2017 Legislation Package

2017 Legislative Survey

In September 2016, the Fairfax County Federation of Citizen Associations conducted its annual survey for opinions about issues facing Fairfax citizens. Your responses contributed to making a better Fairfax County and Virginia Commonwealth.

The survey had several multiple choice questions, two write-in responses, and took four to ten minutes to complete.

The survey closed at midnight September 13.

Questions about the survey? Contact the Legislation Committee Co-Chairs at FedLegislationChr2018 @ fairfaxFederation.org

All Survey responses were consolidated into nine groupings for consideration and review by the nine Federation committees which researched them. Each committee produced two to five draft Issue papers.

2017 Legislative Package Items

At the Federation Board meeting the week before the membership meeting the issue papers were edited for accuracy and reviewed by the board for presentation to the Federation membership.

Here are the individual issues the board has chosen to for full membership approval (each will show in clear text when the link is clicked, or you may chose to download the associated pdf version):

• Issue 17C01 Renewable Power (PDF)

Issue ID:     17C01-Renewable Power

Date Submitted to Legislative Committee:   17 October 2016

Issue:   Virginia needs to increase the generation of electric power from renewable sources.

Background:    Opening the solar market to private sector competition and larger amounts of customer-owned generation is a cost-effective approach to accelerate solar development in a way that builds on Virginians' preference for competitive, market-based solutions. Solar energy can keep power bills low both for homeowners and businesses who install solar systems and for customers who don't. Private investment in solar benefits all of us by reducing strain on the distribution and transmission grids and avoiding or delaying the need for costly new power plants. All Virginians should be able to benefit from clean energy, regardless of their income, where they live, or whether they own their home. (This was taken from the Virginia Conservation Network's 2017 Environmental Briefing Book, page 21).

Existing Conditions/Impacts:  Virginia lags behind our neighboring States largely because Dominion Virginia Power has been able to block third party solar energy providers which has made it difficult to install solar power on or in residences.

Preferred Position:  The Virginia General Assembly should support measures that encourage innovative solar companies to compete fairly and lower the cost of electricity for us all. These measures include: ·       Stopping power companies from attempts to block private, third-party financing of electricity generated by solar or wind energy through Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) or solar leases; ·       Eliminating standby charges, project size caps, and other barriers to customer-sited electricity generation; ·       Permitting customers to share the benefits of solar energy through Community Solar projects; and ·       Protecting 1:1 net metering credits, so solar customers receive fair value for all of the solar energy they provide to their power company.  (This was taken from the Virginia Conservation Network's 2017 Environmental Briefing Book, page 22).

Benefits:  1.     Allows homeowners and businesses to generate their own power or to hire a third party solar power provider. 2.     Ensures that homeowners and businesses get a fair rate for the power they generate absent of unreasonable fees. 3.     Improves the resiliency of the system by allowing local electricity generation when elements of the distribution system are damaged.

Potential Supporters (Community leaders, Public/Private Partnership Opportunities, Organizations):  Virginia Conservation Network (which includes 98 organizations throughout Virginia, including the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Virginia League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Audubon Naturalist Society)

Lead Federation Committee:  Environment Committee

Prepared by:  Flint Webb

Email & Phone:  FedEnvironmentChr 2017 @ fairfaxfederation.org, cell: .

 

• Issue 17C02 Stormwater Controls (PDF)

Issue ID:     17C02-Stormwater Controls

Date Submitted to Legislative Committee:   17 October 2016

Issue:   Local Governments need the authority to require developers to prove that new developments will not impair or degrade Waters of the State.

Background:   The rapid development in Fairfax County has had a major impact on the groundwater and surface water problems we face today as a result, most of the streams in Fairfax County are designated as impaired and most of the County has already been built up.  The comprehensive plan process is inadequate for improving the water quality of our streams.  The County needs the authority to require new projects do no further damage to impaired waters of the State. .

Existing Conditions/Impacts:  The Comprehensive planning process focuses on individual projects rather than looking holistically at impaired streams.  Watershed management plans are focusing on improving existing remediating major stream impairments but do not look at new projects.  County ordinances are state-of-the-art but will not be sufficient to address problems in impaired watersheds. New development and redevelopment activities often offer opportunities to design and implement modern, permanent site and building features that may reduce or eliminate stormwater pollution throughout the lifetime of a facility or development. On the other hand, construction activities associated with development can contribute significant amounts of pollutants if best management practices (BMPs) are not properly executed.  Prior to the recent legislation prohibiting the use of proffers, the Board of Supervisors could use the proffer process to ensure better stormwater controls.

