City of Portsmouth, Virginia
2017 Virginia General Assembly
Legislative Package
Adopted
October 25, 2016
Portsmouth City Council
The Honorable Kenneth I. Wright, Mayor The Honorable Paige D. Cherry, Vice Mayor The Honorable William E. Moody, Jr. The Honorable Curtis E. Edmonds, Sr. The Honorable Elizabeth M. Psimas The Honorable Danny W. Meeks The Honorable Dr. Mark Whittaker
City Manager’s Office
Dr. L. Pettis Patton, City Manager Ms. Alice M. Kelly, Chief Financial Officer Mr. LaVoris A. Pace, Deputy City Manager Mr. Vincent E. Jones, Deputy City Manager
City Attorney’s Office
Mr. Soloman H. Ashby, Jr., City Attorney
City Clerk
Mrs. Debra Y. White, CMC, City Clerk
Intergovernmental Affairs Manager
Ms. Sherri L. Neil
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 2
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY DELEGATION
Senator L. Louise Lucas, 18th Senatorial District General Assembly Building – Room 426 P.O. Box 396 - Richmond VA 23218 Email: [email protected] Phone: (804) 698-7518 - Fax: (804) 698-7651
Legislative Assistant: Gail Henderson
Senator Mamie E. Locke, 2nd Senatorial District General Assembly Building – Room - 427 P.O. Box 396 - Richmond, VA 23218 Email: [email protected] Phone: (804) 698-7502 - Fax: (804) 698-7651
Legislative Assistant: Theressa E. Parker
Senator John A. Cosgrove, 14th Senatorial District General Assembly Building – Room 323 P.O. Box 396 - Richmond VA 23218 Email: [email protected] Phone: (804) 698-7514 - Fax: (804) 698-7651
Legislative Assistant: Christie New Craig
Delegate Matthew James 80th House District General Assembly Building – Room 814 P.O. Box 406 - Richmond VA 23218 Email: [email protected] Phone: (804) 698-1080 - Fax: (804) 698-6780
Legislative Assistant: Kim Rollins
Delegate Stephen E. Heretick 79th House District General Assembly Building – Room 809 P.O. Box 406 - Richmond VA 23218 Email: [email protected] Phone: (804) 698-1079 - Fax (804) 698-6779
Legislative Assistant: Joseph Waymack
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 3
Portsmouth City Council 2017 State Legislative Package
Table of Contents
Page #
Preface and Resolution 5 - 8
Legislative Requests:
A. Update 1999 JLARC Study- 10 - 11 VPA’s Impact on its Host Cities B. Economic Incentive Grants for Host Cities of VPA 12 C. Amend VA Code Section 37.2-505 13 -14 D. Amend VA Code Section 19.2-169.6 15 E. Amend VA Code Section 15.2-2303.4.E.(i) 16 F. Charter Change: Dissolution of Civil Service Commission 16
Local, Regional and Statewide Public Policy Statements: 17 - 26 (Not listed by priority)
• Regional Summer Enrichment Program • Establishing a State Resiliency Officer for Recurrent Flooding • Preservation of the current Historic Tax Credits program • Retention of local control: 5-G broadband expansion and Airbnb businesses • Constitutional amendment abolishing forfeiture of voting rights by people convicted of felonies • FOIA – Oppose Publishing of Names and Salaries of Public Employees • Let’s Open Doors Movement • Elimination of BPOL & M&T Taxes • Virginia Port Authority – Virginia International Gateway • Enterprise Zones • Public Transit Funding – Hampton Roads Transit • K-12 Education Funding • Host Cities of the VPA – Equitable Funding • Governor’s Community Wealth Building Fund • Road Maintenance Funding Formula – Bicycle Lanes
2017 Legislative Package Endorsements 28
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 4
Preface
It is with great pleasure that we, the Portsmouth City Council, once again respectfully submit to our General Assembly Delegation our 2017 State Legislative Package for your review, consideration and support of the items contained within. This package of legislative initiatives were thoroughly vetted by city staff and City Council. On October 25, 2016 this Council passed this package by unanimous vote. The information contained within is in accordance with, and reflects the City Council’s 2030 Vision Principles: Innovation and Change A Robust and Prospering Economy Leading Maritime Community Lifelong Learning Community Sustainable Neighborhoods Enhanced Quality of Life Efficient Service Delivery Proud Military History Pride of Past Core Values
The legislative initiatives contained within this package are of great importance to our City. These requests, along with our public policy positions reflects the needs and concerns of our citizens. We ask that you take this information and use it as a guideline for representing the citizens of Portsmouth when deliberating on these and other legislative and budgetary matters during the 2017 legislative session.
As for the budget, we understand and acknowledge the fact that there is a shortfall in revenues at the state level. We know that these funding gaps will have to be closed in order to have a balanced biennium budget. However, when considering where to make the cuts in the budget, we ask that you do not cut any of the following:
K12 Education - Our current budget for all funds = $95.2 million. Any reduction to the various state funds for this core service will directly impact the operations and programs to all of our Portsmouth Public Schools. Law Enforcement (599 Funds) – we are currently budgeted at $5.78 million annually. Any reduction to this funding will directly impact our Public Safety (Police) programs and operations. Transportation (VDOT) – We currently receive $12.397 million for various transportation related projects. Any reduction to this funding will directly impact our transportation operational budget and our Capital Improvement projects.
