Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 TJPD Legis Program 1999 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program Representing the Local Governments of: Albemarle County City of Charlottesville Fluvanna County Louisa County Nelson County -Approved December 1998 Fred Boger, Chairman Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director Bonnie W. Fronfelter, Legislative Liaison Table of Contents Area Legislators [ILocality Facts lAction Items School Construction and Renovation ........................................................................ 1 Growth Management ............................................................................................... 2 Sales Tax on Food ...................................................................................................... 4 Local Composite Index for Education Funding ....................................................... 6 HB 599 Funding for Police Departments .................................................................. 7 Deregulation of Electric Utility Industry .................................................................. 8 Areas of Continuing Concern Growth Management ............................................................................................... 10 Finance ....................... ,~. ............................................................................................. 10 Education .................................................................................................................. 11 Environmental Quality ............................................................................................ 11 Local Government Structure and Laws ................................................................. 12 Housing ..................................................................................................................... 12 Public Safety ............................................................................................................. 13 Transportation ......................................................................................................... 13 Health and Human Services .................................................................................... 14 EconomicDevelopment ............................................................................................. 15 ILEGISLATORS REPRESENTING LOCALITIES IN THE' THOMAS JEFFERSON pLANNING DISTRICT House of Delegates Watkins M. Abbitt, Jr. 59th District P.O. Box 683 Appomattox, VA 24522 (804) 342-2880 business (804) 933-4308 home During General Assembly Session: (804) 698-1059 Office No.: 805 John J. Davies, III (Butch) 30th District 122 W. Cameron Street Culpeper, VA 22701 (540) 829-0067 business (540) 825-4740 home During General Assembly Session: (804) 698-1030 Office No.: 526 V. Earl Dickinson 56th District 9549 Fredericks Hall Road Mineral, VA 23117 (540) 894-8802 business (540) 894-4470 home During General Assembly Session: (804) 698-1056 Office No.: 948 Paul C. Harris 58th District P.O. Box 1276 Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 970-2704 business (804) 293-7923 home During General AsSembly Session: (804) 698-1058 Office No.: 516 Mitchell Van Yahres 57m District 223 W. Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 977-7863 business (804) 293-6483 home During General Assembly Session: (804) 698-1057 Office No.: 401 ILEGISLATORS REPRESENTING LOCALITIES IN THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT Senate of Virginia Emily Couric 25* District P.O. Box 5462 Charlottesville, VA 22905-5462 (804) 296-5491 business (804) 296-3962 home During General Assembly Session: (804) 698-7525 Office No.: 308 R. Edward Houck 17th District P.O. Box 7 Spotsylvania, VA 22553-0007 (540) 786-2782 business (540) 898-4436 home During General Assembly Session: (804) 698-7517 Office No.: 332 When the General Assembly is in session, all legislators' offices are located in the General Assembly Building. Mailing address for the Senate members during the legislative session is P.O. Box 396, Richmond, Virginia 23218. Mailing address for House of Delegates members during the legislative session is P.O. Box 406, Richmond, Virginia 23218. ALBEMARLE FACTS I Area: 740 square miles Population: 77,000 (1996 provisional estimate) County Seat: Charlottesville Incorporated Town: Scottsville Median Family Income: $50,442 (Projected 1996 figure) Real Estate Tax Rate: $.72 per $100 assessed value Personal Property Tax Rate: $4.28 per $100 assessed value CHARLOTTESVILLE FACTS: I I I I I Area: 10.85 square miles Population: 39,700 (1996 provisional estimate) Median Family Income: $40,058 (Projected 1996 figure) Real Estate Tax Rate: $1.11 per $100 assessed value Personal Property Tax Rate: $4.20 per $100 assessed value FLUVANNA FACTS: I I Area: 288 square miles Population: 16,700 (1996 provisional estimate) County Seat: Palmyra -- Incorporated Town: None Median Family Income: $44,893 (Projected 1996 figure) Real Estate Tax Rate: $.68 per $100 assessed value Personal Property Tax Rate: $3.70 per $100 assessed value GREENE FACTS I Area: 153 square miles Population: 13,200 (1996 provisional estimate) County Seat: Stanardsville Incorporated Town: Stanardsville Median Family Income: $42,863 (Projected 1996 figure) Real Estate