Preferred Position:  Local communities, (Counties and Cities) need authority to require that developers demonstrate that new projects will not increase the stormwater runoff water quality or volume from their property. We call on elected officials to give local Governments authority to use the proffers to require stormwater controls on new developments or redevelopments and the Board of Supervisors needs to support construction projects that observe local zoning laws, re-purpose previous developments rather than develop open space, and make use of new technologies to reduce runoff, capture nitrogen and reduce water consumption – specifically focusing on Low Impact Development (LID) technologies. Infiltration and volume reduction is critical and should be a requirement for all projects.

Benefits:  Allowing Counties and Cities to require developers demonstrate that new projects will not worsen the impaired status of waterways will decrease the need for County funds for remediation of stormwater impairments.   Encouraging/requiring LID projects would create smaller overall development footprints, reduce the amount of runoff generated and increase the amount of natural areas on a site, thereby reducing costs when compared to traditional stormwater management and flood control. Besides reducing the capital and other actual costs, using LID practices provide: improved aesthetics for communities, expanded recreational opportunities, increased property values due to the desirability of the lots and their proximity to open space, increased marketing potential and faster sales for residential and commercial properties, and reduced stream channel damage and pollutant loadings in downstream waters.

Potential Supporters (Community leaders, Public/Private Partnership Opportunities, Organizations):  The many steam friends of organizations such as the Friends of Accotink Creek, Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Tree stewards, Coalition for Smarter Growth.

Lead Federation Committee:  Environment

Prepared by:  Flint Webb & Monica Billger, Environment Committee Co-Chairs

Email & Phone:  FedEnvironmentChr2017 @ fairfaxfederation.org,   (name)

 

• Issue 17E01 County-City Revenue Equalization (PDF)

Issue ID:     17E01-County-City Revenue Equalization

Date Submitted to Legislative Committee:   October 18, 2016

Issue:   Equalizing the revenue-generating authority of counties with that of cities.

Background:   The distinction between the taxing authority of Virginia's cities and counties has been a source of contention for many years. Many believe the distinction has lost any rational basis. Fairfax County serves over one million citizens, and yet is tightly constrained in its ability to address the fiscal needs of its community, whereas municipalities serving a fraction of that number enjoy much greater flexibility

Existing Conditions/Impacts:  Virginia caps the tax rate that counties (but not cities) can apply to meals, lodging, cigarettes, and admissions, and requires that meals taxes in counties (but not cities) be subject to approval by referendum. This produces stark differences between adjacent jurisdictions. For example, while Fairfax County has been authorized by the Commonwealth to charge a county tobacco tax up to the state amount of $0.30 per package of cigarettes, the city of Alexandria charges $1.15 per package, the city of Fairfax charges $0.85 per package, and the city of Falls Church charges $0.75 per package. Counties have become increasingly reliant on real estate taxes for their revenues. As the state's financial support for K-12 education has shrunk, county school systems are particularly vulnerable to relying on counties for funding, and counties are (in turn) limited in their ability to raise taxes other than real estate taxes.

Preferred Position:  The Federation should support legislative efforts to equalize the revenue-generating authority of counties with that of cities

Benefits:  Counties increasingly experience the same kinds of pressures as urban areas, such as higher poverty levels and crime, and the costly solutions require a more flexible revenue-generating approach. Equalizing the tax treatment of counties and cities would permit a much-needed diversification of revenue streams in county budgets, and would better allow counties to match their communities' needs with appropriate resources.

Potential Supporters (Community leaders, Public/Private Partnership Opportunities, Organizations):  Educational organizations and county governments

Lead Federation Committee:  Budget and Education Committees

Prepared by:  Nancy Trainer, Judy Harbeck and Ed Saperstein

Email & Phone:  fededucationchr2017 @ fairfaxfederation.org

 

• Issue 17E02 English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FRM) (PDF)

Issue ID:     17E02-ESOL and FRM

Date Submitted to Legislative Committee: October 18, 2016

Issue:   Providing educational funding from the Commonwealth that takes into account two indicators of higher educational costs: (1) the number of students who require instruction in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), and (2) the number of students who receive Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FRM).