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 5
Constitutional Officers (Sheriff, Treasures, Commissioner of Revenue, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Circuit Court Clerk) – Total current state aid received for all Constitutional Officers is $9.07 million annually. Any reduction to this funding will directly impact the services provided by these Constitutional Officers. Personal Property Tax Relief - We currently receive $9.86 million from the state to offset this tax relief given to citizens. Any reduction in this funding will directly impact all of our general fund services to include education, public safety, general government, community and economic development, public works and general services. Correctional Facility Block Grant - Sheriff’s budget – currently $1.06 million. Any reduction to this funding will directly impact the services provided within the Portsmouth City Jail. Behavioral Health Services (Mental Health, Mental Retardation, Substance Abuse, Prevention) - $8.4 million received from the state. Any reduction to this funding will directly impact the community based mental health, intellectual disability, substance abuse and prevention programming to the citizens of Portsmouth. Public Assistance Grants – Social Services- currently budgeted at $16.2 million. Any reduction to this funding will directly impact programs such as benefit assistance, childcare assistance, adult and child protective services, custodial and non-custodial foster care, transitional support and utility assistance. Children Services Act Fund - $1.94 million in state aid to local governments. Any reduction to this funding will directly impact programs such as activities targeted for special education youth, foster care prevention and residential special education programs. Finally, but not least, we also request no cuts in any of the following areas: o Recordation Tax o Vehicle Rental Tax o DMV Select o Library Funds – Books
We are also extremely alarmed and concerned about the unintended collateral consequences that this city is experiencing due to business decisions made by the state and contracts it is entering into that are negatively impacting our fiscal base. While there has been some relief provided to our citizens from the escalating tolls on the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels (for which we are greatly appreciative) it is in no way a panacea for the continuing escalation over the next 57 years. We are steadily losing businesses from our city due to the loss of customers no longer patronizing them because of the tolls.
Compounding that problem, we are now on the precipice of losing millions of dollars in tax revenue from the lease agreement between the Virginia International
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 6
Gateways (VIG) and the Virginia Port Authority. VIG (formerly MAERSK terminal) is the largest taxpayer in the City of Portsmouth. The guaranteed revenue stream promised to the City by the state when the private terminal was built, is no longer a reliable source of revenue for this city. The City has no way of replacing this revenue. So without assistance from the state to help replace the lost revenue, we will quickly move from the 12th most fiscally stressed city in the commonwealth, to one of the top 10 fiscally stressed cities that may require intervention from the state to avoid it from becoming another Petersburg. This is an extremely important matter and we appreciate your immediate attention and action to address and eliminate this threat to our wellbeing that was not caused by any mismanagement on our part.
As always, we thank you for all of the kind considerations and support you have provided to our City in the past, and we look forward to a continued progressive partnership on all matters of importance to Portsmouth in the future. Again, thank you.
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 7
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 8
2017 Legislative Requests
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 9
A. JLARC Study Request
Request: The Portsmouth City Council requests the Joint Legislative Accountability and Reporting Commission (JLARC) review and update the 1999 Study “Review of The Impact of State-Owned Ports on Local Governments”. The results of this report will be used to support and justify the host cities request to either update the current Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) fee formula, or for full funding of the formula passed in 2000.
Justification:
The 1999 JLARC Study regarding the impact of state-owned Ports on Local Governments is a detailed and in-depth economic analysis of the Port’s impact on its host localities. The study concluded that the host cities “suffer a substantial economic loss as a result of lost revenues and infrastructure costs.” Other findings from this study were: While the State as a whole benefits from the operation of the Port terminals, the business development benefits of the host localities is limited due to being fully developed older core cities with little undeveloped land left for new buildings.
Total services provided by the host cities of the VPA are not currently recognized by the state for reimbursement (except for some limited fire protection services).
The host cities bear significant costs for the maintenance of the streets and roads. The truck traffic is tremendous and results in significant wear and tear and increased cost for road maintenance by the locality.
The host cities forego “a substantial amount of direct revenue” due to the fact the VPA terminals are located on very valuable property and are exempt from local taxation.
The host localities do not receive the benefit from the Ports that do go to other Virginia localities. Ten of the VPA’s 20 largest Virginia based customers are located in communities that are in close proximity to the VPA terminals, but only one is located in a host city.
The fiscal conditions of the host cities of the VPA intensifies the impact. All of the host cities are classified by the Virginia Commission on Local Government as experiencing high fiscal stress, compounding the problem of VPA’s tax- exempt status.
The growth of the VPA terminal and its land acquisition have further exacerbated the problem of land being removed from the tax rolls. “…because the host communities are land locked, every time the VPA terminals expand, property that is part of the cities’ tax base shrinks.”
