City Council

City of Chesapeake 2010
APPROVED Legislative Package

Policy Positions

City of Chesapeake - 2010 APPROVED Legislative Package

General Government

MARKING OF SEWER LATERALS

The State Corporation Commission (SCC), in 2008, issued a ruling that requires all local government entities that operate water and sewer lines to mark the lines so that other utilities will know their location prior to digging. The authority the SCC claimed for this is the Underground Utility Damage Protection Act (Act). This Act is commonly known as "Miss Utility". Specifically, the SCC claims the Act requires that local governments mark privately owned water and sewer lines, despite whether such lines exist in the public right-of-way or on private property. Numerous local governments across Virginia have taken exception to the SCC's interpretation. Throughout late 2008 and continuing into 2009, representatives of local governments have been meeting with the SCC staff on this issue to attempt to develop a working arrangement. Most of the local government representatives on the large panel have agreed to mark only those known municipal water and sewer lines that are located in the public right of way, and not on private property.

Usually, the sewer lateral and water line located on a customer's lot are owned by the customer, not the locality; therefore, the government agency has no easement for access. In some instances, private water and/or sewer lines are located in the public right-of-way; however, they are owned and operated by private entities. In these cases, the private entities should be required to mark their private water and/or sewer lines, despite whether they are located in the public right-of-way or on private property. Typically, the publicly-owned line stops at the property line, clean out or water meter.

Although numerous local governments across Virginia have expressed that the Act does not require local governments to mark privately owned water and sewer lines and that the SCC's interpretation is not grounded in the Act, the General Assembly should adopt legislation to clarify that the Act does not require local governments to mark private sewer or other lines located on private property or in the public right-of-way. Additionally, the General Assembly should clarify that the Act does not require local governments to mark underground utilities which it neither owns nor operates. Local governments accept responsibility for marking lines in the public right of way that they own and operate, when the location is known to them. Moreover, the Act should clearly state that, any damage to any line, whether located on public or private property, is the responsibility of the entity that caused the damage.

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 health, welfare and safety 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.

IMPACT FEES/CONDITIONAL ZONING

In the 2008 General Assembly Session, an impact fee bill was promoted by the homebuilding industry that, in the final draft, contained a starting point for impact fee authority, but contained caps on the amount per lot that could be charged and eliminated cash proffers in most instances. The bill, SB 768, passed the Senate by a narrow margin (21-19), and was carried over by the House Rules Committee. Had the bill become law, real estate tax rates could have increased and/or services been reduced in many localities to compensate for the loss of funding provided by new development. During the session, the concept of impact fees as a part of an overall program for local governments to handle growth issues was sent to a joint study committee by HJR 178 and SJR 70. The committee has until the start of the 2010 Session to develop recommendations on a wide range of growth management and infrastructure funding issues.

The General Assembly should enact laws to broaden impact fee authority to allow the assessment of the fees for all public infrastructure, including school construction costs, caused by growth. The City does not, however, support the loss of authority to accept cash proffers for residential rezonings, and impact fees provisions should be supplemental to cash proffers. A bifurcated system should be considered where cash proffers are used for rezoning applications and impact fees for by-right development. Impact fees should not be capped; fee amounts should be based on public facilities construction costs; and fees should be locality-specific. Any change must not shift the burden of paying for new infrastructure to existing citizens through increased real estate taxes.

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

Over the last several 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 City supports the efforts of the Joint Subcommittee to Study Long-Term Funding Sources for the Purchase of Development Rights to Preserve Open Space Land and Farmland to establish a dedicated funding source for open space conservation.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

The City supports legislation that would aid the State and local governments in providing incentives and supporting efforts to make their operations and communities more environmentally sustainable. Specifically, Chesapeake supports legislation that encourages the construction and operation of green buildings and encourages resource conservation and energy efficiency.

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 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 current phase of the project is also financed through a cost-share agreement and includes advanced engineering and design for the sediment remediation work at Scuffletown Creek in the South Norfolk area of the City.

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 the 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, and expanded authority concerning spot blight abatement.

Finance

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, but at the very least, the State should not reduce the annual reimbursement amount further.

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.

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 reduce 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.

