Date of Meeting: October 1, 2014 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION ITEM SUBJECT: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly Session ELECTION DISTRICT: Countywide CRITICAL ACTION DATE: December 8, 2014 CONTACTS: Jeff Gore, Hefty and Wiley, PC John Sandy, Assistant County Administrator PURPOSE: To continue the annual update of the Board’s legislative program, which includes the following sections: (1). Priority Statements, which set out the Board’s overarching priorities in the areas of transportation, land use, taxing authority and state funding. (2). Priority Initiatives, for which the County wants to initiate and pursue specific state legislative, regulatory or administrative actions, as appropriate; (3). Policy Statements that address state legislative and policy issues of importance to the County; and (4). Positions on specific legislative or other state measures or proposals that directly impact the County. BACKGROUND: According to this year’s legislative calendar, Virginia General Assembly members must submit bill drafting requests by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 2014, in order to meet the “pre-filing” deadline. Taking this into consideration, it is important that the Board of Supervisors begin the process of shaping its 2015 legislative program at its September 17 th Business Meeting. As a point of reference, the 2015 General Assembly Session is a “short” session which begins on Wednesday, January 14, 2015. The session is expected to last approximately 45 days ending around Friday, February 27, 2015. (Note: In “odd year short sessions” the Virginia constitution establishes a 30-day session, but the General Assembly by two-thirds vote may extend it by 30 days. Typically, “short sessions” last about 45 days. This item provides “New Issues,” which are comprised of new legislative issues/positions related to a number of matters provided to staff and/or the legislative liaisons by certain Board members for discussion purposes at this juncture and possible inclusion in the Board’s Legislative Program for the 2015 Virginia General Assembly. #3
Transcript
Date of Meeting: October 1, 2014
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly
Session ELECTION DISTRICT: Countywide CRITICAL ACTION DATE: December 8, 2014 CONTACTS: Jeff Gore, Hefty and Wiley, PC John Sandy, Assistant County Administrator
PURPOSE: To continue the annual update of the Board’s legislative program, which includes the following sections:
(1). Priority Statements, which set out the Board’s overarching priorities in the areas of transportation, land use, taxing authority and state funding. (2). Priority Initiatives, for which the County wants to initiate and pursue specific state legislative, regulatory or administrative actions, as appropriate; (3). Policy Statements that address state legislative and policy issues of importance to the County; and (4). Positions on specific legislative or other state measures or proposals that directly impact the County.
BACKGROUND: According to this year’s legislative calendar, Virginia General Assembly members must submit bill drafting requests by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 2014, in order to meet the “pre-filing” deadline. Taking this into consideration, it is important that the Board of Supervisors begin the process of shaping its 2015 legislative program at its September 17th Business Meeting. As a point of reference, the 2015 General Assembly Session is a “short” session which begins on Wednesday, January 14, 2015. The session is expected to last approximately 45 days ending around Friday, February 27, 2015. (Note: In “odd year short sessions” the Virginia constitution establishes a 30-day session, but the General Assembly by two-thirds vote may extend it by 30 days. Typically, “short sessions” last about 45 days. This item provides “New Issues,” which are comprised of new legislative issues/positions related to a number of matters provided to staff and/or the legislative liaisons by certain Board members for discussion purposes at this juncture and possible inclusion in the Board’s Legislative Program for the 2015 Virginia General Assembly.
#3
Item #3: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly Session Board of Supervisors Business Meeting October 1, 2014 Page 2 NEW POSITIONS – ACTION REQUESTED A proposed position and a background section, when possible are included as part of this section for the following newly proposed positions for the 2015 General Assembly Session Package for the Board’s consideration: 1. Study Commission or State Department of Taxation Study to Review Local Government Allocations/Revenue Shares for Personal Property Tax Relief Program and Communications Tax (Supervisor Letourneau) Proposed Position: Support either a General Assembly sponsored, or a State Department of Taxation study to review all local government allocations provided by the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 2006 and the Communications Sales and Use Tax Act of 2007 and any other such revenue neutral tax schemes with regard to their lack of responsiveness to growth and changing economic conditions. Background: The distribution among localities of the $950 million provided annually by the Commonwealth since 2006 for personal property tax relief on qualifying motor vehicles pursuant to § 58.1-3524 provides too little relief to vehicle owners in jurisdictions experiencing above-average growth. This inequity is illustrated by comparing Loudoun County with neighboring Fairfax County. Since 2006, Loudoun County has received $48,070,700 annually, or approximately 5.06% for personal property tax relief, while Fairfax County has received $211,313,944,
1 or roughly 22% share.
At the outset, these amounts were estimated to cover 70% of the respective personal property tax levies on qualifying personal use motor vehicles in each jurisdiction. However, for Tax Year 2014, Loudoun estimates that the Commonwealth’s personal property tax reimbursement will cover only 47% of the total levy on qualifying motor vehicles. Meanwhile, Fairfax County indicates that the State’s reimbursement will cover 62% of the total levy on qualifying motor vehicles in that County.
