Archive | Advocacy News

Governor’s Budget Caps Historic Tax Credits; Threats Loom at Federal Level

As we’ve shared with you, a broad coalition* of supporters of Virginia’s Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HRTC) Program have been working with members of Virginia’s Joint Subcommittee to Evaluate Tax Preferences  (JSETP) over the last six months to help them better understand the program’s benefits.  After extensive analysis, the JSETP agreed to defer consideration of any potential legislative changes until an independent study of the program’s effectiveness has concluded. The study is underway and a report is expected to be released this summer.

Despite this understanding, Governor McAuliffe’s proposed budget includes a provision that places a $5M cap on taxpayers participating it the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit program. Legislation (HB 1635 and SB 1034) has also been introduced would institute an individual taxpayer cap similar to the Governor’s proposed budget amendment.

We will continue our aggressive work over this session to defeat HB1635 remove the per-taxpayer cap. In the coming weeks, we’ll be calling on you to express support for the program and join us for meetings with legislators.

Federal Historic Tax Credits (HTC) may be coming under fire as well. The incoming administration is prioritizing tax policy and it is believed that proposed tax reform will be hostile to tax credit programs.

Preservation Action is hosting a webinar on the topic on Jan. 19 at 2 p.m. If you’re interested in getting involved in the effort to preserve the federal HTC, put March 14-15 on your calendar for Preservation Action’s Lobby Day in D.C. We’ll share more information as it becomes available.

*Our coalition of advocates includes Preservation Virginia, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Virginia Association for Commercial Real Estate, Virginia Bankers Association, Virginia Association of REALTORS, Southern Environmental Law Center, Associated General Contractors, Home Building Association of Richmond, and an expanding network of businesses, local non-profit preservation groups, and individuals from urban and rural localities across the Commonwealth.

Posted in Advocacy News

Mutual Recognition Arrangement with Australia and New Zealand

A new Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) between the architectural licensing authorities of the United States, Australia, and New Zealand enables U.S. architects to earn reciprocal licenses abroad, effective January 1, 2017.

Spearheaded by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), the arrangement was signed by the Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) and the New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB). To take advantage of the arrangement, eligible architects must hold a current NCARB Certificate—a credential that facilitates licensure across borders. To date, 29 U.S. licensing boards have accepted the arrangement including Virginia, North and South Carolina, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

“The arrangement is an exciting opportunity for architects seeking to expand their careers internationally,” said NCARB President Kristine Harding, NCARB, AIA. “NCARB Certificate holders have been able to pursue licensure in Canada and Mexico for some time, and this arrangement represents a significant step in providing additional benefits to these architects.”

This decision is the result of over two years of research and negotiation by a special NCARB evaluation team. The group’s analysis concluded that the path to licensure in Australia and New Zealand parallels U.S. requirements, with a strong emphasis on the three pillars of licensure: accredited education, structured experience, and comprehensive examination.

Inspired by a similar agreement with Canada, U.S. and foreign architects interested in earning a license in Australia or New Zealand must meet the following requirements:
• Citizenship or lawful permanent residence in the home country
• An active NCARB Certificate
• A license to practice architecture from a U.S. jurisdiction that has signed the arrangement
• 6,000 hours (approximately three years) of post-licensure experience in the home country
• Validation of licensure in good standing from the home authority
• Licensure in the home country not gained through foreign reciprocity
To learn more about earning a license to practice architecture abroad, visit

The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards’ membership is made up of the architectural registration boards of all 50 states as well as those of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. NCARB assists its member registration boards in carrying out their duties and provides a certification program for individual architects.
NCARB protects the public health, safety, and welfare by leading the regulation of the practice of architecture through the development and application of standards for licensure and credentialing of architects. In order to achieve these goals, the Council develops and recommends standards to be required of an applicant for architectural registration; develops and recommends standards regulating the practice of architecture; provides to Member Boards a process for certifying the qualifications of an architect for registration, and represents the interests of Member Boards before public and private agencies. NCARB has established reciprocal registration for architects in the United States and Canada.


Posted in Advocacy News

Statute of Limitations

Recent Va. Court Decision Has Some Concerned About Statute of Limitations

The below is not the result of exhaustive legal research and it should not be considered legal advice. We encourage anyone interested in this issue to contact and consult with local legal counsel.

