Median Household Income
The Work Group agreed that the current renewal criteria is effective and should continue to include
these factors; however, the Work Group believed that the Distress Factor should be determined
using two variables, including:
    1. The annual unemployment rate relative to the statewide average unemployment rate as of
       the most recent calendar year for which such data is available; and
    2. The poverty rate relative to the statewide average poverty rate as of the most recent
       calendar year for which such data is available.
The Work Group discussed the current five-year renewal time period extensively . The Work
Group had consensus that this time period is too short to see results due to the length of time it
often takes for an economic development project to come to fruition, as well as turnover in the
local government LZA positions and other challenges the locality may face.
The Work Group agreed that longer periods between renewals, such as seven years, would be more
effective and less administratively burdensome; however, they acknowledged that the shorter periods
ensure a level of frequency of review of the economic conditions of the locality and its zone activity
and utilization.
Enterprise Zone Work Group
Findings and Recommendations
Page 5


Termination of Zones
If, at time of renewal, 1) the locality is unable or unwilling to provide local incentives or 2) there is no
business firms that have qualified for incentives within the zone within the previous five years, the
zone will be terminated.
The Work Group discussed the termination of enterprise zone designations and whether this
process, as outlined in the Administrative Code, is fair or necessary. The Work Group reached
consensus that zones should not be terminated solely due to a lack of utilization.
Work Group members noted that it can take many years for a project to come to fruition; therefore,
the five-year termination rule for lack of utilization can be detrimental to potential projects,
especially in rural, highly distressed areas with fewer business announcements. In
addition, businesses may qualify for incentives such as job creation or property investment grants
but may choose not to apply.
The Work Group further recognized that termination should align more closely with designation
and renewal processes by also recognizing the economic condition of the locality. Reviewing
whether a locality maintains a distress or double-distress rating over the previous
renewal period would allow for a more accurate assessment of its continued need for an enterprise
zone. This approach also accounts for the fact that poverty and unemployment data are updated at
different intervals.
Finally, the Work Group emphasized the unique challenges faced by smaller localities—such as
limited resources, staff turnover, and business-size thresholds—and stressed the importance of
ensuring decisions that are fair and consistent with the overall purpose of the program.

Other Considerations
Based on current designation and renewal periods, no new zones may be designated until 2038.
Legislators may wish to consider whether to increase the number of zones that may be designated by
the Governor. Most of the Work Group participants agreed that if there is an increase in the number
of zones, then funding must be available to support the additional zones. Currently, Job Creation
Grants are prioritized, and Real Property Investment Grants are distributed based on available
funds, through a process called proration. Participants expressed concern about possible proration if
the number of zones is increased and funding is also not increased. Proration is also of concern even
without an increase in the number of zones, as it is likely that the last few years of VEZ applications
have included smaller projects and smaller grant requests, as well as fewer grant requests, due to
Covid and the supply chain issues and high costs that followed it.
Legislators may wish to consider editing the language of the code to clarify whether the number of
zones by the Governor is in addition to the current number of zones.
Enterprise Zone Work Group
Findings and Recommendations
Page 6


Legislative Recommendations
Zone Utilization

   •   Lack of zone utilization should not be the only criteria by which a zone is terminated.

Zone Renewal

   •   The Distress Factor should be determined using two variables, including:
       1. The annual unemployment rate relative to the statewide average unemployment rate as
          of the most recent calendar year for which such data is available, and
       2. The poverty rate relative to the corresponding statewide average poverty rate as of the
          most recent calendar year for which such data is available.
       3. Distress Factor scoring for zone renewal should consider if neither, one, or both of the
          variables exceed state averages.
       Revise State Code to remove additional 4-year extension that was added in the 2024
       General Assembly Session. This addition was made due to the House and Senate versions
       of the bills both passing with slightly different language and signed into law. The order of the
       signing of the bill caused the Senate bill to take precedence. (Currently designated zones
       would not be impacted by this change until 2030.)

   Termination of Zones
   •   At time of renewal, if a zone is located in a locality that does not meet one or more of the
       distress factors for three out of the prior five years, it will terminate.
   •   Zones should not be terminated solely for not having a qualified business investment after
       five years; other factors should be considered prior to termination.

Link to Grant Year 2024 Annual Report
Appendix 1

                    VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY - 2025 SESSION
                                                CHAPTER 250
An Act to amend and reenact § 59.1-548 of the Code of Virginia, relating to enterprise zone grant program
   work group; report.


                                                                                                         [H 2163]
                                           Approved March 21, 2025
    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That § 59.1-548 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:
    § 59.1-548. Enterprise zone real property investment grants.
    A. As used in this section:

    "Facility" means a complex of buildings, co-located at a single physical location within an enterprise zone,
all of which are necessary to facilitate the conduct of the same trade or business. This definition applies to new
construction as well as to the rehabilitation and expansion of existing structures.
    "Major qualified zone investor" means a qualified zone investor making qualified real property
investments in excess of $20 million.
    "Mixed use" means a building incorporating residential uses in which a minimum of 30 percent of the
useable floor space will be devoted to commercial, office, or industrial use.
    "Qualified real property investment" means the amount expended for improvements to rehabilitate,
expand, or construct depreciable real property placed in service during the calendar year within an enterprise
zone provided that the total amount of such improvements equals or exceeds (i) $100,000 with respect to a
single building or a facility in the case of rehabilitation or expansion or (ii) $500,000 with respect to a single
building or a facility in the case of new construction. Such real property may include a child day center as
such term is defined in § 22.1-289.02.
    "Qualified real property investment" includes any such expenditure regardless of whether it is considered
properly chargeable to a capital account or deductible as a business expense under federal Treasury
Regulations.
    "Qualified real property investments include investment" includes expenditures associated with (a) any
exterior, interior, structural, mechanical, or electrical improvements necessary to construct, expand, or
rehabilitate a building for commercial, industrial, or mixed use; (b) excavations; (c) grading and paving; (d)
installing driveways; and (e) landscaping or land improvements. "Qualified real property investments shall
include investment" includes, but is not be limited to, costs associated with demolition, carpentry, sheetrock,
plaster, painting, ceilings, fixtures, doors, windows, fire suppression systems, roofing, flashing, exterior
repair, cleaning, and cleanup.
    "Qualified real property investment shall" does not include:
    1. The cost of acquiring any real property or building.
    2. Other costs including: (i) the cost of furnishings; (ii) any expenditure associated with appraisal,
architectural, engineering, surveying, and interior design fees; (iii) loan fees, points, or capitalized interest;
(iv) legal, accounting, realtor, sales and marketing, or other professional fees; (v) closing costs, permits, user
fees, zoning fees, impact fees, and inspection fees; (vi) bids, insurance, signage, utilities, bonding, copying,
rent loss, or temporary facilities incurred during construction; (vii) utility connection or access fees; (viii)
outbuildings; (ix) the cost of any well or septic or sewer system; and (x) roads.
    3. The basis of any property: (i) for which a grant under this section was previously provided; (ii) for
which a tax credit under § 59.1-280.1 was previously granted; (iii) which was previously placed in service in
Virginia by the qualified zone investor, a related party as defined by Internal Revenue Code § 267 (b), or a
trade or business under common control as defined by Internal Revenue Code § 52 (b); or (iv) which was
previously in service in Virginia and has a basis in the hands of the person acquiring it, determined in whole
or in part by reference to the basis of such property in the hands of the person from whom it was acquired or
Internal Revenue Code § 1014 (a).
    "Qualified zone investor" means an owner or tenant of real property located within an enterprise zone who
expands, rehabilitates, or constructs such real property for commercial, industrial, or mixed use. In the case of
a tenant, the amounts of qualified zone investment specified in this section shall relate to the proportion of the
building or facility for which the tenant holds a valid lease. In the case of an owner of an individual unit within
a horizontal property regime, the amounts of qualified zone investments specified in this section shall relate
to that proportion of the building for which the owner holds title and not to common elements.
    B. 1. Grants shall be calculated at a rate of 20 percent of the amount of qualified real property investment
in excess of $500,000 in the case of the construction of a new building or facility.
    Grants shall be calculated at a rate of 20 percent of the amount of qualified real property investment in
excess of $100,000 in the case of the rehabilitation or expansion of an existing building or facility.
                                                      2 of 2
    For any qualified zone investor making $5 million or less in qualified real property investment, a real
property investment grant shall not exceed $100,000 within any five-year period for any individual building
or facility. For any qualified zone investor making more than $5 million but not more than $20 million in
qualified real property investment, a real property investment grant shall not exceed $200,000 within any five-
year period for any individual building or facility.
    2. On and after July 1, 2025, grants to major qualified zone investors shall be calculated at a rate of 25
percent of the amount of qualified real property investment in excess of $500,000 in the case of the
construction of a new building or facility.
    On and after July 1, 2025, grants to major qualified zone investors shall be calculated at a rate of 25
percent of the amount of qualified real property investment in excess of $100,000 in the case of the
rehabilitation or expansion of an existing building or facility.
    A real property investment grant to a major qualified zone investor shall not exceed $300,000 within any
five-year period for any individual building or facility.
    C. A qualified zone investor shall apply for a real property investment grant in the calendar year following
the year in which the property was placed in service.
2. That the Department of Housing and Community Development (the Department), in collaboration
with the Virginia Economic Development Partnership Authority, shall convene a work group to review
the utilization of currently designated enterprise zones and make recommendations on renewals or
terminations of such zones. Such work group shall include representatives of the Virginia Economic
Developers Association, the Virginia Association of Counties, the Virginia Municipal League, Virginia
First Cities, and other interested parties as deemed appropriate by the Department. The work group
shall report its findings and recommendations, including specific legislative recommendations to be
considered during the 2026 Regular Session of the General Assembly, to the Chairmen of the Senate
Committee on Finance and Appropriations and the House Committee on Appropriations by November
1, 2025.
Appendix 2