Some 65 percent of all Virginians depend on local police departments for public safety services. The HB 599 program pays for the equivalent of more than 2,600 police officers across the state. Based on FY 06 data, the '599' program makes up almost 20 percent of Virginia's cities' law enforcement budgets, 14 percent of eligible counties' law enforcement budgets, and 34 percent of the law enforcement budgets for eligible towns. Reducing or eliminating the program would negatively affect almost two-thirds of the state's population.

The current Appropriations Act directs the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget to impose across the board cuts on cities and counties of $50 million each year, with HB 599 as one of the local financial programs to be reduced. It is likely that the Governor, or the General Assembly, or both will seek to further reduce or even eliminate the program in the 2010 session. The City urges continued state financial support of the 599 program in accordance with the provisions set out in the Code of Virginia and opposes 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.

1. SPECIAL USE EXCEPTIONS IN CERTAIN COUNTIES

The City opposes the adoption of HB 1362 which was carried-over and would provide that in Fauquier County a zoning ordinance shall not require that a special exception or special use permit be obtained for any residential use at the density for which it is zoned in any residential, agricultural or conservation zone.

2. STATE COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has entered into a leasing arrangement with AT&T for the construction of communication towers along interstate highways. Neither VDOT nor AT&T obtained conditional use permits for the towers as required by Section 13-602 of the Chesapeake Zoning Ordinance. VDOT maintained that the towers are State facilities exempt from compliance with local zoning ordinances under the doctrine of sovereignty. VDOT also maintained that the towers are exempt from review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan under Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia. A similar problem arose with respect to wetlands mitigation projects for State highway improvements.

In 1998, Senator Quayle introduced SB 473 amending Sections 15.2-2232, 15.2-2280 and 56-458 of the Code of Virginia to require comprehensive plan consistency review for communication towers and related facilities on VDOT rights-of-way and for the creation or preservation of wetlands in mitigation of state-funded highway projects. The bill was carried over due to strong opposition from VDOT and the telecommunications industry. VDOT has voiced concern that consistency review and other land use regulations will result in delay and increased costs for road projects. A less objectionable approach may be to require, at the very least, notice to localities, and consideration of local zoning, land use and development regulations and policies in the siting of communication towers on State property and wetlands mitigation for State highway construction projects.

3. TELECOMMUNICATIONS

The telecommunications industry is changing rapidly. Decisions about the siting or placement of certain telecommunications equipment (towers, monopoles, satellite dishes, etc.) have significant impact on the physical appearance of a locality and the health, safety and general welfare of its citizens. Zoning and other placement decisions must be made at the local level, by the local government. Neither the State nor Federal Government, nor any regulatory agency, should preempt or circumvent local government's historical control over land-use decisions.

4. BUILDING CODES

The Commonwealth sets the minimum level for building code standards; however, minimum levels do not always meet local needs in terms of safety. The City urges the General Assembly to authorize localities in the Hampton Roads area to adopt local building codes that provide for greater public protection due to the area's vulnerability to hurricane damage.

Also, at present, any buildings existing prior to the effective date of the initial edition of the of the Uniform Statewide Building Code are exempt from current fire suppression system requirements unless the building code official determines that an unsafe or unhealthy condition exists (Section 1000.5.1 of Volume II of the 1987 Edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code). Certain buildings, however, by the very nature of their occupancy, should require fire suppression systems regardless of when constructed. Examples include\: buildings used for certain types of public assembly such as dance hall, nightclubs and theaters where crowding and restricted egress may occur; buildings used for the care of the disabled and elderly, where occupants are particularly susceptible to death or injury due to the need of physical assistance; and structures used to house hazardous materials, where there is an increased likelihood of fire occurrence. The City of Chesapeake supports amendment of Section 36-99.6 of the Uniform Statewide Building Code to allow localities to provide for more stringent standards for fire suppression systems.

5. REVITALIZATION/REDEVELOPMENT

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

6. COMMISSION ON THE CONDITION AND FUTURE OF VIRGINIA'S CITIES

HJR 432, adopted by the 1998 General Assembly, provides for the establishment of a Commission to conduct a two-year study of a wide array of issues relative to the condition of Virginia's cities. One area of analysis is the governing structure of Virginia's cities. The City supports including under this analysis, research and consideration of the possibility of the General Assembly granting cities with populations of 150,000 and above the option to elect full-time mayors within the council-manager form of government.