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 10
The 1999 JLARC Report finally stated that “additional reimbursement could be provided to the VPA host localities based on some measure of the business activity at each terminal. However, the potential impact on the VPA’s current business environment must not be overlooked.”
The findings from this study provided the basis for the introduction and passage of SB 752 during the 2000 session of the General Assembly. This legislation provided a new more equitable formula of payment to the host cities of the VPA. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 38-Yes, 1-No, and the House by a vote of 81-Yes, 17-No. It also was re-referred to Senate Finance where it passed out of that committee on a vote of 11-Yes, 3-No and 1-Abstention. It was sent to the House Appropriations Committee and passed out of that Committee by a vote of 20-Yes, 8-No. Generally, while this legislation was supported by the majority of the legislators, unfortunately, it was never funded in the state’s budget. Instead over the past 18-years, the state’s sole focus has been on VPA’s business environment at the expense of its host cities. Business development associated with the VPA terminals is still limited for the host cities’ since they are “built out”. Services provided by the host cities of the VPA continue to be undervalued, and the advent of the tolls on the Midtown and Downtown tunnels which escalates every year for 58 years, further compounds the negative economic impact that the state’s predatory activities are having on the host cities of the VPA; and in especially the City of Portsmouth.
The consolidation of the ports in Norfolk, Newport News and Portsmouth took place in the 1970’s. An important provision in this consolidation were the PILOT fees the Port pays to its host cities that gave up their taxable properties and control of their ports for the good of the state’s economy. The rate of payment was prescribed in the 1981 legislation that created the Port of Virginia, and it has not changed in over 35 years. Yet the costs of doing business has continued to grow; the Port terminals continue to expand along with their business volume; and the state’s use of tolls on bridges, tunnels and roadways in Hampton Roads further exasperates business development and retention for these three fiscally stressed localities.
The City Council of Portsmouth fully anticipates that in having JLARC review and update this study, it will become blatantly clear that the findings from 18 years ago still hold true, with the impacts being more dire as they are now compounded by the events that have transpired with the economy of the host cities, the growth of the VPA, and their ever increasing business volumes.
The results from this review and update will in turn be used by the host cities of the VPA to justify our requests that the General Assembly either update the existing PILOT fee bringing it more in line with today’s costs, or better still, fully fund the 2000 formula.
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 11
B. Economic Incentive Grants for Host Cities of VPA
Request: The Portsmouth City Council requests that the General Assembly implement an Economic Incentive Grant program especially for the fiscally stressed host cities of the Virginia Port Authority
Justification:
The host cities of the Virginia Port Authority have argued for the last 20 years that the Payment in lieu of Taxes (PILOT fees) paid to the host cities of the port are woefully lower than the revenue that they would have received in from real property taxation if the land were taxable. To this extent, a 1999 JLARC study on the impact the Port has on its host cities - “Review of The Impact of State-Owned Ports on Local Governments” sited “The host localities forgo a substantial amount of direct local tax revenue — about $2.5 million in real property tax revenue in 1999 — due to the fact that the VPA terminals are located on very valuable property and are exempt from local taxation.” As real property values increase over time, so does the amount lost in real property tax revenue.”
Furthermore, with the advent of the new lease the VPA entered into with Virginia International Terminals (VIG formerly MAERSK), the City of Portsmouth is losing revenue that was promised to them from the inception of this private port, and has become reliant upon.
It is the contention of the Portsmouth City Council, that it is in the best interest of the Commonwealth to aid the fiscally struggling host cities of the Port Authority. Rather than financially hamstringing these cities through economic incentives for the Port only, the Commonwealth should put in place funds to help these cities help themselves.
Suggested below are two means of doing so, through the creation of two economic development incentive programs specifically for the host cities:
• $1M annually – VA Economic Development Partnership to attract Port related businesses to the host cities • $5M annually – Commonwealth Transportation Board for road projects directly tied to Port activity.
The Portsmouth City Council requests that the General Assembly seriously look at the impact the Port of Virginia is having on its host cities, and approve the legislation creating these two new programs and the associated funding.
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 12
C. Amend VA Code Section 37.2-505
Request: The Portsmouth City Council requests that the General Assembly amend this Section of the Code of Virginia to allow the lead Community Services Board/or Department of Behavioral Services serving as the lead agency responsible for a regional jail, to receive backup emergency staff support at their respective regional jail on an as needed basis from the other CSB or Behavioral Services Departments. Departments which are also members of that regional jail
Justification:
The Hampton Roads Regional Jail (HRRJ) located in Portsmouth, Virginia, currently houses 1,149 inmates, 611 with identified psychiatric disorders. This facility has been coined as “Virginia’s largest mental health facility” by the Daily Press newspaper. The contracted five member cities, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth and Chesapeake, combined have a total inmate population of approximately 5,000 inmates. The five cities, by agreement, send to the HRRJ individuals with the most serious behavioral health and complicated medical issues. Many of these individuals, in addition to having a need for enhanced treatment, also constitute a sizeable strain on both the respective City court dockets and the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS) state hospital system. Below is a snapshot from September, 2016 of the inmate population’s medical and mental health needs: HIV patients 66 Hepatitis B patients 5 Hepatitis C patients 76 788 total chronic care patients 371 patients with cardiac issues 121 patients with endocrine issues 53 patients that are insulin dependent 219 patients with neurology issues 209 patients with pulmonary issues 21 patients with orthopedic problems 147 patients with an infectious disease 22 pregnant patients 611 patients with mental health issues 861 patients on medications 618 patients on psychotropic medications The existing spectrum of mental health care for individuals transitioning to jail and reentering into the community is limited due to the shortage of specialized staffing and sufficient resources. According to the Code of Virginia, Portsmouth Behavioral Health Services (PBHS) is the lead agency responsible for servicing all emergency evaluations
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 13 within its catchment area where this institution is located. The City of Portsmouth also has a city jail which requires services from PBHS, and PBHS also has its own non- inmate case load of clients it is responsible for on a daily basis.