Work Group Members
Aileen Martz, Virginia Economic Development Partnership
Greg Hitchin, Virginia Economic Developers Association & City of Waynesboro
Laura Bateman, Virginia First Cities
Joe Lerch, Virginia Association of Counties
Alicia Cundiff, City of Roanoke
Samantha Bagbey, Virginia Municipal League & City of Danville
Mallory Butler, City of Newport News
Madison Hool, City of Newport News
Sheila Scott, Henry County
Kendra Hayden, Smyth County
Yoti Jabri, Prince George County
John Kilgore, Scott County
Leslie Litton, Lee County
Stacey English, Dinwiddie County
Victoria Hanson, Amherst County



DHCD Staff
Sara Dunnigan, Department of Housing & Community Development
Trish Lindsey, Department of Housing & Community Development
Tory McGowan, Department of Housing & Community Development
Mandy Archer, Department of Housing & Community Development
Kate Pickett Irving, Department of Housing & Community Development
Chase Sawyer, Department of Housing & Community Development
Amy Fottrell, Department of Housing & Community Development
Appendix 3

               Virginia Enterprise Zone Program Work Group
               Thursday, May 29, 2025, from 1:00PM-2:30PM
                           TEAMS Virtual Meeting


IN ATTENDANCE

Trisha Lindsey, DHCD
Sara Dunnigan, DHCD
Tory McGowan, DHCD
Mandy Archer, DHCD
Kate Pickett Irving, DHCD
Amy Fotrell, DHCD
Chase Sawyer, DHCD
Aileen Martz, VEDP
Greg Hitchin, VEDA President & LZA for Waynesboro
Alicia Cundiff, LZA for Roanoke
Samantah Bagbey, VML & LZA for Danville
Maddison Hool, LZA for Newport News
Kendra Hayden, LZA for Smyth County
Laura Bateman, Virginia First Cities
Joe Lerch, VACO
Sheila Scott, LZA for Henry County
Yoti Jabri, LZA for Prince George County


MEETING MINUTES

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

Tory McGowan (TM) led the group in introductions, reviewed the agenda, and gave an
overview of the purpose of the work group.

Kate Pickett Irving (KPI) reviewed the Job Creation Grant eligibility requirements.

Mandy Archer (MA) reviewed the Real Property Investment Grant eligibility requirements.

KPI reviewed the program’s annual timeline, Grant Year 2023 data, and the EZ map.
Appendix 3

TM reviewed the program’s legislative history and changes that have been made in recent
years.

MA reviewed designation criteria, renewal criteria and evaluation, as well as expirations
and terminations.

BREAK FOR QUESTIONS

Questions were entered in the chat and the questions were addressed at this time.

Alicia Cundiff (AC) asked 1) Does the program allow surplus dollars to be rolled over into
the next grant year? 2) Was the appropriation the same for 2024? 3) Do you expect a
surplus for grant year 2024? TM responded- Yes. Prior to 2023 funds went to IRF. But when
IRF received ARPA allocation the budget language was amended and allowed for leftover
funds to roll over and stay in the EZ program. We expect a small surplus for GY24.

Joe Lerch (JL) asked: Have any localities elected to not apply for eligible renewals? Has
DHCD ever denied a renewal application? How common are expirations and/or
terminations? TM responded-No, there has not be a time when a locality elected to not
apply. No, we have not terminated anyone.

Kendra Hayden (KH) stated that we had mistakenly switched the zone utilization
information for Smyth County zones 6 & 51. KPI replied that we will get that edited.

OVERVIEW OF DATA

KPI reviewed 10-year utilization data for all the zones, including population, population
classification, GOVA region, designation, expiration, 10-year RPIG total, 10-year JCG total,
10-year total, and number of year since utilization.

FACILITATED DISCUSSION

Sara Dunnigan (SD) led the facilitated discussion below.
SD reviewed legislation that did not pass in the last session. The legislation contained
information about the amount zones. We have more zones right now than the Governor can
authorize. Next expiration is 2033.

SD asked: Does anyone have more information they need?

JL stated that it would be helpful to understand from LZAs why they are having difficulty in
utilizing zones. He has heard from members of economic development that say it is just
head winds and the way things go. Joe would like to hear more about that. SD restated the
question: Can we get more context why the zones are not utilized?
Appendix 3

KH asked: How many people are leveraging EZ to utilize other state funds/ using local
incentive as match to things such as COF.

Yoti Jabri (YJ) asked: Do we know if these localities have economic development directors?
SD responded: Yes. MA and KPI know that but it may be a data point to add to spreadsheet.
Does someone wake up every day with full-time capacity for EZ. Is there an ED in the
locality? (MA sent chat to EZ team that we can add that into the LZA survey AND ask how
long have you been in the position? How long as the position existed?)

Sheila Scott (SS) asked: The localities that are not utilizing – are they completing and
turning in annual reports? Agree with Joe – need information as to why EZs are not being
utilized. Can we add to report? SD-Yes, we can take that into advisement but will be general
answers.

Laura Bateman (LB) stated: Earlier today she was looking at JLARC 2024 for economic
development incentives – part of holistic look – are they getting other incentives? Should
we look at that? SD responded: Zones are a scarce resource. If we did a scan of the
Commonwealth, do other locations qualify? The bill to increase zones was not successful.
Will need 2-step process.

AC asked: Why do zones have to renew and potentially expire? TM responded: concern for
designation length of time at 20-25 years – more zones stay for longer. Needing to renew is
a way people are required to do some work. Funding was lower and pro-ration was higher.
SD added: Rather than increase funding, they made effort to reduce number of localities
eligible for EZ and thought it would create an equal effect. We gave not had proration for
several years, but probably a tailwind coming out of pandemic.

KPI: In almost all of the localities with low utilization there is someone dedicated to EZ. The
small towns that are in joint zones with larger counties do not have anyone. Also, turnover
is issue.

KH shared why one zone is not utilized in her locality. Saltville is such a small town with
only a handful of businesses. Just two in the industrial or manufacturing industry. Largest
company is federally funded and doesn’t like anyone to know about them. Main Street is
getting attention (Saltville) but b/c of the way the are doing development, they are not
putting enough money in at one time and cannot meet threshold. At the end of day, we can
only give them information and the rest is on their own. Flip side is potential – ask for
renewal so keep it there so that businesses have access to it.
Appendix 3

SD asked LB her perspective. LB stated that she understands the chicken and egg scenario
and trying to reach critical mass. SD stated that it costs the Commonwealth nothing to
have zone when not utilized, except for reports and review.

SD called on Aileen Martz (AM), who stated: As far as utilization goes, VEDP is working with
local economic developers and when making incentive packages will look to see if
business is in the EZ. ED’s point out it is in EZ. Some of them are in rural localities and
might be only incentive available but want it to be useful. Also, she has heard from local
administration that think there is varying levels of local support for outreach to companies
to utilize zone. If zone hasn’t had use for 10+ years what has been level.

JL recommend lower threshold to be able to get needle moving. SD: not question at hand
but hears him. SD stated it’s possible to improve utilization by having lower threshold for
certain zones with certain categories and stated she is hearing they want more customized
data. More info about why no utilization. Look forward to next designation period (2033).