During this time, when the responsibilities of the different levels of government are being evaluated and changed, with ever more responsibility being shifted to local governments, it is appropriate to reexamine the issue of relaxing the Dillon Rule to the extent necessary to allow local governments to meet their responsibilities in State/local partnerships.

This is also an opportune time to reexamine the existing framework for delivering services at the State and local levels and the revenue structure that supports those services. With this ever increasing shift downward of service responsibility, the question must be addressed as to the advisability and fairness of mandating that the level of government with the least revenue source options, and those options which are most regressive, be the one required to shoulder the greatest service provision responsibility. The State should look to redirecting a greater portion of its existing revenues to the local level. Local government is that government which is closest to the people. It is in the best position to seek input from its citizens and set priorities. Redirecting more of current revenues to the local level will provide for more efficient and effective services.

7. VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM

The City supports changing the definition of creditable service for the Virginia Retirement System to include accumulated annual and/or sick leave credit and allowing members to receive service credit for their unused annual/sick leave benefit. Any member, upon retirement from the system with five or more years of creditable service, could utilize, by local option, any unused portion of their accrued annual and/or sick leave balance to receive up to two years of creditable service. Service credit for unused annual/sick leave would not be used to determine if a member qualifies for a benefit but as an "add on" upon retirement.In the City of Chesapeake's case, this could substitute for the current practice of providing a lump sum payment of up to $5,000 to employees for unused sick leave and payment for unused accumulated annual leave up to 36 days. The City also supports amendment to Section 51.1-505B to increase the amount of life insurance for a retired member to fifty percent of annual compensation. Currently members' life insurance is reduced upon retirement to a total of 25 percent of the member's annual compensation.

8. JOB REFERENCE IMMUNITY

The City of Chesapeake is keenly aware that prevention measures designed to reduce the potential for acts of workplace violence and other types of misconduct are the responsibility of the employer. The hiring decision is a significant aspect of prevention. The City, however, is finding it increasingly difficult to obtain meaningful reference information from former employers due to their fear of suits by the former employee.

Thirty-one states have adopted job reference immunity laws, the purpose being to allow an employer, in writing, to disclose information on job performance of an employee, that is documented in an official personnel file, to a prospective employer at the written request of the prospective employer or the employee. Employers will not be held liable for the disclosure or its consequences and will be presumed to be acting in good faith, unless lack of good faith is shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Employers disclosing information in good faith are immune from civil liability for the disclosure. The good faith presumption may be rebutted upon showing that the employer disclosed false or misleading information recklessly, knowingly, or with malicious purpose, or disclosed information subject to a nondisclosure agreement of information that is confidential under any Federal or State law.

During the 1998 General Assembly Session, SB 474 (Quayle) and HB 907 (Sherman), which would provide for job reference immunity, were carried-over. The City supports adoption of job reference immunity legislation.

9. YEAR 2000 IMMUNITY

The 1998 General Assembly passed HB 277 which extends immunity to the Commonwealth and its agencies for liability arising out of the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer issue. Any system using dates to calculate eligibility, expiration or installments (i.e., tax or utility payments, court docket scheduling, pension calculations, salaries) may present serious problems. Also security, elevator, traffic signal, heating and air conditioning and other systems using an electronic calculator as a timing device are vulnerable. Local governments should be afforded the same immunity for liability arising from this issue as the State. Local governments are not looking for a shield to justify not making a good faith effort to become Y2K compliant, but rather, a safeguard should good faith efforts not be totally successful.

10. UNINSURED MOTORIST ACT

Concern has been expressed by some with regard to Virginia's uninsured motor vehicles law. A major area of concern is the requirement to pay an "uninsured motorists premium" in order to maintain valid insurance on registered vehicles. At the same time, those registering vehicles who do not have insurance must pay a fee of $500. The City of Chesapeake supports a study of this issue with regard to the reasonableness of Virginia's present system.

11. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT - INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

The Constitution of Virginia does not currently provide for enactment of state statutes by initiative or for nullification of laws enacted by the General Assembly by referendum. Also, only some localities in Virginia provide for initiative and referendum. A Constitutional amendment is required to provide for the above and Constitutional amendments must pass the General Assembly twice, in years separated by an election, before going to the voters. The City supports introduction of a Constitutional amendment resolution to establish procedures for indirect initiative measures to enact state statues and for referenda to nullify laws or sections of laws enacted by the General Assembly. The amendment should also require the General Assembly to provide for local initiative and referendum power to be exercised by voters of counties, cities and towns on local legislative matters.

JOBS INVESTMENT PROGRAM

The Virginia Jobs Investment Program (formerly known as Workforce Services) of the Virginia Department of Business Assistance is a proven, well-run and highly-respected economic development incentive. Despite a 39% decrease in funding since FY 2002, the Virginia Jobs Investment Program has more than doubled its project load.

Between the years 2004 - 2008, the state's Virginia Jobs Investment Program provided assistance to twenty firms in the City of Chesapeake:

• 12 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 Virginia Jobs Investment 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, the Virginia Jobs Investment 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 Virginia Jobs Investment Program will need to be increased. The 2009-10 budget proposes only level funding for the Virginia Jobs Investment Program, when projections estimate that $12 million is actually needed to restore the program to "pre-cut" levels. The City supports increased funding for the Virginia Jobs Investment 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.

FUNDING FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS

The City is cognizant of the current economic realities. State and local government budgets are stressed, as well as those of the private sector and our citizens. In the past, when economic times were better, the State would fund "non-state agency" groups - mostly for cultural and historic preservation projects. If and when the State finds itself in the position to provide funding to such groups again, the City would request that consideration be given to the following projects: the Chesapeake Arboretum; the Great Bridge Battlefield and Waterways Park and Visitor Center; and the Great Dismal Swamp Wildlife Refuge: Chesapeake Visitor's Center.

Education and Human Development

EDUCATION FUNDING

In the 2009 session, the General Assembly cut $600 million of general fund support for K-12 education - almost 10 percent of the state dollars for education. The reduction was partially offset by the infusion of $365 million in federal stimulus dollars, which resulted in a 4.2 percent decline in direct aid for education. State financial officials believe the general recovery will be low key with new employment lagging behind. To cope with constrained revenues and increasing education costs, State policy-makers are examining the policies behind the state's financial commitment. The General Assembly instructed the Board of Education to review the current Standards of Quality to evaluate the appropriateness of the existing staffing standards for instructional positions and the appropriateness of establishing ratio standards for support positions. The findings of this review, the associated costs, and the final recommendations for re-benchmarking will be submitted to the governor, the Chairmen of House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees and the Joint Subcommittee on Elementary and Secondary Education Funding no later than Nov. 1, 2009.

It appears the State is looking at how much it funds salaries and benefits, as well as the number of teachers, administrators and support personnel. Approximately 79 percent of SOQ funding is for salaries and benefits. Re-benchmarking required approximately $1 billion in additional state dollars in each of the last two bienniums. Across the Commonwealth, localities are spending $3 billion more each year than is required to qualify for State Standards of Quality (SOQ) funding. On a percentage basis, localities spend 82 percent more than is required by the State to meet minimum SOQ standards. In fact, the "extra" local dollars account for 22 percent of the total spending for public education from all funding sources. The "extra" local dollars go toward teacher salaries not recognized by the SOQ and for at-risk students, smaller classes, and State Board of Education mandates not funded at all in the Standards of Quality.

In an economic climate with falling real estate and car values, and reduced sales and business taxes and fees, local governments will find it extremely difficult to backfill any significant decline of state support. In the past, the State has shifted funding responsibility to the localities. Examples of this are: 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; elimination of State funding for 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.

The City supports full funding of state education programs, including the Standards of Quality, incentive, categorical, and school facilities programs. The City opposes changes in methodology and changes in the division of financial responsibility that result in a shift of funding responsibility from the state to localities. As an example, the City strongly opposes the elimination or decrease of state funding for benefits for school employees. The City also strongly opposes a permanent cap on State funding for support positions. Preliminary estimates of what the State will recognize as its share of updating the cost of meeting educational standards for the 2010-2012 biennium range from $138.6 million to $892.9 million, according to data presented to the state Board of Education on July 23. The $138.6 million includes a possible permanent cap on the number of support positions funded by the State; the $892.9 million figure does not. The current budget included the cap as a way to save the state money, but it also instructed the Department of Education to calculate rebenchmarking costs without the spending limit. The cap eliminates state funding for approximately 13,500 positions.