Compared to the four other Community Services Boards associated with the HRRJ (Norfolk, Newport News, Hampton and Chesapeake), Portsmouth has the smallest number (120 FTE’s) of Virginia Compensation Board allocated full time employees. The Hampton/Newport News Community Services Board has approximately 900 FTE. The Chesapeake and Norfolk Community Services Boards each have approximately 300 FTE.
When the regional jail was placed in the City of Portsmouth, no consideration was given by the Commonwealth of Virginia to increase funding and staffing for PBHS so it could adequately fulfill its mandated service requirements to all persons in its catchment area. Thus a great strain has been placed on PBHS as well as HRRJ when emergency services are required at the jail. Having the ability to request backup assistance from the other member CSB’s when needed would greatly aid in reducing the stress level on this organization and at that institution.
The Portsmouth City Council recognizes the importance of providing these services to citizens in need of emergency psychiatric assistance, and asks that the General Assembly address this matter and amend the Code of Virginia to remove this unintended impediment to this service delivery.
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 14
D. Amend VA Code Section 19.2-169.6
Request: The City is requesting that Virginia Code Section 19.2-169.6 be amended to striking the reference to “Restoration Orders”. Thus aiding the expedition of assisting individuals in need of emergency psychiatric treatment to be placed in a hospital bed.
Justification:
As the Code currently stands, it prevents a person, whether in jail or not, who is under an “Out Patient Restoration Order” from being placed in a psychiatric hospital on an emergency basis. When these Codes were originally enacted, there were over 300 more available beds in the state hospital system. Thus with the larger number of beds, it was easier for a practitioner to secure a bed in a state hospital while still addressing the Out Patient Restoration Order. The decrease in the number of available state hospital beds, coupled with the fact that restorations order take precedence over an emergency situation, problematic conditions have arisen that allows persons presenting with symptoms that should be addressed in a hospital setting to remain out of a hospital.
However, by striking the reference of Code Section 19.2-169.2 which is included in 19.2-169.6 (referring to Restoration Orders), an impediment would be removed providing for an easier transition when an individual presents with conditions that warrant their being hospitalized on an emergency basis.
Therefore, the Portsmouth City Council requests that the General Assembly realize the importance of making this change in order to expedite healthcare services for persons in need of emergency psychiatric support.
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 15
E. Amend VA Code Section 15.2-2303.4.E. (i)
Request: Amend Virginia Code Section 15.2-2303.4.E. (i)
Justification: This change would reduce the “Floor Area Ratio” or F.A.R. in this section of the Code from a F.A.R. of 3.0 to a F.A.R. of 2.0. Modifying the F.A.R. will allow small to mid-sized urban communities, such as Portsmouth, that have similar but smaller development demands, as compared to larger urban communities, to meet the exemption criteria for areas in which a small area comprehensive plan is adopted, are mixed use development and served by mass transit.
With this change, small and mid-sized communities could potentially meet the intent of the exemption in terms of mixed use, revitalization and transit. However, as the Code currently stands, the F.A.R. is set too high for our local market.
Therefore, the Portsmouth City Council request that the General Assembly to address this matter by amending the Code to aid the development needs of our City and other jurisdictions similar to ours.
F. Charter Change: Dissolution of Civil Service Commission
Request: Amend the Portsmouth City Charter by repealing Chapter 11. Civil Service Commission, section 11.01 – 11.10.
Justification: The Portsmouth City Council desires to retire its use of a Civil Service Commission for vetting candidates for public safety positions (police and fire) for the City of Portsmouth.
On October 25, 2016, a public hearing was held on this matter and the Council’s position was presented to the public. The Council did not receive any opposition from the public regarding this matter, and is moving forward with the process with this request to the Virginia General Assembly to grant permission for the City to make this change to our Charter.
The Portsmouth City Council requests the General Assembly to support this change to and pass the legislation that would allow the City to amend our Charter as pertaining to this matter.