SD asked: Do you think number of zones should be increased, decreased through attrition
or denial of renewal, or remain the same? Zone program is locked in place right now.

TM stated: We did invite a few localities without a zone that wanted one and no response or
interest.

KH stated: She personally thinks it should be increased. Understands proration is a factor
and it’s hard to market with the potential of proration but more opportunity without
impacting current zones is good. Maybe modifications can be made to be more active and
appropriate.

AC stated: Has no problem with zones increasing but concern is proration. If the number of
zones increases, she feels strongly that appropriation needs to be increased. Thinks
surplus was because of covid but sees proration coming even with current zones.

TM provided overview of funding but reminded all that we have about $8M in the pot not
being used in addition to next year’s amount of $14.75M.

KH added: There aren't a lot of other "by right" incentives which is a big benefit, even
considering proration. If they meet the eligibility, they don't have to do anything else.

LB stated: VA First Cities hears from members that grant proration is the biggest concern,
especially for highly used areas. As someone goes to ask for money, that can be a worry.

SD asked– Can we increase the number of zones without impacting the current zones and
the amount of money available to them?
Appendix 3

Greg Hitchin (GH) stated: He agrees with everyone but why not have as many zones as we
can if it’s a performance-based incentive? Pandemic probably messed up stats and we will
get back to normal cycle – window of no activity until 2033 – opportunity to see how that
changes. Thought – If we do end up in a year of proration and it is below 75%, can the
budget have a mechanism that allows applicants to carry over expenses into the next year
with priority funding? Maybe this only kicks in if proration is below 75%.

SD stated: Eliminating unused zones doesn’t affect budget or proration right now but can
keep localities from having the opportunity to have it.

AM stated: Companies are uncomfortable with proration -- feels like there needs to be
some turnover in zones. Need avenue for localities without zones to have the opportunity
to get one. Nice to have more zones but having zones for 35 years is a long time. Economics
change in 3+decades. Go back to 20 years and get zones to turnover more. Give other
localities with need and opportunity to have their shot. Balance between length of zone
and budget.

KH stated: In terms of eligibility, think of a rural community. We have less tools in our
basket than other municipalities. Thinking about zone expiring – are things considered for
larger vs smaller resources to be in consideration for localities that don’t have as many
resources?

Madison Hool (MH) added that she agrees with Aileen on her points and proration. Newport
News utilizes EZ a lot but for businesses that don’t qualify we have other incentives they
can offer. See KH point that if EZ only resource they have, can the qualification be different?

Samantha Bagbey asked: Could you leave the 30-year designation with performance
milestones in place that could determine if you are able to keep the 30-year designation? If
your locality goes X number of years without utilization, your term is shortened? Would
allow for others to apply for it and utilize it.

SS stated: She thinks we need more zones but not sure how and doesn’t want proration.
Every town has their own story. Henry would not have qualified because they had most
billionaires per capita but everything changed. People moved away with no jobs. Still
building and taking 30-40 years for rebuild. Even if we must do proration, it’s bad for the
company but great you have that many people investing. See both sides. Not sure how to
handle but do need open it up more zones.

SD stated: Bill did have part about aligning distress scores but we are using something now
that we feel is the way the legislation is intended. MA added- some factors are no longer
relevant such as free lunch.
Appendix 3

SD put link to full bill in the chat. Reiterated that she heard that they want more zones but
what is the mechanism and how do we do it?

TM went over action items. We will work on minutes to share. Will send PowerPoint, data,
and survey link for next meeting time. Survey to be sent to all LZA’s with questions for
them. Meeting availability email for the second session will also be sent out in upcoming
weeks.

LB asked SD: What were you saying about aligning the "distress" definitions?

TM responded: The bill that did not pass was set to change distress definition to align with
VEDP of distress or double distress. Same when applying. Is that part of the work group?

SD responded: No, but important to think about as part of this work group. VEDA was
advocating for parts of this bill and that doesn’t affect money, etc.

AC stated that Sara mentioned that no utilization is the kill switch, but DHCD has not
denied renewals.

TM responded: All of those with no utilization are in areas of joint zones. Other parts of the
zone had utilization. Many cases it is town vs counties. How we looked at it in renewal – if
one locality had utilization, but not the other, we allowed them both to keep their zone.

Meeting closed.
Appendix 3

      Virginia Enterprise Zone Program Work Group Session #2
           Thursday, July 17, 2025, from 2:00PM-3:30PM
                        TEAMS Virtual Meeting


IN ATTENDANCE

Sara Dunnigan, DHCD
Tory McGowan, DHCD
Mandy Archer, DHCD
Kate Pickett Irving, DHCD
Chase Sawyer, DHCD
Aileen Martz, VEDP
Greg Hitchin, VEDA President & LZA for Waynesboro
Alicia Cundiff, LZA for Roanoke
Samantha Bagbey, VML & LZA for Danville
Madison Hool, LZA for Newport News
Kendra Hayden, LZA for Smyth County
John Kilgore, LZA for Scott County
Laura Bateman, Virginia First Cities
Joe Lerch, VACO
Yoti Jabri, LZA for Prince George County
Leslie Litton, representative for Lee County
Stacey English, representative for Dinwiddie County
Victoria Hanson, representative from Amherst County


MEETING MINUTES

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

Tory McGowan (TM) led the group in introductions, reviewed the agenda, and gave an
overview of House Bill 2163. He introduced two new participants to the group, Leslie Litton
from Lee County, and Stacey English from Dinwiddie County, both who represent localities
that currently do not have an Enterprise Zone.

Sara Dunnigan (SD) reviewed why the group is completing this work and what the group has
been tasked with to complete-to review the utilization of currently designated zones and to
Appendix 3

make recommendations on renewals and terminations. She reminded us that the report for
the work group is due by November 1st to the General Assembly.

Mandy Archer (MA) reviewed the designation criteria for localities to become designated
Enterprise Zones, which is a provision in the Code of Virginia. She then reviewed the criteria
for zone renewals.

TM reviewed the provision of the Code of Virginia regarding Enterprise Zone expirations and
terminations. He then discussed VEDP’s proposed bill that would have made DHCD and
VEDP’s definitions of distress and double-distressed uniform. Aileen Martz (AM) provided
more details regarding the factors utilized to measure distress and double-distress. TM
reviewed the initial period of time for designation and renewals.



FACILITATED DISCUSSION

SD asked the group why do they think there is an Enterprise Zone program and what is it
designed to do? She facilitated discussion about the number of distressed areas in Virginia
and the resources available. SD reviewed the issue of changing the number of zones and
extending the amount of time zones can renew.

Greg Hitchin (GH) suggested that to eliminate the applications, if a locality or community
meets the definition of distressed or double-distressed, then it would automatically qualify.
The locality or community could be an EZ until it’s no longer distressed or double-
distressed. How much acreage would qualify?

Laura Bateman (LB) stated that it’s an interesting idea. Some of the VA First Cities members
that are urban, the poverty rate information and fiscal distress is complicated, as it is
everywhere. There are census tracts that you can get that granular poverty rate that’s off the
charts. She added that the distress criteria of free and reduced lunch is important within VA
First Cities because the cities tend to have large numbers of students receiving free and
reduced lunch, but in the current environment that program is going away; moving forward,
is that a valid method to use?

Joe Lerch (JL), referring to Greg’s thought/idea, he brought up that under current code the
locality is responsible for local incentives and that would have to be part of it if localities
were automatically considered as zones based solely on distress.

Yoti Jabri (YJ) asked if we have looked at other states that have a similar model to the EZ and
what they do. TM responded that we have not recently and that most are similar to the old
tax credit program, which is a different model than what we currently have.
Appendix 3

John Kilgore (JK) stated the EZ is very effective in rural counties. On a major project with a
large investment the match for COF might be $500,000 and a small county would have to
borrow money to come up with that match and EZ allows them to have something else to
offer. SD agreed that’s a good example of the importance of EZ.

Samantha Bagbey (SB) said that in Danville they use EZ mainly for their smaller projects
that are not investing enough to trigger larger state incentives, but are eligible for EZ. She’s
concerned about making the zone designation solely based on distress because there
could be a time when a locality like Danville, which is growing, is no longer distressed but
still needs the EZ incentives as an option.

SD responded that the hope is that the EZ program incentivizes enough private investment
that you move out of those levels of poverty and unemployment, which is a good thing.
Usually investment follows investment, but it’s a good observation about the small
projects. TM added that we have survey data to review before we have further discussion.