2 The share of state reimbursement has declined over time for both Counties as their populations and qualifying motor vehicle stocks have grown while the State’s reimbursement amount has remained constant. However, Loudoun’s reimbursement share has declined far more than that of Fairfax because of Loudoun’s much higher rate of growth. Moreover, Fairfax County has a personal property tax rate of $4.57 per $100 of assessed value, whereas Loudoun’s rate is $4.20. If the personal property tax rate in Fairfax were the same as that in Loudoun, the State’s reimbursement to Fairfax would cover 67% of total qualifying vehicle levy, versus Loudoun’s 47% reimbursement rate. Restoring equity among vehicle owners in different jurisdictions in Virginia requires that the existing distribution of the Commonwealth’s personal property tax relief payments be adjusted to more accurately reflect the current distribution of qualifying vehicle valuations among the local jurisdictions. The Virginia Communications Sales and Use Tax was implemented in 2007, replacing the local cable franchise and E-911 taxes, as well as the consumer utility tax on land lines, cellular telephones and cable television service. The communications tax consists of a 5% tax on the sales price of communications services. The legislative authority for the tax is included in Section 58.1, Chapter 6.2 of the Code of Virginia. Section 58.1-662 of the Code of Virginia states that all proceeds from the communications tax shall be deposited in the Communications Sales and Use Tax Trust Fund and subsequently disbursed to localities according to a preset formula. This approach is similar to the structure employed for the distribution of the local sales tax. Prior to FY 2010, localities were instructed by the State to report communications tax receipts as a local revenue source, which allowed jurisdictions to display relatively accurate historical comparisons between the current revenue and the taxes and fees which the
Item #3: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly Session Board of Supervisors Business Meeting October 1, 2014 Page 3 communications tax replaced. As part of its reporting guidance for FY 2010, the Auditor of Public Accounts directed localities to report communications tax revenue as non-categorical state aid. This represents a significant departure from existing practice. The APA’s guidance places communications tax revenue in the same category as the personal property tax relief program, alcohol and wine taxes, rental car tax and the rolling stock and mobile home titling taxes, which would make the tax vulnerable to diversion to other uses in the event of a budget shortfall or changing priorities. This tax is collected by communications service providers and remitted monthly to the Virginia State Department of Taxation (pursuant to § 58.1-645 et. seq.). The Department of Taxation distributes the proceeds (net of administrative fees and certain designated uses) monthly to localities. Loudoun County receives 2.78% (rounded) of the proceeds distributed monthly by the Department of Taxation. Pursuant to § 58.1-662 C the shares of all localities are fixed at a level equal to the share they received in FY 2010. Population data published by the Weldon-Cooper Center at the University of Virginia shows that in 2010, Loudoun County had approximately 3.9% of the Commonwealth’s population. By 2013, the County’s population share had increased by almost 8% to 4.2%. Similarly, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data on employment by location shows that in FY2010 the number of jobs in Loudoun County equaled 3.7% of the Commonwealth total. By 2013, employment in Loudoun County represented 4.0% of the Commonwealth total, an increase of nearly 9%. Assuming that Loudoun’s 2.78% share of the tax proceeds in FY 2010 accurately reflected the utilization of communications services in the County at that time, the fact that this share was less than Loudoun’s corresponding population and employment shares suggests that these services were not used as intensively in Loudoun as they were in other jurisdictions. There is no way to gauge whether the degree of utilization of communication services by Loudoun’s residents and businesses has changed over time relative to other jurisdictions, but notwithstanding that circumstance, an 8% increase in the County’s current share (commensurate with population and employment growth) would raise Loudoun’s distribution percentage to 3%. A 3% share would have yielded approximately $930,000 of additional revenue to the County in FY 2014 . Although § 58.1-662 C empowers the Commonwealth Tax Commissioner to adjust the share of a locality’s distribution, the amount that a jurisdiction’s share can be increased is capped at $100,000 in annual revenue. 1 Source: Footnote 2, Attachment VI to Fairfax County, Virginia: FY 2015 Adopted Budget Package 2 Source: Fairfax County Government webpage http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dta/cartax_pptra_qualification.html 2. State Income Tax Credits for Accessible Units (Disability Services Board) Proposed Position: Support increasing the total amount of state income tax credits granted for the Livable Home Tax Credit program in any fiscal year from $1 million to $2 million and increase the total amount of state income tax credits made available through the program allocated for purchase or construction of new residences from $500,000 to $1 million and the total amount allocated for retrofitting or renovation of existing residences from $500,000 to $1 million Background: The Virginia Livable Home Tax Credit (LHTC) program (§58.1-339.7. Livable Home Tax Credit) is designed to improve accessibility and universal visitability in Virginia’s residential units by providing state tax credits for the purchase of new units or the retrofitting of existing housing units. Tax credits are available for up to $5,000 for the purchase/construction of a new accessible residence and up to 50 percent for the cost of retrofitting existing units, not to
Item #3: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly Session Board of Supervisors Business Meeting October 1, 2014 Page 4 exceed $5,000. More information may be found in the Attached Program Brochure, or visit the website. Examples of accessibility and/or universal visitability features may include, but are not limited to, items as basic and profound as: doors with at least 34 inch clearance width, zero step entrance, accessible height light switches, hallway width of at least 36 inches, lifts, elevators, accessible bathrooms and kitchens. The credit shall be allowed for the taxable year in which the residence has been purchased or construction, retrofitting, or renovation of the residence or residential structure or unit has been completed. No credit shall be allowed under this section for the purchase, construction, retrofitting, or renovation of residential rental property. Any tax credit that exceeds the eligible individual’s or licensed contractor’s tax liability may be carried forward for up to seven years. If the total amount of tax credits issued under this program exceeds the $1 million allocation in a given fiscal year, the DHCD will pro-rate the amount of credits among the eligible applicants. In 2010 and 2011 the General Assembly increased the LHTC program allotments and changed the manner of distribution of credits. Since the 2011 legislative change, the LHTC program reached the maximum program allotted budget of $1 million with the majority of credits being extended to individuals. The DSB believes the need to increase the allotted tax credits for new home building and retrofitting is clear. See additional Attachments to this item as provided by the DSB with regard to the Program Use Report and the LHTC Comparison Chart by year. The 2014 Session bills were also recommended by the Virginia Disability Commission and is a bipartisan effort (SB 62 Poler and HB 295 Villanueva). Among the many supporters of the bill is the Easy Living Coalition comprised of AARP Virginia, Home Builders Association of Virginia, Rinehart Homes, Stephen Thomas Homes, The Virginia Board for People with Disabilities, Virginia’s Centers for Independent Living, Virginia Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired, Virginia Habitat for Humanity, Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development and Virginia Housing Development Authority. The majority of other counties support the bill. The House Finance Subcommittee #2 did note that there would be an estimated loss of state revenue and an administrative cost of approximately $27,500 beginning in 2015. The increases proposed in this bill unlikely to cost the County. Instead, there is no doubt as to the positive fiscal impact for Loudoun citizens. Not only would it assist individuals and builders with tax credits but it may also enable some families to make much needed accessible or universally visitable modifications to homes that might not have otherwise been possible. In turn those receiving the tax credits would be more likely to reinvest further in their homes and families within the county. According to the DSB, nearly 35% of the total population of Loudoun County (7% ages 5-64 and 27% 65+) has some sort of disability that affects their ability to access their homes or those of their family members and allies. DSB argues the fact that inaccessible homes affects a much larger percentage of the population of Loudoun because the majority of those with disabilities live with family members or allies. Often the ability of such persons with disabilities or their family and allies to physically or financially purchase a new accessible home or retrofit the existing home is hindered by income, lack of Medicaid waiver resources, lack of knowledge etc. The availability of accessible and affordable homes in Loudoun County is well known. The LHTC program encourages builders to explore the possibility of building homes that actually meet the needs of families of all ages and abilities. The Easy Living Homes Coalition also support the increases for the LHTC program.
