HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 TJPD Legislative Program20OO
Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Legislative Program
Approved by:
Albemarle County
Fluvanna County
Louisa County
Nelson County
November 1999
Fred Boger, Chairman
Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director
David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison
Thomas Jefferson Planning District
2000 Legislative'program '!
Positions of TJPDC and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvan~a, Louisa and NelSon
[Action Items
School Construction/Renovation Funding .............................................................. 1
Growth Management .... ~ ........................................ ' .................................................. 2
Taxing/RevenueAuthority ................................................................................... ~ .... 4
Human Services ......................................................................................................... 5
Transportation Funding ........................................................................................... 6
lAreas of Continuing Concern
Land Use and Growth Management ....................................................................... 7
Finance ........................................................................................ ~. ........................ 7
Education .............................................................................................................. 8
Environmental Quality ............................................................................................. 8
Local Government Structure and Laws ............................................................... 9
Housing ................................................................................................................ 10
Public Safety ............................................................................................................ 10
Transportation .................................................................................................... 11
Health and Human Services ................................................................................... 11
Economic Development .......................................................................................... 12
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION/RENOVATION
FUNDING
Legislative Position of TJPDC .
and the Counties of Albemarle,'. Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities support continued and increased state funding
of school construction and renovation costs. We appreciate the General Assembly's effort to
assist in fundingschool infrastructure costs and urge the legislature to establish a permanent
funding formula and revenue sources for these needs. We also support maintaining the lottery
"hold harmless" funding contained in the current budget.
Background: For the first time in nearly 50 years, the state, in the current biennial budget,
designated fimds for local school construction, renovations, additions and debt service. The Virginia
Public School Construction Grants Program, established in 1998, allots $110 million over two years
for these purposes, while the '1999 General Assembly approved dedicating lottery proceeds for both
recurring (operational) and non-recurring expenditures, which includes capital outlay and debt
service. However, these programs are enacted only in the 1998-2000 budget due to expire June 30,
whil~ there continues to be a great facility needs backlog estimated to cost between $2.1 billion and
$8.2 billion statewide. Localities in the Planning District have nearly $100 million in estimated
school construction and renovations on the books through FY 2001. The lack of prior state funding,
coupled with ever-growing debt service, increasing student enrollments and continued efforts to
lower class sizes, make significant funding a high priority. The amount of"hold harmless" funding
(total of $29.7 million ) appropriated to 52 localities in the current budget ensured that no locality
received less lottery funding than was proposed in the 1999-2000 introduced budget.
Lottery "Hold Harmless" Funding, 1998-2000:
Albemarle County ................... $1.03 million
Charlottesville ...................... $ 275,000
Fluvanna County .......... ~ ......... $ 3,700
Louisa County ...................... $ 370,000
Nelson County ...................... $103,000
Recommendation: Support continuation of and increases in state funding for school construction,
renovations, additions and debt service, and establishment of a permanent funding formula and
revenue sources for school infrastructure needs. Support continued funding in the amount of the
"hold harmless" provision contained in the current two-year budget.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
'Legislative Position. of TJPDC
and the Counties; of Albemarle;' Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities support efforts through enabling legislation
to provide high-growth jUrisdictions with .management tools for coping with increasing
residential development. Such enabling legislation includes authority to impose school and
road impact fees and authority to adopt adequate public facilities ordinances. We support
various amendments to the vested rights legislation approved by the 1998 General Assembly.
We support statewide funding for a Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs) program for
localities who establish and locally fund such a program.
