|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
      
|
|
|
Legislative Program 2005—DraftLegislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson. Action Items:
Areas of Continuing Concern:
The Planning District's member localities believe the state should fund its share of the realistic costs of meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and that existing education programs should not be eliminated to fund SOQ requirements. Our localities appreciate General Assembly action this past year to address shortfalls in education funding, and encourage continued efforts to address critical items such as the SOQ, teacher salaries and technology initiatives. We continue to believe that additional state revenues are necessary for the Commonwealth to meet its responsibility for funding education, as enumerated by the 2001 JLARC recommendations and the 2003 Board of Education (BOE) initiatives. As the state moves forward in implementing the higher staffing levels included in those BOE proposals, it is important to recognize that higher staffing levels already are in place in many school divisions because of local support for education far exceeding the state-required local minimum contribution. Accordingly, while making these efforts, the state should not require any maintenance of local effort other than that associated with the SOQ's current, required local effort. A maintenance of effort not connected to the SOQ would punish localities that voluntarily appropriate locally generated dollars beyond the required minimum in an effort to sustain high quality education for all students. We continue to urge state financial assistance with school capital needs and remain concerned about the continued raiding of the Literary Fund, historically used to provide low interest loans for school construction, to pay for teacher retirement. Finally, as our school divisions' progress toward the Standards of Accreditation (SOA) accountability goals for both schools and students, and face increased costs for complying with accountability provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, any reductions in state education funding would hinder the efforts being made.
The Planning District's member localities urge the state to address funding shortfalls in transportation construction while continuing to provide secondary road and street maintenance funding on top of construction dollars. The state should establish additional revenues for Virginia's transportation infrastructure, including consideration of increases in state transportation-related taxes and fees, without heavy reliance on the general fund or debt. Transportation is expected to be a primary focus of the 2005 session. This past year, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) trimmed the annual six-year plan by over $1 billion after consideration of additional transportation revenues was dropped during budget negotiations. Despite continued documentation of the need to fund a declining transportation infrastructure, no reliable and long-term transportation funding solutions have been approved. Complicating matters is the fact that construction dollars increasingly must be used to support maintenance activities, and debt service continues to impact the flow of dollars, since much of it comes "off the top" before funding allocations are made. We believe the state should direct its funding efforts at all transportation modes. It should account for the needs of urban areas where public transportation continues to be very important, the traffic demands placed on fast-growing localities and the ongoing improvements necessary on our rural, secondary roads. These necessary improvements are vital to our ability to respond to local and regional congestion and economic development issues. We support the CTB's ongoing efforts to align transportation revenues with expenditures and to coordinate transportation and land use planning. We support funding for the TransDominion Express with stops at Oak Ridge and Charlottesville. We endorse the use of modern roundabouts in lieu of conventional intersection design and allowance of signal replacement funding for construction of roundabouts. Finally, we request that the state recognize that creation of any local transportation district serve as a mechanism to enhance accompanying public and private dollars for projects in accordance with local priorities, rather than to replace that funding.
The Planning District's member localities support full funding of the state pool for the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), with allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need, and a cap on local expenditures for serving a child through CSA. Since the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act over a decade ago, there has been pressure to hold down costs, to cap state costs for serving mandated children, to increase local match levels and to make the program more uniform by attempting to control how localities run their programs. During this time, state and local costs of residential and non-residential mandated services have steadily increased. Initial state appropriations for CSA fall short each year, challenging the state to find its share of funding and forcing localities to request supplemental state appropriations. In fact, many localities exhaust their annual base allocation in only a few months. We believe this distinction between base and supplemental budgets should be eliminated and that caps be placed on local expenditures to combat higher local costs for serving mandated children. We support enhanced state funding for services for non-mandated children and believe that the categories of populations mandated for services should not be expanded unless the state pays all the costs. We encourage the state to be proactive in making service providers available, especially in rural areas, and to support local and regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing among localities by procuring services through group negotiation.
