THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 22, 1995 TAG: 9510210101
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 281 lines
PREAMBLE
If Virginia's regions are to be leaders in the global marketplace, we must equal or surpass the performance of our strongest regional competitors. By analyzing the performance of regions within the Southeast, we can see several characteristics common among the high-performing regions: a highly educated work force, service by multimodal transportation systems, centers of government, lessened disparity among areas within the region and collaborative regional governance systems.
While all of these characteristics are important and need to be addressed, the issues related to disparity and regionalism are most suited to action by the Urban Partnership. These issues focus on allowing regions to function as integrated political, social and economic units, and on decreasing the economic disparity between areas and neighborhoods within regions. These two concepts are linked inseparably. If a region is to be a competitive leader, it must be organized to further strategic regional action and allow all parts of the region to participate in and benefit from regional development - thus, there is a two-pronged approach to the Partnership's recommendations: ``Thinking and Acting Regionally'' and ``Unleashing Neighborhood Potential.''
Government alone cannot solve the problems or address the issues that affect the urban areas; it requires the efforts of the total community - business, government, education and citizens - all working in concert. The following recommendations not only encourage the participation of the total community in the regional and neighborhood development processes but suggest defined roles for the various sectors. . . .
Successful regional and local solutions cannot be imposed from outside the region, but must emanate from within the region. Strategic regional and local action can, however, be encouraged, fostered and nurtured by actions of the state and others outside the region. Often this encouragement and support are necessary to achieve institutional change.
The following recommendations call upon each region and neighborhood to mobilize to action with the support of the state. The strong leadership of the state through its policy and action is required to encourage and foster the mobilization of resources toward strategic regional and neighborhood actions. It is only through this total mobilization of our regions and neighborhoods that Virginia will be an economic leader in the global econ-omy.
THINKING AND ACTING REGIONALLY
. . . (T)his report offers proposals for thinking and acting regionally through:
Regional Economic Development Incentives to encourage localities to function as integrated political entities;
Structural Options for Local Government to increase options and incentives for restructuring local government; and
Government Service Responsibilities and Taxing Authority to ensure the effective and efficient provision of essential public services supported by a tax structure that enhances competitiveness.
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE
Recommendation
Establish legislative authority for a Regional Development Incentive Fund of approximately $200 million.
Concept
. . . This proposal builds upon the existing regional efforts across the commonwealth and allows each region to tailor its approach to the unique needs and conditions of that region. The proposal, while encouraging individual regional solutions, sets down four basic principles:
(1) Each region should strategically address its economic competitive position;
(2) Any regional proc-ess should be broad-based and involve, at a minimum, government, business, K-12, higher education and community leaders;
(3) Regional partnerships are required to monitor the implementation of the regional strategic assessment (plan); and
(4) Greater regional actions can result if sufficient incentives are provided to the localities. An ultimate incentive fund of at least $200 million statewide is thought to be necessary to effect these actions within the individual regions.
Competitiveness is the ability of a region to achieve higher levels of income and employment and lower economic disparity between its central and suburban areas as compared to its competitors by providing an attractive business climate and quality of life. . . . The proposed incentive system rewards increased regional efforts over time, rewards those regions that undertake a broad array of regional efforts, and recognizes existing regional efforts but not to the same extent as new regional ventures. . . .
One of the requirements for qualification for funding through the Regional Development Fund would be a functioning regional partnership. The actual structure of the partnership would be left up to each region to determine . .
The structure of the various regional partnerships could vary substantially throughout the commonwealth based on the preferences in each region. . . . Our discussions have focused on a continuum of choices. On one end of the continuum would be a not-for-profit corporation. The membership would be voluntary and have no statutory powers. On the other end would be to amend the planning-district legislation to allow for an option that would expand the membership of the commission's governing board to include the broader membership required of the regional partnership. This entity would then have the statutory powers granted to regional planning districts under current statutes. . . .
