City Council

City of Chesapeake 2008
Legislative Package

POLICY POSITIONS

City of Chesapeake - 2008 Legislative Package

General Government

VIRGINIA HOUSING TRUST FUND

The City supports State funding for the Virginia Housing Trust Fund.  The City also supports providing for a portion of the Fund to be used to provide matching funds to localities that have established local housing funds, and grants to be made from the Fund to support innovative housing projects and low and moderate income housing projects that are located in areas experiencing extreme shortages of such housing.

LAND USE

The City opposes any reduction of local authority to manage such functions as land use, zoning, conditional use permits, etc., which could be detrimental to the aesthetics of the City.  Legislation is needed that will enable localities to enhance their tools in planning for the orderly development of land and the delivery of essential services.  Local governments must retain current authority to use conditional zoning rules in the State Code to balance the financial impact created by residential and other development.

ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE

The City urges the General Assembly to consider legislation to allow high-growth localities to provide that approval of a subdivision or site plan be contingent upon the availability of adequate public facilities.  Failing this, the City would request special legislation granting the City of Chesapeake the authority to develop an Adequate Public Facilities ordinance to establish the appropriate level of service standards for schools, roads and other designated facilities.  This enabling legislation should provide exceptions for small developments and other reasonable categories. 

LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION

The City supports an increase in coordination between local governments and the State on land use planning and transportation planning.  However, the State should not use this as an opportunity to unfairly shift the obligation for funding road construction and maintenance to local governments.

AESTHETIC STANDARDS

In order to promote the harmonious, compatible and orderly subdivision and development of land, and to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods and commercial districts, localities need express authority to apply reasonable aesthetic standards in the approval of subdivision plans, site plans, special exceptions and conditional use permits.  Such standards may include provisions for the use of certain exterior building materials, colors and methods of construction, as well as specific design features, to be coordinated with the character of existing development and comprehensive area development plans.

MANUFACTURED HOUSING

The City supports the use of manufactured housing as one means of addressing the need for affordable housing.  The City has manufactured housing parks in a number of areas and manufactured housing is provided for in our agricultural zoning districts.  Local governments need and want to provide for a diversity of housing for their citizens.  Localities, however, need to be able to plan land uses and take issues of compatibility and design into consideration.  Manufactured housing is not appropriate for every area.  Manufactured housing, if not properly placed and sited, can conflict with established neighborhood patterns. There is a distinction between the construction of site built/modular homes and manufactured homes.  The former must conform to BOCA standards and the later to HUD standards.  Typically, model codes such as BOCA, are revised regularly to reflect new technologies and standards.  The HUD Code (adopted in 1976) should undergo similar revision schedules to ensure new technologies, materials and industry and consumer input are responsively incorporated before manufactured housing is to be treated the same as site-built housing.

Local governments should retain the authority to plan for the appropriate mix of residential structures in their communities.

EMINENT DOMAIN

In the last two years, the General Assembly has adopted legislation to limit the acquisition of property by eminent domain.  Some of these new laws make it more difficult for local governments and housing authorities to improve neighborhoods through redevelopment.  For example, the new statutes impose stringent procedural requirements on condemnation of blighted properties and strictly limit the types of properties that can be acquired through eminent domain by use of a conservation plan.

Given these recent changes, the City of Chesapeake takes the position that it is unnecessary to amend the Constitution of Virginia to further limit the use of eminent domain powers.  Such an amendment could unduly limit the ability of future legislatures to modify  the eminent domain powers  to meet the needs of
Virginia residents. 

FUNDING FOR OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION

The Commonwealth of Virginia’s lands are rich in scenic, historic, natural, agricultural, forestal, and recreational resources.  Virginia is, however, rapidly losing these irreplaceable resources to competing land uses.  The City of Chesapeake desires to protect its open space, its natural resources, including its drinking water supply watershed and natural habitats, and its historic sites.  Conserving these resources is critical to Virginia’s economy and establishing a balance between the conservation of open space/natural resource lands and residential and/or commercial development is essential to quality of life and fiscal health.  The Governor has made a statewide commitment to protect 400,000 additional acres of land by the end of the decade and $4.25 million in matching funds to Purchase of Development Rights programs statewide was added to the FY 07-08 State Budget.  The Joint Subcommittee to Study Long-Term Funding Sources for the Purchase of Development Rights to Preserve Open Space Land and Farmland will provide its report to the Legislature by the beginning of the 2008 Session.  The City supports these efforts, as well as the establishment of a dedicated funding source for open space conservation.

VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE

Currently, the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) implements the code adoption process to amend and adopt the national model codes for enforcement by the localities.  The purpose of a statewide set of codes is to ensure safety to life and property and to permit construction at the least possible cost consistent with nationally recognized standards.  Localities are prohibited from amending the code at a local level to help insure a uniform application by the local jurisdictions. Each time the State adopts the USBC, considerable technical amendments to the model codes, in both the administrative provisions and technical standards, are made. The amendments made by the State to the technical code requirements and specifications greatly dilute the intent of a model code adoption. Engineering documentation to substantiate and support the technical changes is not being provided.

The International Code Councils' (ICC) model codes are developed to promote consistent code enforcement and higher quality enforcement through international standards. The ICC code process provides a single forum for national and international attention and focus to address these concerns. The City urges the State to adopt the technical provisions of the model codes intact and without changes, except for the administrative regulations and code revisions and/or adoption that increases life safety. All code revisions and/or adoption shall be required to provide documentation to support any change.

ELIZABETH RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT

The Elizabeth River is the most toxic tributary to the Chesapeake Bay.  There is a critical need for continuing Federal and State funding to complete sediment remediation and wetland restoration work for the Elizabeth River Restoration Project.  Chesapeake has been a co-sponsor of the project since 1998, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth and Norfolk, as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia.  The most recently completed phase of the project included a Feasibility Study which was financed through a cost-share agreement between project partners.  The next phase of the project is also financed through a cost-share agreement and will include advanced engineering and design for the sediment remediation work at Scuffletown Creek in the South Norfolk area of the City.  The Corps has completed the design work for the wetlands restoration component of the project and now awaits the final construction phase. 