POWERPOINT PRESENTATION OF SURVEY DATA

Kate Pickett Irving (KPI) reviewed the survey data, which included both quantitative and
qualitative information. She reviewed the information regarding the sample size and target
audience, as well as the demographics of the respondents. She reviewed more survey
data, including quotes from respondents. MA also reviewed survey questions and results.



FACILITATED DISCUSSION

KPI: What changes should be made to designation and scoring?

TM reminded everyone that the code currently mentions free/reduced lunch as part of the
distress score for designation.

GH feels that the 50% ratio used as scoring criteria is ok. He does think we need to look at
the definition of distress and consider making the distress scoring criteria the same as
VEDP.

LB stated that free and reduced lunch is vitally important to VA First Cities’ urban localities
and something that can be decided down the road. She recommends evaluating the free
and reduced lunch criteria.
Appendix 3



KPI: Does anyone else think the distress score should be same as VEDP for more
congruency?

Kendra Hayden (KH) agrees it needs to be more congruent.

SB agreed via chat that the scoring needs to be same.

Alicia Cundiff (AC) agreed that distress scoring should align with other programs at VEDP.

YJ agreed via chat.

Aileen Martz (AM) stated the more we can align the distress criteria among programs the
easier it is to determine what programs are available. She agrees that the 50/50 designation
scoring criteria is fine the way it is. AM Is not sure how she feels about distress including
percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch and suggested switching to a
poverty rate percentage which aligns with other incentive programs.



KPI: Does anyone have a different opinion on the designations criteria scoring
(specifically the 50/50 split of narrative and distress) or does anyone want to say
anything different about this application criteria?

AC was surprised to see that Roanoke is in the same bucket as Richmond and Newport
News regarding rural, micropolitan, and metropolitan. Where do those categories come
from? KPI stated that these come from the US Census bureau population designations, and
she mentioned that in the survey we did receive a few suggestions of incorporating a “per
capita” metric system for categorizing. AC stated that at time her concern was they were
“competing” against larger metropolitan areas and when talking about those categories
they are so broad. KPI stated that we can visit that again in the future.

TM stated that the renewal scoring is an administrative process, not through code.



KPI: What changes should be made to renewal criteria?
KPI shared current factors and survey results. KPI reviewed the distress scoring and asked
again if it should align with VEDP? KPI opened the discussion to talk about various sections
of the renewal process and how they are weighted.

LB stated in the chat that the scoring system seems fair.
Appendix 3

GH stated the bonus points perplex him a little, but his locality (as an LZA) typically scores
high. Overall, he thinks it makes sense.

KPI explained the thought and rationale about bonus points.

Victoria from Amherst County feels like the distress should be weighed a little higher.

KH states overall she agrees with how the layout of scoring works well but she agrees that the
distress score could be a little bit heavier weighted just because the need is probably higher
in those distressed communities, but the scoring works as it is.

Maddie Hool (MH) added in the chat that she thinks the higher weight/importance on the
narrative makes sense for renewals specifically, especially if there was low incentive
utilization during that timeframe.



KPI: How often should zones be required to renew?

AC felt that it should be every 10 years because 5 years is short.

Victoria – as someone that has never had a zone does the shorter renewal period provides
an opportunity for those that have not had a zone to potentially get a zone designation. She
understands it is a lot of work but as a double distressed community that would like to have
an EZ, she feels that the shorter renewal may give more opportunity for a new locality to
have a chance to go for an enterprise zone designation.

KPI responded that we do talk about whether zones should be able to be decreased by
attrition or if the number of zones should be increased.



KPI – is there anyone that thinks 5 years is a good amount of time for renewal or if that
time is too short?

KH feels it is too short purely for the fact that lifecycle of projects can take a lot of time to
come to fruition.

GH agrees it is too short but likes the perspective that renewing, terminating, disqualifying
allows additional zones but it is a lot of work on both sides to do the renewal every five
years.

LB wondering if there is a medium between 5 and 10 years that might seem suitable or
palatable.
Appendix 3

TM asked the group if a seven-year renewal seems fair and LB agreed that it seemed more
suitable.

AM wanted to throw out that she isn’t sure if just having a designated time-period for the
zone would be better rather than having the renewal to allow for more churn for zones. Then
you automatically must reapply for a zone – would that work – to get more churn on zones.
If you must reapply for the designation after 10-15-20 years, then you must reapply instead
of incremental 5-year renewals.

TM mentioned that if you make all your renewals the zone is designated for 34 years.
Originally it was 20 years with no renewals unless it was terminated for no usage or not
providing local incentives. Even though it is not specifically stated it is important for us to
look at it and should the potential designation of a zone stay in the 34-year cycle or should
it be backed to 20-25 years. TM realizes that it may require some currently designated
localities to apply for a new designation.



KPI: This leads to the next question. Do we think the 34-year designation is too long or
should it be reduced?

AM thinks 34 years is an extremely long time to have a zone, but she does not think they
would want it shorter than 20 years.

AC doesn’t think this is too long because if you are a double distressed community it is
going to take time for business to be able to utilize those incentives. It will take time for
businesses to get the working capital and make improvements in the community. Some
projects take several years before they are eligible to apply for incentives.

KH agrees with AC and stresses that in stressed and double distressed communities that
private investment is extremely difficult and getting information to people who want to
invest into the community and getting them agreeable to those incentives takes time. Even
though 30 years seems like a long time, in a rural community it takes an extreme amount of
time for trust and interest to be built.

GH agrees that if you are distressed there is a ramp up period. In his area they are building
an industrial park in the zone and that takes about 15 years if going from zero to a viable
industrial park and under current rules that is what you need to do.

TM reminded everyone that even if the designation is 20 years, after that amount of time
you can apply for redesignating provided there is availability of zone designations.
Appendix 3

SB asked if there is consideration for projects that take a long time and are in the pipeline,
so it doesn’t look like the zone is not being utilized but instead consideration on knowing
what is coming. Is that an option? KPI responded that in the annual report we do have a
location for you to talk about upcoming projects, and we believe it is in the renewal
application as well. Other localities have talked about that in their reports, and this shows
that it is important to have the narrative sections so localities can bring up long term
projects and other important information.

GH added that as projects take time and as an example you have been talking to a
company/investor for 5 years about a project and they don’t sign until after your zone has
expired then there should be some way to cover that and take it into consideration.

TM did share that if a company is in the zone and receiving JCG but your zone goes away
then the company can still apply for JCG for the remainder of their eligible years. But RPIG
is different and if you lose your zone, they but the company doesn’t get a COO until next
year then they will be out of luck.

AC wanted to make sure we mentioned this about renewals and terminations—have we
talked about if a locality has moved from distressed or double distressed to no longer
distressed, would they no longer be eligible for a zone?

TM responded that under current rubric for renewal the distress is 100 points out of 400 so
a locality could still receive enough points on the narrative and bonus points to qualify for
renewal. That is when having the designation, a lower number than 34 years will be helpful.
It is possible that after 20-25 years the locality can go to no longer distressed. At that point
they could reapply but the distressed is a higher scoring weight in designation level. TM did
acknowledge that some individuals mentioned increasing the distress score weight in the
renewal side of the process.

Victoria (Amherst County) did ask if there is a possibility of localities adjacent to the current
zone being able to join the existing zone. TM did respond that there is language to that in the
code that allows it under certain circumstances. Maybe a consideration is allowing joint
zones to be approved but it would need to happen during a renewal process and if they
meet the criteria of a joint zone along with getting approval and buy-in from the existing
zones. The proposed joint zone will need to have a common area or connection such as a
RIFA or jointly funded area. They would need to do it at renewal and if meets criteria of a
joint zone along with approval and buy in of that locality that you want to join, along with a
common area or connections such as RIFA or jointly funded area.

KPI thanked everyone for their time and participation. We will get information out to
everyone. Meeting closed.
Appendix 3

       Virginia Enterprise Zone Program Work Group Session #3
          Thursday, August 28, 2025, from 1:00PM-2:30PM
                         TEAMS Virtual Meeting


IN ATTENDANCE

Sara Dunnigan, DHCD
Tory McGowan, DHCD
Mandy Archer, DHCD
Kate Pickett Irving, DHCD
Chase Sawyer, DHCD
Amy Fottrell, DHCD
Aileen Martz, VEDP
Greg Hitchen, VEDA President & LZA for Waynesboro
Alicia Cundiff, LZA for Roanoke
Samantha Bagbey, VML & LZA for Danville
Madison Hool, LZA for Newport News
John Kilgore, LZA for Scott County
Sheila Scott, LZA for Henry County
Laura Bateman, Virginia First Cities
Joe Lerch, VACO
Yoti Jabri, LZA for Prince George County (left early)




MEETING MINUTES

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

Tory McGowan welcomed the group and reviewed the agenda. He shared that the original
plan was for this to be the last meeting, but we may need to have one more after the draft
recommendations can be shared with the group to allow for final questions and
comments.
Appendix 3

Mandy Archer reviewed the purpose of the group and items outlined in House Bill 2163. She
then reviewed the designation criteria and number of allowed zones under the program
guidelines.