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 16
LOCAL / REGIONAL / STATEWIDE
PUBLIC POLICY
ISSUES
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 17
1. Regional Summer Enrichment Program
The City of Portsmouth is dedicated to the growth and development of our future workforce by offering paid and unpaid fellowship/internship opportunities to high school, undergraduate, and graduate students. Our program provides a professional environment by which students and graduates can gain meaningful work experience in local government operations as they prepare for their careers. These summer employment opportunities have worked well in every city that has established one, and it is also a way to curb youth violence. The ability to have a regional summer enrichment program would expand opportunities of this nature for the youth in Hampton Roads and would be a great asset. The City of Portsmouth supports the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission in requesting funding assistance from the General Assembly to support this effort.
2. Establishing a State Resiliency Officer for Recurrent Flooding
Hampton Roads is identified as one of the most flood prone areas in the nation. This is due to the combination of sea-level rise, subsidence of land, and construction in tidal areas over the last 400 years. The General Assembly created the Joint Sub-Committee on Coastal Flooding chaired by Delegate Chris Stolle of Virginia Beach. They have met multiple times over the last several years, and have identified numerous issues that should be addressed by the General Assembly. One recommendation suggested, but not adopted, was creation of a State Resiliency Officer position.
Recurrent flooding is a major problem not only to home and business owners in this region because of the increase in nuisance flooding creating impassable streets and destroying property, but it is also a threat to major military installations in Hampton Roads, the railroads, and the Virginia Port Authority’s port facilities. The ports of Virginia could become more susceptible to recurrent flooding, and their beneficial impact to the Commonwealth could be reduced if this issue is not addressed. The City of Norfolk is recognized as one of the most flood plain areas in the nation, second only to New Orleans, Louisiana. Furthermore many insurance companies are reluctant to write homeowners policies because of increased risk/claims.
The state currently lacks a single point of contact charged with identifying and addressing recurrent flooding issues and proposing methods to counter them. By creating a stand-alone cabinet level secretariat State Resiliency Officer, a program closely aligned with the Secure Commonwealth Panel, and be sufficiently supported with staff and resources from other state agencies, this group would take the lead in addressing this issue and seeking funding and assistance it remediating this problem.
3. Preservation of the Historic Tax Credits program
The Historic Tax Credits program as it currently stands has been a valuable aid in the transformation of older commercial and residential properties in the City of Portsmouth. From the inception of this program in 1998 through today, this City has received over $48 million in rehabilitation tax credits for the restoration of private and commercial
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 18 properties. This program has been extremely beneficial to us. The Joint Subcommittee to Evaluate Tax Preferences has been reviewing this program in consideration of either revising how these credits are allocated, or totally eliminating the program. The City of Portsmouth does not want the program eliminated, and if the decision is made to change how the credits are allocated, we want to protect our ability to still favorably utilize this program.
4. Retention of local control: 5-G broadband expansion and Airbnb businesses
5-G Broadband: HB 1347 as introduced during the 2016 General Assembly session reduces revenue to the City of Portsmouth and other municipalities by reducing the fees that are currently earned for leasing space on City Property to telecommunications companies as well as reducing fees to be earned in the future for leasing space for new telecommunications equipment. It would curtail a municipalities’ ability to ensure that telecommunications equipment is removed when the technology becomes obsolete. Furthermore it prohibits jurisdictions from evaluating an application based on the availability of other potential locations for the placement of wireless support structures or wireless facilities.
The municipality is in the best position to know locations that can achieve the telecommunication’s needs while minimizing issues to the jurisdiction such as ensuring historic districts maintain its historical character. The bill states that the right to occupy and utilize public rights-of-way, by telecommunications providers and broadband providers is a matter of “statewide concern”. What is the factual basis of it being a statewide concern? This conclusory statement fails to consider how municipalities in the Commonwealth are very different in its topography, as cities such as Portsmouth are very urban. The impact of telecommunications equipment in the public right-of- ways of urban cities creates different traffic and safety impediments than in a more suburban or rural area. Municipalities should be free to choose whether they want reasonable control over telecommunications equipment in the public rights-of-way and this decision should not be made to the benefit of telecommunications companies on a statewide basis.
Section 704 (7) (Preservation of Local Zoning Authority) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act already prohibits municipalities from discriminating against telecommunications companies in placing, constructing or modifying personal wireless service facilities. There has to be substantial evidence in writing by municipalities that supports the denial of telecommunications equipment for personal wireless service and there are significant penalties and means of redress for violations of this Act. Section 6409 (a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 mandates that a State or local government approve wireless broadband facilities siting requests of modifications and collocations of wireless transmission equipment on an existing tower that does not result in a substantial modification of the physical dimensions of such
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 19 tower. Thus, there is ample protections for telecommunications companies as it relates to siting/modification requests for telecommunications equipment.
Finally, the Bill significantly reduces the City’s zoning and planning powers as it relates to protecting its citizens from legitimate concerns such as the height of telecommunications equipment, the aesthetics of facilities and the location of structures in places that reduces sightlines in busy urban traffic. Therefore, the City of Portsmouth does not support this bill, and stands with all Virginia municipalities in its opposition and desire to retain local control.