Background: The Code of Virginia defines "high-growth locality" in § 15.2-2298 as any locality
which has had population growth often percent or more from the next-to-latest to latest decennial
census year, any city adjoining such city or county, and any county contiguous with at least three
such counties. According to the above definition, our region has five high-growth localities
(AllSemarle, Fluvanna, Greene and Louisa counties and the City of Charlottesville). The Code
currently permits these jurisdictions to provide for voluntary proffering as a part of a rezoning or
amendment to a zoning map when certain conditions are met. Voluntary proffers can include the
dedication of real property or payment of cash,
IPDR Program:
The Open-Space Land Act contained in the Code (§ 10.1-1700-1705) enables any public body to
acquire re~l property for the preservation of open-space land. Land cannot be acquired through
eminent domain and the use of the real property must conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
Currently, Virginia Beach has the only operational PDR program in Virginia. Part of the difficulty
in implementing this enabling legislation is financing such a plan. We support statewide funding for
a Purchase of Development Rights program to provide matching funds, Funding would be available
to any locality that has established and funded such a program.
I[mpact Fees:
Currently Northern Virginia localities are the only ones in the Commonwealth authorized to impose
road impact fees. We support enabling legislation that would allow all high-growth localities to
impose such fees. We support impact fee legislation providing for a sliding scale cap based on square
footage with the ultimate cap of $5,000 per unit.
2
IAdequate Public Facilities:
We support enabling legislation granting high-growth localities authority to enact adequate public
facilities ordinances. Such legislation would provide that the approval of a rezoning, subdivision or
site plan for development be contingent upon whether public facilities are adequate to support the
services which will be required by a proposed subdivision.
I Vested Rights: ~
The General Assembly passed Vested rights legislation in 1998. We support amendments to this
legislation that would strike a balance between development projects that are in the pipeline and the
necessity of local governments to amend land use ordinances when there has been mistake, fraud or
simply a change in circumstances.
· What vests?: There is some question under the act as to what vests. Changing the language
to specify that use, floqr area ratio and density are what vests would clarify the act. This is
consistent with the vesting legislation which passed in 1990.
· Prospective framework: We support further amendments to make the bill prospective in
nature, applying onlyto governmental acts that occur after July 1, 1998. Localities could not
have predicted that approvals issued years ago would be made irrevocable by the General
Assembly.
· ~' Variances: We support an amendment to exclude variances from those affirmative
governmental acts which may be relied upon to create vesting as variances can involve such
small matters as a setback requirement for a tool shed.
· Due Diligence: A last amendment would clarify that an approved preliminary subdivision
plat, site plan or plan of development is only vested if the landowner submits a final plat or
plan within 12 months after initial approval. This would replace the current language which
creates a vague standard of"within a reasonable period of time."
Recommendation: The above measures attempt to strike a balance between public and private
interests. Residential development is occurring at unmanageable rates in most high-growth areas.
This development does not generate enough local tax revenue to cover the added costs for public
facilities and services, primarily schools. In addition, loss of farmland, forest land and open-space
is occurring in Virginia at an alarming rate. Therefore,, support these growth management tools for
high-growth localities and state funding to create effective implementation of Conservation
Easement (or PDR) Programs across the state.
TAXING/RE NUE AUTHORITY
~. . Legislative Position of TJPDC ~.,
and the Counties of Albemarle,..Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning Districtand its member localities'support amendments to the phased-out repeal.
of the sales tax on food approved by the 1999 General Assembly. We recognize there must be
a balance between the regressive nature of the tax and local revenue raising capacity. The
General Assembly should broaden revenue sources available to localities, rather than capping,
removing or restricting taxing authority or user fees. Should the legislature preempt or remove
local tax or revenue authority and sources, then localities must be provided replacement
revenue that both produces the same level of revenue growth over time and is not the subject
of future state reductions. ~
Background: During the 1999 General Assembly session, legislators approved I-IB 1601 to repeal
part of the sales tax on food (by one-half percent a year for four years, beginning January 1, 2000).
The 1 percent returned to localities based on point of sale and the 1 percent earmarked for education
are not subject to the repeal at this time. The measure included a provision that prohibits local
gov, ernments, as of July 1, 2000, from imposing the meals tax on items meeting the federal Food
Stamp Act definition of"food," thus preventing localities ~om collecting the tax on items such as
cold sandwiches, salad bar items and fountain drinks routinely purchased in grocery store delis and
convenience stores. This restriction could mean significant revenue losses for local governments
imposing a meals tax beginning in FY 2000-2001. For example, Albemarle County estimates losses
of approximately $300,000, while projected impact could total $200,000 in Charlottesville and
$35,000 in Nelson County.