The Planning District's member localities believe that changes to Virginia's tax code should not reduce local government revenues or restrict local taxing authority. The state should broaden the revenue sources available to local governments, rather than capping, removing or restricting those sources, taxing authority or user fees. We oppose unfunded state and federal mandates and the cost shifting that occurs when the state fails to fund mandates or reduces or eliminates funding for state-supported programs. This cost shifting reduces the ability, especially in our rural localities, to meet local needs and forces our citizens to bear tax and fee increases (which our localities have implemented) to pay for such programs and services. State funding reductions for state-required services/programs should be accompanied by relaxation of the state requirement. While we recognize that financing government programs and projects should be a partnership between the state and localities, with our limited ability to raise funds and our sometimes-stagnant revenue streams, we strain to meet services demanded by residents and those mandated by the state and federal governments. Accordingly, the state should not reduce local government revenues or restrict local taxing authority; rather, it should equalize the revenue-raising authority of counties with that of cities and consider sharing a portion of state income tax revenues with localities. It also is critical that the state budget be provided "on time" to localities, so that they can have assurances about expected revenue streams. The governor and legislature must correct the local cash flow dilemma created by a lapse of $270 million in state payments for the Personal Property Tax Relief Act expected for FY06, and should ensure that reimbursements continue to be provided in a timely manner. Otherwise, the state should allow localities to regain authority to assess and collect personal property taxes, which was lost when PPTRA was created in 1998. Any changes to the telecommunications tax structure should preserve local government revenues, including those for E911 services, and guarantee that localities receive growing tax revenues from emerging and advancing industries and services. The state should not divert any such new revenue to address future budget shortfalls. We believe the state should consider paying all costs for fully funding certain state programs carried out at the local level, such as constitutional officers. We request that the state undertake long term planning in establishing VRS rates so that localities are not burdened with significant year-to-year rate changes.
The Planning District's member localities encourage state financial support, cooperation and assistance for law enforcement, criminal justice activities, emergency medical care and fire services responsibilities carried out locally. We encourage the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority. The Compensation Board should fully fund local positions that fall under its purview. It should not increase the local share of funding constitutional offices or divert funding away from local offices, but increase money needed for their operation. Local governments continue to provide much supplemental funding for constitutional officer budgets, which were shortchanged in recent years. We support continued state funding of drug courts. Local funding has aided this court-supervised alternative to jail or probation that has proven it saves dollars (cost is $3,000-$5,000/year compared with $19,000/year for adult incarceration) and lowers recidivism (single digit rates since inception of the local drug court). In addition, we support the following:
The Planning District's member localities oppose any preemption or circumvention of existing local authority to regulate land use and encourage the state to provide local governments with additional tools to manage growth. Current land use authority often is inadequate to allow local governments to provide for balanced, sustainable growth in a manner that protects and improves the quality of life. This has posed particular challenges for our fast-growing localities, which often need additional powers to shape and mange growth. Unfortunately, in recent years, the state has limited local governments in their efforts to manage growth by enacting provisions that reduced local authority to enforce the comprehensive plan or to regulate land use. Further, infrastructure costs associated with new developments are borne by all taxpayers, rather than by those bringing about the need for the expenditure, thus straining our ability to pay for these costs of growth in a time of declining revenues. Accordingly, we support legislation to allow localities to adopt ordinances that include provisions for determining whether public facilities are adequate (APF ordinances) to support services required by a proposed development. Specific Recommendations:
The Planning District's member localities recognize economic development and workforce training as essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We support policies that closely link the goals of economic development and workforce development and that result in an increased standard of living for all residents.
The Planning District's member localities believe that environmental quality should be funded and promoted through a comprehensive approach and address air and water quality, solid waste management, land conservation and land use policies. We are committed to the protection and enhancement of the environment and recognize the need to achieve a proper balance between environmental regulation and the socio-economic health of our communities within the constraints of available revenues. Such an approach requires regional cooperation due to the interjurisdicational nature of many environmental resources and adequate state funding to support local and regional efforts. We believe the following:
The Planning District's member localities recognize that special attention must be given to developing circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor, the young and the elderly, can achieve their full potential. Reductions to community agencies are especially troublesome, as their activities often end up preventing more costly services later. The delivery of health and human services must be a collaborative effort from federal, state and local agencies. We urge the General Assembly to ensure funding is available to continue such valuable preventive services.
The Planning District's member localities believe that every citizen should have an opportunity to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and local governments should work toward expanding and preserving the supply and improving the quality of affordable housing for the elderly, the disabled and low- and moderate-income households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever possible.
The Planning District's member localities believe that since so many governmental actions take place at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local governments must have the freedom and tools to carry out their responsibilities.
|
 |
|
| |