Tax Rate: $.76 per $100 assessed value Personal Property Tax Rate: $4.45 per $100 assessed value LOUISA FACTS II I Area: 517 square miles Population: 23,600 (1996 provisional estimate) County Seat: Louisa Incorporated Town: Louisa, Mineral Median Family Income: $39,623 (Projected 1996 figure) Real Estate Tax Rate: $.67 per $100 assessed value Personal Property Tax Rate: $1.70 per $100 assessed value NELSON FACTS I Area: 468 square miles Population: 13,500 (1996 provisional estimate) County Seat: Lovingston Incorporated Town: None Median Family Income: $35,200 (Projected 1996 figure) Real Estate Tax Rate: $.67 per $100 assessed value Personal Property Tax Rate: $2.95 per $100 assessed value SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District and its member localities support state financial support for school construction and renovation. We appreciate the General Assembly's effort to assist in funding school infrastructure costs. The General Assembly should continue to increase the state's funding for these needs through the Virginia Public School Construction Grants Program. In addition, the state's Literary Loan fund, which "buys down" interest rates making it easier for some localities to issue debt for school construction and renovation, should be preserved and protected from competing educational funding needs. Background: Since the late 1980's, local spending on capital outlay and debt service for schools has increased significantly. In 1981 local government expenditures on debt service totaled $135 million; by 1996 this amount had grown to $454 million. The State Department of Education's (DOE) recent facility survey shows shortfalls in maintenance and capital needs in schools throughout the state range from a conservative $2.1 billion to a possible $8.2 billion. Nearly 65% of Virginia's schools are over 25 years old, coupling costly renovations with significant technology upgrades. DOE's report concluded that "...for a vast majority, local tax funds cannot meet the projected debt service required to upgrade and replace existing facilities or to build new facilities for increasing enrollments. In some localities, property taxes could double and still not generate the revenue needed to meet projected debt service for a modem school infrastructure." IEstimated Spending on School Construction and Renovation by FY 2001: Albemarle ........ $53.5 million Charlottesville .... $ 8.3 million Fluvanna ......... $10.0 million Greene .......... $ 8.8 million Louisa ........... $12.4 million Nelson ........... $ 8.9 million Recommendation: Support additional funding for the Virginia Public School Construction Grants Program. Establish a permanent funding formula for the program taking into account school divisions with the greatest need. Methods for making state allocations to distribute funds could be based on a per pupil amount built into the basic aid (SOQ) payments, a percentage of school construction and renovation costs, or a percentage of local debt service costs. GROWTH 1VIANAGEMENT Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville 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 rampant residential development. Such enabling legislation includes authority to impose school and road impact fccs and authority to adopt adequate public facilities ordinances. We support amendments to the vested rights legislation that passed the General Assembly in 1998. 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 including Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene and Louisa counties and the City of Charlottesville. The Code of Virginia 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. ] PDR Program: The Open-Space Land Act contained in the Code of Virginia § 10.1-1700-1705 enables any public body to acquire real 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 Ilmpact Fees: I 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. Adequate Public Facilities: I We support enabling legislation granting high-growth localities authority to enact adequate public facilities ordinances. Such legislation would provide that the approval ofa 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. Last year the General Assembly passed vested rights legislation. 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, floor 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 only to 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 revenues 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. Support these growth management tools for high-growth localities and state funding t9 create effective implementation of Conservation Easement Programs across the state. SALES TAX ON FO00 Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District and its member localities support efforts to repeal the sales tax on food only if some form of replacement revenue is found. We recognize the regressive nature of the tax as low- and moderate-income citizens spend a much higher proportion of their income to pay sales tax on food. We support application of the sales tax to services as a viable alternative to pay for such an initiative. As the economy moves away from being goods-based and becomes increasingly service-based, we view this as a positive long-term strategy. Background: During the 1998 General Assembly session, repeal