Legislative Program 2003

Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson.

Areas of Continuing Concern

Standards Of Quality Funding

back to top

The Planning District and its member localities believe the state should fund its share of the realistic costs of meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ).

While the education budget for 2002-2004 was touted as being $200 million higher than the FY02 appropriation, the state shifted to localities $36 million in costs for the retired teacher health insurance credit program and buffered the budget with nearly $77 million in federal funding. The spending plan also depleted more than a quarter billion dollars from the Literary Fund, historically used to provide low interest loans for school construction, to pay for teacher retirement.

Recall that the recent JLARC study of education funding stated that the way the state has recently estimated SOQ costs is not up-to-date, and that an additional $1 billion was needed (above current SOQ funding levels) in the current biennium to pay for a more accurate estimate of SOQ costs and to keep funding current with expected SOQ costs. Last year, Virginia localities spent approximately $2.8 billion in local funds on education above the state-required amount. Our localities increased operational dollars for public schools and also provided locally-funded teacher pay raises. As our school divisions continue to work toward the state's accountability goals for both schools and students, continued state funding cutbacks are likely to hinder the progress being made.

Comprehensive Services Act

back to top

The Planning District and its 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, there has been state 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. State and local costs of residential and non-residential mandated services have steadily increased and initial state appropriations for CSA have fallen short each year (and will do so again this year), forcing the state to search for its share of funding and localities to request supplemental state appropriations. In fact, many localities exhaust their base allocation for the year in only a few months, thereby necessitating the supplemental requests. We believe localities should be given more flexibility to serve children when state CSA funding is reduced.

• Albemarle's local contribution increased from $1.9 to $2.7 million in FY03.
• Nelson reports a $139,000 drop in state CSA funding this year.
• Fluvanna's local CSA costs doubled over the past four years.
• Louisa's local CSA costs jumped over 15% last year.
• Charlottesville spent $1.1 million in FY01.

Increased caseloads and costs for serving mandated children with the most challenging service needs puts perhaps the greatest strain on local CSA budgets, thus necessitating the need for a cap on local expenditures.

Public Safety

back to top

The Planning District and its member localities encourage state cooperation, assistance and support for law enforcement, criminal justice activities, emergency medical care and fire services responsibilities that rest primarily at the local level.

We encourage the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority. Albemarle, Fluvanna and Nelson replaced lost state funding with general funds this year. Charlottesville lost nearly $160,000 and instituted a court fee to be dedicated to the sheriff's office. Constitutional offices in Louisa saw 5 ½% to 9 ½% reductions, but employees did receive a one time 2% pay supplement. We urge the state to continue funding the HB 599 law enforcement program. Charlottesville lost $81,000 and Albemarle over $160,000 in HB 599 revenue. We support continued state funding of drug courts. Local funding this year bolstered 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 (rate was only 4.3% in the first three years of the local drug court and program graduates were employed 76% of the time).

In addition, we support the following:

• Shared funding by the state of the costs to construct and operate regional jails. Further, the state should not adopt language that would disallow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset and should maintain the per diem payment to localities for housing state-responsible prisoners.
• Continued funding for services under the Pre-Release and Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts.
• Legislation that will enable additional localities to install and operate traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems.
• We oppose the following:
• Legislation that reduces or removes local government authority to limit the carrying of weapons in public buildings and other public facilities.
• State operation of local and regional jails.

Transportation

back to top

The Planning District and its member localities urge the state to fund existing transportation obligations, programs and plans, without creating competition for dollars among different transportation modes and without incurring increased or unjustifiable debt.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board cut $2.9 billion and over 170 projects in approving a new $7.3 billion, six-year road plan. Allocations for each construction district are reduced by about 30%. Local governments are investing more in transportation funding (including public transportation, construction, operations, and planning and maintenance), in an attempt to react to local and regional congestion and economic development issues and due to continued failure by the state to meet transportation demands. Accordingly, we support ongoing restructuring efforts at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and six-year plan program alignment of expenditures with available revenue.

We believe that funding shortfalls for priority projects at the state level should not shortchange funding for secondary roads or needed street maintenance funding.

