|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
      
|
|
|
Legislative Program 2007Legislative 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 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 manage growth. Unfortunately, in recent years, the state has enacted laws that reduced local authority to implement the comprehensive plan or to regulate land use. The state should resist any further restrictions on these local powers. To enhance the ability of local governments to pay for infrastructure costs and to support services associated with new developments, we support enabling legislation to provide local governments with additional tools to manage growth. This includes impact fees and authority for local ordinances for determining whether public facilities are adequate (“adequate public facility,” or APF ordinances). 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. In addition, we have the following recommendations: · The General Assembly should not unduly restrict the ability of local governments to acquire property necessary to carry out their governmental functions, including schools, transportation facilities and redevelopment projects carried out by a governmental entity to avoid and abate blight. However, we do not endorse the use of eminent domain for purely economic development purposes. · We support 1) dedicated state funding to acquire, preserve and maintain open space and recreation lands, including directing available federal funds to localities, 2) full authority to generate local dollars for such efforts, 3) lessening barriers on incentives for preserving land by removing the cap on conservation easement tax credits approved in 2006, 4) expansion of the state Transfer of Development Rights Program to allow increased flexibility, and 5) making cluster development an optional land use tool for local governments. · We endorse legislation to enable localities to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts. · We support an examination of various state laws and regulations for conflicts in provisions addressing local land use.
The Planning District’s member localities urge the state to establish stable and consistent state revenues for Virginia’s transportation infrastructure without heavy reliance on the general fund or debt. Transportation continues to be a top concern among state and local policy makers. Despite continued documentation of the need to fund a declining transportation infrastructure, the state has produced no reliable and long-term funding solutions. In late June, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved a revised six-year improvement plan that reduces local construction funding by 36%. The mass transit state match is lowest in the program’s history at 22%. Absent a sustained investment in transportation, Virginia faces a congestion and mobility crisis that will stifle economic growth and negatively affect the quality of life of our residents. The state should direct its funding efforts at all transportation modes both statewide and regionally. It should target investments toward solutions that put money to work on new ideas and in tandem with leveraging private investment. It should account for urban area needs where public transportation is 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. The state also should not shift road maintenance and construction responsibilities to localities. We support ongoing state and local efforts to coordinate transportation and land use planning, without eroding local land use authority, and state incentives for localities that implement such planning practices. We urge VDOT to be mindful of local comprehensive, land use and trail/bicycle plans, as well as regional transportation plans, when planning transportation systems within a locality. We also request the following: 1) that creation of any local transportation district serve to enhance accompanying public and private dollars for projects in accordance with local priorities, rather than to replace that funding, 2) that the CTB be allowed to allocate primary funding to projects located on a National Highway System route within a municipality, in order to accelerate funding of projects, without a corresponding decrease in their urban construction allocation, and 3) state funding for improvements along rural sections of the Rt. 29 corridor. We also support funding for the TransDominion Express, the use of Rural Rustic Road funds to pave rural addition roads, and the use of modern roundabouts in lieu of conventional intersection design, where appropriate, and allowance of signal replacement funding for construction of roundabouts.
The Planning District’s member localities urge the governor and legislature to protect state general fund revenues for core government services and to preserve local revenues so that local government leaders can take appropriate measures to generate sufficient revenues to sustain and improve services. The state should protect the reliability of its general fund, as it supports core government services that include the likes of public education, health and human services and public safety. It also is critical that the state budget be provided “on time” to localities, so that they can have assurances about expected revenue streams. For example, the most recent delay in adopting a state budget resulted in the state allocation for FY07 to JAUNT being reduced by nearly $27,000 at the eleventh hour. We believe that changes to Virginia’s tax code should not reduce local government revenues or restrict local taxing authority. The legislature should broaden the revenue sources available to local governments, rather than capping, removing or restricting them. The state should refrain from establishing local tax policy at the state level and allow local governments to retain authority over decisions that determine the equity of local taxation policy, if governing bodies are to provide cost-effective services. The state should honor its funding obligations for existing and new mandates. 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 local tax and fee increases (which our localities have implemented) to pay for programs and services. State funding reductions for state-required services/programs should be accompanied by relaxation of the state requirement. Finally, 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 and costs related to jails and juvenile detention centers. The state also should pay the full costs of any additional benefits it mandates to be provided for constitutional officers or their staffs.
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 enhance teacher salaries to help recruit and retain high-quality instructional personnel. It is essential that the state fully meet its responsibilities to fund its share of public education costs. Recent state investments in public education recognized that localities greatly exceed their mandated responsibilities for education funding, by providing dollars for initiatives already being paid for by local governments. However, we continue to believe that additional state revenues are necessary for the Commonwealth to meet its obligations. Especially important are unaddressed recommendations enumerated in the 2001 JLARC report on education funding and the 2003 Board of Education (BOE) initiatives. Regarding teacher salaries, the state budgeted salary figure (on which it bases its share of teacher costs) falls well below both the statewide and national averages. About three-quarters of the state’s school divisions pay more to their teachers than the state budgeted salary amount. The governor and General Assembly should target salary increases to all positions in which the state shares the costs with localities, not just those funded through the SOQ. Concerning apportionment of education funding, the state should consider the effects on localities of such factors as land use taxation, revenue sharing and poverty. Regarding school capital needs, we continue to urge state financial assistance with school construction and renovation needs. We also recognize the importance of early learning on a child’s success in school and urge full state funding for costs associated with expanding prekindergarten opportunities for four-year olds.