of the sales tax on food was forwarded as a viable alternative to repeal of the personal property tax on automobiles. A special subcommittee of House Finance was established to study the sales tax on food and appears poised to support eliminating up to 4 percent of the 4.5 percent sales tax. Most members of the subcommittee have stated that the.5 percent reserved for transportation should not be eliminated. The remaining 4 percent (1 percent is returned to localities based point of sale, 1 percent is earmarked for education and remaining 2 percent goes to the state's general fund) remains under consideration for repeal. Each one-percent of the sales tax levied on food produces nearly $104 million in revenue. It is clear that localities would lose $104 million annually if the 1 percent returned to localities at point of sale were eliminated. If the 1 percent, used for funding the Standards of Quality were eliminated, the $104 million impact would be split by the state and local governments based on the education funding formula. Impact on each locality would vary according to its composite index. Itocal Impact of Repeal._of Sales rax Levied.on Food: , , I Amount of Est. of Total Local Est. Revenue Education Sales Increase in Impact % of 1% Local Tax Revenue Local Local Educ. of Exempting Sales Tax Option Sales Lost if Food Is Composite Funding Food from From Food Tax on Food Exempt Index Required Sales Tax Albemarle 14.40% 1,231,777 1,155,397 0.6233 720,159 1,951,936 Charlottesville 23.00% 1,595,191 630,932 0.5310 335,025 1,930,223 Fluvanna 28.60% 104,725 267, 053 0.3968 105,967 210,692 Greene 29.70% 125,922 244,559 0.3177 77,696 203,618 Louisa 13.90% 129,676 400,495 0.6626 265,368 395,044 Nelson 27.00% 150,284 220,966 0.5038 111,322 261,606 Recommendation: If the General Assembly decides to exempt food products from the one-percent state sales tax returned to localities based on point of sale, then we must be provided a replacement revenue source that both produces the same level of revenue growth over time and is not the subject of future state reductions. If the General Assembly exempts food products from the one percent sales tax dedicated to public education funding, then the funding formula for education must be modified so that local governments are not forced to increase local spending to make up for the loss. COMPOSITE INDEX Legislative Position of TJPDC. Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson The Planning District and its member localities share concern over the use of the composite index for education funding because the state fails to address local concerns with the formula. Because the formula dictates rigidity in determining local share, several member localities receive undue ratings of wealth based on factors that localities are unable to tap as revenue. Furthermore, the formula does not take into account the high debt certain localities incur due to school construction and renovation costs. Background: The composite index is a calculation of local ability to pay based on local real estate values, local adjusted gross income and total state adjusted gross income, local and state average daily membership in public schools and taxable retail sales. IIssues: I 1 99s-2000 CompositeIndex: I (1) Composite index calculation does not factor local debt incurred for school construction and renovation. (2) No state appeals process exists for localities to air such problems. (3) Using local adjusted gross income as a factor penalizes localities with a concentration of wealthy persons and no means by which to capture revenue from such income. (4) No consideration is made for ratios of artificially high property values and lower than average gross incomes. (5) Composite index does not recognize counties that use the land use value assessment programs. Albemarle .6233 (.6080) Charlottesville .5310 (.5447) Fluvanna .3968 (.3755) Greene .3177 (.3075) Louisa .6626 (.6784) Nelson .5038 (.4878) Note: Louisa ranks 6th, Albemarle 9th, and Nelson 17th of Virginia's 95 counties in local ability to pay. (Figures in parentheses indicate 1996-98 composite index) Recommendation: Support a change in the formula to include local capital outlay and debt service as part of locality's expenditure effort. Support a mechanism for appealing to the State Department of Education concerning a locality's calculated composite index. Oppose any change in the formula that results in cost-shifting to localities. HB 599 FUNDING FOR POLICE DEPARTMENTS Legislative Position of TJPDC. Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson The Planning District and its member localities support recent efforts by the Commission on the Condition and Future of Virginia's Cities to identify l~ 599 funding for local law enforcement as an issue that should be addressed by the General Assembly. HB 599 funding, which is required in the Code of Virginia, has not increased since 1990. The General Assembly should fully fund its 599 obligation to local law enforcement or utilize the same formula for funding police departments as the Compensation Board uses for sheriff's departments which is currently I law enforcement officer deputy per 1,500 residents. Background: State funding for local police departments started in 1980 with the passage of House Bill 599. Funding for the program was supposed to increase at the same rate as the state's general fund revenue growth. By 1982-83 the actual growth of I-Il3 599 funding was already lagging behind general fund growth. In 1989-90 the funding peaked at an $83 million appropriation for local police departments, still $8.5 million below the appropriation required by the Code of Virginia. By 1991-92, the impact of the recession sent HB 599 funding down to $67 million, a 16.7% decrease from the previous year while general fund revenue growth was 2.8% in that same fiscal year. State funding has remained frozen at $67 million annually since 1991-92. 