Kate Pickett Irving reviewed the renewal criteria in the Virginia Code, explaining that zones
designated before July 1, 2005, may receive two five-year renewals, while those designated
after that date may receive four five-year renewals. All zones also receive an automatic
four-year extension. Tory McGowan clarified that this results in a maximum of 34 years of
designation for all zones.

Kate Pickett Irving then explained the termination criteria: zones must be terminated if
localities are unwilling or unable to provide local incentives, or if no businesses qualify for
incentives within five years. Tory McGowan provided historical context, noting that the
original program allowed for 30 zones with a 20-year limit. Legislative changes in 2019 and
2024 extended zone durations, delaying attrition and pushing new designation availability
to 2038.



FACILITATED DISCUSSION

Gregory Hitchin asked about joint zones, and Tory McGowan explained that they must be
contiguous and involve shared revenue mechanisms. Sara Dunnigan noted that legislative
extensions have disrupted the intended attrition process, and the group must now consider
how to move forward responsibly.

Tory McGowan discussed a proposal to increase the number of zones from 30 to 40 or 50
and reduce the designation period to 21 years (three 7-year terms). He explained that this
would allow for new designations while requiring some current zones to reapply. Alicia
Cundiff expressed concern about retroactive application and the competitive nature of
reapplying. Sara Dunnigan reminded the group that enterprise zones were never meant to
be permanent and were designed to support communities temporarily.

Laura Bateman added that while enterprise zones help, they are not a cure-all for fiscal
distress. Tory McGowan noted that only one locality (a county, not on the call) would be
ineligible under the proposed new distress definitions. Sheila Scott asked how the 21-year
limit would affect zones up for renewal this year, and Tory McGowan explained that new
legislation would likely override previous renewals.
Appendix 3

Joe Lerch raised concerns about funding, and Tory McGowan shared that the current
budget is $14.75 million, with an additional $9 million in unspent funds. Gregory
Hitchin and Alicia Cundiff supported including a funding trigger in the recommendations to
ensure adequate resources if the number of zones increases. Sara Dunnigan emphasized
the strong return on investment from the program. Tory McGowan reminded everyone that
the 2025 legislation did add a third tier of funding to the RPIG program.

Gregory Hitchin and Alicia Cundiff noted that there are over 90 distressed or double-
distressed localities, but only 45 zones, highlighting the need for more designations. Tory
McGowan explained that joint zones can include multiple localities and are counted as one
zone.

Discussion shifted to renewal and termination criteria. Tory McGowan proposed that zones
no longer meeting distress criteria be terminated at renewal. Gregory Hitchin and others
supported this, but Joe Lerch requested more data before agreeing. Aileen Martz asked
about joint zones losing members, and Tory McGowan clarified that only the non-qualifying
locality would lose its designation.

Sara Dunnigan and Gregory Hitchin discussed whether termination should occur mid-cycle
or only at renewal. The group leaned toward requiring three consecutive years of non-
distress before termination. Alicia Cundiff and Aileen Martz raised concerns about
penalizing zones with low utilization, especially in highly distressed areas. Sara
Dunnigan suggested considering local effort and intent in promoting the zone.

The group discussed delaying implementation of the 21-year limit until 2028 to give
localities time to prepare. John Kilgore and Sheila Scott expressed concern about losing
zones too soon, especially when they are actively working on projects. Sara
Dunnigan acknowledged the need for a smoother transition and suggested including
historical utilization in future designation scoring.

The meeting concluded with agreement to draft a framework and reconvene in mid-to-late
September. Tory McGowan and Sara Dunnigan committed to providing data on affected
zones and joint zone structures. The group thanked DHCD staff for their work and agreed to
continue refining recommendations before the November 1 deadline.



Meeting closed.
Appendix 3

      Virginia Enterprise Zone Program Work Group Session #4
         Thursday, October 16, 2025, from 1:00PM-2:30PM
                       TEAMS Virtual Meeting


IN ATTENDANCE

Sara Dunnigan, DHCD
Tory McGowan, DHCD
Mandy Archer, DHCD
Kate Pickett Irving, DHCD
Chase Sawyer, DHCD
Aileen Martz, VEDP
Greg Hitchen, VEDA President & LZA for Waynesboro
Alicia Cundiff, LZA for Roanoke
Madison Hool, LZA for Newport News
Mallory Butler, City of Newport News Economic Development Manager
Sheila Scott, LZA for Henry County
Laura Bateman, Virginia First Cities
Victoria Hansen, Amherst County


MEETING MINUTES

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

Tory McGowan welcomed the group and reviewed the agenda. He reminded everyone that
the draft report was emailed for review. Following the short presentation and review of
recommendations we will have time for comments and discussions from work group
members.

Mandy Archer reviewed the purpose of the group and items outlined in House Bill 2163. She
then reviewed the current regulations and work group recommendations gleaned from
previous meetings for zone utilization and zone renewals, criteria and number of allowed
zones under the program guidelines.
Appendix 3

Kate Pickett Irving reviewed the current regulations and recommendations for termination
of zones. She also reviewed additional considerations being provided in the report
regarding number of zone designations available.


FACILITATED DISCUSSION

Tory began the discussion by asking the following questions.


1. Does the report reflect the discussions we had as a work group? Is there anything we
may have missed that is not included in the report?

Laura Bateman does think it reflects the discussions and acknowledges it does reflect the
discussion, but noted that Virginia First Cities sees an issue with the definitions and wants
to discuss that when being reviewed.

Victoria Hansen could not attend the second work group meeting but did share concern
that even as a double-distressed community the opportunity for a new zone designation is
12-13 years and that feels so long away. Tory McGowan did confirm that under the current
code the next opportunity to become a zone will be a significant amount of time but after
looking at the items we were tasked with addressing there was not a specific question
about length of zone designation, so it is something that was included as part of the
report’s additional considerations in the work group report. Sara Dunnigan did state
Victoria made a great point but it was core to the discussion so it is incorporated into other
considerations so legislators may consider updating legislation to allow up to a certain
number of zones at any given time. She also noted we understand the work group did have
concerns if zones were increased, they want to make sure the resources are available to
support the number of zones.

Greg Hitchin brought up the section of renewals and time periods and clarifying that we are
not making any recommendations for changes to that renewal time frame. Tory stated it
was clear from the work group that reducing the current version of the zone designations
was not supported. The only recommendation we are looking to make is to reduce the 4-
year extension that was put in accidentally in the adopted bill. This will give designated
localities 30 years instead of 34 years if they meet all the renewal requirements. Greg
clarified he was discussing the 5-year renewal time period. It is mentioned it in the report,
but it does not clarify if any decision has been made. Tory did bring it up for discussion.
Should we continue with the current zone designation and renewal time periods of initial 10
years and renewal every 5 years according to the code versus the proposed 7 year renewal
periods? Sara Dunnigan clarified that the 7-year renewal period was up for discussion
Appendix 3

when there was a proposal on the table about changing the maximum designation for each
zone to 21 years. That proposal was not something supported by the work group. It is a
discussion for the work group if they feel like 5 years is still a sufficient timeline for
renewals. Five years seems to be a good time period that a community can move from
distressed to not distressed. While we do not want the renewal process to be an
administrative burden we welcome feedback from the group. Victora Hansen shared that
for those that aspire to be an enterprise zone, it makes it harder to become one when the
designations and renewals are longer times. She went on to share that keeping those
renewals shorter can allow opportunity for other localities to receive an enterprise zone
designation.

Sheila Scott asked for clarification on the recommendation of renewal period and when
renewals take place after initial designation. Tory clarified zones receive their initial 10-year
designation and then they are required to apply every 5 years until it’s expiration.

Victoria Hansen shared her thoughts on trying to make the legislation more flexible to allow
new legislation to allow for joint zones for localities that are adjacent to a current zone.

Greg Hitchin suggests that we update the paragraph in the report that addresses the
renewal extensions because currently it seems to be an unfinished thought. Sara Dunnigan
provided suggested verbiage to the work group and received consensus from everyone to
add some language about the longer renewal was suggested but the shorter renewal allows
more oversight.



