Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 TJPD Legislative Program1999 Thomas DistrictLegi FO Representing the C~ OUlStl sville ~unty COunty October 1998 Fred Boger, Chairman Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director Bonnie W. Fronfelter, Legislative Liaison of: IILANDUSE AND GR 0 WTH MANAGEMENT I 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 to allow the construction of commercial, mobile and land-based telecommunications facilities, such as monopoles or towers, without prior approval of th affe lity's go e g b dy ~"- - "'- --'-- - ~"--'-: .... J ...... e ctedloca v rnin o . ~,,,. · ,,,,...~ ~,o,,,,.L ,..~ .,,.,.o~, goverraiients 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 legislation to give local governments the tools to manage growth, including transfer development fights (TDRS), purchase development rights (PDRs), 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. ~"- oppose'--:-'-': .... ' ........ : ................ ' ' IIFINANCE fl 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 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 toots tar, 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. Furthermore, 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 (58.1-3840). (Albemarle) Lastly, the state must honor its promise to fully reimburse localities for the administrative costs associated with implementing the personalproperty tax relief program. lIEDUCA TION I 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 ali 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. Further, 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 fundingformula for the Virginia Public School Construction Grants Program. Capital improvements should be factored into the SOQ and the composite index formula shouM be revised to account for the costs of school construction and renovation borne by lity. __.~ .1- .................. ~ ..... : ...........,"r :~._'____ ',',____, ___, ,r:__:_:_ ,",__,_ · ~ ~,~,~..,~ ~"[.,-,, ~[y J :,,~,,u.,~ o~ o,,.,,~,~ened. Lastly, we oppose any legislation that limits the authority of local, school boards and local governing bodies to finance and manage their schools. IENVIRONMENTAL Q, UALITY 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 he a partner or advocate for localities in water supply development. The state should undertake water supply planning, notj ust simple inventory of resources. The planning should encompass water conservation, a determination of needs and how they can be met, including emerging technologies. IIL ocAL GO VERNMENT 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, to the extent necessary, the Dillion Rule to enhance the ability of local governments to prov/de services required by their citizens and allow local governments to meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships. We oppose intrusive legislation involving meetings of govch-d,:g b6di¢$, purchasing procedures, local government authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions 2 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 GeneralAssembly. 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 Pl.anning 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 towards expanding and preserving the supply and improving the quality of affordable housing for the elderly, the disabled and low-income and moderate-income households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever possible. We support continued funding of the Virginia H6using Parmership 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 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. Lastly, we support VHDA criteria for funding which encourages rehabilitation of existing housing and discourages new construction in close proximity to existing subsidized housing. I[PUBLICSAFETY II 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. Vie-support I~i~,~LUIO&IUII UI I till~,.illl~l~ IUI tll~' IJcl-J' Jy_7 I. JIUi~I{Z{.III ~l.t til%,~ i~,~V~.~I ~;3,~1J.~%.1. YYII%,~,II tll~l~. l. YlUl~l~{.lll IA~I~i.~ 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 reim ursement payments. ~.m[,,~,,,,u,~, [,,w o,.[~ ~.,uutu ,ul,j ,m,u ,[~ ~ta~u[wj tm,u,.[ ~.,.,~JLIIIIIILII,~.,I%& &Y l~.,~l'.O'll"xl J"alli~ lll~lu&,&ll,,I~ ~J[.J~lo.&tyllo, l .,,~&,~i. LI LIIIU~J.~II LII~,, %,.VI%I[.,~,II...~&LI~,.~I.[ L.~U~.I.~..I 0,~1~1. 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 w/th 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, env/ronmentally sound and promotes economic development. State transportation planning must be better coordinated' and conform with local land use planning, especially i'n rapidly growing areas. We urge state legislators to implore the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOD to work with local officials to address concerns about VDOT's public information meeting process, especially regarding timeliness and availability of environmental doc,uments for public rewew and input. We support a relaxing of state standards to give localities mbre flexibility regarding road construction in neighborhoods and traffic calming measures. We support add/tion~ state funding for public transportation operating costs, as federal aid in this arena ~(Congress passed ISTEA Reauthorization, dubbed TEA-21, in Juned IttEAL TH AND HUMAN SER VICES il 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. Moreover, we oppose any new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local funding. 