Background: Students who require instruction in ESOL and/or who receive FRM are among the populations most at risk of educational failure. Both student groups require additional time, attention, and resources. FCPS estimates that the cost of providing ESOL services adds 30 percent to the cost of educating a student. Low-income students often require additional instruction and remediation, and their lack of at-home resources and support place them at a well-documented disadvantage when they enter the classroom. Meanwhile, the achievement gap between various groups of students has proven difficult to narrow, let alone close.

Existing Conditions/Impacts: Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) serve a diverse student population, in which approximately 52,000 (or 28% of the total student population) are eligible for FRM and approximately 32,000 (or 17% of the total population) receive ESOL services. The percentage of students in these two categories have grown significantly since the major recession, while overall state aid levels for education have declined. Title I federal funds (for children in poverty) and Title III federal funds (for children receiving ESOL services) make up little of the difference between children's needs and the funding required to meet those needs.

Preferred Position:  We support legislation to create educational funding that addresses the needs of ESOL and FRM students. We propose focusing on per-student funding for students in these two categories in order to provide these students with the resources they need to be successful, throughout the Commonwealth.

Benefits: Targeting educational funding for students in the categories of ESOL and FRM will help address the achievement gap that has long existed among students whose demographic characteristics vary. In addition, by basing funding on a per-student basis, we ensure that these funds are properly reaching at risk children in all communities.

Potential Supporters (Community leaders, Public/Private Partnership Opportunities, Organizations):  Educational organizations and county governments, particularly in areas with greater numbers of ESOL and FRM-eligible students.

Lead Federation Committee:  Education

Prepared by:  Ed Saperstein and Nancy Trainer

Email & Phone: fededucationchr2017 @ fairfaxfederation.org

 

• Issue 17E03 School Opening Date (PDF)

Issue ID:     17E03-School Opening Date

Date Submitted to Legislative Committee:   October 18, 2016

Issue:   Local school boards are generally not permitted to set their own opening date of the school year

Background:   The "Kings Dominion" Law was adopted by the Virginia General Assembly in the 1980s to help amusement parks and other tourism attractions staff their businesses with a summer labor pool of high school age workers. Today's economy has changed; the tourism industry is attracting various workers in other age groups.  But now the tourism industry contends that a change of law would hurt tourism. Almost all states allow schools to start before Labor Day, including states whose economies are heavily dependent on tourism such as Florida and California. As Virginia Beach Public Schools said in supporting a change in law, "If a pre-Labor Day start was really damaging to a state's economy, it would have been banned across the country a long time ago.

Existing Conditions/Impacts:  The Code of Virginia mandates under the so-called "Kings Dominion" Law that schools open after Labor Day. As a result, FCPS students have less classroom time before standardized tests such as Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL) exams, and nationwide Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) tests. The AP and IB tests figure substantively in college admissions, scholarships, course selection and advanced standing. The current law puts our students at a competitive disadvantage as almost all states allow schools to start before Labor Day. There is a limited waiver that FCPS normally cannot qualify under. Due to all the snow days over the last several years FCPS will qualify for the waiver for the next 3 school years.

Preferred Position:  Support legislation permitting local school boards to set the opening date of the school year without need for the limited waiver.

Benefits:  It would help our FCPS students as it would most likely provide more instructional time before standardized tests such as the SOL, AP and IB.

Potential Supporters (Community leaders, Public/Private Partnership Opportunities, Organizations):  FCPS and about 120 of the 130+ school districts in Virginia, the Virginia PTA and Fairfax County PTA

Lead Federation Committee:  Education

Prepared by:  Nancy Trainer and Ed Saperstein

Email & Phone:  fededucationchr2017 @ fairfaxfederation.org

 

• Issue 17G01 Modify the Dillon Rule (PDF)

Issue ID:     17G01-Modify the Dillon Rule

Date Submitted to Legislative Committee:   October 18, 2016

Issue:   Dillion Rule limits Commonwealth Counties' authority to make legislative decisions regarding growth management, transportation, education, environmental, elections, financing and public safety issues. Any policy changes require an act of the General Assembly.

Background:   Dillon Rule allows state legislature to make local grassroots-level decisions for local jurisdictions.  Commonwealth Counties are unable to enact a respective ordinance unless it is clearly granted by the General Assembly.