To date, the project sponsors have collectively invested $2.4 million in earlier feasibility studies and preliminary engineering and design work.  In addition to matching funds provided by local sponsors, continuing matching funds from both the Commonwealth and Congress are critical to meeting project funding needs.  To date, there is no State or Federal funding for the final construction phases of either the wetlands restoration or sediment remediation components of the project.

REVITALIZATION/REDEVELOPMENT

The City supports legislation that would aid local revitalization/redevelopment efforts such as, but not limited to, additional funding for demolition of abandoned structures, statutory presumption of abandonment, expanded authority concerning spot blight abatement.

VACANT BUILDINGS

The City supports legislative recommendations addressing vacant building registration, boarded up houses, and code enforcement that include the ability to recoup the costs associated with the identification and enforcement of abandoned structures. 

Vacant Building Registration:  Increased Penalties – The City supports amendment to the State Code Section 15.2-1127 which sets forth the provisions for Vacant Building Registration, to provide for an optional increase in the penalties for noncompliance.  Currently a maximum fee of $25 can be charged to defray the cost of processing the registration.  Civil penalties for failure to register are a maximum $50 fine, unless the property is located within a conservation and rehabilitation district, for which the maximum charge is $250.  To provide a greater incentive for these property owners to register their vacant properties, and better offset the costs incurred by local governments to locate and seek civil penalties against these noncompliant property owners, the penalties for failure to register should be increased.

Boarded Up Houses – The City supports legislation that will provide a preemptive approach, including the assessing of appropriate fines, fees and penalties, for houses boarded up for 12 months or more that are kept in poor condition.  Under current State law, local governments have limited ability to address the systemic problems associated with negligence of properties that are boarded up, minimally meeting Code, and yet still impacting the vibrancy and livability of a community due to their blighted presence.

Code Enforcement – The City supports legislation to amend the Uniform Statewide Building Code to:  allow service of a violation notice to the address listed on tax assessment records to constitute sufficient notice to the property owner, in the event that reasonable efforts cannot locate any other address for the owner; require property owners who have been cited for zoning ordinance violations and housing violations to provide notice to any buyer of the property that such violations exist, provide penalties for failure to give notice, and allow the locality to hold both the old and new owners in violation responsible for correction; and shorten the appeal period for notices of violations of zoning ordinances which limit occupancy.  The City often encounters situations where the owner of a property uses the rental or vacant property as their legal mailing address, and these are the addresses used to send notice of property violations.  The negligent property owners use this as their rationale for not receiving notice. Also, currently when properties are sold, a case has to begin with the new owner, thereby lengthening the time of abating nuisances.

Study of Problem Vacant Residential Units – The City supports a study of problem vacant residential units.  The focus of this study should be on quantifying the socio-economic impact these structures have on adjacent property owners, localities and the Commonwealth.  It should also address the rights of the absent property owner versus those of the present property owners.

Finance

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX RESTRUCTURING

In 2006 the General Assembly adopted far-reaching legislation that restructured telecommunications taxes. Local consumer utility taxes, business license taxes in excess of 0.5 percent of gross receipts, cable franchise fees and local E-911 fees were replaced with a statewide 75 cents per month E-911 fee and 5 percent Communications Sales and Use Tax on all voice, video and audio communications regardless of technology. Cable companies also collect and pay the public rights-of-way use fee that previously applied only to local exchange telephone companies. 

The new taxes and fees are being collected by the companies from their customers and paid monthly to the Virginia Department of Taxation. These revenues are being held in a segregated trust fund and distributed monthly to all counties, cities and towns, without going through the state appropriation process. Each county, city and town’s distribution percentage is the same as its percentage of the FY 2006 state total of the taxes and fees that were eliminated. After June 30, 2006, the Auditor of Public Accounts calculated the percentages on which the distribution is based, from the FY 2006 reports submitted to his office by localities’ auditors.

As of the May 2007 distribution of telecommunications revenues, the monthly amount being distributed to localities is 1.09% less than monthly average amount they collected in FY 2006.  The monthly distribution has been increasing each month and the expectation is that within the next few months it will equal the FY 2006 monthly average. Because the early months of the restructuring have been lower, however, it appears that local governments will experience some net revenue loss for FY 2007, but that this shortfall will end during FY 2008.  Legislators and some of the telecommunications industry representatives have repeatedly said in the past that they will work to ensure that local governments do not receive less revenue as a result of the tax restructuring.

The City supports efforts to ensure that revenues resulting from the restructuring of telecommunications taxes are at least equal to the revenues local governments received prior to the restructuring.

CAR TAX REIMBURSEMENTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In the 2004 Session of the General Assembly, significant reforms were enacted affecting Car Tax reimbursements to local governments.  Effective in Calendar Year 2006, the program is no longer based on a percentage reimbursement.  Rather, the State has capped annual reimbursements at a fixed dollar amount of $950 million.  The percentage of local Car Tax relief will now depend upon local factors such as population growth and the number of cars garaged in the jurisdiction.  Consequently, the percentage of State subsidized Car Tax relief in fast growing localities will depreciate more quickly than in slower growing localities. Citizens will each year receive a smaller percentage of car tax relief, while the State provides local governments with the same capped reimbursement.  The State should honor its original commitment concerning car tax relief.

LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY

The General Assembly should not cap, remove or restrict any revenue sources, taxing authority or user fees available to localities. The erosion of local revenue sources reduces local flexibility, increases local government’s reliance on the real property tax and jeopardizes local bond ratings.  If the State does eliminate or restrict local revenue sources, it should replace those revenues lost to the localities.  The loss to localities includes not only current revenues being derived from the revenue source but also potential increases in revenues due to growth or rate increases. The City would oppose the elimination of its Constitutional authority to tax personal property without it being replaced with a comparable, reliable tax source guaranteed by the Constitution.  The City would oppose any legislation imposing real property tax limitations.

The City does, however, support greater authority being provided to local governments concerning how they impose the real property tax.  Legislation to implement the constitutional amendment proposed in SJR 354, which authorizes the General Assembly to enact legislation that will allow localities by ordinance to exempt from real property taxes, or defer real property taxes on, up to 20 percent of the value of residential or farm property that is the owner- occupant's primary dwelling and lived in continuously (“homesteading”),  should follow the intent of the resolution by granting local governments broad authority to set the terms and conditions for any tax relief programs.

HB 599

HB 599 was enacted in 1979 as part of a legislative package intended to direct additional State financial assistance to cities and thus reduces the need for annexation.  HB 599 provided funds to localities with police departments which was deemed to be appropriate since the State pays a significant portion of the law enforcement costs for sheriff departments in counties. Full funding of the HB 599 State aid program has long been a priority for local governments. The formula used to distribute HB 599 funds uses population density, the social welfare rate and the average crime rate.  Population is also used as a weighting factor.

The FY 2006-2008 State Budget provided additional funding for HB 599 which could have made the funding formula whole.  The additional funds, however, are being directed to localities based on violent crime. The City opposes this direction in the funding of HB 599 or any formal amendment to the HB 599 funding formula that reduces the significance of the impact of a growing population or reduces the amount of funding to the City. The original basis/rationale for the funding (revenue replacement for the virtual elimination of annexation as an option) has not changed.  The City would also oppose any reduction in the flexibility in the use of these funds or mandated maintenance of effort. 

MANDATES

Any legislation having a fiscal impact on local governments should also be accompanied with State appropriations adequate to cover the full cost of such mandates.

STATE AID TO LOCALITIES

State aid to localities assists in providing services at the local level, many of which are mandated.  The State and localities are in partnership in providing these services to their citizens and localities should not be expected to take on a greater and greater share of the funding responsibility.  The City opposes cuts in State assistance to programs such as, but not limited to, full funding of the State Aid to Local Public Libraries formula, extension services, local offices on youth, and services for senior citizens.

REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS FUND

During the 1996 Legislative Session, the General Assembly adopted the Regional Competitiveness Act, which established a regional incentive fund for localities that deliver services and plan regionally.  The Hampton Roads region implemented this program through the establishment of the Hampton Roads Partnership. The Partnership has used the incentive funds to leverage other public and private resources to advance issues relating to port growth, transportation, tourism development, technology-related economic development, workforce development/training activities and many other regional solutions to identified competitiveness concerns. Due to the State budget situation, funding for this program has been phased out.  The City supports the purpose of this regional incentive fund and urges that funding for it be returned to the State budget and increased when possible.  This funding should not, however, come at the expense of the Governor's Economic Opportunity Fund, established State aid to localities, or other regional organizations such as planning district commissions.

WORKFORCE SERVICES

The Workforce Services program of the Virginia Department of Business Assistance is a proven, well-run and highly-respected economic development incentive. Despite a 57% decrease in funding since FY02, Workforce Services has managed an increase of 91% in its project load.

Between the years 2004 – 2007, the state’s Workforce Services program provided assistance to eighteen firms in the City of Chesapeake:

• 10 expansions of existing firms
• 7 locations of new firms
• 1 retraining of an existing firm

Approximately 3,000 employees of Chesapeake businesses were the beneficiaries of improved job skills training under this program.

The Workforce Services program is a critical incentive that enhances Virginia’s competitive position to attract new companies and to stimulate the expansion of existing businesses (which accounts for approximately 80% of business growth in the Commonwealth).  With its focus on the needs of Virginia’s employers and proven track record of high return on investment, Virginia’s Workforce Services program is a wise use of the Commonwealth’s tax dollars.  However, in order to be a competitive incentive with other states, (Virginia’s program is funded at a level below that of neighboring states) funding for the Workforce Services program will need to be increased.  The 2006 budget proposed an increase of only $250,000 for the Workforce Services program, when projections estimate that $12 million is actually needed to restore the program to “pre-cut” levels.

The City supports increased funding for Virginia’s Workforce Services training Program.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

In its November 2002 Special Report on State Business Incentive Grant Programs, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) stated that the long-term consequences of cutting Virginia’s largest business incentive programs would include:

• Fewer new jobs (along with investments in facilities) created or transferred to Virginia;
• Loss of individual income tax revenues in excess of the amount saved by cutting funding within two to three years; and
• Less corporate income tax and sales tax revenues and less indirect economic activity from the investments not being made.

Performance-based incentives help the state, and its localities, to attract and retain specific high growth and emerging industries.  It is imperative to Virginia’s economic future that the state and localities have the necessary tools to keep the Commonwealth competitive.

Since the mid-1990’s, Virginia’s economic development budget has been reduced by 40%; the Governor’s Opportunity Fund has been reduced by 33%.  Many state incentive programs are capped and pro-rated, economic development advertising programs have been virtually eliminated, and earmarks for locality-specific programs have drained core programs. There are many projects for which Virginia’s economic development incentives programs are too restrictive, leaving the state at a significant competitive disadvantage versus its regional and national competitors.

The City supports increasing the state’s economic development incentives program funding, specifically the Governor’s Opportunity Fund.  The City also supports changes to the state’s economic development incentives program to provide increased flexibility to provide assistance to a wider range of companies, especially smaller and mid-sized projects. And the City supports the creation and implementation of new economic development incentives programs that are based on “best practices” of Virginia’s competitor states.