Item #3: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly Session Board of Supervisors Business Meeting October 1, 2014 Page 5 3. Home and Community Based Medicaid Waivers (Disability Services Board & Community Services Board) Proposed Position: Support Additional State Funding for Home and Community Based Medicaid Waivers (Intellectual Disability/Developmental Disability Waivers) Background: “Home and Community-Based Medicaid Waivers are provided to people based on their needs, income and choices. Waivers are targeted to people who need the type of services provided in a nursing facility or other institution. Waivers provide supports to people who live in the community. Waivers provide services so that people can live in the community instead of a nursing facility or other institution.” (see Medicaid Services Guide found at Virginia Board for People with Disabilities). “Virginia’s home and community-based services (HCBS) waivers are funded by the Medicaid program to enable individuals to receive long-term care services in a less restrictive community setting in a more cost effective manner than if the individual had been placed in an institution. Section 1915 (c) of the Social Security Act allows states, with the approval of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), to “waive” certain federal requirements in the provision of Medicaid services. The Commonwealth developed the ID and DD Waivers to “target” services to individuals with developmental disabilities (DD), including intellectual disability (ID). The ID Waiver, serving individuals with intellectual disability, was created in 1991; the DD Waiver, serving individuals with a developmental disability over the age of six, was created in 2000. [Review of Potential Waiver Changes and Associated Costs Related to Improving the Intellectual Disability (ID), Day Support (DS),and Individual and Family Developmental Disabilities Support (DD) Waivers by DMAS and DBHDS available at http://www.abilityunleashed.com/Virginia_%20DMAS_Review_of_DOJ-VA_Agreement.pdf] United States Department of Justice Settlement Agreement and Effect on Waivers.—In 2012, as a result of the investigation of conditions in Virginia’s institutions (also called Training Centers) serving those with disabilities and the subsequent Department of Justice finding that the Commonwealth of Virginia had failed to comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, as interpreted by Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), the Commonwealth entered into a settlement agreement (hereinafter “DOJ Settlement Agreement”) to remedy past injustices and ensure equal treatment in the future. Specifically, the ADA and Olmstead require that, to the extent the Commonwealth offer services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, such services shall be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate to meet their needs. In the context of waivers, the DOJ Settlement Agreement provided relief in the form of an increase the number of ID Waiver slots by 3,800 (800 for people to exit institutions and 3200 for those on waitlists) and DD Waiver slots by 450. (See generally www.disabilitylawva.org/resources/documents/doj-documents/ and for Court documents http://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/virginia_settlement.pdf).
Item #3: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly Session Board of Supervisors Business Meeting October 1, 2014 Page 6 The Waiver Reality1.—The ID/DD Waivers provided by the DOJ Settlement Agreement are not sufficient to meet the needs of people on waiting lists. The ID Waiver waiting list alone has increased by 10% since the DOJ Settlement Agreement was announced (January 2012 – November 2013). If no additional action is taken, the ID/DD Waiver waiting lists will double by the end of the agreement. Currently, approximately 8,000 individuals are living in Virginia communities with the support of the ID Waiver (DBHDS, 2010). Community-based services obtained through this Waiver are provided to individuals who have needs that are equivalent to (if not greater than) current Training Center residents. (Fortune & Auerbach, 2009). As of June, 2014 the waiver waitlists numbers are stated below:
• ID Waiver Waitlist across the Commonwealth of Virginia: 7,174 (Urgent 4,299; Non-Urgent 2,875)
• ID Waiver Waitlist in Loudoun County: 273 (Urgent: 203) • DD Waiver Waitlist across the Commonwealth of Virginia: 1,475
In 2010 in Loudoun County, there were 84 people on the urgent ID Waiver waiting list, versus 203 now, increasing 142% over the last four years. Direct evidence of increased urgent need for waivers:
• Over 17,000 Virginians with developmental disabilities are living at home with parents age 60 or over (Braddock, Hemp, & Rizzolo, 2008)
• It is estimated that more than 1,000 individuals with ID/DD have been on waiting
lists for five years or more. • Two Loudoun County Disability Services Board (DSB) members have had
children on the waiting lists for over five years (one now has the waiver and the other has been on the waitlist for nearly nine years).
