021-12BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ADOPTION OF THE
VIRGINIA PROPERTY RIGHTS AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution of the United States
recognized the right to private property as a fundamental mark of a free people; and
WHEREAS, James Madison declared that "Government is instituted to protect property";
Thomas Jefferson termed the protection of private property "the first principle of association, the
guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it ", and John
Adams affirmed that property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty "; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New Condon that Government may
seize the home, small business, or other private property of one owner and transfer that property
to another private owner on the grounds that such a transfer would benefit the Community
through greater economic development; and
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors believes that the right of private
property is fundamental to individual liberty and an important guarantee of freedom; and
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors affirms that the power of eminent
domain should be limited to true instances of "public use ", such as roads, utilities, public
facilities, and similar projects benefitting the public as a whole, and that Government takings
should not be used for private economic development purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly adopted Senate Joint Resolution 3 and companion
legislation to enshrine property rights in the Constitution of Virginia and establish that eminent
domain may only be used for true public use, and that owners must receive just compensation for
property taken, including compensation for losses incurred by the taking beyond the assessed
value of the property taken; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Property Rights Amendment will come before the voters for
ratification as part of the November 2012 election ballot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
does hereby support the adoption of the Virginia Property Rights Amendment, and encourages
its ratification by the voters of Frederick County on November 6, 2012.
ADOPTED this 10"' day of October, 2012.
VOTE:
Richard C. Shickle Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye
Gene E. Fisher Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye
Ross P. Spicer A y e
Drs,
Resolution No.;021 -12
COUNTY of FREDERICK
John Re Riley, Jr.
County Administrator
5401665 -5666
Fax 540/667 -0370
E -mail:
MEMORANDUM jriley@ co.frederick.va.us
TO:
Board of Supervisors
FROM:
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
SUBJECT:
2013 Legislative Priorities
DATE:
October 10, 2012
Attached please find a copy of the 2013 Legislative Priorities for Frederick County. This is an
updated version of what was placed in your agenda packet and contains feedback from our
legislative liaison in Richmond, as well as the county attorney. The new language is shown in
bold underline text.
Staff is seeking the Board's endorsement of this program.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
JRR/j et
Attachments
107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601
FREDERICK COUNTY
2013 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
1, UNFUNDED MANDATES — Frederick County opposes the enactment of any new
mandates upon local government and local school systems unless a fiscal impact
analysis has been conducted and state appropriations are made to fully fund the
mandate. Any proposals resulting from the Governor's Reform and Restructuring
Commission should not create additional unfunded ma dates for localities. Frederick
County supports a State -wide moratorium on costly which impose heavy
fees on localities.
a. Aid to Localities — Frederick County sup 400get amendment in the 2013
General Assembly session to further lass th kcal Aid to the State"
requirement which was in place f,�?2012. Freder 'County supports
elimination of this requiremer budget being p � ed for FY2014 -2015.
b. Water Quality /Environmental F", ction Agency Mand ,- Frederick County
opposes unfunded financial mania which be impose O�t,'localities
"T
related to the l:xecut' Order on Ch e :B'ay cleanup.
c. Line of Duty Act — Fr ' .County rem opposed to the shifting of financial
responsibility for this p �ra f,0.i the Sta the locality. Frederick County
believes the State shaul ily f .,obligati finder this program and not
4
pass the 'Wvlpcal gave
2. EMINENT DO AIN — Fred*,l'gk County' is the passage of the proposed amendment to
Article I, Sections of, the Co tution of ia, to require that eminent domain only be
exercised where thee t�.or damn his for public use, to define what is included in
jus ` t, for ° t `cog b , b Bing property, and to prohibit the taking or
Aging o Ovate erty than x s 'ry for the public use. Frederick County is
'�,r re of instance s, in which eminent domain has been used i other parts of the
Cftftonwealth to to ,Oroper �,purposes other than for public use and finds that such
takin ire fundamenta Icons3s It with property rights. Accordingly, Frederick County
strongly eves that the ,iposed constitutional amendment is necessary and proper for
purposes o � #(a quately pr `acting the property rights of landowners in the Commonwealth and
3< STATE BUDGET AND LOCAL REVENUES —Frederick County opposes any effort by the
Governor and General Assembly to restrict local revenue authority or sources without
providing alternative revenue authority and sustainable revenue sources,
a. Machinery & Tools and BPOL Taxes — Frederick County opposes any effort to
restrict this local revenue source and believes the State should not decide which
industries within a locality shall be subject to these taxes and which shall not.
b. Taxing Authority — Frederick County strongly supports investing counties with
the same taxation power as Virginia cities.