VIRGINIA ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM

The City of Chesapeake’s Enterprise Zone program was recognized as one of the most successful in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  It was a vital component to the City’s ability to bring business and job growth to the City’s distressed South Norfolk community.

The program designation expired in 2005, and the reapplication process was placed on hold by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development while changes to the statewide program were being considered by the 2005 Virginia General Assembly.  These program changes were highlysignificant, and removed the City’s eligibility to participate in the Enterprise Zone program.
The City supports a revision of the state’s Enterprise Zone program to revert back to the original eligibility criteria, whereby Enterprise Zone designations were granted based on the demographics and economics of specific neighborhoods, not an entire City.

FUNDING FOR OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

Effective July 1, 2007 the State Compensation Board approved 2 new entry-level positions for the Clerk’s Office.  The Clerk’s Office current staffing level is 30 approved and fully funded positions and 2 unfunded positions for a total allocation of 32 positions.  Staffing standards approved by the State Compensation Board indicate the workload measures for the Chesapeake Clerk of the Circuit Court Office require an additional full time equivalency of 10.58 employees. 

The City of Chesapeake urges the State fund the additional positions for the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court that its own staffing standards indicate are needed, and which more accurately reflect the actual workloads and requirements of the Office.

PAYDAY LENDING

Payday lending practices have become an area of concern to many, and the General Assembly debated this issue during the 2007 General Assembly Session.  The City urges the General Assembly, in the 2008 Session, to enact laws concerning the regulation of payday lending practices.  Specifically, the City urges the passage of legislation to enact an annual interest rate cap of 36% for annual consumer loans made in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  This is to protect our citizens from exploitatively high interest rates that are presently allowed.

Education and Human Development

EDUCATION FUNDING – RE-BENCHMARKING

The State should fully recognize and fund the costs of re-benchmarking of the various educational programs including the Standards of Quality, incentive, categorical, and school facilities programs.  Changing the process of re-benchmarking to artificially lower recognized costs does not change what it actually costs to provide education.  Instead, it simply transfers additional costs to local governments, and ultimately to the local real estate tax base. 

EDUCATION FUNDING

Public education is the cornerstone of the future economic vitality of Virginia, and the Commonwealth’s role in the area of education cannot be overstated.  The Constitution of Virginia clearly states that the General Assembly shall provide free public schools for all school-age children in the State.

School Construction Funding - Good education cannot take place without proper infrastructure. The General Assembly has recognized that capital costs are a major factor in the local cost of education by providing some State funding for school construction in the past.  The City urges the State to take an even greater role in the funding of school capital projects. School construction costs have a major impact on the local budget.  Since 1997, the City has borrowed $139.4 million for school construction.  Net debt per capita was $2,087 in 2005.  Debt service for the current fiscal year is projected to be $49 million of which $32 million is for schools.  The currently identified unfunded capital list for the next five years included $323 million in school needs.

The State needs to be a partner with localities in the funding of school construction. From the City’s perspective, any plan which distributes school construction funding should take into consideration current needs, but should also reflect past efforts of localities to fund needed school construction projects.  In fairness, past efforts cannot be ignored given the sacrifices made and projects foregone in such areas as roads, mental health, parks, libraries, etc. Further, educationalmandates often have a direct impact on size and required facilities and therefore the State should ensure the funding for these requirements or provide localities with greater flexibility. The City urges the General Assembly to amend the Code of Virginia to provide that the State will share in the cost of public school construction on a continual basis.

School Operation Funding - The State funds education through the Standards of Quality.  Originally, the State paid 50% of the SOQ on a statewide basis. Between 1989 and 1993, the State share rose from 50% to 55%.  However, this was not a greater assumption of State responsibility in that the State decreased its funding of fringe benefit costs from 100% to 55%.  The combination of the two changes saved the State money. The State does provide categorical funding outside the Standards of Quality in some areas, however, most of these funds require local match.

During the 1990s changes in assumptions dampened growth in the SOQ cost estimates.  Key changes included: no prospective inflation for support costs; no teacher salary goal – instead, year-to-year decisions, usually based on State employee raises; salary raises paid by the State for half of year rather than the full year; costs for professional administrative staff dropped due to a DOE error – a change that was then made permanent.

In November of 2001, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission released the results of its two-year study on Elementary and Secondary School Funding. In his introductory statement, JLARC Director Philip Leone stated that the analysis "indicates that localities which have educational expenditures beyond the SOQ (Standards of Quality) have some valid reasons to be concerned about the level of responsibility that they bear for education costs."  According to the report, Chesapeake provided 125.61% above its required SOQ local match in funding to schools.  JLARC provided a three-tier set of recommendations concerning State funding for education to include the major components of what is required for a quality educational program.

Also, in May of 2003, the State Board of Education agreed to a package of options to increase the Standards of Quality by adding more than 12,000 positions to those now required and called for funding no later than fiscal year 2008.  Most localities are already paying for many of those positions with 100% local funding.

The City commends the State’s major infusion of funding towards the  implementation of the recommendations in the JLARC study on education, as well as, full funding of the State Board of Education proposals (which address many of the Tier 2 issues in the JLARC report.) The State will, however, face major issues in the 2006-08 budget for public education, including re-benchmarking the costs of the SOQ, fully funding the remaining SOQ revisions adopted by the State Board of Education in 2004 that are not funded in the current budget, and addressing the issues raised by JLARC in its study of education funding.  Further, costs associated with implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act promise to be another major area of debate.  The City urges the General Assembly to fully fund its obligations with regard to the JLARC and Board of Education proposals. 

The City opposes any maintenance of local effort other than that associated with the SOQ.  A maintenance of effort that is not connected to the SOQ will punish those localities that voluntarily spent beyond the required minimum in an effort to achieve a high quality system of education.  Further, it will simply perpetuate the current mismatch in State-local funding for education.  As the State moves forward in implementing the higher staffing levels included in the revisions to the Standards of Quality proposed by the Board of Education, it is important to remember that these higher staffing levels are already in place in most school divisions as a result of local support for education exceeding the required local minimum.