In the 2013-2014 legislative session, the General Assembly only funded 115 total new ID Waiver and 15 total new DD Waiver slots. Per the aforementioned DOJ Settlement Agreement, 90 of those ID Waiver slots funded in 2013-2014 were set aside for people leaving state institutions/ training centers. Therefore, the State of Virginia essentially funded only 25 total new ID Waivers to be dispersed across 40 Community Services Boards (CSBs) of Virginia. Loudoun County did not receive any new waiver slots in the last fiscal year. Clearly, the DSB argues that the ID/DD Waivers relief provided the by the DOJ Settlement Agreement is not sufficient to meet the needs of people on waiting lists. The ID Waiver waiting list alone has increased by 10% since the DOJ Settlement Agreement was announced (January 2012 – November 2013). If no additional action is taken, the ID/DD Waiver waiting lists will double by the end of the agreement (2022).
1 The following ID/DD waiver data (found in the background, issue and fiscal impact sections) was collected from various sources including www.thearcofva.org, www.dmas.virginia.gov, www.dbhds.virginia.gov , www.disabilitylawva.org and is the position taken by CSBs.
Item #3: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly Session Board of Supervisors Business Meeting October 1, 2014 Page 7 According to the Loudoun DSB, past actions from the General Assembly to respond to the ID/DD Waiver waiting list crisis, above what is required by the DOJ, have slowed the net growth of the ID/DD Waiver waiting lists, but further action is required to keep pace with growth and work towards elimination of the list. The ID Waiver “urgent need” waiting list growth has averaged 675 people per year over the past two years. The total ID Waiver waiting list growth has averaged 780 people/year (approximately two people per day). Total DD Waiver waiting list growth has averaged 212 people per year. To eliminate the “urgent need” waiting list in the next five years (and the total ID Waiver waiting list in 10 years) will require 1,425 waivers per year. To eliminate the DD Waiver waiting list in the next five years will require 430 waivers per year. The average cost of an ID Waiver is $67,000 per person per year ($95,000 for people on the ID Waiver who live in group homes), which is less than half the average cost of an institution, $194,000 per person per year (DBHDS, 2009). Virginia spends more than $250 million per year to keep 1,200 Virginians with intellectual disabilities in training centers large, segregated state institutions. For the same cost, over 2,631 people could be receiving 24/hour, community-based supports through the ID Waiver. If all families on the waiting lists were to “choose” a training center instead of continuing to wait for community services, it would cost the state more than $572 million per year, twice the cost of eliminating the waiting list all together. If the Commonwealth chooses to fund new waiver slots at the rate of the previous years, the waiting list for ID/DD services — currently approaching 8,000 combined — will increase by an additional 1,500 people by the end of the next biennium (i.e., by June 30, 2016). It is extremely difficult to fully quantify the financial impact that hindered access to community based services has on Virginians with disabilities, their families and allies. Detailing services provided under the ID/DD waiver, one need only assume that many of the services not covered by the primary insurance, a lesser waiver (usually the EDCD waiver) or other sources are either not obtained or paid for out-of-pocket by persons on the waitlist and their families/ allies. Despite being ranked top ten in the country for per capita income (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008), Virginia is ranked 46th in the country for its fiscal effort toward community-based services for people with developmental disabilities (Braddock, Hemp, & Rizzolo, 2008) The DSB and the Community Services Board CSB) recommends the Commonwealth of Virginia fund an additional (in addition to those required via the DOJ Settlement Agreement) 1,000 ID Waiver slots and 400 DD Waiver slots each fiscal year. Despite some progress, the issue of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities needing access to community-based services and supports only continues to grow. The Commonwealth of Virginia needs to increase the amount of individuals receiving both the ID and DD Waivers. 1,000 ID Waivers and 400 DD Waivers per year will not only prevent further growth of the lists, it will put the Commonwealth on track to eliminate the ID Waiver Urgent List and the DD Waiver Waiting List within the next five years. The DSB and CSB believes that the Commonwealth of Virginia should provide people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID/DD) with the least restrictive setting appropriate to meet their needs. In order to do this, the DSB believes that the Commonwealth must make community-based living a priority by funding additional waiver slots (in addition to those required by the DOJ Settlement Agreement) each fiscal year to eliminate waitlists for services for people with ID/DD across the Commonwealth.
7
Item #3: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly Session Board of Supervisors Business Meeting October 1, 2014 Page 8 4. Unaccompanied Children within Loudoun County (Supervisor Delgaudio) Proposed Position (Federal): Support the July 14, 2014 National Association of Counties (NACo) adopted resolution that calls on the Administration and Congress to address the growing humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied children crossing the border from Central America, to ensure that adequate federal funds are appropriated to shelter and provide care, including medical assistance, while they remain in the country, to ensure that the costs of the care provided to these children are not transferred to counties and to work with the countries of origin to address the conditions that have led to this crisis. Background: The United States has recently experienced an increase in the number of undocumented minors traveling alone through Mexico from locations originating within Central America, without parents and sometimes without family members, and arriving at the US Southern Border. The number of the children at the southern border detained by the Department of Homeland Security has increased significantly over the summer months. According the federal government’s report on unaccompanied minors since August 31, 2014, there are approximately 34,456 children residing within the United States and approximately 227 children located within Loudoun County. The federal government through its US Department of Health and Human Services-Office of Refugee Resettlement has coordinated temporary shelter care for many of these children at their federally contracted facilities throughout the United States. None of these facilities are located within Loudoun County. The children residing within Loudoun County are sponsored by relatives, friends and others. According to the ORR website for this program, these sponsors have certain requirements and qualifications. These minors also receive basic immunizations within a certain period of their relocation. These contracted facilities (albeit outside of Loudoun County) and sponsors house these undocumented minors while their immigration cases are cases are being considered. According to federal law, the Loudoun County Public School System has the responsiblilty for providing primary and secondary education for all children residing within its geographic boundaries regardless of their legal status. The local Health Department also provides access to basic health care to persons regardless of legal status. The local Health Department is unable to request information regarding their legal status by federal law since their services are not defined as federal services. The Department of Family Services (DFS) would also provide child protective services for all children regardless of documentation for reasons of safety and welfare, if necessary. To date both the local Health Department and the Department of Family Services have not noticed any increases in the demand for their services in either of these areas for these specific individuals. DFS is unable to provide any traditional federal assistance program services to undocumented persons (e.g., SNAP, TANF etc.) and none of these children are within the department’s foster care program.