Today's tax structure is based on an industriaL/agrarian economy that bears little resemblance
to today's technology-driven economy. This notion should drive the work of the commission to'
study Virginia's state and local tax structure for the 2Vt century, established by the 1999 General
Assembly. It has two years to examine the proper division of revenues and responsibilities for
services between state and local governments. It ultimately may be asked to consider the various
income tax revenue sharing proposals have been raised in recent months, several of which call for
sharing income tax revenues in exchange for freezing or reducing local real property taxes.
Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend HB 1601 to eliminate the provision that
the local meals tax must be administered in accordance with the Food Stamp Act. If further reduction
in the sales tax occurs, thus affecting the sales tax returned to localities on point of sale and for
public education, then replacement revenue must be provided. The newly-formed commission on
state and local tax structure should devise a tax structure that provides reliable and stable sources of
revenue, while broadening the revenue sources available to localities (e.g. local option sales tax,
local option income tax, reducing the number of sales tax exemptions) to reduce local governments'
reliance on the property tax.
4
HUMAN SERVICES
Legislative Position of TJPDC
. and the Counties of Albemarle, :FlUVanna, Louisa, and Nelson
The Planning District' and its~ member localities believe the state should meet its funding
commitments for all human services programs' and not decrease'its funding of service or
administrative costs in order to meet state management savings goals. Specffically, full funding
of Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) costs should be included in the state budget with base
allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need, calculated on a three-year rolling
average. The General Assembly should allow local flexibility in the use of Medicaid and other
funding sources to maximize the services provided through CSA. Further, the state should not
expand the definition of mandated populations without providing necessary funds. Concerning
funding for Community Services Boards (CSB's), we oppose efforts to replace the current local
government match with .a maintenance of effort requirement.
Background: The direction of human services is increasingly toward community-based programs,
an approach that may have merit from a service delivery standpoint, but one that requires carefully
ad~ssing significant long-term issues of local versus state roles and requirements for administering
and funding those programs. The system appears to be evolving from a grant-based, locally
determined system to one where the state will focus funding and performance expectations on
specific populations and services at the community level. An example is the Comprehensive
Services Act, whose recent requirements, including mandatory uniform assessments and utilization
management, have eroded the original philosophy behind CSA, which was to provide localities with
the funds and the autonomy to respond to local population needs. In addition, CSA has been
provided with insufficient funds since its inception earlier this decade, because allocations are not
based on previous years' expenditures.
Changing the statutorily-defined local match requirements, based on caseload, for community
services boards to a local maintenance of effort based on a CSA-like formula that considers local
ability to pay would be costly to local governments. While local governments pay a 10% match rate
for CSB services, the CSA local match rate ranges from 12-45%. In addition, the CSB population
is much larger than the CSA population and CSB's are funded up front, while CSA expenses are
reimbursed.
Recommendation: Support full funding of Comprehensive Services Act base costs calculated
on a three-year rolling average and a return to local flexibility in designing and delivering services
according to local needs. Oppose efforts to replace the cun'ent local government match with a
maintenance of effort requirement for funding Community Services Boards.
5
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Legislative Position of TJPDC
· and the Counties ofAlbemarle, Flm,anna,.Louis, a, and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities support efforts by the state to increase its
funding and commitment to transportation, as adequate funding is essential for a viable
transportation system that is responsive to the varying needs of all areas of the state. The
General Assembly should consider adjusting its funding sources and imposing appropriate
increases in state transportation related taxes and fees to ensure adequate funding and
planning for the state's transportation needs.