599 Funding: FY 99 Proposed Required to Reflect Allocation: Gen. Fund Growth: Difference: Albemarle $576,077 $1,303,398 $727,321 C h a rlottesville $ 844, 676 $1,911,115 $1,066,439 Gordonsville $16,599 $37,556 $20,957 Louisa (Town) $12,312 $27,856 $15,544 Scottsville $2,411 $5,455 $3,044 State Total $66,883,910 $151,327,642 $84,443,732 Recommendation: Support adding approximately $85 million in state funding to HB 599 funding for local police departments to bring this program to the level of funding enumerated in the Code of Virginia. 7 DEREGULATION OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District and its member localities support efforts to provide greater uniformity of tax treatment to create a "level playing field" for both in and out-of-state providers of electricity in a deregulated environment. However, in achieving this objective it is essential to retain current levels of revenue for the Commonwealth and its localities. We oppose any shift in the apportionment of taxes among classes of customers (residential, commercial, industrial, public authority) resulting in a greater tax burden than that currently placed on residential customers. We are particularly concerned in this region with the effect deregulation could have on Louisa County which is home to one of Virginia Power's larger facilities. Louisa County, and other localities to a lesser degree, will face the burden of replacing tax revenues from generating facilities that become uneconomic in a market-based pricing environment. This presents quite a challenge particularly for counties in the Commonwealth who are limited in the taxes that they can levy. Louisa's personal property tax rate is a modest $1.70 per $100 of assessed value and the state reimbursement for the 1998 Personal Property Tax Relief Act is frozen at the rate imposed in January 1997. Clearly the burden of raising the personal property tax rate or the real estate tax rate would fall squarely on the citizenry. Louisa pays 66% of the total cost of public education making the county the sixth wealthiest county in the Commonwealth according to the funding formula. This is a direct result of the property tax revenues collected from Virginia Power which accounts for two-thirds of the county's total real property revenues. A 1998 study conducted by Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates indicates that the loss in real property value (assuming a conservative 30%) resulting from deregulation would cause Louisa's composite index for education funding to drop to .5717. Based on the new index, Louisa is forecasted to receive approximately $1.6 million annually in additional state funds for education. The study further indicates that Louisa County is the only jurisdiction in the Commonwealth to receive an increase in state funding for education as a result of deregulation. Since any change in the local composite index would not occur until two years after deregulation changes the tax levy currently imposed on Virginia Power, a one-time stopgap state appropriation is vital for Louisa County. Background: The electric industry in Virginia, like the rest of the country, is headed towards deregulation and free market competition. Transition to full deregulation is scheduled to begin in the year 2002 and be fully implemented by January 1, 2004. A joint subcommittee (Senate Joint Resolution 91), 'established by the General Assembly in 1996, continues to address the restructuring of the electric utility industries working from legislation that was carried over in the 1998 session. Electric utility industries are now heavily regulated by the State Corporation Commission and exist as investor-owned public service corporations, rural cooperatives and municipal electrics. Virginia's state and local governments raise more than $400 million annually from electric providers and consumers. Local governments collect revenues from electric providers and consumers through five mechanisms: utility tax on consumers, gross receipts tax on providers (.5%), personal property and property tax on providers and the motor vehicle license fee. The Commonwealth collects revenues from a gross receipts tax (2%), the State Corporation Commission special tax (. i % of gross receipts) and the motor vehicle fuel tax. Electric providers are exempt from the state income tax and state sales tax. I Consumer Utility Rates in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District: Albemarle: Charlottesville: Fluvanna:' Greene: Louisa: Nelson: Commercial: 10% of first $3000, 2% after Residential: 20% of first $20 with a $4.00 cap 10% of first $3000, 4% after 20% of first $15 Commercial: 15% of first $50 Residential: 15% offirst$15 15% with a $15 cap 20% of first $10 Recommendation: Proceed with caution in selecting a deregulation scheme and a replacement tax or blend of taxes that preserves current levels of revenue for the state and local governments. Avoid further undue shifting of the apportioned tax burden to residential consumers whose current consumption rate is 39.4% of the total electricity used in the Commonwealth, but who shoulder 47.6% of current taxes. 