Item #3: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly Session Board of Supervisors Business Meeting October 1, 2014 Page 9 DRAFT MOTIONS FOR NEW POSITIONS: 1. Study Commission or State Department of Taxation Study to Review Local Government Allocations/Revenue Shares for Personal Property Tax Relief Program and Communications Tax (Supervisor Letourneau) I move that the Board of Supervisors support either a General Assembly sponsored, or a State Department of Taxation study to review all local government allocations provided by the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 2006 and the Communications Sales and Use Tax Act of 2007 and any other such revenue neutral tax schemes with regard to their lack of responsiveness to growth and changing economic conditions. -or- I move an alternative motion. 2. State Income Tax Credits for Accessible Units (Disability Services Board) I move that the Board of Supervisors support increasing the total amount of state income tax credits granted for the Livable Home Tax Credit program in any fiscal year from $1 million to $2 million and increase the total amount of state income tax credits made available through the program allocated for purchase or construction of new residences from $500,000 to $1 million and the total amount allocated for retrofitting or renovation of existing residences from $500,000 to $1 million -or- I move an alternative motion. 3. Home and Community Based Medicaid Waivers (Disability Services Board and Community Services Board) I move that the Board of Supervisors support additional State Funding for Home and Community Based Medicaid Waivers (Intellectual Disability/Developmental Disability Waivers) -or- I move an alternative motion. 4. Unaccompanied Children in Loudoun County (Supervisor Delgaudio) I move that the Board of Supervisors support the July 14, 2014 National Association of Counties (NACo) resolution that calls on the Administration and Congress to address the growing humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied children crossing the border from Central America, to ensure that adequate federal funds are appropriated to shelter and provide care, including medical assistance, while they remain in the country, to ensure that the costs of the care provided to these children are not transferred to counties and to work with the countries of origin to address the conditions that have led to this crisis. -or- I move an alternative motion.
9
Item #3: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly Session Board of Supervisors Business Meeting October 1, 2014 Page 10 INFORMATION ONLY (No Action Requested) 1. Physical Education Requirements Position Request (Loudoun Health Council)
Background: The Loudoun Health Council at its regular meeting held on September 11, 2014, approved a request that the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors include as part of their 2015 legislative program the following position:
“Whereas a recent Institute of Medicine report in May 2013, ‘Educating the Student Body’ indicates that 30 minutes of physical activity at school a day improves physical health as well as classroom behavior and performance. This report supports the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that children engage in 60 minutes of physical activity every day, half of which occur in school. Therefore, the LHC recommends that the Loudoun Board of Supervisors add to its legislative agenda support for Commonwealth General Assembly legislation supporting a program of fitness in schools that provides guidelines for a required minimum of 150 minutes of weekly physical activity for students.”
Please note that the Council brought forward the same position last year; and at the January 15, 2014 Business Meeting, the Board of Supervisors unanimously opposed this position to be included as part of its 2014 Legislative Program as result of the following analysis and fiscal impact brought forward by staff and the Loudoun County Public Schools respectively: In 2011, HB 1644 (O’Bannon), was introduced, but failed to pass during the General Assembly session. The bill would have required at least 150 minutes of physical education per week on average during the regular school year for students in grades K through eight. The Fiscal Impact Statement for HB 1644 showed no additional cost to the state since the bill did not change the state’s SOQ staffing requirements, but noted that there would likely be a significant local impact to employ sufficient staff to meet the minutes per week physical education requirement. According to the instructional and budget departments of Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) in 2014, the county already meets these standards (i.e., formal physical education instruction) for middle and high school students but not at elementary schools. At elementary schools, the physical activity requirement is met with a combination of physical education instruction and informal physical activity (e.g. recess). If the requirement becomes 150 minutes of “physical activity,” not formal physical education instruction at elementary schools, then LCPS already exceeds that total. LCPS provides 90 minutes per week of physical education instruction with an endorsed teacher, plus a daily excess of 15 minutes in unstructured physical activity, for a total of 165 minutes per week; and thus exceeding the 150 minute minimum by 15 minutes per week. However, if any proposed legislation includes specific language which requires “formal physical education instruction” for elementary school students, the LCPS estimates that the cost to implement such guidelines, including hiring enough licensed physical education teachers, would be approximately $2.5 million per year, based on current enrollment numbers. If the mandate permitted the use of teacher assistants, then the cost would be approximately $1.1 million per year. If such legislation is enacted which dictates requirements of 150 minutes of formal physical education instruction and not just physical activity without state funds being provided to local school divisions, it would constitute an added unfunded mandate for LCPS for elementary schools. This would be contrary to the Board’s adopted policy statement in their legislative
Item #3: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly Session Board of Supervisors Business Meeting October 1, 2014 Page 11 program with regard to unfunded state mandates. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board decline adding this to their legislative program, or supporting similar legislation at this time. 2. State Budget Agreement: Special Session 2: $30M Across-the Board Reductions