(In light of the referenced case, an architect that has entered into an agreement with a Commonwealth agency and intends to utilize an AIA Standard Architect-Consultant agreement should consider adding language to the Consultant agreement explicitly waiving the applicability of the Statute of Limitations.)

A recent court case in Virginia (Hensel Phelps Construction Company v. Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc., Et. Al.) has some worried about “flow down” or “pass-through” provisions in architect/consultant agreements. Though this case was specific to a construction contract (and warranties), the concern is that this could set a precedent for other contracts.

In the referenced case, the Contractor entered into the prime agreement with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) for construction of a student center. The prime agreement was silent on the statute of limitations. Because Virginia Tech was involved, Virginia Code Section 8.01-231 applied. It states that as a Commonwealth agency, the statute of limitations did not apply to Virginia Tech.  The Contractor’s agreements with the Subcontractors incorporated the prime agreement. The Subcontracts were also silent on statute of limitations — meaning that they did not independently discuss the applicable waiver of the statute of limitations to claims by Virginia Tech.

Virginia Tech eventually brought a claim against the Contractor outside of the normally applicable statute of limitations, but the claim was not time barred because of Section 8.01-231. Unfortunately for the Contractor, any related claims against the subs were time barred (per the lower courts) because the Contractor did not get the benefit of Section 8.01-231 and its subcontracts were silent on the statute of limitations (SOL). As such, the standard 5-year statute of limitations applied to the Contractor’s claims against the subcontractors.

This case was up on appeal by the Contractor who claimed that the subcontractors were bound to it by the same terms and conditions (including the statutorily imposed waiver of the SOL) it was bound to Virginia Tech, by virtue of incorporating the prime contract into the subcontract.  The Virginia Supreme Court did not agree, noting that for there to be an effective waiver, there must be an “intentional relinquishment of a known right, with both knowledge of its existence and an intention to relinquish it.” The Court then noted that “a general incorporation provision is insufficient to waive a limitations period as it does not expressly acknowledge the right to a limitations period or intent to waive that right.” The result then, is that Virginia Tech can bring claims against the Contractor and the Contractor is unable to pass through those claims to the responsible Subs due to the statute of limitations. This case triggered questions on how this opinion would impact C401-2007, Standard Form of Agreement Between Architect and Consultant, if at all.

Where an Architect has entered into an agreement with a Commonwealth agency and intends to utilize an AIA Standard Architect-Consultant agreement, in light of the referenced case, the Architect should add language to the Consultant agreement explicitly waiving the applicability of the Statute of Limitations if it wants to avoid the same circumstances the Contractor found itself in in the referenced case. C401-2007 is silent on the time limits to bring claims, as was the consultant agreement in the referenced case. Accordingly, if C401-2007 were used by an Architect under similar circumstances, the result would likely be the same. It would appear that a court would find that because C401-2007 does not specifically waive the statute of limitations and the prime contract, which is incorporated by reference, is also silent on the statute of limitations, there would be no waiver of the statute of limitations.

It should also be noted that C401-2007 is silent on the time limit to bring claims because it is coordinated for use with our standard Owner-Architect agreements, such as B101-2007 or B103-2007. Section 8.1.1 of B101-2007 explicitly addresses the time limit on claims, stating that “The Owner and Architect shall commence all claims and causes of action … within the period specified by applicable law, but in any case not more than 10 years after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work.” As such, when C401 incorporates the prime agreement, it is not incorporating a document silent on the time limits of claims. Under our intended contracting scheme, C401-2007 incorporates an agreement with the above quoted language. Anytime someone uses an AIA Contract Document in conjunction with a document outside our coordinated set of agreements, they should pay extra close attention to how the differences in the non-AIA Contract Document will impact the AIA Contract Document. As is always the case, users should consult with a local attorney to ensure that the agreement fits their particular needs and circumstances.

Posted in Advocacy News

Why Communities Need Design Thinking

An article from AIA …

An architect and Ohio councilperson explains why design professionals should strive to become community leaders, along with emphasizing the value in joining the Citizen Architect program.