In summary, the City opposes any actions that lower state contributions to education under the Standards of Quality or other programs, but do nothing to address the cost of meeting the requirements in the Standards of Accreditation and Standards of Learning. Changes in methodology do nothing to lower what it costs to educate students. These changes only affect who pays what. If the State cannot provide its share of funding for education, the State should undertake an examination of its educational requirements to determine which can be modified, phased out or eliminated. The State should not continue to maintain and increase educational requirements while at the same time decreasing state funding.

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. In the current economic conditions, the community college has become even more important as an alternative for our youth pursuing their college degrees and to citizens seeking workforce training to equip themselves for new careers.

To that end, the City and Tidewater Community College have established 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; continued support for the newly constructed Regional Automotive 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 applauds the State Board's funding for a new academic building and a student center at the Chesapeake Campus and endorses and supports funding 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. For FY 2008/09 full funding would have meant $318,086 for Chesapeake's libraries but the actual grant was $215,778, a difference of $102,308. This additional funding would have meant the addition of over 4,000 new items being added to the collection or approximately 100 additional computers. For FY 2009/10, the Chesapeake Public Library is expected to receive State Aid in the amount of $211,393, which is $4,385 less that the previous fiscal year. The General Assembly is urged to fully fund State Aid to Virginia Public Libraries for FY 2010.

MENTAL HEALTH, INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES, 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. We have:

• 308 individuals on our mental health outpatient waiting list;
• 26 individuals on our psychiatric services waiting list. The wait for non-urgent psychiatric services has been as long as 10 months;
• 165 persons with intellectual disabilities (ID) on the ID Waiver waiting list; 56 of them are on the Urgent list. There are over 2,000 on the statewide Urgent list; and
• 11 people with intellectual disabilities waiting for vouchers for vocational services.

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

ID Waiver Slots - We have 56 persons on the Medicaid Waiver Urgent Care waiting list, and there are over 2200 on the statewide list. We know you have heard from some of the parents of these individuals. The families and the individuals that need the services are desperate. Many of the families can no longer provide the care and support to their loved ones. Rather than having an orderly system of helping individuals with intellectual disabilities to transition to other services, the current system forces families to wait until they are at a crisis point. When the families are too ill or no longer with us, the individual with an intellectual disability is required to make an emergency change in their living situation without the support of their families. When a crisis occurs and we do not have any waiver slots, individuals are placed in living situations that do not meet their needs, such as assisted living facilities or nursing homes. The lack of waiver slots also puts significant pressure on the state training centers just at the time they are being downsized. By not creating an adequate number of waiver slots, the General Assembly has created a bad faith relationship with the families. Families were encouraged not to place their loved ones in state facilities with the promise that services would be available when they are needed. Now the services are needed, the state is not fulfilling its part of the bargain. We request support to ensure that, each year, 1200 individuals with intellectual disabilities can live productive lives in a community setting through funding for 800 ID Waiver slots in addition to the 400 in the current Appropriations Act.

Rapid/Crisis Care for Persons with Emergency Services Needs - The lack of available secure residential services for persons with serious needs is an urgent issue in this state. We had an individual stay five days in the emergency room at Chesapeake Regional Medical Center while we desperately tried to find a place that would accept this individual under a temporary detention order. There are still instances where individuals stay more than 24 hours in emergency rooms due to no TDO bed availability. Since January 1, 2007 we have had to release eight persons who were mentally ill and dangerous to themselves or others because we could not find a bed in the four hour time frame of the emergency custody order. In two other cases the individual with mental illness went to jail because we could not find a secure facility. We request support to adequately fund the CSBs to meet their legal obligation to provide mental health services in the least restrictive environment and continue the effort to serve residents with acute care mental health needs in local, community based services by ensuring that additional individuals receive acute care for mental health disorders in a community setting rather than in a state hospital by funding Local Inpatient Purchase of Service (LIPOS) and Crisis Stabilization Services.