Statewide to Local Governments and Background: At the continuation of the Special Session I on September 18, 2014, the Governor and the Virginia General Assembly reached agreement on handling the continuing $881.5M state revenue shortfall and the necessary expenditure reductions for both FY 2015 and FY 2016. The shortfall is in addition to the $1.55B two-year, identified shortfall three months prior. Specifically, direct aid to localities is being reduced by $30M per fiscal year (FY 2015 and FY 2016) statewide. This reduction, therefore resurrects the across-the-board reductions first introduced by then Governor Kaine at a level of $50M and then increased by then Governor McDonnell to $60M during his term. The Virginia General Assembly eventually ended these reductions as part of their 2013 General Assembly Regular Session. They were brought back into play during the 2014 Special Session I once Governor McAuliffe and the money committees were faced with a series of revenue shortfalls associated with lower than anticipated collections of state income tax withholding mostly resulting from the expiration of high income tax rates under the current Administration and further dampening of revenues resulting from federal sequestration. HB 5010 includes the exact language for these reductions which will likely cost Loudoun County approximately $600,000 per year. The good news is that Loudoun County did not include the restoration of these reductions as part of its FY 2015 Adopted Budget; and therefore, there should be little, or no impact for this fiscal year for this specific reduction. These reductions will be required for the FY 2016 Budget. As reported by the Virginia Municipal League’s September 25, 2014 Bulletin (excerpt):
In June 2014, the official revenue forecast assumed growth in the state general fund of 5.2 percent in FY15 and 4.1 percent in FY16. A new forecast was ordered in August after FY14 ended with a revenue shortfall of $437.8 million, which was more than $80 million greater than the amount state fiscal experts anticipated. The August revenue forecast now calls for revenue growth of 2.7 percent in each year of the biennium. (Another revenue forecast will be done as Governor Terry McAuliffe prepares and submits an amended budget in late December.) HB 5010 amends the Appropriation Act passed in June. The measure updates the revenues assumed in the budget to reflect the downward revisions incorporated in the August revenue forecast. The bill also appropriates transfers from the state's "Rainy Day Fund" of $470 million in FY15 and $235 million in FY16. As brought forward by VML, the first strategy - resulting in spending cuts of $189.7 million in FY15 and $78 million in FY16 - is made up of actions that should have little impact on local governments. There is, however, an exception. Embedded in the first year is a $19.8 million action to delay for one-year the transfer of additional sales tax revenue approved for road maintenance. The authorization of general fund sales tax revenue was included in the transportation funding package approved last year by the legislature. It is unknown how VDOT will absorb the revenue loss.
Item #3: Legislative Program for the 2015 General Assembly Session Board of Supervisors Business Meeting October 1, 2014 Page 12
The second action that cuts state agency spending could affect local governments, depending on the strategies employed. Agencies submitted their reduction plans last week to their respective cabinet secretaries for review. The approved plans will be presented to the General Assembly by mid-October, and incorporated into the budget bill McAuliffe introduces in December. The third action is familiar to local governments a mentioned above. It is a less costly version of the "Local Aid to the Commonwealth" program used during the administrations of Gov. Tim Kaine and Gov. Bob McDonnell. The Virginia Department of Planning and Budget will distribute targets to counties (towns are exempt) within the next three to four weeks. Local governments are then given the option to choose how the targets will be achieved. The adopted strategies will be shared with the General Assembly in late fall. The final action - calling for $272 million in reductions in FY16 - will be addressed by the governor in his December budget bill. It is quite likely that local governments will be affected. The $45 million-a-year reductions for higher education should not affect local budgets.
Closing the Budget Gap
Budget strategy FY15 FY16
Balances/transfers/fund swaps/other actions $189.7 million $78 million
State agencies spending cuts $92.4 million $100 million
Higher education spending cuts $45million $45 million
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1.—Supporting Documents for Accessible Unit State Tax Credit Attachment 2.—Supporting Documents for ID/DD Waivers Attachment 3.—Draft Loudoun County 2015 Legislative Program with staff recommended
updates (as of September 17, 2014)
12
$2000 for new
construction;
50% of retrofit
not to exceed
$2000;
available to
individuals
only
$5000 for new
construction;
50% of retrofit
not to exceed
$5000;
available to
individuals
and
contractors
$5000 for new
construction;
50% of retrofit
not to exceed
$5000;
available to
individuals
and
contractors
$5000 for new
construction;
50% of
retrofit not to
exceed $5000;
available to
individuals
and
contractors
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Qualifying applicants (individuals) 47 53 128 174 166 201
Qualifying applicants (contractors) n/a n/a n/a 64 65 56
Total number of qualifying applicants 47 53 128 238 231 257
Total waiver slots are set by the Virginia General Assembly.
Total enrollment and wait lists are point in time counts and subject to frequent changes.
ID and Day Support Waiver use the same wait list.
MFP Slots are not included in the above table
ATTACHMENT 2
WAIVER SERVICES BY HOME- AND COMMUNITY-BASED WAIVER
Updated 03/2014
EDCD ID DD Tech DS AAL Enrollment as of March 2014*
27,725
9,815
945
297
249
43 Consumer-Directed Component? Yes Yes Yes No No No
Adult Day Health Care Assisted Living Assistive Technology ** Case Management (CM)
Separate CM regulation
Separate CM
regulation
Companion Services Congregate Residential Support Services
Crisis Stabilization Crisis Supervision Day Support Services Environmental Modifications ** Family/caregiver Training In-home Residential Supports Personal Care Services
AD; adults only
Personal Emergency Response System (PERS)/Medication Monitoring
*LTC Alpha Report as of March 2014 **Available only to individuals enrolled in the Money Follows the Person Program AD = Agency Directed
ATTACHMENT 2
DD Waiver Fact Sheet Page 1 of 4 October 2013
Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS) The Individual and Family Developmental Disabilities
Support (DD) Waiver Fact Sheet 2012
Initiative Home and community-based (1915(c)) waiver whose purpose is to provide care in the
community rather than in an Intermediate Care Facility for Persons with Intellectual Disability (ICF/ID).