Existing Conditions/Impacts:  Commonwealth Counties are unable to respond to their residents' goals and demands in a timely manner.  This restriction impedes the County from diversifying their tax base to relieve pressure on the real property tax, adhere to sensible school rules and regulations, implement community-based growth management tools to name a few.

Preferred Position:  All Commonwealth Counties should be granted the opportunity to identify the most appropriate form of Home-Rule government that would be the most effective in conducting day-to-day and long-term operations and to fulfill important local functions. At a minimum, the following issues should be addressed: Impact Fees, Education (start time and programs), local revenue authority, state income tax revenues, local and regional growth management tools such as planning, and zoning, short-term rental, transportation, public facilities, taxing authority and real estate transfer tax rate.

Benefits:  No one is more equipped than local governments to determine the needs and prioritization of available resources than local governments.  Increasing authority would allow for a more robust and diverse tax base, more sensible school start times for students and parents, stronger ability to control rampant growth and improve economic vitality.

Potential Supporters (Community leaders, Public/Private Partnership Opportunities, Organizations):  All residents of Fairfax County; all Commonwealth counties.

Lead Federation Committee:   Legislative Committee

Prepared by:  Karen Campblin, Bill Barfield

Email & Phone:  FedLegislationChr2017 @ fairfaxfederation.org ,  571-228-7200

 

• Issue 17L01 Local Control of Residential Occupancy Use (PDF)

Issue ID:     17L01-Local Control of Residential Occupancy Use

Date Submitted to Legislative Committee:   9 October 2016

Issue:   Authority of Localities in controlling use of residential dwellings and effectively investigating incidents of potential non-compliance with ordinances and regulations.

Background:   Temporary lodging such as HomeStay, AirBNB, and other like businesses as well as Boarding Houses have become more common in residential areas.  While localities are empowered to define BPOL and other requirements that would include such establishments and Commonwealth sales and use taxes address temporary accommodations, localities are limited in their ability to effectively investigate such potential uses thereby tying their hands in enforcement.  References:  Code of Virginia § 58.1-603.,   http://www.tax.virginia.gov/sites/tax.virginia.gov/files/media/documents/BPOL%20Uniform%20Ordinance%20Provisions%20-%20Severance%20Tax.pdf, http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/zoningordinance/, and   http://www.asu.edu/courses/aph294/total-readings/mccrummen%20--%20manassasdefinitionoffamily.pdf

Existing Conditions/Impacts:  Presently, localities experience claims of familial relationship without the authority to require residence under investigation for violations to produce evidence of familial claims.  Likewise, localities experience difficulty in identifying incidents of recurring rental (thus not eligible for occasional sale exemption from sales and use tax and BPOL collection).  Both of these non-traditional uses of residential dwellings negatively impacts street parking, use of common neighborhood facilities, and property values and desirability when existing residence choose to sell out of the neighborhood.  When home sale values are depressed due to these uses, it directly impacts real estate assessments as well.

Preferred Position:  Commonwealth legislation should be enacted to expressly allow localities the right to limit and/or prohibit use of residential property for temporary accommodations.  Additionally, to improve enforcement of residential property use ordinances, residents claiming relationship among occupants and/or occasional sale claims by property owners shall be required to produce documentation such as birth certificates in support of familial claims and residential rental brokers shall be required to collect and remit sales taxes and report monthly to localities by property address those rentals booked through their service.  Localities should expressly include said requirements and authority of investigating staff to obtain required supporting documentation in support of such claims. Such residential uses should be expressly defined as businesses conducting a taxable service.  Enact legislation to allow HOA's to prohibit such uses within their communities.

Benefits:  Maintaining home values which directly impacts real estate assessment values, improved compliance with sales and use and BPOL tax regulations thereby increase tax revenue collection, and protecting neighborhoods from regularly experiencing transient dwelling and other unfavorable impact.

Potential Supporters (Community leaders, Public/Private Partnership Opportunities, Organizations):  Locality legislators and compliance investigators; hotel, motel, and other similar industry operators; home owners; Home Owner Associations (HOAs) and Citizen Associations (CAs).

Lead Federation Committee:  Land Use

Prepared by:  Vicki Hall

Email & Phone:  FedLandUsechr2017 @ fairfaxfederation.org        (703) 324-2861

 

• Issue 17L02 In-Fill and Redevelopment (PDF)

Issue ID:     17L02-In-Fill and Redevelopment

Date Submitted to Legislative Committee:   9 October 2016

Issue:   In-Fill and Redevelopment with increased zoning densities in areas of school crowding and/or traffic congestion or traffic safety issues.