Services for Older Adults - While the number of older adults in the city is growing, state resources for older adults with mental illness are shrinking. The Hancock unit of Eastern State Hospital was rebuilt in 2007 and decreased in size from 210 to 150 beds. Currently Chesapeake Regional Medical Center often has persons stay in their unit 30 or 40 days (versus the 10 they are paid for) because they cannot find a placement for these individuals and they can't move them to Eastern State. There is a variety of services needed including day programs and residential programs.

Jail Diversion Programs - The incarceration of individuals with mental illness and substance abuse disorders is a multifaceted problem. In order to address the problem, a multi-pronged effort is necessary. Jail Diversion programs provide a variety of services to persons with psychiatric and co-occurring (mental illness and substance abuse) disorders who are arrested on minor offenses. The services can range from diverting individuals that would be placed in jail for minor offenses committed as a result of their mental illness, to working with persons in the jail to assist them in receiving services in the jail (for example restoration to competency so that an individual can receive a hearing on their offense) and to link individuals with appropriate treatment when they are released from jail. The purpose of jail diversion programs is to avoid the unnecessary criminalization and extended incarceration of non-violent adult offenders with mental illnesses and to reduce recidivism of persons with mental illness by providing access to appropriate treatment.

A jail setting is not designed to be a treatment environment. However, if incarcerated, individuals with mental illness and substance abuse problems should have the best treatment available to address their problems. Clients are much more likely to take their prescribed medications in a hospital setting. In our region, it routinely takes more than 6 months from the time of arrest until the mentally ill person is transferred to a state hospital. During this time many of these persons are not taking psychiatric medications and their illness becomes more ingrained. This results in a longer recovery period and a decreased likelihood of recovering to their former level of functioning. These "charges" could be avoided by a jail diversion program with access to available hospital beds where appropriate treatment and transitional community integration and follow up can occur. We request support to adequately fund programs to continue our effort to serve individuals whose acute care mental health needs lead to illegal behaviors in appropriate locally based treatment setting by ensuring that additional individuals (numbers to be developed) with mental illness/substance use disorders who have intersections with the criminal justice system receive treatment and interventions which appropriately address their mental health through funding for service plans that include: Crisis intervention training for law enforcement; jail diversions programs; mobile crisis teams; and restoration of capacity.

Prevention of Underage Alcohol Consumption - Community Builders Network (CBN) of Virginia, a statewide advocacy organization for substance abuse prevention, has recommended a joint House and Senate resolution to evaluate Virginia's current prevention efforts and future needs. We request support to implement the recommendations of the CBN to the General Assembly in 2010 session to: Change the current Virginia Code to require ABC to allocate a specific percentage of revenue earned to support primary substance abuse prevention efforts throughout the state; Budget $4.8 million ($100,000 non-discretionary funds per CSB) to develop partnerships with community coalitions to develop local strategies to prevent underage drinking. (Note: Funding awarded only after having submitted a comprehensive strategy with sufficient accountability and outcome measures detailed. Continuation funding awarded only to communities demonstrating positive outcomes.). Also, Reduce the toll substance use disorders will have on families in the future by developing and delivering evidence-based prevention services to individuals through funding for service plans that include: Provider training and education in evidence-based practices; Staff positions devoted to the development of partnerships with Community Based Organizations and the promotion of Community Based Planning; Program evaluation; and Drinking prevention initiatives for school-aged youth.

Services for Children and Adolescents - In FY 03 when the state and city cut their funding to the CSB, virtually all Children's Mental Health services were eliminated. Since that time there have been no initiatives to replace those services. Funding from the state has focused on downsizing the facilities and services to adults with serious mental illness or persons with mental retardation. The City has been unable to provide any new service funding for a number of years. We are 37th of 40 in the Commonwealth related to funding CSB children's services.

We request support to divert children and adolescents from inappropriate care in congregate residential settings including juvenile detention centers, residential treatment centers, and state hospitals through funding for service plans that include: Crisis stabilization; School-based mental health services; Care coordination for families; Day treatment; and Targeted case management.

COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT

Local government's role in administering and funding a share of costs for the Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk Youth and Families (CSA) continues to change; localities face potential additional changes as the result of executive and legislative studies. Concerning CSA, the City supports the following:

Comprehensive Services Program: Foster Care - The General Assembly should adopt language to sharply limit the use of foster care for the treatment of truancy, delinquency, or other social problems not related to abuse, neglect, or abandonment of children. However, a funded alternative should be provided to address these concerns, for which funds are limited.