Airbnb Businesses
During the 2016 General Assembly session five bills were introduced relating to Airbnb businesses, otherwise known as Limited Residential Lodging. These bills were addressing how these businesses could operate in Virginia. A few of the major issues with these bills and this issue is that they took away local government control over zoning, public health, public safety and taxation. The local governments banded together to have the matter placed into the Virginia Housing Commission for further study during the interim of the General Assembly.
Of the five bills introduce, SB 416 passed through the legislative process. This bill required the Virginia Housing Commission to convene a working group of stakeholders to work through the various concerns with the industry and report their recommendations to the Commission by December 1, 2016 with the goal of developing legislation for the 2017 General Assembly session. The bill also created a statutory mechanism for the regulation and taxation of qualifying short-term rental transactions, known as The Limited Residential Lodging Act. Prior to the act actually becoming law, it has to be reenacted by the General Assembly during the 2017 session. As this bill currently stands, it authorizes qualifying residents and tenants of a private residence to rent out all or a portion of their residence on a temporary basis. It establishes rules and procedures for online facilitators (“hosting platforms”) to collect and remit state and local retail sales and use taxes and transient occupancy taxes on behalf of the residents who engage in these transactions (“lodging operators”), as well as penalty structures for registered hosting platforms that fail to file the required returns or remit the full amount of tax due on these transactions.
As with the 5-G Broadband issue, the City of Portsmouth sides with all municipalities in the commonwealth that want to have control over these businesses located within their jurisdictions. The City will not support legislation that takes away any location control or taxation authority from local governments.
5. Constitutional amendment abolishing forfeiture of voting rights by people convicted of felonies
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 20
In Virginia, persons convicted of a felony (non-violent and violent) automatically lose their civil rights, which includes their right to vote. In order to have these rights restored, the ex-offender has to go through a process of filing a petition with the Secretary of the Commonwealth requesting restoration. Traditionally, this petition had to be accompanied by character statements from highly regarded persons within their community who would attest to the improvements the ex-offender has made in their lives. Also, all fines and fees owed to the Commonwealth of Virginia related to the offense had to have been paid prior to the submission of the petition. There was no stated period of time that had to evolve before the ex-offender could even begin this process. It was up to the sitting Governor of Virginia to review the petition and decide whether or not to restore these rights.
This process proved to be very onerous on ex-offenders, and consequentially many people were discouraged from pursuing restoration of their rights. The collateral consequences from criminal arrests and convictions in Virginia became the hallmark theme for a Study and legislation that ensued in the last years of Senator W. Henry Maxwell’s tenure as a member of the Virginia General Assembly (2002 – 2003). Due to his efforts and the efforts of several other legislators hence, several changes were made to address these collateral consequences including restoration on one’s civil rights. Currently the process to have ones rights restored is as follows: (taken from the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s webpage):
“If you have lost the right to vote as a result of a felony conviction in a Virginia court, a U.S. District or a military court, you must have your rights restored in order to qualify for voter registration. The restoration of rights restores the rights to vote, to run for and hold public office, to serve on juries and to serve as a notary public. It does not include the right to possess or transport any firearm or to carry a concealed weapon.
In order to be eligible for restoration of rights by the Governor, an applicant must:
. Be a resident of Virginia, and/or have been convicted of a felony in a Virginia court, a U.S. District court or a military court . Be free from any sentence served or supervised probation and parole for a minimum of two years for a non-violent offense or five years for a violent felony or drug distribution, drug manufacturing offense, any crimes against a minor, or an election law offense. . Have paid all court costs, fines, penalties and restitution and have no felony or misdemeanor charges pending. . Not have had a DWI in the five years immediately preceding the application. . Not have any misdemeanor convictions and/or pending criminal charges 2 years preceding the application for non-violent felonies or five years for a violent felony or drug distribution, drug manufacturing offense, any crimes against a minor, or an election law offense.”
Although some improvements have been made in this process, there are still many hurdles that one must overcome prior to having their civil rights restored. For several-
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 21 years legislators such as former Senator Yvonne B. Miller submitted legislation requesting a Constitutional amendment for automatic restoration of the civil rights for non-violent felony ex-offenders once their debts to the Commonwealth had been fulfilled. Unfortunately, these bills never passed into law. To date, the disenfranchisement of many citizens continues to exist. Numerous initiatives have sprung up over the years easing the process for reentry of ex-offenders back into our communities, including the recent actions attempted by Governor McAuliffe which was challenged in the Virginia Supreme Court and invalidated by the judges. This disenfranchisement of Virginia’s citizens still largely exits and needs to be remediated. Taxation without representation was outlawed during the Revolutionary War, but vestiges of this concept still exists in Virginia’s methodology of addressing this matter.
The Portsmouth City Council would therefore request that legislation be introduced, and fully supports any legislation that would provide a Constitutional means by which felons who have been stripped of their civil rights can have them restored once they have paid their debt in time and money to the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6. FOIA – Oppose Publishing of Names and Salaries of Public Employees
Publishing the names and salaries of public employees is concerning due to the potential existing with breeches of privacy, and negative impacts to one’s personal security. In especially with all of the cyber-attacks that this country has been experiencing, we do not believe that a measure such as this in the name of government transparency is good public policy. During the 2016 General Assembly session, a bill that would have mandated making this information public did not pass. However, should the matter resurface during the 2017 session of the State Legislature, the Portsmouth City Council urges the General Assembly to err on the side of protecting government workers, and not pass any legislation of this nature.