Posted in Advocacy News

Protecting Virginia’s Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit

On behalf of AIA Virginia, President Nick Vlattas, AIA, attended the Aug. 29 meeting of the Joint Subcommittee to Evaluate Tax Preferences to urge legislators to reject a repeal, sunset or cap to Virginia’s Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HRTC). [Read his public testimony.] He was joined by Vice President of Government Advocacy Tim Colley, AIA, member Kathleen Frazier, AIA, and representatives from dozens of other businesses, homeowners, non-profits, associations, churches, and communities who came from all over the Commonwealth to speak in support of the credit.

During the formal agenda, the committee heard from Kathleen S. Kilpatrick, Hon. AIAVA, who is Curator of the Virginia Capitol & Executive Director of the Virginia Capitol Square Preservation Council. As the director of Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) when the credit was established, she was well prepared to speak about the history and purpose of the program and early amendments.

They also heard an informative report from John Accordino, Ph. D., FAICP, Professor, and Director of VCU’s Center for Urban & Regional Analysis, who presented data on the economic impact of the Virginia HRTC.

Legislative Services staff member, David Rosenberg, gave a summary of other state’s historic tax credit programs.

Julie Langan, from DHR, presented a report on the program itself, calling out a number of successful projects and responding to several inquiries posed during the subcommittee’s meeting in June.

And finally, a staff member from Virginia’s Department of Taxation provided follow-up information to several additional questions that arose during the last meeting.

Unfortunately, the public comment period was limited to 30 minutes, so only a small handful of citizens were able to share their views.

Legislators asked a number of very probing questions, focused on the program’s ROI and the heavy concentration of investment in the Richmond metro area compared to other areas of the state. They also suggested several topics for further study. The subcommittee is reviewing these tax preferences as part of its systematic review of all tax preferences in the Code of Virginia. After its review, the subcommittee will make a recommendation to continue, expand, modify, or eliminate it. Their particularly close scrutiny of the HRTC program (and many others) is likely due to the need to narrow or close a projected 1.5 billion dollar shortfall in the two-year budget.

It is clear we have much more work to do to protect Virginia’s Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. Based on their inquiries, we’re working with a coalition to gather data.

Members with insights into how a cap to the credit might impact the program, the profession, or experience working within HTC models in other states (particularly Ohio) are encouraged to contact Rhea George at or (804) 237-1768.

Read the Richmond Times-Dispatch’s analysis for more information (plus a great quote from Kathy Frazier’s remarks before the subcommittee).

AIA Virginia Position
AIA Virginia, a Society of the American Institute of Architects, strongly supports the Virginia’s Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit as an important tool for economic development and a critical driver in the preservation of Virginia’s rich cultural heritage.

A survey about the HRTC was sent to 2,116 members on Aug. 4, 2016
821 individuals opened the survey message
244 responded

97% support Virginia’s Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit
(2% have no opinion; >1% do not support)

73% believed that their businesses would be harmed if the credit were eliminated or capped

70% report that they’ve worked on historic tax credit projects


Posted in Advocacy News

Governor McAuliffe Announces Administration Appointments

Commonwealth of Virginia
Office of Governor Terry McAuliffe

July 29, 2016

Office of the Governor
Contact: Christina Nuckols

Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office
Contact: Denise Burch

Governor McAuliffe Announces Administration Appointments

RICHMOND – Governor Terry McAuliffe announced additional appointments to his Administration today. The appointees will join McAuliffe’s Administration focused on finding common ground with members of both parties on issues that will build a new Virginia economy and create more jobs across the Commonwealth.

Office of the Governor

Robert Mejia, Special Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs

Robert Mejia has been appointed to the position of Special Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs. Prior to this position, Robert served as a Governor’s Fellow in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs in Washington, D.C. Robert graduated with a Bachelor’s of Art in Politics from The Catholic University of America.

Secretariat of Administration

Taylor Melton, Executive Assistant

Taylor Melton has been appointed to the position of Executive Assistant to the Secretary of Administration. Prior to his appointment, Taylor worked for the Secretary of Administration in various capacities, serving first as an intern, then as a Governor’s Fellow, and most recently as a Special Assistant. Taylor was recently named a Community Leader of the Year by Inspire Virginia, a nonpartisan voter registration group, for his work on Virginia High School Student Registration Week. Taylor graduated with a Bachelor’s of Arts in Political Science from Virginia Commonwealth University.