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 in the early 1990’s, 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 continued to increase. We support a state cap on local expenditures to combat higher local costs for serving mandated children, costs which often are driven by unanticipated placements in a locality. We also support enhanced state funding for CSA administrative costs and for grants to localities to create community-based alternatives for children served in CSA. We urge the state to establish state contracts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract management process, improve vendor accountability and control costs. We also 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 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 enhanced funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to continue meaningful opportunities for regional projects. We also support enhanced 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. · We encourage the state and local governments to work with other entities to identify and promote local, regional and state agricultural products. · We support increased funding for youth workforce development programs, particularly career exploration and employment programs for teens. · We support the ability of Virginia local and farm wineries to self-distribute their products. · 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.
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 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 legislature should provide funding for wastewater treatment and other necessary assistance to localities as it works to clean up the state’s impaired waterways, while ensuring that system design standards remain compatible with any new state requirements. The state also should explore alternative means of preventing and remediating water pollution. · 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 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. Also, the state’s water supply planning efforts should continue to involve local governments. · 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. · We support increased local government representation on the Biosolids Use Regulation Advisory Committee (BURAC).
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. · The state should increase funding 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 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 investment in the MR waiver program for adults and young people and Medicaid reimbursement for children’s dental services. We also oppose any shifting of Medicaid matching requirements from the state to localities. · We support efforts to fund mental health and substance abuse services at juvenile detention centers. · 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 also request that the state provide funds for staffing local social services departments to 1) determine eligibility for residents seeking social services such as Medicaid, food stamps and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and 2) meet federal child and family services review goals. We also support state assistance for providing pre-admission screening services for nursing homes and for prompt investigation and services in cases involving abuse, neglect or exploitation of the elderly or disabled. · We support continued state funding for local Disability Services Boards, as well as restored state dollars for the Rehabilitative Services Incentive Fund. · We support sufficient state funding assistance for older residents, to include companion and in home services, home delivered meals and transportation. · We support the continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and prevention programs (and renewal of CSA Trust Fund dollars to support them), 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. · We support Virginia’s welfare reform program and encourage efforts to promote family preservation and work requirements. The legislature should provide full funding to assist low-income working and TANF (and former TANF) families with childcare costs. These dollars help working-class parents pay for supervised day care facilities and support efforts for families to become self-sufficient. We 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 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 1) local flexibility in the operation of affordable housing programs, 2) for creation of a state housing trust fund, 3) establishment of affordable dwelling unit ordinances and 4) the award of grants and loans to low- or moderate-income persons to aid in purchasing dwellings. · We support measures to prevent homelessness and to assist the chronic homeless. · 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, and request state incentives for using 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 encourage state financial support, cooperation and assistance for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activities and fire services responsibilities carried out locally. · We encourage the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority, fully funding 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, as local governments have continued to provide much supplemental funding for constitutional officer budgets. · The state should continue to allow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset and maintain the per diem payment to localities for housing state-responsible prisoners. · We support continued state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program, drug courts and the Pre-Release and Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts. · We endorse legislation that would have private branch exchange (PBX) telephone systems report an exact location to the 911 system for each line so that optimal information is provided to responding emergency workers. · We urge state funding for the Volunteer Firefighters’ and Rescue Squad Workers’ Service Award Program. · We encourage 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. · We urge local involvement in planning processes for homeland security measures. · We support state funding to develop supervised visitation centers to protect children during visitation with non-custodial parents, when ordered by a court.
The Planning District’s member localities encourage state financial support, cooperation and assistance for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activities and fire services responsibilities carried out locally. · We encourage the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority, fully funding 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, as local governments have continued to provide much supplemental funding for constitutional officer budgets. · The state should continue to allow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset and maintain the per diem payment to localities for housing state-responsible prisoners. · We support continued state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program, drug courts and the Pre-Release and Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts. · We endorse legislation that would have private branch exchange (PBX) telephone systems report an exact location to the 911 system for each line so that optimal information is provided to responding emergency workers. · We urge state funding for the Volunteer Firefighters’ and Rescue Squad Workers’ Service Award Program. · We encourage 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. · We urge local involvement in planning processes for homeland security measures. · We support state funding to develop supervised visitation centers to protect children during visitation with non-custodial parents, when ordered by a court. 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 request that any changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) preserve 1) a local governing body’s ability to meet in closed session, 2) the list of records currently exempt from disclosure under FOIA, and 3) provisions concerning creation of customized computer records. We support changes to allow local and regional public bodies to conduct electronic meetings as now permitted for state public bodies. · 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. · We oppose any changes to state law that further weaken a locality’s ability to regulate noise or the discharge of firearms. · 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. · 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. · 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. |
 |
|
| |