2. Are these recommendations generally reflective of the discussion in those areas the
workgroup was directed to review?

To help review the recommendations we brought the slides back up. Mandy reviewed all
the points on the slide. We went to the renewal slide to discuss recommendations.

Laura Bateman shared Virginia First Cities has dissent on the definition of “distressed” and
“double-distressed” definitions under the VEDP Commonwealth Opportunity Fund. Based
on their research they do not want current enterprise zone localities to lose their
designation if they are not distressed. The fiscally distressed factors of those localities may
be on other criteria that is not based on unemployment and poverty rates. After
discussions among work group members, it was determined that we will remove the
reference to VEDP Commonwealth Opportunity Fund and instead list the methodology
using unemployment and poverty rates to determine distress or double distressed.
Appendix 3


As a reminder, there are two factors that determine “distress” and/or “double-distressed,”
including the locality has an annual unemployment rate greater than the corresponding
statewide average unemployment rate as of the most recent calendar year for which such
data is available and the locality has a poverty rate that exceeds the corresponding
statewide average poverty rate as of the most recent calendar year for which such data is
available.

If a locality does not meet either of these requirements, it is considered “not distressed.” If
it meets one of these requirements, it is considered “distressed.” If it meets both
requirements, it is considered “double-distressed.”



3. Did we accomplish our mission?

Tory shared that we will take these comments and make some additional edits to the
report, so they are included.

Greg Hitchin asked for more information about request to remove the 4-year extension that
was added to the last bill and clarifying the number of zones versus the number of zones a
Governor can designate.

Tory McGowan & Sara Dunnigan shared that there were conflicting bills because the bills
were not reconciled prior to being sent to the Governor for signature. The bill that was
signed added the additional four years of designation.

Greg Hitchin also suggested the report highlight information about the return on investment
of the program for private investment.

Alicia Cundiff shared that she would not be able to provide consensus on removing the 4-
year extension as a recommendation. When they read the report both she and the director
had concerns. They may need to talk to the City Manager for input. Alicia will be happy to
provide a letter with her comments but wants to share this with the work group members
today.

Sheila Scott asked for clarification about the potential shortened designation times and
how that will impact existing or incoming businesses. Does the report provide any language
that will protect a locality from losing their designation sooner than what is currently in
code. Tory did state that this only applied when the discussion arose about shortening the
designation time to 21 years. The current recommendations are to remove the 4-year
added extension which still allows all current zones to have their designation until 2030.
Appendix 3

Alicia Cundiff did ask for information about the reconciliation of bills. Tory reviewed the
process of the bill signing and which bill was signed. Our staff was surprised when the bill
was signed that added the 4-year extension. Chase Sawyers did state it was something that
got missed with no additional context.

Tory McGowan thanked everyone for their time and participation. If anyone wants to
provide a letter of comment, we need to receive them by close of business on Monday,
October 20, 2025. Those letters will be included in the full packet that will be put together
and sent to the Governor’s office for review prior to being submitted to the money
committee prior to the November 1st deadline.

Laura Bateman stated she will update the letter after reviewing the changes in the
recommendations.

Sara Dunnigan said we will send out an updated report to the entire work group as soon as
possible for final review.



Meeting closed.
Appendix 4

Statements and Comments



Email Statements



Given the nature of joint zones as regional, geographic partnership agreements, VACo does
not support the automatic termination of one of the partners (and their geographic
boundaries) from the zone due to them not meeting one or more of distress factors at the
time of renewal.

Also, thanks again for the draft report. We are continuing to review with our members,
particularly as it relates to all the legislative recommendations.


Regards,

Joe Lerch
VACo Director of Local Government Policy
Office - 804-343-2503
Mobile - 804-640-5615
October 20, 2025


Enterprise Zone Work Group (HB2163 – 2025)
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development

On behalf of the more than 650 members of the Virginia Economic Developers Association
(VEDA), we appreciate the opportunity to have been a part of the Enterprise Zone Work Group as
defined in HB2163 (2025).

The Enterprise Zone program is a critical program that has benefited our member communities,
both urban and rural, revitalize distressed areas. We encourage opportunities for expansion of the
designations and fair and complete evaluation of existing zone designations.

VEDA supports the refinement of the program, and we look forward to working with our members
to gain consensus on any future legislation.

Thank you for providing the opportunity to provide feedback.

Sincerely,




Gregory E. Hitchin, CEcD                                         Connie W. Long
President, VEDA                                                  Executive Director, VEDA
City of Waynesboro Economic
Development & Tourism




                         869 Lynnhaven Parkway, Suite 113, #264 \ Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452
                           757.412.2664 \ www.GoVEDA.org \ VEDA@associationbuilders.com
         ;newport                                                            Department of Development
                                                                                    City of Newport News

          news                BUILT ON
                              BREAKTHROUGHS
                                                                        2400 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor
                                                                                 Newport News, VA 23607

                                                              October 20, 2025



Mr. Tory McGowan
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development
600 E Main Street, Suite 300
Richmond, Virginia 23219

RE: Letter of Support- Enterprise Zone Work Group Recommendations


Dear

On behalf of the City of Newport News Department of Development, I am writing to
express our support for the Enterprise Zone Work Group's Findings and
Recommendations report prepared in response to House Bill 2163 (HB2163).

The Virginia Enterprise Zone (VEZ) Program is an essential driver of economic growth
within Newport News and across the Commonwealth. Through the combination of state
and local incentives afforded by the VEZ Program, our City has been able to attract and
retain businesses, encourage redevelopment, and create quality jobs for residents.

The thoughtful analysis and recommendations presented in the Work Group's report
reflect a deep understanding of both the challenges and opportunities localities face in
utilizing and sustaining VEZs. In particular, Newport News is supportive of the proposed
updates to the zone renewal and termination processes,

The City of Newport News values our partnership with DHCD and is appreciative of
DHCD's efforts to enhance the VEZ program and leadership in supporting local
economic development efforts. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input
throughout this process and look forward to our continued partnership.

                                                             Sincerely,


                                                          "'             ! .i-~
                                                             Florence G. Kingston
                                                             Director
FGK:mlh
P:\EntZone\Admin_Legislative matters\2025 EZ Work Group\Session 4\Letter of Support - Findings and
Recommendations - FINAL.docx
                         OFFICE Of THE CITY MANAGER
                         Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
                         215 Church Avenue, SW, Suite 364
                         Roanoke, Virginia 24011

R        OKE             540.853.2333
                         www.roanokeva.gov




    October 20, 2025


    Department of Housing and Community Development
    Attn: Sara Dunnigan, Deputy Director of Economic Development and Community Vitality
    600 E Main Street, Suite 300
    Richmond VA 23219



    Re: HB 2163 Enterprise Zone Legislative Workgroup


    Ms. Dunnigan,

    Thank you for the opportunity for the City of Roanoke to participate in the Enterprise Zone
    legislative workgroup the past several months. The City of Roanoke's Enterprise Zone is
    a vital part of our economic development attraction and retention efforts.
    We would like to express our concerns with one of the legislative recommendations
    coming from the workgroup: "Revise State Code to remove additional 4-year extension
    that was added in the 2024 General Assembly Session."
    While we understand DHCD's desire to clean up state code for administrative purposes,
    the City of Roanoke does not support removing the four-year extension from its Enterprise
    Zone designation, as this extension is already codified into law and the current
    expectation of not only the City of Roanoke, but the other forty-four Enterprise Zones
    across the Commonwealth.

    We respectfully request that state code remain as is, which states, "Notwithstanding any
    provision to the contrary, any enterprise zone in effect as of June 30, 2024, shall be
    extended for an additional four-year period, in addition to any renewal periods provided
    by this section." (§ 59.1-542. Enterprise zone designation.)




    Valmarie H. Turner
    City Manager
                                                       Atkins District                                     James McNeil
                                                       Chilhowie District                                    Tara French
                                                       North Fork District                               Becky Reynolds
         Smyth County Economic Development Authority   Park District                                  Julius Winebarger
         121 Bagley Circle, Suite 100                  Royal Oak District                                Justine Bradley
         Marion, Virginia 24354                        Rye Valley District                               Larry Atwell, Jr.
                                                       Saltville District                                     Amy McVey

                                                       County Administrator                                Shawn M. Utt
                                                       Assistant County Administrator, Development       Clegg Williams
                                                       Assistant County Administrator, Operations       Lisa Richardson
                                                       Director of Community & Economic Development     Kendra Hayden



October 20, 2025

Department of Housing & Community Development
Virginia Enterprise Zone Program
600 East Main Street, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23219

To Whom It May Concern:


On behalf of Smyth County, I am writing in strong support of the Enterprise Zone Workgroup and
the recommendations proposed to strengthen and expand Virginia’s Enterprise Zone program.