1
c. Enforcement of Local Criminal Ordinances — Frederick County opposes any
effort to prohibit amending state warrants to local codes thereby reducing fine
revenue payable to the locality. Frederick County opposes further efforts to
transfer revenue generated by local law enforcement actions to the State.
4. EDUCATION FUNDING —Frederick County believes a strong public school system is
essential to economic development and economic prosperity.
a. Standards of Quality — Frederick County opposes any changes in the Standards
of Quality Jj= methodology and changes in P o division of financial
responsibility that would result in shifting t=Wihe x3ng responsibility from the
State to localities. One such example wo elimination or decrease in
State funding for state- mandated ben eft 1r xaol employees.
b. Standards of Learning and Standarplko�`Accredi on _ Frederick County
opposes any policies that lower Sttl contributions . do nothing to address
the cost of meeting the requires ,ts of the Standards ,accreditation and
Standards of Learning.
c. SOLI' Study by the Joint LegislativeIft aniew Comm n (JLARC) —
Frederick County su � . conducting ' ,s A06 determine ho kthe Standards
of Quality may be rev - ad equate)ded to meet the requirements
contained in the Stan J � o ring and lards of Accreditation,
d. Cost of Competing Adius't nt wick Cou eceives only 25 percent of
the cost ting adjusi went se f%] ..caliti 1h the northern Vir inia
area fie" hiiiwck c ount. F suo A is tW ical funding to the school
syste; a belie% r should 64ncreased toi on oar with other Incalitiac ti
... onwe
5. ;SOVEREIGNS MITY 0. T; erick Cobras supports the doctrine of sovereign
,pity, a longsta g le inciple of American law. Frederick County supports
legiM40pn which pro s that C or any agency, instrumentality,
political k b�division, or nt or erriployee thereof have an appeal of right to the
Supremeb�mn of Virgin fief any order denying a plea of sovereign immunity entered in
a civil action*li:o�,to t a mmencement of trial. Frederick County opposes any
legislation which�Ilr +elude counties, cities, and towns under the provisions of the
Virginia Tort Claim�t, thereby statutorily abolishing sovereign immunity for such
localities up to the maximum limits of the statutory cap on damages. Frederick County
opposes legislation calling for a Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC)
study of both the costs incurred by localities resulting from claims brought against them
and the costs that could have been incurred by localities if they were subject to the
Virginia Tort Claims Act, as this initiative would lead toward a weakening of the
established principle of local sovereign immunity.
a. Summary Judgment — Frederick County supports the passage of HB 1138, a bill to
amend and reenact § 8.01 -420 of the Code of Virginia, relating to the use of depositions
2
as a basis for summary judgment. This bill would allow parties to litigation in the
Virginia state court system to use deposition testimony as a basis for a court decision in
advance of trial in cases in which material facts are not genuinely in dispute.
Significantly, this bill would help to advance Virginia's pro - business climate by creating a
greater opportunity for Virginia businesses to limit the litigation costs and risks of trial in
cases that do not have a sufficient factual basis, but which typically go to trial under the
present system. Currently, the other 49 states and the federal court system have
adopted similar legislation or court rules, as applicable.
6. TRANSPORTATION — Frederick County opposes any d
transportation functions related to Virginia's seco
urges the General Assembly and Administration
event devolution efforts move forward.
a. Route 37 — Frederick County supp ?he conti
Lion of Commonwealth
l oad network. Frederick County
closely with localities in the
acquisition, and construction o 37 East and erg
delegation to assist in compete br and securing tra
identified. Tolls should not be th` 4bncline source fo
rn
7. INCREASED LOCAL AUTHORI is
increased local authority in pIa g,
relaxation of the PWIon Rule. Fre ck Co
from the State � ." fv shoul e Q
a.
t
nning, right -of -way
ages its local
tion funds when
Count ' ";,. ",,ports legislation providing for
and re matters through a statutory
,poses shift of fiscal responsibility
rely
s
rezoni
m
but i
at the ti
b. Public Hearin Requirements — Frederick County supports legislation reducing
the requirements for advertising public hearings in order to conserve taxpayer
funds while expanding electronic notices that insure citizen awareness or
ordinance changes and other potential legislative actions.
c. Required Advertising for Procurement — Frederick County supports legislation to
reduce required newspaper notice advertising for procurements as the County
posts on the eVA state procurement website already. In addition, the
3
Commonwealth has unveiled a new mobile application which will allow
solicitations to be seen immediately on vendors' electronic devices.
d. Land Use Authority — Frederick County supports legislation to enhance local
authority to control land use issues and address the costs associated with
residential growth, impose infrastructure fees, and enact an adequate public
facilities ordinance. Frederick County opposes any efforts to replace the current
proffer system with impact fees that fail to cover the actual costs associated with
the related development.
4