We believe state transportation planning must be better coordinated and conform to local land use planning, especially in rapidly growing areas. We support the creation of a new funding classification (e.g. for secondary roads with an urban function) and the relaxing of street standards to give localities more flexibility regarding road construction in neighborhoods and traffic calming measures.

We encourage the state to examine the use of modern roundabouts in lieu of conventional intersection design and allowance of signal replacement funding for construction of roundabouts. Finally, we support funding of the TransDominion Express with stops at Oak Ridge and Charlottesville.

Tax Structure And Reform

back to top

The Planning District and its member localities believe the state should broaden the revenue sources available to local governments, rather than capping, removing or restricting any local revenue sources, taxing authority or user fees.

We recognize that financing government projects and programs should be a partnership between the state and localities. However, 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, we oppose cost-shifting that has occurred when the state fails to fund mandates or reduces or eliminates funding for state-supported programs. This cost-shifting reduces the ability of local governments to meet local needs and forces local 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 corresponding relaxation of the state requirement.

We support the work of the Joint Subcommittee to Study and Revise Virginia's State Tax Code, which will meet an additional year to examine significant tax reform issues. We encourage the Subcommittee to recommend changes that would enable the state to meets its financial obligations to localities and that would equalize the revenue-raising authority of counties with that of cities. We do not believe the state should enact changes, particularly in examining telecommunications tax reforms, which reduce local government revenues.

Land Use And Growth Management

back to top

The Planning District and its member localities oppose any preemption or circumvention of existing local authority to regulate land use, as has been done in recent years through legislative action.

Local governments have been limited in their efforts to manage growth by various legislative actions over the past decade that reduced local authority to enforce the comprehensive plan or to regulate land use. We believe that balanced, sustainable growth, guided by local governments, is essential to maintaining quality of life. 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.

Specific Recommendations:

• The General Assembly should preserve existing authority for localities to regulate land use.
• We support enabling legislation that would provide local governments with various additional tools (such as impact fees, flexibility for proffers, adequate public facilities ordinances and transfer and purchase of development rights) to manage growth.
• We support dedicated state funding to acquire, preserve and maintain open space and recreation lands, including directing available federal funds to localities.
• We endorse legislation to enable localities to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts.
• We oppose changes (e.g. required mandatory setbacks) to the Uniform Statewide Building Code that hinder the implementation of local ordinances.

Economic Development

back to top

The Planning District and its 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.

• We support an Economic Development Strategic Plan for the Commonwealth that more clearly defines responsibilities of state and local governments and includes new tools for local governments to use in attracting economic development opportunities.
• The state should recognize the disparity in rewards of economic development between the state and localities, as well as between host locality and surrounding areas.
• We support restored funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to continue meaningful opportunities for regional projects.

Environmental Quality

back to top

The Planning District and its member localities are committed to the protection and enhancement of the environment. This commitment recognizes, however, the need to achieve a proper balance between environmental regulation and the socio-economic health of our communities. Environmental quality should be promoted through a comprehensive approach and address issues of air and water quality, solid waste management, protection of sensitive lands and sound land use policies. Such an approach requires regional cooperation due to the interjurisdicational nature of many environmental resources and adequate funding to match local efforts.

• The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply development, and should work with and assist localities in addressing water supply issues resulting from the ongoing drought conditions. The state should undertake water supply planning which encompasses water conservation, a determination of needs and how they can be met, to include emerging technologies.
• We oppose legislation that would mandate expansion of the area covered under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. The state should provide legal, financial and technical support to localities that wish to comply with any of the Act's provisions and allow localities to use other practices to achieve objectives toward improving water quality.
• The state should ensure the closure schedules for landfills permit facilities deemed to pose no threat to property or the public to continue to operate through their allowable life. It also should provide adequate funding for landfill closure and post-closure costs. (Fluvanna faces $1.2 million in costs, Louisa $1.5 million).
• The state should work with local governments to establish a comprehensive waste reduction strategy, rather than requiring a statewide tipping fee or increasing required recycling rates. Recent proposals to tack a state surcharge onto a local user (tipping) fee set a disturbing precedent and have provided no guarantee that funds would flow to their stated purposes.
• The state should appropriate adequate funding to implement strategies for restoring impaired waters and for the Water Quality Improvement Fund.
• We support state action to clarify that a locality has full authority to regulate the land application of sewage sludge.