Background:   Due to the recent passage of proffer prohibition on residential and mixed-use property development (§ 15.2-2303.4. Provisions applicable to certain conditional rezoning proffers), localities will have to bear the burden of resolving school and traffic related impacts of requested development.  Localities, especially in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, already do not receive fair and reasonable allocation of school and transportation dollars from the existing Commonwealth allocation formulas.  New in-fill and redevelopment projects that increase zoning density place further stress on already challenging conditions.  Reference  http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3922&context=etd   http://www.coopercenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Virginia%20News%20Letter%202011%20Vol.%2087%20No%208.pdf

Existing Conditions/Impacts:  Developers are reluctant to submit residential and mixed-use projects in localities with existing high population densities as local governing bodies are less likely to approve such projects due to anticipated impacts that could exacerbate traffic issues and school crowding.  Localities are prohibited from requiring or discussing proposal of proffers as conditions to development decisions.  Unfair additional taxes have been imposed on certain local jurisdictions to fund impacts due to Commonwealth funding inadequacies.

Preferred Position:  Repeal and replace § 15.2-2303.4.  Standardize developer requirements across localities that would adequately fund infrastructure development in support of increased density while protecting developers from abusive proffer requirements.  Consider imposing a statewide real estate sales tax of no more than 5% of the selling price of each new residential unit for each documented impact area (school/traffic), the proceeds of which would be designated for use only for school and/or traffic capacity improvements for affected public feeder schools and roadways within 1 mile of the approved development.  Additionally, revise existing funding ratio components so as not to "reward" unnecessary road widening in uncongested areas of the Commonwealth for transportation funding (both construction and maintenance formulas) and the ability to pay formula for schools that does not take into account that localities with higher gross incomes and property values also have to pay more for construction and operation of the schools due to higher costs of land and the wages paid for such construction and operation.

Benefits:  Strike a balance between locality infrastructure needs and developer costs, setting/limiting the financial requirements beyond the cost of land acquisition and construction of residential and mixed-use developments.  Standards would place developers and legislative project approvers in a position of consistency in project budgeting estimates and project submissions and the requirements for project approval.  Protection of existing property owners' lifestyle, community desirability, and other factors that are in the vicinity of proposed development projects.

Potential Supporters (Community leaders, Public/Private Partnership Opportunities, Organizations):  Local governing body members, developer community, and citizenry.

Lead Federation Committee:  Land Use

Prepared by:  Vicki Hall

Email & Phone:  FedLandUsechr2017 @ fairfaxfederation.org        (703) 324-2861

 

• Issue 17P02 Hands Free Driving (PDF)

Issue ID:     17P02-Hands-Free Device use during Driving

Date Submitted to Legislative Committee:  10-18-2016

Issue:     Distracted Drivers are a recognized lethal threat to themselves, vehicle occupants, cyclists, and other motorized vehicles or pedestrians, police and road-workers while driving.  In fact, DISTRACTION is the Number 1 cause of motor vehicle accidents in the US. (Texting and driving is 6 times more likely to get you in an accident than drunk driving.) Though cell phone conversations/texting, navigation gear data entry, and adjusting ‘map' displays, while driving, should be performed only under special circumstances, it is recognized that such events will occur. To increase safety to the citizens and property of the Commonwealth, the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations Requests Legislative action to make the use of Hands-Free devices MANDATORY.

Background    (Previously submitted as 15P01 on 1 Oct 2014):   Currently, full restrictions only address young drivers, who are not permitted to text or use a cell phone while driving.  Restrictions addressing adult drivers ONLY prohibit TEXTING while driving.

Existing Conditions/Impacts:  This initiative aims at prohibiting the use of all hand-interaction devices for adult drivers, unless using in a hands-free mode. No impacts seen in terms of costs. However, saving even one life will have a great, positive impact and will relieve the social burdens resulting from loss of life or injuries.

Preferred Position:   Distracted Drivers are a danger to themselves, vehicle occupants, and other vehicles or pedestrians on the road.  Legislation should require that cell phone, etc. equipment be hands-free in order to address the MANDATORY USE OF HANDS-FREE EQUIPMENT WHILE DRIVING.

Benefits:   Increased safety on the roads. Decreased number of accidents with consequent loss of lives, property, and work productivity. NOTE: Psychological impacts on the individuals affected and social burdens resulting from loss of lives or injuries, are not addressed at this time.