Match Rate Changes - The City supports legislation to reduce the administrative complexity of CSA. The City further supports greater funding for the state's matching share of actual administrative costs and legislative action to designate all truly community-based CSA services to the community-based service rate.

Expanding Community-based Services - The City supports allowing up to five percent of a locality's CSA funding, based upon a three-year rolling average, to be used to establish or expand community-based services at the discretion of the local Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT). Appropriate state agencies should provide technical assistance to communities. Unused funds in a given year should be allowed to carry forward to the next year for needed program development.

Training - The state has a responsibility to provide continual training on CSA. The state should make available training to CSA coordinators and staff, CPMT and Family Assessment and Planning Team (FAPT) members, staff of CSA partner agencies and local government officials. Training also should be open to other service providers or vendor staff.

STATE FUNDING FOR THE CHESAPEAKE ADULT DRUG COURT

At present, our drug court is serving 8 participants with a target of 8. 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. We currently fund one temporary employee through the use of State substance abuse general funds. Sustained State funding for the existing drug courts that receive State funding, as well as the continued growth of drug courts in Virginia, is strongly supported. We also support a request of $150,000 in State funding to fund the second year of the statewide drug court evaluation.

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 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.

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. This year, at the start of the Fourth of July holiday, simultaneous events at the three major Hampton Roads crossings resulted in movement throughout the region coming to a complete standstill. This event served to highlight the enormous difficulties that the region would face in the event of the need to evacuate the area.

In April of this year, diesel tax collections, motor vehicle sales tax collections, recordation tax revenue, and vehicle registrations were down 14.5 percent, 28.2 percent, 47 percent and 11.4 percent respectively, from April 2008. The cost to replace all of the state's deficient bridge structures is $3.7 billion. This does not include obsolete infrastructure. The cost to address immediate interstate and primary pavement needs is $1 billion. To address these challenges, the state anticipates only minimal revenue growth over the next six years. For example, federal revenue is only expected to increase annually by 0.6 percent.

Without the prospect of additional revenue, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved a VDOT initiative to reduce the highway construction program over the next six-years and to cut positions and certain road maintenance services and programs. Scarce construction dollars will focus on safety, pavements and bridges. If a highway project cannot qualify for federal funds, it will not be funded. The maintenance program's annual growth, including maintenance payments to cities, counties and towns, will be curtailed from 4 percent to 3 percent. VDOT's ability to meet core priorities in the future is severely compromised. The transportation secretary, commissioner and VDOT's chief financial officer stated clearly that the agency will not be able to:

• match all federal funds; will not be able to fund industrial road and rail spur access for economic development projects;
• pay for projects to relieve traffic, transit or rail congestion; and
• provide incentives for localities to improve land use and transportation decisions.

The dire revenue situation will almost certainly force the State to re-examine its relationship with local governments regarding transportation and a number of actions are possible. For example, localities could be required to match state maintenance dollars, provide a greater local match for certain construction projects or forfeit the revenue-sharing program. The State could also remove itself from any maintenance role of secondary and urban roads.

Many localities are already providing more and more in local funding to meet State transportation needs. 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 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. 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.

BRIDGE FUNDING

There are several major branches of the Elizabeth River within the City of Chesapeake including the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIW). As such, bridges, especially moveable spans with their ancillary high cost of construction, operation and maintenance, represent a significant fiscal burden. Chesapeake has 160 bridges, 90 of which are operated and maintained by the City. Of those 90, four are drawbridges. In 2005, there were twelve bridges considered in the "poor to very poor" category. This number grew to seventeen in 2006, with three bridges having single digit sufficiency ratings. Much of the traffic using these bridges is defense related, including numerous commuters to the Norfolk Naval Base, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Naval Security Activity-Northwest and St. Julian's Creek Naval Annex. Given the lack of capacity on the Interstate system, many motorists routinely divert onto our local roadway network and across our bridges. In 2008, the existing Jordan Bridge was permanently closed to traffic due to its advanced age and severe deterioration.