7. Elimination/Restructuring of BPOL & M&T Taxes
Over the past several General Assembly sessions, legislators have introduced several bills proposed to eliminate the Business and Professional Occupational License (BPOL) tax and the Machinery and Tools (M&T) tax. Although they were originally established to pay for the War of 1812, these taxes have become a significant source of revenue for cities and towns throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia.
It is a certainty that this issue is far from being resolved. The importance of these taxes to our revenue stream cannot be understated. Any plan to eliminate them must include an alternate means of replacing them dollar for dollar. For Portsmouth’s FY2016 budget these two combined revenue sources generated $7,324,386. As Real Property Taxes are the major source of revenue for this City, loss of these funds without a stable, consistent and recurrent revenue source would mean another increase in our Real Property Tax Rate. Increasing our Real Property Tax Rate again is unconscionable for this Council. We do not want to impose such a burden on our citizens.
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 22
The Portsmouth City Council therefore urges the legislature to support the recommendation of the Governor’s Task Forces for Local Government Mandate Review and “not eliminate any local taxing authority without providing a replacement taxing authority of equal or greater value1.
8. Virginia Port Authority – Virginia International Gateway (Formally A.P. Maersk Terminal or APM)
The Port of Virginia in Portsmouth has been an integral business partner with the City since its inception in the early 1970’s. It is widely recognized and acknowledged that the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) is the most valuable publicly owned assess in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Since its inception, it has contributed immeasurably to the State’s tax revenues, business profitability, business growth and employment throughout the Commonwealth.
For years, the City’s position regarding the State obtaining ownership of this facility has been supportive, yet we have reiterated the need for the State to ensure that any changes in ownership at VIG would not impact the revenues received by the City, that the State would make any changes “revenue neutral” for Portsmouth. This was the promise given to the City by the State, and this is the promise that has not manifested with the new lease VPA has signed with VIG.
Rather than the City remaining revenue neutral, the lease signed and effective as of November 17, 2016 initially hits the City with an approximate $2 to $3 million loss for the equipment being turned over from the private owners to the state. Furthermore, in reviewing the lease terms, the City stands to be poised to lose even more taxes from this facility over time, as the real estate and business personal property is slowly transferred from the private owners to the state.
Between the poorly negotiated contract the state made with the Elizabeth River Tunnels, LLC for the tolls on the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels that escalates every year for the next 58 years, coupled with the eroding of tax money from the privately owned port facility that the state promised the City a long-term revenue stream for its support of the facility, the unintended collateral consequence the state has set in place is seriously negatively impacting the economic base of this City.
The Portsmouth City Council’s position is that these situations were imposed upon the City by the state, and therefore it is incumbent upon the state to acknowledge the conditions it has set upon the City with the decisions and contracts it has entered into, and identify means in which to provide economic resources to replace what has been and will be lost to the City due to its actions.
1 “Governor’s Task Force for Local Government Mandate Review” Interim Report to the Governor – August 27, 2015
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 23
9. Enterprise Zones
Enterprise Zones were established by the General Assembly in 1982. This State and local partnership has proven to be one of the most effective methods of using incentives to stimulate the economy. Over the last four General Assembly sessions, there has been a push to either expand this program to include localities that are not distressed, or to eliminate it completely. Between 2011 and 2013 there were several legislative attempts to allow for status based on distress factors in a particular area (census tract) of a locality, rather than locality-wide distress.
The Portsmouth City Council urges the General Assembly to not expand this program without also increasing the funding levels. We further recommend that if this program is expanded, then it should be made into a two-tier system, one for distressed communities, and the other for communities with distressed areas located within them.
10. Increase Public Transit Funding – Hampton Roads Transit (HRT)
Transit funding is an important regional priority policy issue. As such, it should be an eligible expense for existing and future regional transportation funding. The existing funding for HRT overwhelmingly relies on local general funds. This over reliance hinders HRT’s ability to plan and deliver a robust regional transit system that can support our region’s economic competiveness and mobility. Furthermore, it limits the ability of local governments to make investments across a broad range of municipal needs, including transportation, public education and public safety.
Two critical points that should be addressed to assist HRT in this session of the General Assembly are:
“For Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads regional transportation revenues collected by the existing 2.1 percent gas tax, establish the same or similar protective floor to the wholesale price per gallon that is used to compute state wholesale fuel taxes.
Address the capital funding gap associated with the end of allocations from transportation revenue bonds authorized in 2007. Explore making Capital Project Revenue (CPR) bonds revolving to support statewide transit capital program stability.2 “
The Portsmouth City Council supports this region’s request for the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to conduct a study to review the equity of transportation funding.