The regional ``report card'' would identify the region's progress over time in increasing employment growth, income growth and in decreasing economic disparity between and within the individual localities of the region. The report card would also record the prog-ress in addressing the regional issues and strategies identified in the regional strategic assessment. The report card should contain a description of the regional organizations and the services they provide. It would be the document used to determine eligibility for and the amount of incentive funding. . . .
The distribution of the incentive funds to localities would be based upon the ``disparity'' formula of the Department of Education which uses the concentration and number of children who qualify for free lunch in each locality. Should the localities mutually agree upon an alternative formula, that formula would be used to distribute the incentive funds.
STRUCTURAL OPTIONS
Recommendations:
1. Create a dependent city (``Class A'') as an option for cities less than 125,000 population.
2. Allow voluntary agreements (tax-base sharing, growth sharing and revenue sharing) among all localities.
3. Allow counties to enter into tax-base sharing, revenue sharing or growth-sharing agreements without the requirement of a referendum. Cities currently are not required to have a referendum to enter into such agreements.
4. Local governments that consolidate, merge or form a regional government would not be penalized but rewarded through extending the duration of favorable state aid and the most beneficial local index for various state aid formulas.
5. Provide that a majority vote in the proposed territory of a consolidated locality would be required before approval of a consolidation if agreed to by each affected locality.
. . . Currently, Sen. Charles Hawkins (R-Danville) is leading a joint subcommittee investigating creative ways that localities can join together to develop and administer projects - such as industrial parks - where the costs are shared, resources pooled and revenues from the projects allocated among the participating localities. . . .
The requirement that a referendum pass in each locality prior to the consolidation of local government should be modified to allow for a majority of the combined voters of the proposed consolidated locality to determine the issue. The affected local governments would have the option to choose between the existing procedure or a majority vote in the proposed consolidated area. This option would prohibit a minority of citizens within the proposed consolidated locality from blocking the will of the majority.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES AND TAX AUTHORITY
Introduction
Core urban areas have suffered from the flight of prosperous middle- and upper-income households and businesses to surrounding suburban locales. This shift results in a(n):
Increased concentration of lower-income and dependent populations.
Declining tax base, due to a decline in investment in the area.]
High demand for social services and reduced ability to deliver services.
Highest property-tax rates in the commonwealth.
To enable urban areas to compete with other regions for commercial, industrial and res idential development, the fiscal plight of core urban localities must be addressed in a manner that: (1) Reduces the burden on urban taxpayers for essential services to poor and dependent populations. (2) Allows tax and fee structures to be commensurate with adjacent localities. (3) Enables each locality to invest in its economic future. . . .
The Urban Partnership commends the General Assembly for establishing the Commission on State and Local Service Responsibility and Taxing Authority. The commission, which is slated to submit recommendations by December 1995, should be extended for an additional year to allow it sufficient time to formulate comprehensive recommendations . . . . The extension of the life of the commission should not preclude its forwarding some recommendations to the 1996 session, particularly on the adoption of a uniform ordinance for the Business Professional Occupational License Tax and the adoption of uniform and equitable collection, audit and appeals procedures for all local taxes. Business interests and local governments must work cooperatively and closely with the commission to that end.
The commission should adhere to the following principles . . .
***The imbalance between the services which localities must provide and the revenues available to them should be corrected.
***Responsibility for only those services which can be provided more effectively, efficiently and equitably at the state or regional level should be assumed by the state or region - particularly those services, such as public health and social services, that are directed at the alleviation of poverty or reducing the effects of poverty.
***State and local governments should undertake continual evaluation of services, eliminating those that no longer serve an essential function of government, privatizing those services that can be provided more effectively and efficiently by the private sector and realigning service delivery systems to improve efficiency, effectiveness and economies of scale.
***The array of local taxes should have a rational basis and should be reviewed for any adverse impacts on business growth and job creation.
***Local taxes should be administered uniformly and employ equitable collection, audit and appeal procedures.
***Any reallocation of service responsibilities and tax authority should decrease the disparity in tax burden among local governments which provide similar functions.