Secretariat of the Commonwealth

Board Appointments

Board for Architects, Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, Certified Interior Designers and Landscape Architects

  • Caroline Alexander, IIDA of Alexandria, Senior Project Manager, Cushman Wakefield
  • Robert A. Boynton, FAIA* of Richmond, Principal, Boynton Rothschild Rowland Architects PC
  • Carolyn B. Langelotti, PE* of Midlothian, Partner, Austin Brockenbrough & Associates

Board of Counseling

  • Bev-Freda L. Jackson, PhD, MA of Arlington, Program Manager, Office of Planning Policy and Program Support, Child and Family Services Agency, District of Columbia Government
  • Terry R. Tinsley, PhD, LPC, LMFT, NCC, CSOTP of Gainesville, Director of Clinical Services, Youth For Tomorrow

Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers

  • Mia F. Mimms, FSL, JD, LLM of Richmond, President, Mimms Funeral Home
  • Connie B. Steele, FSL* of Roanoke, Manager, Serenity Funeral Homes and Cremation Service

Board of the Virginia College Building Authority

  • John G. Dane* of Midlothian, Vice President, Regional Manager, Community Banker’s Bank
  • The Honorable C. Evans Poston Jr. of Norfolk, Commissioner of the Revenue, City of Norfolk

Commonwealth Neurotrauma Initiative Trust Fund Advisory Board

  • Raighne C. Delaney, of Alexandria, Shareholder, Bean, Kinney & Korman, P.C.

Local Government Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council

  • The Honorable Andria P. McClellan of Norfolk, Superward 6 Councilwoman, City of Norfolk

Milk Commission

  • Patrick H. Crawford* of Virginia Beach, Territory Sales Representative, Dean Foods, Inc.

Virginia Board of Workforce Development

  • Carrie Roth* of Midlothian, Executive Director, Virginia Biotechnology Research Partnership Authority; President & CEO, Virginia Biotechnology Research Park Corp.

Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public Policy

  • Edward A. Mullen, Esq.* of Richmond, Partner, Reed Smith LLP

9-1-1 Services Board

  • Terry Ellis of Sutherland, Vice President of Government Operations, Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association
  • Danny W. Garrison* of South Chesterfield, Director of Communications, Richmond Ambulance Authority

*denotes reappointment


Posted in Advocacy News

Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Threatened

Virginia’s Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HRTC) program is currently under review by the General Assembly’s Joint Subcommittee to Evaluate Tax Preferences, and we believe it faces a serious threat.

AIA Virginia strongly supports Virginia’s HRTC and has sent a letter to the Chair urging the committee to reject a repeal, sunset or cap to the credit. We’ve been working actively with a coalition of 12 other organizations to educate legislators on the benefits of the program and will have a presence during the next Committee meeting on Aug. 29. We’ll also be sending action alerts directly to AIA members who are the constituents of committee members. If you’d like to take individual action, you can do so by emailing Consider sharing an HRTC success story, how your firm might be impacted by a repeal or limitation of the credit, or use this sample letter.

The credit was created in 1996 and implemented in 1997 as an incentive to catalyze economic development through the rehabilitation and reuse of the Commonwealth’s rich inventory of historic structures. Since its inception, the credit has been widely used as a redevelopment tool, helping revitalize cities, towns and rural communities all across Virginia.

Not only does the HRTC have a proven track record for stimulating economic growth through private investment, it helps to preserve Virginia’s cultural heritage for future generations. It is exactly the kind of market-based incentive needed to leverage private investment in historic properties. Already, nearly $4 billion in private funds have been invested and at least 31,000 jobs have been created in the Commonwealth as a result of this credit.

The credit has statewide impact. Eighty out of 95 counties in Virginia and all 11 metropolitan areas have benefitted from the program through revitalized properties used for a wide variety of purposes. Since its inception, more than 2,375 historic buildings in Virginia have been preserved and put to use. Not only does this mean work for architects and architecture firms, but these projects also generate state and local tax revenue, create jobs, and act as an incredible catalyst for community revitalization.