11. K-12 Education Funding
The Portsmouth City Council stands with our Portsmouth Public School Board in opposing any funding methodology that results in further shifting funding responsibility from the
2 “ Final TDCHR Board Meeting – 09.24.15 (Adopt Final 2016 Policy Priorities: 10.22.15)”
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 24 state to localities. We support a Joint Legislative and Audit Review Commission’s (JLARC) study to determine how the Standards of Quality (SOQ), Standards of Learning (SOL), and Standards of Accreditation (SOA) requirements may be revisited and adequately funded.
We furthermore support any adequacy and equity studies for K12 state funding. Recent studies and articles addressing this issue include:
“JLARC: Va. Spending drop squeezes schools” Richmond Times Dispatch – September 14, 2015 JLARC Study – Low Performing Schools in Urban High Poverty Communities – June 2014 – Recommendations: More grants, teacher residency programs USDOE Office for Civil Rights letter – October 1, 2014 – The problem of unequal access to Educational Resources Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – May 20, 2014 – Most States Funding Schools less Than Before the Recession
As soon as practicable, we ask that you restore the SOQ Support Cost Reductions which have been in place since 2007. Finally, please fully fund the cost of K12 Rebenchmarking.
12. Host Cities of the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) Equitable Funding
For more than thirty (30) years, the City of Portsmouth, along with the other host cities of the VPA have campaigned for more equitable funding from the State, to address the impact the VPA has on our respective jurisdictions.
While we are pleased to have the VPA operating in Portsmouth, and we have been good business partners for 66 years, the fact remains that its daily operations comes at a tremendous cost to our City. More than 800 trucks a day enters and exits from these facilities. VPA’s business enterprise occupies 1,170 acres of nontaxable prime waterfront property in three host cities. In Portsmouth, the total assessed land and building value for VPA property for FY15 is $126,476,870. If this property was taxable it would have generated well over $1.6 million in Real Property taxes.
The Portsmouth City Council requests that the General Assembly and the Governor address this matter by either fully funding the new formula it approved in 2000 or devise another method in which payments to the host cities is much more equitable then the current outdated methodology.
13. The Governor’s Community Wealth Building Fund
This is a new concept being introduced by Virginia First Cities (VFC), of which Portsmouth is a member. It is conceived that this fund could provide a means by which the Commonwealth could “effectively incentivize localities to undertake holistic and
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 25 creative efforts to address long-standing patterns of poverty and social and economic inclusion.”3 This fund would be authorized in the FY2017 - 2019 biennial budget with an initial capitalization of $10 million in State General Funds for the first year, with increases over the next three fiscal years with a cap of $15 million.
Many of VFC’s membership, similar to Portsmouth, either have average poverty rates higher than the national standards, or pockets of high poverty within their jurisdictions. In a March 15, 2015 article reported in Forbes, the contributor, Tim Worstall, argues that the true US poverty rate is 4.5% not the reported 14.5%.4 Either way, the poverty rates of the VFC members exceeds either estimate. For Portsmouth the 5-year estimate of the overall number of persons in poverty as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau for the period of 2009 – 2013 was 16,988 persons representing 18.4% of the City’s population. According to this same chart, the number of children in poverty in our City was 6,857 representing 30.7% of the children in our City.5 According to the Commission on Local Government for the Commonwealth of Virginia, as of 2013 Portsmouth ranked 13 on the list of fiscally stressed localities.6
The Portsmouth City Council sees a high potential value in a Fund of this nature for it will provide an essential tool in formulating means to address this problem. We therefore fully support VFC in this effort.
14. Road Maintenance Funding Formula – Bicycle Lanes The City of Portsmouth is requesting revision to the Road Maintenance Funding Formula that currently does not allow cities to reallocate vehicle travel lanes to center turn lanes or bicycle lanes without reducing the road maintenance funding they receive. We wish for the General Assembly to adopt a bill that would allow cities to modify configuration of local streets to create safer, more efficient multimodal facilities where they make sense. This request is in line with the State Code’s policies on transportation: consideration of all transportation modes and improvements that promote urban development areas.
3 Virginia First Cities – 2016 Virginia General Assembly Package 4 “The True US Poverty Rate Is 4.5% Not 14.5%” Forbes – March 15, 2015 5 “Table One. Counties and Cities in Commonwealth of Virginia with at Least 18% Poverty Rate” American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2009 -2013), U.S. Census Bureau 6 “Report on Comparative Revenue Capacity, Revenue Effort And Fiscal Stress of Virginia’s Cities and Counties FY 2013” Commission on Local Government Commonwealth of Virginia – January 2015.
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 26
2017 General Assembly Legislative Package Endorsements
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 27
2017 Legislative Packages Endorsements:
The Portsmouth City Council endorses and supports the legislative packages and initiatives of several organizations to include, but not limited to those listed below. We furthermore empower our City Manager and her designee/s to represent the City’s interests on all matters pertaining to these and any other legislative and budgetary initiatives that impact the City of Portsmouth:
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
Hampton Roads Transit
Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization
Tidewater Community College
Treasurers’ Association of Virginia
Virginia First Cities
Virginia Library Association
Virginia Municipal League
Virginia School Boards Association
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 28
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Portsmouth 2017 State Legislative Package Page 29