***The restructuring of existing service responsibilities and tax authority between the state and local governments should have as its objective either no net increase in the state-local tax burden on the economy, or a reduced burden.
UNLEASHING NEIGHBORHOOD POTENTIAL
A new model for development in our core urban neighborhoods is needed - a model that focuses on total community building; a collaborative model that draws upon the collective resources of government, the private sector, the non-profit sector and individual citizens. The foundation of this collaborative model is: (1) Based on a comprehensive economic, social and physical development perspective;
(2) Centered on the neighborhood's vision of its future;
(3) Focused on the interrelation between the core area, the region and the global economy;
(4) Focused on business development that is ``export'' oriented, along with businesses that serve the local economy; (5) built around government incentives and services that support private-sector investment and job creation;
(6) Directed at offsetting the high cost of doing business in the core urban areas;
(7) Built on strong partnerships between the business community, the government the neighborhood organizations, and the residents; and
(8) Directed at individual and family responsibility, growth and economic in-de-pend-ence. . . .
The role of local government in the revitalization process is critical. First and foremost, government must provide quality basic public services to the community (police and fire protection, water and sewer service, education, garbage collection, street maintenance, etc.) at a reasonable cost. Second, government must ensure that the private in-vest-ments in neighborhoods are protected and maintained. Third, the government must create a favorable climate for private-sector operations, eliminating obstacles and barriers to development. Fourth, local government should be the catalyst that helps create the vision for the neighborhood and plans its redevelopment. Fifth, government must target its investments where the need is greatest and there is the prospect for the greatest long-term economic impact. Government must be supportive of the revitalization efforts of the community and the private sector while respecting the realities of the mar-ket-place. . . .
The overwhelming and concentrated problems of the core urban areas have overtaxed the local government resources available to address these problems. comprehensive inclusionary approaches. The combined efforts by government and the private sector to revitalize the urban core are most effective when channeled through and conducted in partnership with representative neighborhood organizations. These neighborhood organizations and non-profit corporations need the continued financial, technical and moral support to adequately fulfill these new and expanded responsibilities. . . .
While all of the recommendations are important to neighborhood revitalization, the principal recommendations should be given immediate attention and priority.
NEIGHBORHOOD SOLUTIONS
Principal recommendations
1. Establish a statewide non-profit corporation dedicated to furthering neighborhood and community revitalization supported by the private sector, state and local governments, and community-based organizations.
2. Expand Virginia Housing Development
Authority's (VHDA's) authority to finance redevelopment projects and mixed-income housing in distressed neighborhoods.
3. Increase or remove the ceiling on state tax credits provided business development in enterprise zones.
4. Expand the availability of business capital for emerging and small businesses located in distressed neighborhoods.
5. Expand the authority of local governments to correct exterior blighting conditions in distressed neighborhoods.
6. Business leaders should direct their corporate resources and community involvement toward neighborhood revitalization.
Other recommendations
Local development corporations:
7. Encourage urban areas to participate with Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) type organizations in neighborhood revitalization projects.
State government:
8. Increase and target the state tax credits available to business through the Neighborhood Assistance Act.
9. Focus and target the combined resources of state agencies at the revitalization of economically distressed neighborhoods.
10. Local governments should institute aggressive comprehensive code-enforcement programs in blighted neighborhoods or neighborhoods exhibiting signs of blight.
11. Local governments should invest in strengthening the capacity of neighborhood-based organizations.
12. Local service-delivery systems should be organized to recognize neighborhood boundaries and organizations.
13. Expand the local government authority to adopt design standards for new construction in distressed neighborhoods.
Private sector
14. The private sector must assume a strong and active role in the neighborhood revitalization process.
15. Private-sector businesses should use the emerging resources of urban neighborhoods in their business activities.
16. The business sector should advocate the refocusing of public and non-profit organizations' resources on neighborhood and community-based development. by CNB