Targeted Population
Individuals who are 6 years of age and older who have a Developmental Disability diagnosis or a related condition and do not have a diagnosis of intellectual disability (ID) who: (1) meet the ICF/ID level of care criteria (i.e., meet two out of seven levels of functioning in order to qualify); (2) are determined to be at imminent risk of ICF/ID placement, and (3) are determined that community-based care services under the waiver are the critical services that enable the individual to remain at home rather than being placed in an ICF/ID.
Program Administration
The program is administered by DBHDS and DMAS. .
Eligibility
The DD Waiver provides services to participants 6 years of age and older who have a diagnosis of Developmental Disability or a related condition and do not have a diagnosis of ID. Participants must require the level of care provided in an ICF/ID. Children who do not have a diagnosis of ID, and have received services through the ID Waiver, become ineligible for the ID Waiver when they reach the age of 6. At that time, they can be screened for eligibility for the IFDDS Waiver; if found eligible, they may transfer to the waiver prior to the age of 7 and receive an IFDDS waiver slot subject to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approval. Individuals remain on the ID waiver until a smooth transition can take place.
Services Available
• Adult Companion Services – Agency-Directed • Assistive Technology • Case Management • Crisis Stabilization • Crisis Supervision • Day Support - High Intensity and Regular • Environmental Modifications • Family/Caregiver Training • In-home Residential Support (not group homes) • Personal Care – Agency-Directed and Consumer-Directed • Personal Emergency Response System (PERS) • Prevocational Training • Respite Care – Agency-Directed and Consumer-Directed • Skilled Nursing • Supported Employment – Enclave and Individual • Therapeutic Consultation • Transitional Services
Service
Authorization
An individual is screened by the local Virginia Department of Health or Child Development Clinics designated to serve as the screening team for this waiver. If the screening team determines the individual meets criteria, the individual is offered the choice of DD Waiver.. DMAS makes the final determination for waiver criteria and assigns the individual to the waitlist until a slot becomes available. Slot allocation is on a first come, first served basis.
ATTACHMENT 2
DD Waiver Fact Sheet Page 2 of 4 October 2013
After enrollment and plan of care approval by DMAS, service authorizations are processed by DMAS’ service authorization contractor.
Waiting List
A waiting list exists for the DD Waiver. The waiting list is maintained on a first-come, first served basis by DMAS. If a slot becomes vacant or when a new slot is allocated, the DMAS is responsible for assigning the slot to the next individual on the waiting list. Slots are available for individuals transferring directly from institutions via the Money Follows the Person program, in addition to the allocated slots. These individuals do not follow the waiting list process described above.
Emergency
Criteria
Emergency waiver slots become available when the General Assembly allocates slots for the DD Waiver. Subject to available funding, individuals must meet at least one of the emergency criteria to be eligible for immediate access to waiver services without consideration to the length of time an individual has been waiting to access services. In the absence of waiver services, the individual would not be able to remain in his home. The criteria are:
1. The primary caregiver has a serious illness, has been hospitalized, or has died; or
2. The individual has been determined by the Department of Social Services (DSS) to have been abused or neglected and is in need of immediate waiver services; or
3. The individual demonstrates behaviors which present risk to personal or public safety; or
4. The individual presents extreme physical, emotional or financial burden at home and the family or caregiver is unable to continue to provide care.
5. The individual lives in an institutional setting and has a viable discharge plan in place.
Definitions
(12VAC30-120-700 et seq.)
"Assistive technology" means specialized medical equipment and supplies including those devices, controls, or appliances specified in the plan of care but not available under the State Plan for Medical Assistance that enable individuals to increase their abilities to perform activities of daily living, or to perceive, control, or communicate with the environment in which they live, or that are necessary to the proper functioning of the specialized equipment.
"Case management" means services as defined in 12VAC30-50-490.
"Companion services" means non-medical care, supervision and socialization provided to an adult (age 18 and older). The provision of companion services does not entail hands-on care. It is provided in accordance with a therapeutic goal in the plan of care and is not purely diversional in nature.
"Consumer-directed services" means personal care, companion services, and/or respite care services where the individual or his family/caregiver, as appropriate, is responsible for hiring, training, supervising, and firing of the employee or employees.
"Crisis stabilization" means direct intervention for persons with related conditions who are experiencing serious psychiatric or behavioral challenges, or both, that jeopardize their current community living situation. This service must provide temporary intensive services and supports that avert emergency psychiatric hospitalization or institutional placement or prevent other out-of-home placement. This service shall be designed to stabilize individuals and strengthen the current living situations so that individuals may be maintained in the community during and beyond the crisis period.
"Day support" means training in intellectual, sensory, motor, and affective social development including awareness skills, sensory stimulation, use of appropriate behaviors and social skills, learning and problem solving, communication and self care, physical development, services and support activities. These services take place outside of the individual's home/residence.
"Environmental modifications" means physical adaptations to a house, place of residence, primary vehicle or work site, when the work site modification exceeds reasonable accommodation requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, necessary to ensure individuals' health and safety or enable functioning with greater independence when the adaptation is not being used to bring a substandard dwelling up to minimum habitation standards and is of direct medical or remedial benefit to individuals.
