      
|
 |
|
Legislative Program 2005
Legislative Position of the TJPDC for the City of Charlottesville and
the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
Action Items:
Areas of Continuing Concern:
The Planning District's member localities urge the governor and legislature
to correct the local fiscal crisis created by the state's omission of
$270 million in reimbursements to localities for the Personal Property
Tax Relief Act (PPTRA) in FY06.
Actions taken by the General Assembly during its special session last
spring cap the amount of state reimbursement to localities for the Personal
Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA) at $950 million beginning in tax year
2006. However, to save more than a quarter billion dollars for the state,
the legislature changed the PPTRA from a calendar year to a fiscal year
program, eliminating all state reimbursements in the final half of FY06
by budgeting only $680 million for FY06. This $270 million shortfall is
expected to create severe budget and cash flow problems for localities
that bill for the tax in the first half (which includes Albemarle, Charlottesville,
Fluvanna, Greene and Nelson).
Some state officials and legislators contend this is a cash management
issue rather than a revenue or budget issue, and that the state will pay
its share of FY06 bills early in FY07. However, localities are concerned
about gaping holes in their budgets in fiscal year 2006, cash-flow problems
continuing to recur, and various implementation challenges, such as supplemental
billing and delinquent tax bills, during the calendar year to fiscal year
transition. Also, localities are required to apply two personal property
tax rates, one to values below and one to values above $20,000, a scenario
that likely will be difficult for taxpayers to comprehend.
We urge the governor and legislature to provide the necessary funds in
the FY06 state budget to correct this problem. Should the money not be
appropriated, the state should allow localities to regain authority to
assess and collect personal property taxes, which was lost when the act
was created in 1998. The legislature also should address implementation
issues that will challenge local governments in the near future.
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 legislative
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 the protracted 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 rural, secondary
roads. These improvements are vital to our region's 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 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. Further, when apportioning education
funding, the state should consider the effects on localities of such factors
as land use taxation, revenue sharing and poverty.
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 make progress toward meeting 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 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 been steadily increasing. 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.
Many localities across the state have been exhausting 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 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 (rates in the single digits
since inception of the local drug court).
In addition, we support the following:
- Shared funding by the state of the costs to construct and operate
regional jails. However, we do not believe the state should operate
local and regional jails. Also, 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 state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program.
- Continued state funding for services under the Pre-Release and Post-Incarceration
Services (PAPIS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts.
- Legislation that will enable localities to install and operate traffic
light signal photo-monitoring systems.
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 that are mandated by the state or demanded by residents.
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.
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 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 quality of life. This has posed particular challenges for
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 implement 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 ("adequate public facility,"
or APF ordinances) to support services required by a proposed development.
Such ordinances require that proposals for new residential projects provide
payment for or be timed to coordinate with construction or upgrade of
public facilities necessitated by the new development.
Specific Recommendations:
- The state 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 1) dedicated state funding to acquire, preserve and maintain
open space and recreation lands, including directing available federal
funds to localities, and 2) the full authority to generate local dollars
for such efforts.
- We endorse legislation to enable localities to enact scenic protection
and tourist enhancement districts.
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.
- 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.
- We support restored funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to
continue meaningful opportunities for regional projects. We also support
restored state funding for the Industrial Site Development Fund, the
Governor's Opportunity Fund and tourism initiatives that help promote
economic development in localities and regions.
- 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 encourage the state and local governments to work with other entities
to identify and promote local, regional and state agricultural products.
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 inter-jurisdictional nature of
many environmental resources and adequate state funding to support local
and regional efforts.
We believe the following:
- The state should not impose a fee, tax or surcharge on water, sewer,
solid waste or other local services to pay for state environmental programs.
To do so would set a disturbing precedent whereby the state could levy
surcharges on local user fees to fund state priorities.
- 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, including investing in regional projects. Specifically,
the state should provide funds from the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) to promote regional solutions to improving water supply.
Also, the state's water supply planning efforts should continue to involve
local governments.
- The state should reduce permit application fees associated with storm
water management and stream mitigation projects, as recent fee increases
have adversely impacted local abilities to adopt regional storm water
management programs and to undertake projects needed for stream protection.
Fees should be used only to cover costs of administering the program.
- The state should 1) ensure landfill closure schedules permit facilities
posing no threat to property or the public to continue to operate through
their allowable life, and 2) provide adequate funding for landfill closure
and post-closure costs.
- The state should not enact legislation mandating expansion of the
area covered by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Instead, the state
should provide legal, financial and technical support to localities
that wish to comply with any of the Act's provisions, allow localities
to use other practices to improve water quality and provide funding
for other strategies that address point and non-point pollution.
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.
- 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.
- There should be no further reductions to the Virginia Juvenile Community
Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) program, which has produced a statewide 25%
drop in Department of Juvenile Justice commitments since 1998. Further,
the state should maintain a formula-driven allocation process for VJCCCA
funding.
- The state should fund local Offices on Youth and provide sufficient
funding to allow Community Services Boards to meet the challenges of
providing a community-based system of care, including maximizing the
use of Medicaid funding. We support state action to increase 1) investment
in the MR waiver program for adults and young people and 2) Medicaid
reimbursement for children's dental services.
- We support efforts to fund mental health and substance abuse services
at juvenile detention centers and to examine adult and juvenile group
homes.
- 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.
- We support continued state funding for local Disability Services Boards.
- We support the continued operation and enhancement of early intervention
and prevention programs, including school-based prevention programs
which can make a difference in children's lives. This would include
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 believe the current funding and program responsibility for TANF employment
services should remain within the social services realm. 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.
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.
- We support changes to the Code 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.
- We encourage and support the use of environmentally friendly (green)
building materials and techniques, which can contribute to the long-term
health, vitality, and sustainability of the region.
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.
- We support legislation to enhance the ability of local governments
to provide services required by citizens and 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 do, however,
encourage the state to authorize localities to utilize an administrative
hearing officer in lieu of the three-member panel in all grievance cases,
similar to the method established for state employees.
- We request that any changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) preserve a local governing body's ability to meet in closed
session, as well as the list of records currently exempt from disclosure
under FOIA and provisions concerning creation of customized computer
records.
- We support local requests to the state for enabling legislation to
increase the income and financial worth limitations for real property
tax exemption or deferral programs.
- We encourage clarification of Code provisions that stipulate law enforcement
responsibilities when transporting persons for whom a temporary detention
order has been issued for emergency medical treatment or evaluation.
- The state should amend the Code to require litigants in civil cases
to pay for the costs associated with compensating jury members.
- We support state funding for regional planning districts.
- The state must ensure that the continued 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 legislation to increase permissible fees for courthouse
maintenance.
- The state should ensure that local connectivity and compatibility
are considered in any centralizing of state computer functions.
- We request that the state grant all counties the same authorization
as cities have to regulate panhandlers.
- We support state funding for a full-time Commonwealth's Attorney in
Greene County.
|
 |
|