Background: Studies of Virginia's transportation needs continue to show that the state's current
transportation program does not keep up with diverse and growing needs in urban, suburban and
rural areas and that there is a widening gap between needs and funds to meet those needs. Despite
the recent passage of TEA-21 that is funneling more federal dollars to states for transportation,
significant revenue shortfalls for transportation will continue. A pair of commissions, one legislative
and'one gubernatorial, are studying transportation issues. The legislative panel has expressed
dissatisfaction over delays in the state road building program and discussed possible ways to increase
transportation revenue. The governor charged his commission to "think outside the box" when
exploring solutions to the state's transportation problems, but he has rejected proposals that would
increase transportation taxes. Various solutions to address Virginia' s transportation needs have been
proposed. The plans propose varying schemes of borrowing and using general fund and tobacco
settlement dollars to fund transportation programs.
Recommendation: Support increased state funding for new construction and maintenance, with
consideration given to increasing taxes and fees (e.g. motor fuels tax, road use tax, motor vehicles
sales and use tax) and more options for using long-term financing for major transportation projects.
Also, support increased funding for the costs of developing and operating modes of public
transportation.
6
I[LAND USE AND GR O WTH MANA GEMENT
The Planning District and its member localities oppose any preemption or circumvention of local
authority to regulate 1and'use.
· We support legislation to preclude the Virginia Department ofTransportation (VDOT) from
its ability to'alloW :the conStmction of commercial,' mobile and land-based
telecommUnications facilities, such'as monopoles or towers, without prior approval of the
affected locality's goveming body.
· We oppose legislation that restricts a loc~ity's authority to develop, modify and enforce its
comprehensive plan or to regulate land use.
· We recognize the importance of a mix of vibrant growing urban areas and preservation of
rural areas. In order to maintain this balance, we support expanded authority through
enabling legislation to give local governments the tools to manage growth, including transfer
development rights (TDR), impact fees and adequate public facilities ordinances.
· We support legislation, and incentives to encourage localities to work together on a regional
basis where effects of decisions are felt beyond the local level.
· We support state funding oftocal purchase of development rights (PDR) programs.
· We support legislation that enables localities to delineate zoning overlay districts to protect
and enhance the quality of scenic areas established in the local comprehensive plan, for use
· ' in making land use decisions.
· We support legislation to restore the requirement that proposed sewage treatment plants, as
part of the state permitting process, receive certification fi:om the local government of
compliance with local ordinances.
IIFINANCE
The Planning District and its member localities recognize that financing government projects should
be a parmership between the state and localities. However, the level of support fi:om the state is not
keeping up with the demand for services. With our limited ability to raise funds, we often are unable
to meet services required by our residents and those mandated by the state. The state should permit
local governments maximum flexibility in their sources of local revenue. The erosion of local
revenue sources increases local governments' reliance on the property tax.
· The General Assembly should not cap, remove or restrict any revenue sources, taxing
authority or user fees available to localities.
· The General Assembly should not extend the state appeals process created for the business,
professional and occupational license (BPOL) tax to other local business taxes (i.e.
machinery and tools tax, business tangible personal property tax, and merchants capital tax).
· The state must broaden the revenue sources available to.localities in the form of a local
option sales tax, a reduction in the number of sales tax exemptions, a local option income tax
or a portion of lottery revenues to reduce'local govemments' reliance on the property tax. We
7
support other options that reduce reliance on the property tax by returning a portion of.the
income tax to localities, as suggested by the proposed "Five for Five" or similar initiatives.
Counties should be granted taxing and borrowing powers equal to those granted cities. For
example, counties that have a meals tax should enjoy the same tax. code provisions granted
cities (58.1-3840).
The state must honor its promise tO fully reimburse localities for the administrative costs
associated with, implementing the personal property tax relief program.
The state must ensure that implementation of electric utility restructuring is revenue neutral
to localities and that any necessary stop-gap appropriations to adversely-affected localities
are fully funded.
We oppose federal and state efforts to p~eempt the ability to tax electronic commerce sales.
liED UC I TION
The Planning District and its member localities share the state's interest in educational excellence.
Funding for education is a top priority for this region.
· We support full funding of the state's share of the actual costs of the SOQ and full funding
of all categorical educational mandates.