The City opposes continued cost shifting and unfunded mandates in the area of education – for example:  The teacher retiree health credit, which the 2002 General Assembly shifted from a State-funded program to a State-local funded program, at a cost to local governments of $18 million a year; eliminating State funding of education programs outside the Standards of Quality in order to boost State support for the SOQ; and costs for complying with the federally-mandated No Child Left Behind Law.

SALES TAX EXEMPTION FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

The cost to build schools is constantly increasing and placing increased pressure on local government budgets. As one way to reduce these costs, the City supports legislation to provide a sales tax exemption for tangible personal property purchased by a contractor and used solely for school construction or repair.

TIDEWATER COMMUNITY COLLEGE - CHESAPEAKE CAMPUS

The City of Chesapeake values access to higher education, lifelong learning, and workforce training services as essential to its citizens' quality of life as well as to the economic development of the City.  Tidewater Community College's Chesapeake Campus, as the only State-supported higher education facility in the City, has grown with the Chesapeake community in scope and depth of offerings as well as in numbers of students served and is positioned to continue to grow in service to the City and the region. 

To that end, the City and Tidewater Community College have established a partnership a "shared vision" to expand and enhance the College's presence in the City of Chesapeake by: relocating the College's Observatory in connection with the future Chesapeake Great Dismal Swamp Visitors' Center; exploring the joint development of a Cultural/Fine Arts Center on the College's campus; expanding the College's campus on Cedar Road to meet current and projected student demand; the College playing an active role in the City's South Norfolk Strategic Redevelopment Plan; developing the Regional Automotive Technology Center in the Oakbrooke Business and Technology Center; and establishment of a high-technology education and workforce training facility in the Western Branch area.

Specifically, the City of Chesapeake endorses and supports the State Board's request for funding in the Commonwealth's 2006-08 budget for a new academic building at the Chesapeake Campus and for the relocation of the College's Observatory to the Chesapeake Great Dismal Swamp Visitors' Center.

STATE AID TO LOCAL PUBLIC LIBRARIES FORMULA

The Code of Virginia establishes Virginia’s policy of granting financial aid for the development of local public libraries and provides a formula which specifies how much each public library system should receive.  This formula has not been fully funded since 2001. Full funding for FY 2007 would have been $24,224,304; however, actual funding was $17,718,501.  For 2007, full funding would have meant $316,320 for Chesapeake’s libraries but the actual grant is 226,806, a difference of $89,514. It is currently estimated that full funding of State Aid will require an approximate $7.5 million increase overall in FY 2008 over FY 2007 funding levels.  Full funding of the formula would mean additional funding to Chesapeake libraries of approximately $91,280 in FY 2008. Without any increase in FY 2008 funds, the Chesapeake Library is slated to receive $223,620, or $3,186 less, due to redistribution of the formula to all libraries.  The General Assembly is urged to fully fund State Aid to Virginia Public Libraries for FY 2008.

MENTAL RETARDATION, MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES

Funding – We want to thank the members of the General Assembly for their assistance in securing additional funding for Chesapeake residents with disabilities.  However, since our public system of care continues to be critically under funded there are still important unmet needs.  For example:

• We have  43 persons on our mental health outpatient waiting list

• There is an ten month wait for an initial psychiatric evaluation

• We have 142 persons on our Mental Retardation Waiver waiting list, 42 of these individuals are on the urgent list,

We are requesting that the members of the delegation advocate for the following services:

Waiver slots - We have 42 persons on the Medicaid Waiver Urgent Care waiting list.  Since the wait for a slot has become so long (multiple years) the families and loved ones of persons with mental retardation have become desperate.  

Mental Health Counseling - As noted above, we currently have a waiting list of over 52 Chesapeake citizens who need mental health counseling.  With our limited staff, we cannot meet the demand. 

Vocational and Day Services – For all practical purposes, the State of Virginia has abandoned responsibility for  persons with mental retardation that do not meet the criteria for being eligible for a mental retardation waiver slot.  Much of the families’ stress could be relieved by having vocational or day services.  This would not only assist the families but would ensure that skills learned in school would not be lost from years of non use.  Eight of the persons we are serving have partial vouchers until November 2007.  Another eight are currently on the waiting list.

Safe and Affordable Housing – As the cost of housing rises, the opportunity for safe and affordable housing diminishes for the individuals we serve most of whom live on less than $700 a month.  We need funding for housing vouchers.  Vouchers of $300 a month for 50 individuals would be $180,000 a year.

Services for Older Adults – While the number of older adults in the city is growing the state resources for older adults with mental illness are shrinking.  When rebuilt the Hancock unit of Eastern State Hospital will decrease in size from 210 beds to 150.  Community nursing homes and assisted living facilities are often unwilling to accept a person who has had a history of striking out or wandering.  Currently Chesapeake General Hospital often has persons stay in their unit 30 or 40 days (versus the 10 they are paid for) because they can not find a placement for these individuals.

Jail Diversion Programs – Many non violent offenders with mental illness are placed in our jail because there are no other service alternatives.  We need a jail diversion program to reduce incarceration of persons with mental illness charged with low-level offenses by providing alternative programs and enhance public safety by freeing up jail beds for violent offenders.

Governor Kaine’s Virginia Tech Review Panel Report and preliminary input from the Commission on Mental Health Law Reform indicate that there are needed changes in Virginia’s involuntary commitment law.  While changes in the law are required, these changes should not become unfunded mandates or detract from existing mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse programs.  There needs to be funding for a full array of community based services. As noted by Professor Bonny, chief staff for the Commission on Mental Health Law Reform, no matter what the General Assembly does with the law it won’t work unless there are services available.

COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT

Following a December 2006 advisory opinion of the Attorney General, the state is redefining its policies and procedures to include additional children in the population that is eligible for the full range of services offered through the Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk Youth and Families (CSA).  This expansion consists primarily of children with mental health needs.  The 2007 General Assembly adopted legislation to increase the population served, with the proviso the legislation would have to be adopted again in 2008, saying that it first wanted more information about the scope and cost of any expansion of CSA.  On March 27, 2007, the state issued a directive that local governments serve an expanded population of children under the mandatory category of CSA.

We believe the proposed expansion of the CSA population consists primarily of children who require mental health services.  They cannot otherwise obtain services because their health insurance is capped or limited, and because the community services boards (CSBs) lack sufficient state funding to meet children’s needs.  This is not a failing of the foster care system or CSA; it is a result of the lack of state investment and resources for children’s mental health services.

The City supports the provision of mental health services to children and their families through the existing publicly-funded mental health, mental retardation, and substance abuse services system.  The City opposes any efforts to create duplicate systems of services, or to require localities to pay higher match rates for serving children and adolescents with mental health needs.  The City supports greater state investment in the existing Mental Health Initiative program, which focuses on children and adolescents with mental health treatment needs, and greater flexibility in the use of these funds to meet the individual needs of children.  The City also supports creation of additional state-funded supports, including evaluation centers and technical support or treatment services from state hospital professionals to help communities better serve children.

The City supports full funding of CSA costs in the State’s base budget, with base allocations based on a realistic anticipated level of need, and supplemental funding reserved for extraordinary circumstances; and continuing State commitment to help fund CSA administrative costs at the community level.

State Funding for the Chesapeake Adult Drug Court

In the upcoming session the Supreme Court will request state funding for 10 additional drug courts that do not currently receive it.  This includes the Chesapeake Adult Drug Court pilot.  At present, our drug court is serving 8 participants with a target of 12.  They are non-violent felons with probation violations who have chosen to enter the 12-15 month program in lieu of imposition of sentence.  These participants are receiving intensive treatment and close monitoring to assist them in becoming productive members of the community.  Chesapeake’s drug court was founded in August 2005 with no additional funds and involves an active partnership of criminal justice agencies, the Community Services Board and other organizations.  In November 2006, Chesapeake received a one-year federal grant through the Supreme Court and is awaiting word as to whether there will be a second grant.  The addition of state support would provide a stable source of operational funding, which will allow the continuation of a coordinator and case manager, as well as support services which promote the adjustment of the participants in our community.

HUMAN SERVICES

The City of Chesapeake supports the Virginia Department of Social Services’ effort to fund increases in staffing positions at local agencies in order to keep up with increasing case load demands.

The City also requests that there be a legislative increase in the annual clothing allowance for foster children.  The amount of $300 for an annual clothing allowance has not changed for over twenty years and is inadequate for the clothing needs of children today.

The City of Chesapeake urges the State to provide additional funding for transit services. Improved transportation options are needed for social service clients, as well as, funding for additional transit routes for both clients who must come to the Social Service Office and clients seeking employment.

The Chesapeake Social Services Division has concerns with the barriers to human service providers sharing redundant customer information, which the customer has authorized to be shared. We request that the State remove electronic barriers to the sharing of this information. Along these lines, it is requested that the State continue to find ways to reduce the paperwork requirements, simplify program requirements and integrate requirements between State systems.

The City supports funding for client advocacy training.  We also recommend that State services be placed on the Internet so clients can review resources, apply for and change appointments and access services from their homes.

The City also supports the restoration of funding for Chesapeake Juvenile Services to the level prior to the cuts made in FY 03 and FY 04.

The City supports an amendment to the State Code that would make being listed on the central registry for child abuse and neglect a barrier to employment in a juvenile detention facility.

AGING 

As alternatives to institutionalization of the elderly, wherever appropriate, the State should fully fund community-based programs like companion services, respite care, homemaker services, adult day care and protective services for the elderly.  The City opposes any State efforts to require local governments to furnish additional services or to take on new administrative roles in the area of long-term care without full State funding for these responsibilities.

CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC NEED

In planning for the repeal of the Certificate of Public Need, it is important that certain critical issues be addressed.  These issues include: Preserving access to essential health services, such as obstetrics, emergency rooms and pediatric units; ensuring access to health care for indigent and uninsured patients; ensuring quality of care in health care settings outside of hospitals and nursing homes; ensuring access to rural health care; addressing the need for medical education; and addressing fair and equitable payment practices by State government (Medicaid).  Responsible health care planning means that solutions to these issues should be in place in advance of the repeal of COPN, to ensure a better health care system for all Virginians.

Transportation

TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

Adequate funding is critical to keep Virginia’s transportation system viable and responsive to both mobility and public safety needs now and in the future. 

The passage of House Bill 3202 and the creation of the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority (HRTA) have provided a funding mechanism for the regional package of projects in Hampton Roads.  The anticipated revenues that will be generated by the HRTA are still well below the amount needed to fully fund these projects in a timely manner.  Of greatest concern to the City of Chesapeake are the improvement of Interstate 64 and Dominion Boulevard, both of which are included in the HRTA.  The City urges the Virginia General Assembly to amend HB 3202 to include provisions for weighted voting rights to ensure that each locality is given a voice and presence commensurate with the percentage of revenue contributed to the Authority.

The City supports State funding to meet the demand for construction and maintenance of highways, bridges and other critical components of transportation, including transit.  The State should provide financial incentives to localities that advance locally funded projects - especially if toll funding is involved.  Localities have increasingly been required to fund a much larger percentage of transportation facility construction and maintenance costs.  Since 1994, the City has expended/committed well over $100 million for major construction projects, including the Oak Grove Connector ($37 million), Rt. 168/Chesapeake Expressway (urban funds - $45 million/ local funds – $28 million), Moses Grandy Trail ($20 million) and Cedar Road ($8 million).