The negative impact of traffic congestion is felt greatest when time is truly of the essence. For both emergency response and hurricane evacuation efforts, congestion delays can be a matter of life or death. A Katrina-level hurricane would be devastating. The inability to assist our residents due to congestion in such a scenario would be untenable. Presently there are twelve bridges in the City that, due to weight restrictions, pose problems for emergency response times as public safety vehicles are forced to take circuitous routes to return to service.

Without question, transportation represents by far the most critical element in the delivery of services, economic expansion and the very high quality of life enjoyed in Chesapeake, the region and the Commonwealth. Additional bridge funding is essential to ensure the integrity of our transportation system. The City supports additional funding for bridge construction, operations, and maintenance to offset this costly burden.

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

FUNDING FOR OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

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 9.87 employees.

The City of Chesapeake urges the State to 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.

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.

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 FY 10, $3.1 million in State General Funds. For FY 10, grantees were advised that the VOCA Funding has been increased and that the 8% reduction in FY 09 would be restored. For Chesapeake that meant $329,879. In addition, Chesapeake will dedicate approximately $68,597 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 30,900 victims since 2000.

On a number of occasions, legislation has been introduced to increase from $3.00 to $6.00 the assessment that offenders pay which goes to fund this program. This legislation fails, even though Virginia has the lowest assessment for offenders in the nation. As this program has been a target for reduction in the past, and in order to ensure that the State continues to adequately fund this important program, the City urges the State to provide the necessary funding by adopting legislation to increase the assessment to be paid by offenders, or through an increase in the general fund.

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, and funding continues to be reduced. 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 reinstatement of the School Based Case Managers Program is a priority for the Commission. The program provided services to all Chesapeake high schools and some middle schools. Students were provided with support and prevention services. Students referred to the program were at risk for truancy, dropping out, poor academic performance, and behavioral problems. One of its greatest strengths was its collaboration with the Schools and Court Services Unit. Most importantly, however, was its ability to identify and intervene in gang activity in the school. 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.

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.

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.

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 $542,043 for 2009.

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.

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.

GANG PREVENTION PILOT PROJECT

The City is experiencing an increasing presence of gang activity. The Chesapeake Police Department estimates there are 26-30 identified gangs in Chesapeake, with an estimated 500 members in their data base. In 2008 there were 29 gang-related arrests, in crimes such as robberies, homicides, drugs, and felonious assault. This number represents a significant increase from 4 gang-related arrests in 2006.

As part of the practical and proactive approach for eliminating the spread of gangs in the City of Chesapeaek, the Mayor and the City Council appointed the Mayor's Task Force for the Prevention of Gangs in May 2006. The Task Force is charged with informing and educating the community about the potential gang-related problems and to identify and recommend actions and strategies to prevent gand activities. Activities sponsored by the task force include: establishing public awareness campaign: NOW - "Not On Our Watch" Logo, Website, and Educational and Informational Booklet; hold annual Education and Awareness Community Forum; provided over 200 educational and awareness presentations; established the NOW Certification Program - certifying citizens, faith-based, business, public and private organizations that attend the City's sponsored gang training; and bi-annual gang training for sworn police officers to ensure that officers are knowledgeable about gang trends, signs, and gang-related activities.

The City supports funding for community based programs to provide prevention and intervention programs relative to gangs. Preventive programs would consist of positive alternatives for middle school and high school youth. Intervention programs would provide options for active gang members wishing to change their gang lifestyle.

Environmental Quality

URANIUM MINING

Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining. The current price of uranium ore has prompted the owners of a large deposit near Chatham, Virginia to request the moratorium be lifted. On May 21, 2009 the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's uranium mining subcommittee approved a study to explore whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the Commonwealth. A top priority of the study will be to determine whether the tailings pose an unacceptable safety and health risk to Virginians and would have the potential to contaminate water supplies. The other top priority is a review of national and global trends in the uranium market in order to assess the economic viability of mining uranium. Water supply contamination as a result of the mining process is a particular concern of nearby and downstream residents, including the Hampton Roads metropolitan region. It is expected that upon completion of the study, legislation to lift the moratorium may be introduced in the General Assembly.

The City urges the State to maintain the current moratorium on uranium mining until such time as conclusive evidence demonstrates that it is safe for the environment and the health of the State's citizens.

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 un-fragmented 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.