The Enterprise Zone program remains one of the most impactful tools available for encouraging
private investment and supporting business growth, particularly in rural communities like Smyth
County. These incentives have directly supported job creation, infrastructure reinvestment, and
redevelopment of underutilized properties across our region. For localities with limited fiscal
resources, the program serves as an essential bridge between community readiness and private-
sector opportunity.

I strongly support the recommendation to allow additional Enterprise Zones to be designated
through legislative change. While this may cause some level of proration, recent years have shown
consistent evidence of unspent funds remaining within the program. Expanding eligibility would
not diminish existing opportunities, it would simply allow both established and emerging
communities to participate in economic growth.

It is also critical that zones are not terminated solely due to a lack of recent usage. Rural
communities often face time and staffing constraints that limit their ability to educate businesses
and developers within the short window allowed prior to renewal. Economic development is a
long game built on sustained effort, relationship development, and incremental progress and the
incentives that support it should align with that pace.

The Enterprise Zone program is a proven, practical tool that continues to deliver real results in
rural Virginia. Implementing the Workgroup’s recommendations will allow the program to evolve
responsibly, ensuring that communities like Smyth County can continue leveraging its benefits
while new areas gain access to the same opportunities for growth.

Sincerely,

Kendra Hayden

Director of Community & Economic Development
Local Zone Administrator, Smyth County
Appendix 5              Enterprise Zone Designations and Expirations (September 2025)
                                                                                     Designation
             Locality                                                       Zone #                  Expiration Date
                                                                                        Year

             Charlotte County | Lunenburg County | Prince Edward County       48         2000         12/31/2033

             Dickenson County | Town of Clintwood | Town of Haysi             49         2000         12/31/2033

             Lancaster County | Northumberland County | Richmond County |
                                                                              50         2000         12/31/2033
             Westmoreland County | Town of Kilmarnock | Town of Warsaw


             Washington County | Town of Chilhowie | Town of Glade Spring     51         2000         12/31/2033



             Alleghany County | Town of Covington | Town of Clifton Forge     53         2001         12/31/2034
             Henry County | Town of Martinsville                              54         2001         12/31/2034
             Lunenburg County | Town of Kenbridge | Town of Victoria          55         2001         12/31/2034
             Pittsylvania County | City of Danville                           57         2001         12/31/2034


             Patrick County | Town of Stuart                                  22         2002         12/31/2035


             City of Richmond | Henrico County                                28         2003         12/31/2036


             City of Danville                                                 1          2004         12/31/2037
             City of Lynchburg (Zone 1)                                       2          2004         12/31/2037
             City of Newport News (South)                                     3          2004         12/31/2037
             City of Roanoke (Zone 1)                                         5          2004         12/31/2037
             Town of Saltville | Smyth County                                 6          2004         12/31/2037


                                     ZONES DESIGNATED UNDER THE 2005 EZ GRANT ACT
                                                                            Designation             UPDATED w/ 4
             Locality                                               Zone #
                                                                               Year                  yr extension
             City of Hampton (Urban)                                   8       2005                   12/31/2038
             City of Hopewell                                          9       2005                   12/31/2038
             City of Petersburg                                       10       2005                   12/31/2038
             Wythe County                                             11       2005                   12/31/2038
             Town of Bedford                                          12       2005                   12/31/2038


             City of Waynesboro                                               14         2008         12/31/2041
             Halifax County                                                   15         2008         12/31/2041
             Wise County | City of Norton                                     52         2008         12/31/2041


             City of Franklin | Southampton County | Isle of Wight County     18         2010         12/31/2043

             City of Portsmouth                                                4         2010         12/31/2043
             Prince George County                                             16         2010         12/31/2043
             City of Staunton                                                 17         2010         12/31/2043
             City of Norfolk                                                   7         2010         12/31/2043
             Pittsylvania County                                              24         2010         12/31/2043


             Greensville County | City of Emporia                             43         2013         12/31/2046
             City of Richmond                                                 19         2013         12/31/2046


             City of Portsmouth                                               20         2014         12/31/2047
             City of Winchester                                               21         2014         12/31/2047
             Scott County                                                     23         2014         12/31/2047
             City of Radford | Pulaski County                                 25         2014         12/31/2047


             Accomack County | Northampton County                             26         2015         12/31/2048
             Carroll County | Grayson County | City of Galax                  27         2015         12/31/2048
             City of Bristol                                                  29         2015         12/31/2048
             Page County                                                      30         2015         12/31/2048
             City of Newport News                                             31         2015         12/31/2048


             Mecklenburg County | Brunswick County                            32         2016         12/31/2049
             City of Hampton (HRC)                                            35         2016         12/31/2049
             City of Martinsville | Henry County                              36         2016         12/31/2049
             Tazewell County                                                  44         2016         12/31/2049
             City of Lynchburg                                                46         2016         12/31/2049



             Contact Information:              KP Kate Pickett              Phone: (804) 370-2137 katherine.pickett
                                             MA Mandy Archer                Phone: (804) 371-7113 mandy.archer@
Appendix 6 - Zone Utilization Chart

                            Zone Information                                   Number of Grants Per Year           Summary of 2024 Grants

                                                                                                                  Total Amount of    Percent of
  Zone #        Community            Acreage   Designation   Expiration   2024       2023   2022   2021    2020
                                                                                                                   Grant Funding    Total Amount

              Charlotte County         773                                 0          0      1      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
    48       Lunenburg County          405        2000         2033        0          0      0      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
           Prince Edward County       2,859                                2          0      1      0       3       $153,143.24        1.12%
             Dickenson County         3,645                                0          0      0      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
    49       Town of Clintwood         237        2000         2033        1          0      1      0       0       $200,000.00        1.46%
               Town of Haysi           163                                 0          0      0      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
              Town of Warsaw           961                                 1          1      2      1       4       $100,000.00        0.73%
             Lancaster County         3,696                                1          0      0      0       1       $100,000.00        0.73%
           Northumberland County      2,496                                1          1      0      1       0       $100,000.00        0.73%
    50                                            2000         2033
             Richmond County          1,140                                1          0      1      0       0       $73,004.13         0.53%
           Westmoreland County        3,786                                4          1      3      2       2       $342,954.94        2.51%
            Town of Kilmarnock         374                                 1          3      1      3       0       $70,495.72         0.51%
               Smyth County           3,572                                3          2      3      4       2       $215,455.80        1.57%
            Washington County         3,594                                5          6      4      2       1       $509,944.00        3.73%
    51                                            2000         2033
             Town of Chilhowie         505                                 0          0      0      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
            Town of Glade Spring       289                                 0          0      0      1       1          $0.00           0.00%
             Alleghany County         3,608                                1          0      1      2       0       $17,949.83         0.13%
    53      Town of Clifton Forge      246        2001         2034        0          0      0      0       1          $0.00           0.00%
              City of Covington        639                                 1          0      0      0       3       $84,436.95         0.62%
               Henry County           2934                                 2          5      2      1       2       $292,655.00        2.14%
    54                                            2001         2034
             City of Martinsville      527                                 0          1      0      0       2          $0.00           0.00%