9 The Planning District and its member localities oppose any preemption or circumvention of local authority to regulate land use. · We support legislation to preclude the Virginia Department of Transportation ? (VDOT) from its ability t° allow the construction of commercial, mobile and land- based telecommunications facilities, such as monopoles or towers, without prior approval of the affected locality's governing body. · We oppose legislation that restricts a locality'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 legiSlati°n t° give local governments the to01s to manage growth, including transfer development fights (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 of local purchase of development fights (PDR) programs. il The Planning District and its member localities recognize that financing government projects should be a partnership between the state and localities. However, we are alarmed at the decreasing level of support from the state, while demand for services increases. With our limited ability to raise funds, we are often 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 sou/~es 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 governments' reliance on the property tax. · Counties should be granted taxing powers equal to those granted cities. For example, counties that have a meal tax should enjoy the same tax code provisions granted cities 10 (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. Oppose federal and state efforts to preempt ability to tax electronic commerce sales. II 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 Program. 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 oppose any legislation that limits the authority of local school boards and local governing bodies to finance and manage their schools. II The Planning District and it§ 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 parmer or 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. 11 STR UCTUR E 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, to the extent necessary, the Dillion Rule to enhance the ability of local governments to provide services required by their citizens and 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 changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act which would unreasonably limit a local governing body's ability to meet in executive session, confer privately with its counsel on possible litigation, or open records currently exempt under FOIA. We oppose amending FOIA to require 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. · 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. The Planning District and its member localities believe that every citizen should have an oppommity to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and local governments should work towards expanding and preserving the supply and improving the quality of affordable housing for the elderly, the disabled and low-incom~ and moderate-income households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever possible. · ' We support continued funding of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund from both the general fund and VHDA, creation of more local-option funding sources such as tax increment financing and real estate transfer taxes. · 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 govemments 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. 12 il 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 full restoration of funding for the 599 law-enforcement program (in FY 98, the unmet state commitment was approximately $70 million) or that the state utilize the same formula for funding Police departments as the Compensation Board currently uses for Sheriff's departments. · 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 and juvenile detention facilities with timely state reimbursement payments. 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, en'6rgy 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 environmental 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 operating costs. 13 II 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 ends, 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 funding 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 Iocal funding. · We support state funding for local Disability Services Boards. 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 off from federal/state public assistance programs. We support initiatives to help former VIEW participants maintain continuity in child care and oppose any initiatives to shift 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 from 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 local 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. 14 E C ONOMIC DE VEL OPMENT 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. 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. 15