The City urges the State to continue identifying appropriate funding sources for local and regional transportation projects through those means deemed most appropriate given the State’s and localities’ fiscal circumstances.

TRANSIT FUNDING

The City strongly encourages increased federal and State funding for transit systems without the reduction of funding for other transportation modes.  A larger, dedicated source of federal and State funding for transit - including funds for existing operating and capital needs as well as start-ups - remains a critical priority, particularly as requests for local participation continue to increase.

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

VDOT is working with local government representatives and others to draft Code amendments to increase pedestrian safety.  This may require drivers to stop for pedestrians at marked and unmarked crosswalks.  The City recommends that the Virginia Code be amended to clarify the respective rights and duties of pedestrians and vehicle drivers.  Drivers should be required to stop, not just yield, for pedestrians in all marked crosswalks.  In addition, police need the ability to issue simpler citations than currently allowed under Virginia law to more effectively enforce the laws against jay walking.

Public Safety

VICTIM/WITNESS PROGRAMS

Currently, the 106 grant funded Victim/Witness programs in Virginia are supported with a combination of federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funds, State special funds from the Virginia Crime Victim-Witness Fund (supported by fees on offenders), and for the first time in FY 08, $3.2 million in State General Funds.   For FY 08, grantees were instructed to request level funding.  For Chesapeake that meant $329,879.  In addition, the Chesapeake Sheriff’s Office dedicated $73,962 to ensure maintenance of effort in this program.

Victim/Witness programs are the only victim assistance programs with a Code responsibility to serve all types of crime victims, and to do so from within the criminal justice system.  The Victim/Witness staff makes the Victims Bill of Rights meaningful.  In Chesapeake, the program has assisted over 25,000     victims since 2000.

The Department of Criminal Justice Services (DJCS) maintains that award limitations are being implemented because “without them, we predict that DCJS will not have adequate state and federal funding to maintain current programs beyond FY 2008.”  This is another instance of the State shifting more and more funding responsibility to local governments.  Rather than the State insuring that these important programs are adequately funded, the responsibility is being shifted to the localities. In the 2005 Session, Senator Mims introduced SB 826 which would have increased from $3.00 to $6.00 the assessment that offenders pay. This legislation failed, even though Virginia has the lowest assessment for offenders in the nation. The City urges the State to provide the necessary funding for these programs by adopting legislation to increase the assessment to be paid by offenders, or through the general fund.

SHERIFF STAFFING

Virginia’s sheriffs are generally responsible for some or all of the following functions: operating the local jail, providing law enforcement, securing the courthouse, and serving civil papers.  The inadequate staffing of these functions has serious implications for the State and local governments relative to safety and security - for citizens, sheriffs’ staff, and inmates.  Issues of liability and civil rights of inmates are also concerns.  As stated in the 1990 JLARC Report “Statewide Staffing Standards for the Funding of Sheriffs,” the current process for funding sheriffs is a traditional budgeting and reimbursement process that has undergone little change in the past 50 years.  Although the Compensation Board uses the staffing standards set forth in the Appropriations Act in addition to sheriffs’ requests, significant discrepancies exist between State-recognized staffing levels and actual workload in various offices.  In order to provide for more appropriate staffing (both numbers and level of compensation), the City of Chesapeake supplements a large portion of the Sheriff’s budget for salaries and fringe benefits.

During the 1998 General Assembly Session, funding was provided to allow for an increase in staffing standards for law enforcement sheriff’s deputies from one per 2,000 persons to one per 1,500 persons. This impacted only those localities without police departments, mostly rural counties.  In contrast, staffing standards for sheriff’s deputies involved in jail operations, court security and service of process, all of which are impacted in fast growing localities, remain unchanged.

The City of Chesapeake urges the State to develop staffing standards for sheriffs that more accurately reflect actual workloads and requirements and that it fund the additional positions that such standards indicate are needed.

VIRGINIA JUVENILE COMMUNITY CRIME CONTROL ACT (VJCCCA)

Weakened State revenues led the 2002 General Assembly to reduce funding to VJCCCA by 51% for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.  As a result, the Tidewater Regional Group Home Commission has closed one of its group homes and eliminated its School Based Case Managers Program in Chesapeake, thereby reducing its staff by 36 positions.  The City is concerned that, as a result, there will be increased numbers of, and less appropriate commitments to, foster care (and therefore CSA) and local secure detention, at even higher costs to the state and local governments.  The City urges the General Assembly to return funding to VJCCCA if at all possible.  If funding cannot be restored, the City urges the General Assembly not to reduce funding to this program any further.

FIRE PROGRAM FUND

The Fire Program Fund was established by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the improvement of volunteer and salaried fire service operations in eligible counties, cities and towns.  The funds are used solely for training, fire prevention and public safety education, improving training facilities and purchasing personal protective equipment and supplies.  Funds are derived from assessments against all licensed insurance companies doing business in the Commonwealth.  The State Code sets the annual fee at one percent of the total gross premiums collected on property insurance, not including motor vehicle insurance.  Seventy-five percent of the collected fees are distributed to localities that maintain and provide fire services.  Distribution is based on population.  The Virginia Department of Fire Programs administers the fund.  The City of Chesapeake received $451,268 in 2006. 

Over the past several years, the Chesapeake Fire Department has used funds allocated from the Fire Programs Funds to purchase protective clothing, equipment and supplies.  These funds have been essential in allowing the department to provide the best possible protection for our personnel from the dangers associated with this occupation.

The City supports amending the Fire Program Fund legislation to include insurance premiums written on motor vehicles.

INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

The ability to communicate with local, state, and national organizations and resources is imperative when responding to and mitigating emergency events. A robust communications system that can effectively provide a medium for all organizations to seamlessly transfer information quickly and securely must be developed. According to “Why We Can’t Talk”, a document written by the National Task Force on Interoperability, helicopters operating over the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 warned police officers of the impending collapse of the towers, allowing hundreds of police officers to safely evacuate the structures before their collapse. Tragically, the New York Fire Department did not operate on the same radio system preventing them from receiving this critical information. A report form the University of New Hampshire stated, “From numerous interviews gathered as part of a Fire Department inquiry into the events of September 11th, it would appear that non-operability was, at least, partially responsible for the loss of 343 firefighters at the World Trade Center.”  Additional examples, from the tragedies at Columbine High School in Colorado and the bombing in Oklahoma City, all highlight examples of responders losing precious time because of ineffective non-operable communications systems. 

The City of Chesapeake supports the development of a communications system that is truly interoperable that allows a seamless transfer of information to all local, state, and federal resources and agencies.

IN-BUILDING ANTENNA SYSTEMS

The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is currently studying an amendment to the Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) that would require new and/or existing buildings to conduct evaluations of the structure and provide, where needed, in-building antenna systems to provide 800 MHZ communication coverage for Public Safety personnel.  This amendment will assist responders on the local level to communicate effectively in areas where they currently do not have coverage. The amendment will provide a foundation for a system that is reliable and provides a higher degree of safety for our Emergency Services members. The City of Chesapeake supports this amendment to the Uniform Statewide Building Code.

CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES IN SCHOOLS

In recent years there has been an increase in the number and severity of cases in which assaults and batteries have occurred involving schoolteachers, administrators and other education personnel.  In addition, it is becoming alarmingly commonplace for children to bring guns, knives and other weapons to school.  The effectiveness of the educational process suffers in this environment, and the ability of students to receive quality education is jeopardized.  The City of Chesapeake encourages the General Assembly to focus on the problems of violence in the classroom and take the necessary and appropriate actions to maintain an atmosphere in schools that is conducive to learning and personal development. 

PROJECT LIFESAVER

Project Lifesaver was established in April of 1999 as an initiative of the 43rd Virginia Search and Rescue Company of the Chesapeake's Sheriff's Office.  Project Lifesaver's mission is to use state of the art technology in assisting those who care for victims of Alzheimer's and Related Mental Dysfunction Disorders (ARMD) and victims who become lost.  These victims include the elderly and even the youngest in our community who are afflicted with Downs Syndrome and Autism.  Victims of ARMD tend to wander from their homes.  Project Lifesaver places personalized radio transmitters on identified persons with ARMD.  These transmitters assist caregivers and local emergency agencies in locating those who cannot help themselves.  Project Lifesaver has grown from its inception in Chesapeake to be regional, and now conducting efforts throughout the State of Virginia and the mid-Atlantic region.

The City supports State funding, through the Department of Criminal Justice Services, of $160,000 per year to coordinate and administer the Statewide Office for Project Lifesaver.  The Office would develop standards for training, conduct training and distribute equipment statewide.

OPEN CONTAINER PROHIBITION

Drinking and driving is a deadly combination.  Currently, Virginia Code Section 18.2-323.1 prohibits the drinking of alcohol while driving and creates a rebuttable presumption that the driver has consumed alcohol in violation of the section if: 1) there is an open container of alcohol in the passenger area of the vehicle; 2) the alcoholic beverage has been at least partially removed from the container; and 3) the driver's appearance, conduct, odor, speech or other characteristic can be reasonably associated with the consumption of alcohol.  While the amendment is helpful, its presumption does not go far enough.  In order to more effectively prevent the consumption of any alcohol while driving, the Virginia General Assembly should prohibit open containers of alcohol within the passenger area of a motor vehicle.

SAFETY BELT REQUIREMENT

An amendment to Section 46.2-1094 of the Code of Virginia is necessary to protect the lives and wellbeing of citizens of the Commonwealth and others traveling on the roadways within Virginia.  Currently, Virginia Code Section 46.2-1094 requires persons who are at least 16 years of age and riding in the front seat of a motor vehicle to wear a safety belt; however, law-enforcement officers are prohibited from enforcing this section, unless they have cause to stop or arrest the driver of the vehicle for some other violation.  Wearing seatbelts has proven to save lives.  To make this code section more effective in saving lives, law-enforcement officers need to be authorized to enforce Virginia Code Section 46.2-1094, without first being required to find that another law has been violated.

DISTRACTED DRIVING

The City supports the introduction of legislation that addresses the issue of distracted driving.

Environmental Quality

SOLID WASTE OR OTHER SURCHARGES

The City opposes any effort to impose a State fee on trash deposited in Virginia landfills. Although the purpose of such a surcharge may be laudable – for example, generating funds for open space preservation, water quality improvement, recycling, solid waste management, and the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields – it  would have major impacts on local government budgets.  If a $3 surcharge were imposed on all Chesapeake trash, it is estimated such a surcharge would cost the City of Chesapeake in excess of $300,000 a year, with no guarantee that any funds would be returned for local programs.

The City also opposes the imposition of a State fee or surcharge on water, sewer, or any other local government service.

WETLANDS

Due to the large extent of wetlands within its boundaries, the City of Chesapeake faces potential conflicts between its responsibility to provide essential services to its residents, maintain its economic viability and protect its valuable natural resources.  The City could fulfill its own local land use and environmental policy objectives if the State law were amended to allow the City to mitigate impacts in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed through the preservation and restoration of wetlands in the Southern portion of the City.  If the law were amended, there would be greater opportunities to allow higher density development in the North in exchange for preservation of unfragmented tracts of wetlands, habitat and riparian corridors in the Southern Watershed.  Special consideration should be given to Chesapeake, where wetland regulations may unintentionally exacerbate water quality problems by forcing new development into areas where ample, less expensive compensation opportunities exist.

---

Back to top of page