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 (TAN'F) 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 4 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 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 ACi]~'The state sh0uld~alloTM local governments t° USe other funding sources such as state, funds from the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act m'-eertain Medie'aid-fim~ for CSA needs in order to minimize the local dollars that are spent on CSA. Local governments shouM be given the option of using Medicaid funds for case management but shouM not be responsible for the cost of any child eligible for Medicaid funds unless the local government has identified the .child.asCSA..~gib_l_e:.T_.he_~tate- sh~u!~, n~_ unde~ake_any co__s~-~.~iment 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 shouM be eliminated and replaced with allocations based on a realistic anticipated level of need, reserving supplemental funding for unforeseen emergencies. 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 enl)..ancing 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. The plan should include new tools for local governments to use in attracting economic development oppommities 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 govermnents an opPommity 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. (The budget passed by the 1~98 General Assembly included $10.1 million in fiscal year 1999 and $5.7 million in fiscal year 2000for the Reg~,onal "' .... '~'~ ....... Act. ~'"" $4 .~m..., of a~o ' """~' year,o~ ....... t...~ ,c.~ ~,,t,F;.,~,, ~.,~.oo ~-,oc,., .,,,,,~,, ~.o FF~o~ey I~ ;.~,~.t, ~.~,t ss,,.,, ,,~..,,~ d~,, workforce training activities.) SALES TAX ON FOOD Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville and the Counties of Albernarle, 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, I 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. I Local Impact of Repeal of Sales Tax Levied on Food: 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 O. 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 dedi6ated 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. 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 by avoiding referenda, 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 198I local govemmem 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." I Estimated Spending on School Construction and Renovation by FY 2001: Albemarle ..... Charlottesville . Fluvanna ...... Greene ....... Louisa ........ Nelson ........ $53.5 million $ 8.3 million $10.0 million $ 8.8 million $12.4 million $ 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. HB 599 FUNDING FOR POLICE DEPARTMENTS Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottqsville 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 lib 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 departm._.entsas .the Cpmpensatiqn Board.uses f_or. sh~ri.f~s__depa_~ments__.w_.h.i~h is currently 1 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 0fHB 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. HB 599 Funding: FY 99 Proposed Required to Reflect Allocation: Gen. Fund Growth: A lbema rle $576,077 $1,303,398 Charlottesville $844,676 $1,911,115 Gordonsville $16,599 $37,556 Louisa (Town) $12,312 $27,856 Scottsville $2,411 $5,455 State Total $66,883,910 $151,327,642 Difference: $727,321 $1,066,439 $20,957 $15,544 $3,044 $84,443,732 Recommendation:' Support adding approximately $85 million in state funding t° HB 599 funding for local police departments to bring this program to the level of funding enumerated in the Code of Virginia. 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 enYironment. 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. 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 (. 1% of gross receipts) and the motor vehicle fuel tax. Electric providers are exempt from the state income tax and state sales tax. Consumer Utility Rat'es in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District: Albemarle: Charlottesville: Fluvanna: Greene: Commercial: 15% of first $50 Residential: 15% of first $15 Louis-a~ ............. 15%-witha$'15 i/~ip' Nelson: 20% of first $10 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 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. GROWTH MANAGEMENT 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 fees 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 of ten 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 Cott~ 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. I 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. Senate Bill 693, which was carried over in the 1998 session would have authorized Loudoun County to assess school impact fees. We support amended SB 693 to apply to all high-growth localities and support a cap of $5,000 per residential dwelling unit that may by imposed for school building facilities. [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 appro'val. 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 to create effective implementation of Conservation Easement Programs across the state. COMPOSITE INDEX Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson The Planning District and its member localities support use of the composite index in determining local share of educational funding. However, 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 i'evenue. 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. ]Issues: 1998-2000 Composite Index: Composite index calculation does not factor local debt incurred for school construction and renovation. Composite index does not recognize counties that use the land use value assessment programs. 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. No consideration is made for ratios of artificially high property values and lower than average gross incomes. No state appeals process exists for localities to air such problems. 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 the composite index. Support a change in the formula to account for county land use taxation pro~ams. Oppose any change in the formula ~hat results in cost-shifting to localities.