Health And Human Services

back to top

The Planning District and its 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.

• We oppose any changes in state funding or policies that result in an increase of the local share of costs for human services, including changes that would require additional local contributions for indigent care.
• Our localities were hit hard by the 51% reduction in the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) program, which has produced a statewide 25% drop in Department of Juvenile Justice commitments since 1998. There should be no further reductions to this program and the state should maintain a formula-driven allocation process for VJCCCA funding.
• The state should fund local Offices on Youth. Our communities will have a much weaker capacity to generate new resources to serve young people because of cuts to these offices. Fluvanna and Louisa eliminated their offices; Charlottesville/Albemarle lost $91,000 (including VJCCCA money for the office) and 1.5 positions.
• The state should provide sufficient funding to allow Community Services Boards to meet the challenges of providing a community-based system of care.
• We oppose new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local funding.
• We support sufficient state funding for local social services facilities and for local departments to maintain adequate office space to deliver services. Local DSS offices should not be forced to consolidate if not in the best interest of the localities.
• We support continued state funding for local Disability Services Boards.
• We support the continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and prevention programs that can make a difference in children's lives, such as the state's program for at-risk four-year-olds, the Child Health Partnership and Healthy Families programs. The state should not use Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) monies to fund such programs, as localities cannot use federal TANF funds as match for other federally-funded prevention programs. To do so only serves to shift costs to localities seeking to leverage federal dollars for services and administration.
• We support Virginia's welfare reform program and encourage efforts to promote family preservation and work requirements. We support initiatives and funding to help former VIEW participants maintain continuity in childcare and oppose any initiatives to shift traditional federal and state childcare administrative responsibility and costs to local governments. We support state efforts to expand access to education and training needed by welfare recipients to become employed and self-supporting. We also support a TANF plan that takes into account and fully funds state and local implementation and support services costs. The state should take advantage of TANF reauthorization to streamline eligibility requirements and provide maximum flexibility to localities.

Housing

back to top

The Planning District and its 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-income and moderate-income households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever possible.

• We support changes to the Code of Virginia to allow local flexibility in the operation of affordable housing programs and establishment of affordable dwelling unit ordinances.
• We support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures.
• In addressing the lack of input that local governments have concerning housing issues, we support local government notice provisions for all proposed low and moderate income housing projects seeking federal tax credits, including VHDA.
• We support VHDA criteria for funding which encourages rehabilitation of existing housing and discourages new construction in close proximity to existing subsidized housing.
• We support retaining local discretion to regulate the allowance of manufactured homes in zoning districts that permit single family dwellings.

Local Government Structure And Laws

back to top

The Planning District and its 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.

• We support legislation to enhance the ability of local governments to provide services required by citizens and to allow local governments to meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships. Accordingly, we support a requirement for state agencies to notify localities of planned construction projects that may affect the locality's comprehensive plan.
• We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures, local government authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local employees, matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance and procedures for adopting ordinances.
• We oppose Virginia Freedom of Information Act provisions which further limit a local governing body's ability to meet in closed session or to confer privately with its counsel on probable litigation. We also oppose limiting the list of records currently exempt from disclosure under FOIA and requiring creation of customized computer records for commercial and other uses.
• We support enabling legislation that authorizes localities to require contractors, as a condition of public contracts awarded through the procurement process, to pay employees a living wage.
• The state must ensure that implementation of electric utility restructuring is revenue neutral to localities and that any necessary stopgap appropriations to adversely affected localities are fully funded.
• We support changes to the regional airport authority's charter to provide provisions needed to operate an existing, rather than new, authority.
• If safety oversight responsibility for municipally-owned gas utilities is transferred from the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) to the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC), we request that 1) the SCC undertake only safety inspection functions of DOT and not have authority to assess civil penalties; 2) the SCC be required to inspect based on Federal Pipeline Safety Standards only; and 3) existing laws concerning mandatory reporting for utilities (per the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act) be preserved.
• The state should ensure that local connectivity and compatability are considered in any centralizing of state computer functions.