Potential Supporters:  (Community leaders, Public/Private Partnership Opportunities, Organizations): Fairfax County Board of Supervisors'; Fairfax County State Senators and Delegates; Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations (FCFCA) Members, Public safety officials, citizens

Lead Federation Committee:  Public Safety

Prepared by:  Patrick Smaldore      FedPublicSafetyChr2017 @ fairfaxfederation.org      703-528-3935

 

• Issue 17P03 Law Enforcement VFOIA (PDF)

Issue ID:     17P03-Law Enforcement VFOIA

Date Submitted to Legislative Committee:   10-18-2016

Issue:   Amend the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA) consistent with the Federal FOIA to: 1. Specifically allow Law Enforcement (LE) reports of incidents involving LE shootings to be released with legally required redactions of sensitive information. 2. Specifically allow the release of all LE records, unless an Exemption 7 item (A) through (F) of the Federal FOIA (see below) is specifically named, is evident, and is demonstrable.

Background:   (Previously submitted as 16P01 on 10-22-2015):   The Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 5 U.S. Code §552 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552 ) allows any person—individual or corporate, citizen or not—to request and obtain, without explanation or justification, existing, identifiable, and unpublished agency records on any topic. Pursuant to the Federal FOIA, the public has presumptive access to agency records unless the material falls within any of FOIA's nine categories of exemption. Exemption 7 [5 U.S. Code § 552(b)(7)(A) - (F)] permits withholding investigatory records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes where: (A) Interference with law enforcement proceedings can be reasonably expected. (B) A person would be deprived of a fair trial or an impartial adjudication. (C) An unwarranted invasion of personal privacy could reasonably be expected. (D) Revealing a confidential source or information provided by a confidential source could reasonably be expected (E) Techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions would be disclosed or guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions would be disclosed, provided such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. (F) Endangering the safety or life of any individual could reasonably be expected. The Virginia FOIA (VFOIA) in Code of Virginia § 2.2-3700 et seq. (http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title2.2/chapter37/ ) guarantees citizens of the Commonwealth and representatives of the media access to public records held by public bodies, public officials, and public employees.  A public record is any writing or recording -- regardless of whether it is a paper record, an electronic file, an audio or video recording, or any other format -- that is prepared or owned by, or in the possession of, a public body or its officers, employees, or agents in the transaction of public business. All public records are presumed to be open and may only be withheld if a specific statutory exemption applies.

Existing Conditions/Impacts:  Pursuant to the VFOIA, all public records are presumed to be open to the public and may only be withheld if a specific statutory exemption applies; however, on many occasions, police records have been withheld on the basis of a "statutory exemption" regarding the release of Law Enforcement information. Such lack of openness has created an atmosphere of deep distrust of Police and open resentment within the media and other public.

Preferred Position:  Amend the VFOIA to specifically allow release of information related to LE-involved shootings and other LE practices and procedures related to LE activities while allowing the redaction of sensitive information. The amended act should additionally encourage transparency and accountability by establishing a culture of disclosure within the organizations.

Benefits:  The purpose of the VFOIA is to promote increased awareness of governmental activities. In furthering of this policy, VFOIA already requires that the law be interpreted liberally and in favor of access, and that any exemption must be interpreted narrowly. However, in many cases, access to police records has been denied due to embedded easily redactable information or other exceptions and exemptions. The amendments would ensure the specific release of certain non-sensitive information, thus encouraging renewed public trust in LE activities and policies.

Potential Supporters (Community leaders, Public/Private Partnership Opportunities, Organizations):  Fairfax County Board of Supervisors' Ad Hoc Police Practices Review Commission's Communications Subcommittee; Fairfax County State Senators and Delegates; Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations (FCFCA)

Lead Federation Committee:  Public Safety

Prepared by:  Patrick Smaldore      FedPublicSafetyChr2017 @ fairfaxfederation.org      703-528-3935

 

You may also choose to download the entire 2017 Board approved Legislation package as one document.

Final 2017 Legislative Package

These issues were discussed and voted on by the Federation Membership at its 27 October meeting for inclusion in the final Federation Legislative Package

This membership-approved package dated 28 October was sent to each of the 25 members of the Fairfax delegation to the Virginia General Assembly and to each of the ten members of the Board of Supervisors.