· We support a study of the methodology for calculating the costs of the SOQ, focusing on
· whether the methodology truly reflects the actual costs of meeting the standards. Most
localities fund education beyond their state-required share.
· We recognize that proper infrastructure is essential to a good education system. We support
an increase in the state's funding for school construction costs and the establishment of a
permanent funding formula for the Virginia Public School Construction Grants and lottery
proceeds programs. Capital improvements should be factored into the SOQ and the
composite index formula should be revised to account for the costs of school construction
and renovation borne by each locality,.
· We support increased state funding for the at-risk four year olds program, so that grants are
available for 100%, rather than the current 60%, of those unserved children.
· We oppose any legislation that limits the authority of local school boards and local
governing bodies to finance and manage their schools.
I[ENVIR ONMENTAL QUALITY
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 interjurisdictional nature of many
environmental resources and adequate state funding to match local efforts.
· The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply development. The
state should undertake water supply planning, not just simple inventory of resources. The
planning should encompass water conservation, a determination of needs and how they can
be met, including emerging technologies.
· The state should develop, with local goVernment involvement, fair and objective criteria
concerning corrective action for or closure of landfills- The state should not establish an
' arbitrary date for closing all "lib '1205" landfills.
· The state should enact legislation that provides counties with the authority to operate farmers
markets.
[LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND LA WS
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 relax the Dillion Rule to the extent necessary, in order to enhance
the ability of local governments to provide services required by their citizens and to allow
local governments to meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships.
· 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 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.
Any requirements of FOIA should be applicable to local government, state government and
the General Assembly. Further, we believe that, though probably not necessary, any state
FOIA office that is created should issue, upon request, only informal, advisory/non-binding
opinions.
· We oppose any change in the current sovereign immunity laws seeking to narrow county or
municipal corporation immunity.
· We support legislation to allow localities to pass on to property owners the cost of the
removal or repair of graffiti or other defacement undertaken by the locality.
IHOUSING
II
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 afro ~rdab!e h0usingf0r the elderly,
the disabled and low-income and moderate-income households, Regional h0u~ing solutions and
planning shouldbe implemented whenever possible .... :
· We support renewed funding of the Virginia Housing PartnershiP F~nd fr~m both the general
fund and VHDA, and creation of more local-option funding sources.
· We support promOtion of new tools for affordable housing such as limited equity housing
cooperatives and community land trusts.
· 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 VI-IDA~
· We support VI-IDA criteria for funding which encourages rehabilitation of existing housing
and discourages new construction in close proximity to existing subsidized housing.
IPUBLIC SAFETY
The Planning District and its member localities recognize that the prime responsibility for law
enforcement, criminal justice activities, emergency medical care and fire services rests at the local
level. However, these needs can be met only with continued state and federal support.
· We support continued state funding for the 599 law-enforcement program as restored in the
FY 1999-2000 state budget.
· We support local governments' existing authority to levy and collect a local tax for enhanced
emergency telephone service (E911).
· We support full funding for state-mandated law enforcement officers, local correctional
officers, court security officers, and communications personnel training provided through
certified academies.
· We support legislation to increase court fees to pay for courthouse maintenance, renovation
and construction. These costs should not be placed on the general population.
· The state should pay 50% of the costs to construct regional jails. We support the joint
juvenile detention committee recommendation to increase the per bed reimbursement rate
for construction ofjuvenile detention facilities. The state should also increase its share of the
operational costs of such facilities.
· We support legislation that will enable additional localities to install and operate traffic light
signal photo-monitoring systems.
10
IITRANSPOR TA TION
The Planning District and its member localities support the development of a comprehensive
statewide transportation plan that recognizes diverse transportation needs in urban, suburban and
rural areas.
· We support transportation plans that are consistent with and supportive of minimizing the
effect on the natural environment.
· We support a comprehensive approach to transportation that is balanced and multi-modal,
integrating all forms of transportation in a manner that is economically efficient, energy
efficient, environmentally sound and promotes economic development.