Other states across the nation look to Virginia as a leader in this arena and the program is working. In 2012, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission’s study on the effectiveness of tax preferences, found that the state tax credit program was only one of two tax preferences that achieves its intended goal.

The HRTC program allows property owners to receive a state tax credit of 25% of eligible expenses for approved rehabilitation work on certified historic structures, provided that the work meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The program is managed by Virginia’s Department of Historic Resources.

Posted in Advocacy News, Featured

Building Community in Loudoun County

Alan L. Hansen, FAIA, LEED AP, Director of Architecture at DBI Architects, Inc. in Reston, Virginia, started the Loudoun Design Cabinet as a way to encourage excellence in architecture in Loudoun county. The Design Cabinet is comprised of 15 design professionals, including engineers, architects, planners and designers, who come together in a fusion of creative community problem solving.

For the past 13 years, the Loudoun County Design Cabinet has worked with the Department of Economic Development to resolve community design challenges around Loudoun county. “Loudoun is an exceptional community for business and for living, in part because of the emphasis on and attention to, design excellence,” says Hansen in a recent article in the Loudoun Times-Mirror.

Activities include brainstorming design sessions, design charettes, and an annual design awards program. This year’s “Signatures of Loudoun Design Excellence” awards were given out June 7th during the Board of Supervisors meeting. To view the award-winning projects, click here>>

To read more about the Loudoun County Design Cabinet, click here>>

Posted in Advocacy News, Featured

100% Participation

Damian Seitz, AIA, 2016 President of AIA Hampton Roads, and AIA Virginia director, made an exciting announcement at the June 17th AIA Virginia Board of Directors meeting. 100% of the AIA Hampton Roads board has contributed to the AIA Virginia PAC this year! This is amazing and we are so grateful for the support!

How about your chapter board? We challenge you to get 100% participation from your chapter board by donating at today!

Contribute to the AIA Virginia Political Action Committee


Through the PAC, the membership of AIA Virginia supports candidates who understand the architecture profession. When these candidates win, they bring that understanding to the General Assembly and to your issues. You and your firm benefit.

By speaking with a united voice, architects influence government actions that affect our profession and the quality of life for all Virginians. AIA Virginia uses the collective power of its membership to participate in the legislative and regulatory policy making process.

Through the PAC, the membership of AIA Virginia supports candidates for state office who understand the profession and support its goals.

The AIA Virginia PAC supports candidates without regard to party.


AIA Virginia PAC has options.

• Give online

• Mail your check (payable to AIAVA PAC) to AIA Virginia, 2501 Monument Avenue, Richmond, VA 23220

• Contact Rhea George at (804) 237-1768 to discuss other ways to give or to get involved.

Posted in Advocacy News

Report on State Contracting Released

On June 13, 2016, there was a briefing on the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission’s (JLARC) report on the Development and Management of State Contracts. JLARC was directed to evaluate the state’s contracting policies. We watched this study carefully, because recommendations could have come out against Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) or in favor of one of the three procurement methods for capital projects (design-bid-build, design-build, and construction-manager-at-risk) over others. Fortunately, neither of these happened — but we’ll continue to closely monitor how the report’s recommendations get implemented.

Below is a summary of the report and briefing. Download the full report for complete details.

JLARC Briefing

Key Findings: Please note – these findings relate to all state contracting (both goods and services)

  • Little data is available on relevant measures of contract performance;
  • Some state policies can limit agencies ability to pay reasonable prices and avoid poor quality purchases;
  • There is a lack of emphasis on risk management and contract administration in statewide agency policies;
  • Vendors do not have an effective means to report negative contracting experiences.

The report put forward 30 recommendations:

  • Several are related to creating policies and procedures to increase the effectiveness of contract administration, which they identified as a significant weakness;
  • Several are related to improving the quality of state contracts to reduce risk, add performance and quality measures, and include penalties for vendor non-performance;
  • Several are related to developing mechanisms to collect data on contracts, vendor performance, and procurement methods;
  • Several are related to supplier diversity/SWAM — because this is of interest to a number of firms, the recommendations are regarding: identifying a formula for “fair and reasonable” pricing differences, collecting data on contracts to evaluate the 20% rule, prioritizing “small” and “micro” over women- and minority-owned, and electronic notification of renewal;
  • Several are related to developing a mechanism to identify high-risk/high-value contracts and elevating the level of oversight on these contracts;
  • Several were specific to the procurement of IT;
  • And, finally, several were related to improving the complaint process for vendors.