             Lunenburg County          364                                 0          0      0      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
    55       Town of Kenbridge         310        2001         2034        1          2      1      0       0       $100,000.00        0.73%
              Town of Victoria         220                                 0          0      0      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
             Pittsylvania County      3,428                                2          4      5      3       4       $117,892.00        0.86%
    57                                            2001         2034
               City of Danville       1,608                                2          3      4      4       3       $98,888.00         0.72%
Appendix 6 - Zone Utilization Chart
                             Zone Information                                   Number of Grants Per Year           Summary of 2024 Grants
                                                                                                                   Total Amount of    Percent of
  Zone #         Community            Acreage   Designation   Expiration   2024       2023   2022   2021    2020
                                                                                                                    Grant Funding    Total Amount
               Patrick County          3,621                                1          2      1      0       0        $9,610.00         0.07%
    22                                             2002         2035
                Town of Stuart          176                                 0          0      0      0       0         $0.00            0.00%
           City of Richmond (North)    3,588                                7          13     11     15     22       $719,049.00        5.25%
    28                                             2003         2036
               Henrico County          3,811                                6          20     17     13     17       $334,959.60        2.45%
     1         City of Danville        1,911       2004         2037        5          4      3      7       8       $348,693.34        2.55%
     2        City of Lynchburg        2,198       2004         2037        10         8      5      10     11       $984,881.60        7.19%
     3      City of Newport News       3,839       2004         2037        10         24     4      10     15      $1,198,870.25       8.76%
     5         City of Roanoke         1,904       2004         2037        7          2      6      7      11       $690,332.05        5.04%
                Smyth County            619                                 0          0      0      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
     6                                             2004         2037
               Town of Saltville        357                                 0          0      0      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
     8         City of Hampton         3,233       2005         2038        5          4      3      3       3       $425,969.58        3.11%
     9         City of Hopewell        2,183       2005         2038        0          2      1      2       2          $0.00           0.00%
    10        City of Petersburg        922        2005         2038        3          3      2      2       1       $400,000.00        2.92%
    11          Wythe County           3,421       2005         2038        1          1      1      3       3       $100,000.00        0.73%
    12         Town of Bedford          636        2005         2038        4          1      1      0       1       $454,374.90        3.32%
    14       City of Waynesboro         608        2008         2041        2          0      0      0       2       $204,832.00        1.50%
    15          Halifax County         2,853       2008         2041        3          7      5      5       4       $349,030.00        2.55%
                Wise County            3,808                                0          1      2      1       0          $0.00           0.00%
    52                                             2008         2041
                    Norton             3,687                                2         n/a    n/a    n/a     n/a      $112,656.00        0.82%
     4        City of Portsmouth       1,468       2010         2043        1          5      5      4       3       $33,277.20         0.24%
     7          City of Norfolk        2,371       2010         2043        6          9      7      8      13       $312,255.37        2.28%
    16      Prince George County       3,754       2010         2043        1          2      2      2       1       $16,000.00         0.12%
    17         City of Staunton         699        2010         2043        2          1      1      2       3       $300,000.00        2.19%
               City of Franklin         878                                 0          2      0      2       0          $0.00           0.00%
    18      Southampton County         3412        2010         2043        0          0      0      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
             Isle of Wight County      2,438                                0          0      1      1       1          $0.00           0.00%
    24       Pittsylvania County       3,132       2010         2043        0          1      0      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
    19     City of Richmond (South)    3,611       2013         2046        8          3      3      6       7       $694,451.93        5.07%
                 Greensville           3,280                                0          0      0      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
    43                                             2013         2046
               City of Emporia          631                                 1          2      1      2       0       $100,000.00        0.73%
Appendix 6 - Zone Utilization Chart
                            Zone Information                                   Number of Grants Per Year           Summary of 2024 Grants
                                                                                                                  Total Amount of    Percent of
  Zone #        Community            Acreage   Designation   Expiration   2024       2023   2022   2021    2020
                                                                                                                   Grant Funding    Total Amount
    20       City of Portsmouth       3,659       2014         2047        2          1      2      3       2       $101,656.00        0.74%
    21       City of Winchester        607        2014         2047        4          4      2      0       1       $225,039.85        1.64%
    23          Scott County          3,133       2014         2047        2          2      2      1       0       $198,310.00        1.45%
               Pulaski County         3,748                                6          3      2      4       3       $637,587.00        4.66%
    25                                            2014         2047
               City of Radford        1,289                                2          2      2      2       4       $129,335.80        0.94%
             Accomack County          3,361                                3          0      0      0       0       $225,562.61        1.65%
    26                                            2015         2048
            Northampton County        2,993                                1          1      2      2       1       $100,000.00        0.73%
               Carroll County         3,658                                0          0      1      0       0          $0.00           0.00%
    27        Grayson County          1,231       2015         2048        0          0      0      1       0          $0.00           0.00%
                City of Galax          638                                 0          0      0      1       3          $0.00           0.00%
    29         City of Bristol         634        2015                     0          3      2      3       4          $0.00           0.00%
                                                               2048
    30          Page County           2,084       2015                     0          0      0      0       4          $0.00           0.00%
    31      City of Newport News      3,236       2015         2048        5          6      3      2       2       $503,556.31        3.68%
            Mecklenburg County        2,738                                0          0      1      2       1          $0.00           0.00%
    32                                            2016         2049
             Brunswick County          273                                 1          0      1      1       1       $100,000.00        0.73%
    35        City of Hampton         3,636       2016         2049        3          2      2      3       2       $275,387.60        2.01%
               Henry County           3,840                                3          4      4      3       4       $316,260.00        2.31%
    36                                            2016         2049
             City of Martinsville      630                                 2          0      1      0       1       $200,000.00        1.46%
    44        Tazewell County         3,786       2016         2049        1          1      2      2       2       $100,000.00        0.73%
    46       City of Lynchburg        2,176       2016         2049        4          5      1      5       4       $209,885.00        1.53%
                                                                                                                  $13,688,642.60      100.00%
Appendix 7

                              Survey Results Summary

As part of our ongoing efforts to gather feedback and assess program impact, a survey was
distributed to approximately 100 stakeholders, with a request that each locality submit one
response. We received a total of 30 responses by the requested response date, which
offered meaningful input and helped guide the discussions and direction of the work group.


1. What is the population size of your locality?

   •   Metropolitan (≥50,000): 26.67% (8 localities)

   •   Micropolitan (10,000–49,999): 66.67% (20 localities)

   •   Rural (<10,000): 6.67% (2 localities)


2. Does your locality currently have an Enterprise Zone?

   •   Localities with EZ: 73.33% (22)

   •   Localities without EZ: 26.67% (8)


3. Do you think the number of zones should be increased, decreased (through attrition
or denial of renewal) or remain the same? Why?

   •   Increase: 66.67% (including 5 who said “only if funding increases”)

   •   Decrease: 3.33%

   •   Remain the Same: 3.33%

   •   No Opinion: 6.67%

   •   Additional Info Needed/N/A: 20%

“Increasing the number of Enterprise Zones would create more equitable access to these
vital tools, especially for rural areas like ours.”
Appendix 7

4. What do you think should be the most important factors in determining
designation? (Currently, 50% Narrative & 50% Distress Score*)

   •   Distress Score: 30%

   •   Narrative: 20%

   •   Distress + Program Management Ability: 6.67%

   •   Locality Economic Strategy: 10%

   •   Local Incentives (mentioned): 10%


5. What do you think should be the most important factors in determining renewal?
(Currently, 50% Narrative, 25% Distress*, and 25% Impact Score)

   •   Narrative: 23.33%

   •   Impact: 20%

   •   Distress: 16.67%

   •   Other: 13.33%

   •   No Response: 3.33%

“Narrative should remain the most important factor in determining renewal.”


6. Do you think zones should be required to complete a renewal process every five
years or should there be no renewal requirement after designation?

   •   Yes (support renewal): 83.33% (6 said >5 years, most suggested 10 years)

   •   No: 10%

   •   Other: 6.67%

“A 10-year renewal process would provide enough time for zones to demonstrate
meaningful impact.”
Appendix 7

7. What are the biggest benefits of having an Enterprise Zone designation? (If your
locality is not currently designated, how would designation help your locality with its
economic development goals?)

   •   Competitive advantage

   •   Attraction of new businesses

   •   Support for small businesses

   •   Increased private investment

   •   Job creation

   •   Tax base diversification

“The EZ has served as a huge catalyst for development and revitalization in our City.”


8. If your locality currently has an Enterprise Zone, do you believe your zone
designation is a significant factor in a firm’s decision to locate, invest, and/or create
jobs?

   •   Common theme: Enterprise Zone is a factor, but not the only factor

   •   Often cited as a catalyst or supporting incentive


9. Do you think the current grant levels for the state Enterprise Zone incentives are
appropriate for your locality’s economic development goals?

   •   Yes (appropriate): 55%

   •   No: 25%

   •   More funds needed: 6.67%

   •   No response/N/A: 13.33%

“The incentive amounts have not kept pace with inflation.”
Appendix 7

10. If your locality does not currently have an Enterprise Zone and designation become
available, would your locality be interested and what local incentives would you hope
to be able to provide based on your locality’s economic development goals?

   •   Pair with employment credits

   •   Loan/grant programs

   •   Permit/utility fee waivers

   •   Property tax abatements

   •   Regulatory relief

   •   Dedicated project manager




   * Distress Score is calculated using Commission on Local Government’s Fiscal Stress
   Index + Unemployment +Median Household Income.


File and source

File

2026-RD89.pdf

Size

1,121,576 bytes

SHA-256

10e07ffced0765ec568476f925400515a429819ddaa3ed7077023a25b06e33ed

Our copy

2026-RD89.pdf

Original

No public link identified.