· State transportation planning must be better coordinated and conform with local land use
planning, especially in rapidly growing areas. We urge state legislators to implore the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to work with local officials to address
concerns about VDOT's public information meeting process, especially regarding timeliness
and availability of enw'~ronmental documents for public review and input.
· We support a relaxing'of state standards to give localities more flexibility regarding road
construction in neighborhoods and traffic calming measures.
· We support state funding for public transportation capital and operating costs on par with the
level of support for road construction and maintenance.
· ., We support the provision of passenger rail service from the Washington, D.C. and Richmond
areas, to Bristol, and links to communities along the way, with stops atOak Ridge (Nelson
County) and Charlottesville.
IHEAL TH AND HUMAN SER VICES
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. In achieving this end, however, the limits of government
must be recognized. The delivery of health and human services must be a collaborative effort from
federal, state and local agencies.
· We oppose any changes in state fimding that result in an increase of the local share of costs
for human services.
· We oppose any new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local
funding.
· We support state funding for local Disability Services Boards.
· We support the state assuming 100% responsibility for funding the auxiliary grant program.
· We support the expanded operation and enhancement of early intervention and prevention
programs that can make a difference in children's lives, such as the Child Health Parmership
and Healthy Families programs.
11
Welfare Reform.. We support Virginia's welfare reform program and encourage efforts to promote
family preservation and work requirements. We support a Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
Plan (TANF) that takes into account and fully funds state and local implementation and support
services costs, focuses on private sector employment, gives local governments maximum regulatory
and .funding flexibility to meet particular community needs, and does not burden local governments
with paying emergency assistance costs for those who are cut offfrom federal/state public assistance
programs. We support initiatives to help former vIEW participants maintain continuity in child care
and oppose any initiatives to shif~ traditional federal and state child care administrative responsibility
and costs to local governments. The federal and state government should work together to create
transitional health benefit options for those making the transition from VIEW to the private sector
in the event that employers do not provide adequate health care benefits and Medicaid is no longer
an option.
Comprehensive Services Act. The state should allow local governments to use other funding
sources such as state funds fro~ the Virginia Juvenile Community crime Control Act for CSA needs
in order to minimize the local dollars that are spent on CSA. Local governments should be given the
option of using Medicaid funds for case management but should not be responsible for the cost of
any child eligible for Medicaid funds unless the local government has identified the child as CSA
eligible. The state should not undertake any cost-containment measures without the means to pay
for them. As such, the state should provide more technical assistance to local governments. State and
loca~l governments must work together to ensure the greatest degree of coordination between
Individual Education Plans and CSA service plans. We support full state funding in the state's base
budget for the costs of CSA. The current distinctions between base and supplemental budgets should
be eliminated and replaced with allocations based on a realistic anticipated level of need, reserving
supplemental funding for unforeseen emergencies. We support increased funding for the
Comprehensive Services Act Trust Fund that supports early intervention and prevention projects in
Virginia. Finally, state agencies should collaborate and adopt common procedures and guidelines
before instituting local administrative requirements.
IIECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Planning District and its member localities recognize economic development as essential to the
continued viability of the Commonwealth. The state needs to clarify its positions on growth and
development by enhancing the state economic development plan to more clearly define the
responsibilities of the state and of local governments. We support the development of the state
Economic Development Strategic Plan for the Commonwealth that includes new tools for local
governments to use in attracting economic development opportunities such as a capital pool to
construct improvements for new or expanding businesses, tax increment financing, a grant or loan
program dedicated to enhancing local infrastructure systems and an expanded Enterprise Zone
Program. The state needs to recognize the disparity in rewards of economic development between
the state and localities, as well as between host locality and surrounding localities.
12
Regional Competitiveness Funding. The Regional Competitiveness Act enacted in 1996 provides
local governments an opportunity to work regionally to find solutions to problems that negatively
affect Virginia's competitiveness in economic development. We support additional funding for the
Act to provide meaningful opportunities for regional projects to move forward. Fair and proportional
funding should be provided to all regions of the state.
13