Two recommendations were specific to the industry.


The Department of General Services should modify the Construction and Professional Services Manual to clarify the requirement that vendor experience with project delivery method, such as construction-manager-at-risk or design-build, be considered by state agencies and higher education institutions when qualifying vendors to compete for construction contracts. The policy should state that agencies shall not automatically disqualify vendors during the Request for Qualifications stage of a procurement because of a lack of direct experience with the specific project delivery method to be used for the project.


The Department of General Services (DGS) should broaden its focus, and the focus of its Procurement Management Reviews, toward ensuring agency compliance with state laws and policies regarding the development and administration of contracts and implementation of best practices for all aspects of contracting, including professional services and construction contracts. The department should collaborate with the Auditor of Public Accounts (APA) to ensure that the elements of its reviews, and the review schedule, do not unnecessarily duplicate the work of APA staff.

APPENDIX E analyzes contracting methods for construction projects.

JLARC interviewed staff at four universities and collected data on 28 recent construction projects completed by Virginia Tech, the University of Virginia, William and Mary, Virginia Commonwealth University, Christopher Newport University, James Madison University, and George Mason University in order to examine the advantages and disadvantages of three procurement methods: design-bid-build, design-build, and construction-manager-at-risk.

According to state policy, methods other than design-bid-build are intended for especially costly projects. Guidelines for the use of the construction-manager-at-risk method states that it should be limited to projects valued more than $10 million.

Institutions were generally satisfied with all three procurement methods. All 28 projects analyzed performed differently than originally expected, regardless of contracting method.

  • Cost overruns occurred for all three types of projects, cost overruns as a percent of the original project cost were highest for design-build projects. The dollar value tended to be highest with CM at risk projects.
  • Schedule delays occurred for all three types of projects, the average length of delays was greatest for design-build projects
  • All three categories of projects experienced change orders.

The report asserts that alternative methods may be beneficial for especially complex or time-sensitive construction projects because of the built-in collaboration between the agency, construction manager, and project design team. It also asserts that a dollar threshold is not the most effective criteria for deciding which method to use because a project’s cost does not necessarily reflect the complexity or time-sensitivity of projects.

The report recommends that DGS be directed to periodically evaluate how projects under each method perform in relation to schedule, budget, and specifications, allowing the Department to compile data on construction project performance and contribute to a greater understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the different methods.


Recommended Legislative Action

  • Develop criteria for identifying high-risk contracts and implement a process to oversee them.
  • Direct DGS and VITA to develop a centralized approach to tracking contract performance.
  • Direct DGS and VITA to develop a comprehensive training program on effective contract administration.

Recommended Executive Action

  • Develop tools and policies that allow agencies to balance cost with the quality of goods and services purchased.
  • Develop mandatory training on effective risk management.
  • Develop guidelines for assigning staff to administer contracts, particularly those that are high risk or high value.
  • Develop guidelines for monitoring vendor performance, reporting performance problems, and using enforcement measures.
  • Improve awareness of the vendor complaint process and make it easier to use.

Posted in Advocacy News


View all »

Membership News

  • New Bylaws Clarification

    During the June 16, 2017, virtual membership meeting, the membership approved the new AIA Virginia Bylaws.

Professional Development News

  • Collaboration

    Join us in Richmond this November for the 30th annual Architecture Exchange East.

Government Advocacy News

  • Work on 179D Continues

    AIA Virginia and our friends with ACEC Virginia have been working for years to address issues surrounding the Internal Revenue Code Section 179D, Energy-Efficient Commercial Buildings Tax Deduction.


Virginia Accord

  • The Virginia Accord

    Bringing together the planning and design disciplines to examine two key themes critical to the future — job creation and environmental sustainability — on Sept. 19-20, 2014 at the Virginia Accord.