|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
      
|
|
|
Legislative Program 2008Legislative 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 localities recommend and urge support for legislative proposals that increase CSA administrative funding to localities, that require state contracting with residential providers, and that require the state Office of Comprehensive Services to review and track vendor costs and rates. These specific legislative and budget recommendations are a first step at trying to address some of the challenges posed by CSA in our jurisdictions, specifically the low level of state funding provided to localities for CSA administrative costs and the rapid rise in the costs of residential services. Since the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act, CSA pool expenditures have increased steadily for state and local governments (from $105 million in 1994 to $295 million in 2006) and costs have been difficult to forecast because of factors beyond state and local control (number of mandated children in a community, severity of problems, service rates, availability of alternative funding). Further, localities also pay the overwhelming majority (90%) of costs to administer CSA. We believe the legislature should fully fund the state CSA pool, especially as local governments comply with new policy initiatives for children at risk of foster care/custody relinquishment. The state also should increase administrative funding, which is based on outdated cost data and capped at $1.5 million per year. In an effort to help contain costs and provide some relief to local governments, we recommend that the state establish 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 state also should continue grants to localities for community-based alternatives for children served in CSA.
The Planning District localities urge the legislature to fully fund the state share of the realistic costs of meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and to enhance teacher salaries to help recruit and retain high-quality instructional personnel. The state spent nearly $5 billion on public education in FY06, while local governments appropriated $5.8 billion. The amount spent by localities was $2.8 billion more than required by the state. We believe the state should resist changes that require localities to fund a greater share of K-12 education costs. Rather, it should fully recognize and fund costs for the upcoming rebenchmarking of the SOQ, incentive and categorical programs. Altering the current rebenchmarking process to lower recognized costs would only serve to shift more costs to be borne by real estate taxes. 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. Teacher pay comprises the majority of K-12 expenditures, and local market conditions dictate the level of pay required to recruit and retain quality teachers. We believe that the localities in our region should be included in the “Cost of Competing Adjustment” now available only to various localities primarily in Northern Virginia. This would help other localities to reach and maintain competitive compensation to help recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified and diverse teacher workforce. Regarding school capital needs, we continue to urge state financial assistance with school construction and renovation needs, including funding for the Literary Loan and interest rate subsidy programs, and an increase in the maximum amount of Literary Fund loans from the current $7.5 million. Finally, 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 localities 1) support broadening of the road impact fee authority adopted in 2007, 2) encourage the state to provide local governments with additional tools to manage growth, and 3) oppose preemption or circumvention of existing local authority to regulate land use. The top regional priority during the 2007 General Assembly session was to secure enabling authority for impact fees. Road impact fees, building on existing authority for a small group of localities, were authorized for all but one county in our region. While this new authority is appreciated, its provisions are complex and challenging to implement. Accordingly, we support modification of this authority to make it more effective and usable, and to expand it to additional localities and for uses other than just roads. The past few years have seen an increase in both mandated and optional land use provisions applicable to local governments to help address growth issues. These include the addition of urban development areas in comprehensive plans, clustering for single-family residential developments, the transfer of development rights and expansion of conditional zoning and road impact fee authority. To enhance our ability to pay for infrastructure costs and to support services associated with new developments, we endorse enabling legislation and optional provisions that include the following:
We also support 1) dedicated funding through the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation for the acquisition, preservation and maintenance of open space and recreation lands, 2) full authority to generate local dollars for such efforts, and 3) additional incentives for citizens to create conservation easements, including removing the cap on conservation easement tax credits approved in 2006. Finally, we support authority for localities to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts.
The Planning District localities urge the state to establish separate, dedicated and permanent state revenue streams for Virginia’s transportation infrastructure. The state also should not shift road maintenance and construction responsibilities to localities. While local governments appreciate the General Assembly’s efforts to increase transportation funding, the 2007 initiative failed to address the state’s huge long-term transportation challenges. The need to fund a declining transportation infrastructure is still dire and state dollars remain inadequate. Local governments need sustainable, dedicated, non-general funds from the state to support our transportation network. Absent such an investment, 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, targeting 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 increasing 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 ongoing state and local efforts to coordinate transportation and land use planning, without eroding local land use authority, and state incentives for localities that do so. 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:
The Planning District localities urge the governor and legislature to 1) resist unfunded mandates on localities, 2) protect state general fund revenues for core government services, and 3) preserve local revenues so that local officials can take appropriate steps to generate sufficient revenues to sustain and improve services. The state should honor its funding obligations for existing and new mandates. We oppose unfunded state 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. We believe the state should provide full funding for its mandates in all areas of local government, especially for certain state programs carried out at the local level, such as constitutional officers, human services positions 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 state should protect the reliability of its general fund, as it supports core government services such as 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. Finally, any 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. Any real estate homestead exemption that is approved should be on a local option basis.
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 and workforce development and the state’s efforts to streamline and integrate workforce activities and revenue sources.
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 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 encourage state financial support, cooperation and assistance for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activities and fire services responsibilities carried out locally.
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.
|
 |
|
| |