"Family/caregiver training" means training and counseling services provided to families or caregivers of individuals receiving services in the IFDDS Waiver.
"In-home residential support services" means support provided primarily in the individual's home, which includes training, assistance, and specialized supervision to enable the individual to maintain or improve his health; assisting in performing individual care tasks; training in activities of daily living; training and use of community resources; providing life skills training; and adapting behavior to community and home-like environments.
"Personal care services" means long-term maintenance or support services necessary to enable individuals to remain in or return to the community rather than enter an Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded. Personal care services include assistance with activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, access to the community, medication or other medical needs, and monitoring health status and physical condition. This does not include skilled nursing services with the exception of skilled nursing tasks that may be delegated in accordance with 18VAC90-20-420 through 18VAC90-20-460 and Act (§ 54.1-3000 et seq. of The Code of Virginia).
"Personal emergency response system (PERS)" is an electronic device that enables certain individuals to secure help in an emergency. PERS services are limited to those individuals who live alone or are alone for significant parts of the day and who have no regular caregiver for extended periods of time, and who would otherwise require extensive routine supervision.
“Prevocational services” are services aimed at preparing an individual for paid or unpaid employment, but are not job-task oriented. Prevocational services are provided for individuals who are not expected to be able to join the general work force without supports or to participate in a transitional, sheltered workshop within one year of beginning waiver services (excluding supported employment services or programs). Activities included in this service are not primarily directed at teaching specific job skills but at underlying rehabilitative goals such as accepting supervision, attendance, task completion, problem solving, and safety.
"Respite care" means services provided for unpaid caregivers of eligible individuals who are unable to care for themselves and are provided on an episodic or routine basis because of the absence of or need for relief of those unpaid persons who routinely provide the care
"Skilled nursing services" means nursing services (i) listed in the plan of care that do not meet home health criteria, (ii) required to prevent institutionalization, (iii) not otherwise available under the State Plan for Medical Assistance, (iv) provided within the scope of the
state's Nursing Act (§ 54.1-3000 et seq. of The Code of Virginia) and Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq. of The Code of Virginia), and (v) provided by a registered professional nurse or by a licensed practical nurse under the supervision of a registered nurse who is licensed to practice in the state. Skilled nursing services are to be used to provide training, consultation, nurse delegation as appropriate and oversight of direct care staff as appropriate.
"Supported employment" means work in settings in which persons without disabilities are typically employed. It includes training in specific skills related to paid employment and provision of ongoing or intermittent assistance and specialized supervision to enable an individual to maintain paid employment.
"Therapeutic consultation" means consultation provided by members of psychology, social work, rehabilitation engineering, behavioral analysis, speech therapy, occupational therapy, psychiatry, psychiatric clinical nursing, therapeutic recreation, or physical therapy or behavior consultation to assist individuals, parents, family members, in-home residential support, day support and any other providers of support services in implementing a plan of care.
"Transition services" means set-up expenses for individuals who are transitioning from an institution or licensed or certified provider-operated living arrangement to a living arrangement in a private residence where the person is directly responsible for his or her own living expenses.
Quality Management
Review
DMAS conducts quality management reviews of the services provided and interview individuals for all providers providing services in this waiver to ensure the health and safety of all individuals. Level of functioning reviews are performed at least annually.
Reimbursement Rates
Reimbursement rates can be found on the DMAS website at www.dmas.virginia.gov/ltc-home.htm.
Number of People Served
(SFY2011)
583*
Total Waiver Expenditures
(SFY2011)
$18,318,452*
Average Cost Per Recipient
(SFY2011)
$31,421*
Regulatory
Basis
12VAC30-120-700 et seq.
Program Contact
Mr. Sam Piñero, Manager, DBHDS, Office of Developmental Services, (804) 786-2149 or [email protected] . Information may also be found on the DMAS website at www.dmas.virginia.gov or the DBHDS website at http://www.dbhds.virginia.gov/ODS-default.htm
Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services Intellectual Disability Waiver
Fact Sheet 2012
Initiative Home- and community-based (1915 (c)) waiver the purpose of which is to provide support in the community rather than in an Intermediate Care Facility for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/IID).
Targeted Population
Individuals up to 6 years of age who are at developmental risk and individuals age 6 and older who have Intellectual Disability (ID). All individuals must: (1) Meet the ICF/IID level of care criteria (i.e., meet at least two out of seven categories of the Level of Functioning Survey in order to qualify); (2) Require waiver services within 30 days; and (3) Be determined that community-based services under the waiver are the critical services that enable the individual to delay or avoid placement in an ICF/IID or promote exiting from either an ICF/IID or other institutional placement.
Program Administration
Program is administered by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS) and the Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS).
Eligibility Rules The individual must be eligible for Medicaid and meet screening criteria; the income limit is 300% of the SSI payment limit for one person. The individual must meet criteria for ICF/IID; and must have ID or be under age 6 at developmental risk.
Services Available
• Adult Companion Services – Agency-Directed and Consumer-Directed • Assistive Technology • Congregate Residential Support • Crisis Stabilization • Crisis Supervision • Day Support – Regular and High Intensity • Environmental Modifications • In-Home Residential Support • Medication Monitoring (can only be received in conjunction with PERS) • Personal Emergency Response System (PERS) – (Installation and Monthly Monitoring) • Personal Assistance – Agency-Directed and Consumer-Directed • Prevocational Services – Regular and High Intensity • Respite Services – Agency-Directed and Consumer-Directed (480 hours max/year) • Services Facilitation • Skilled Nursing – RN and LPN • Supported Employment – Group and Individual • Therapeutic Consultation • Transition Services
Service Authorization
An individual or the individual’s representative is screened at the local Community Services Board (CSB). DBHDS performs enrollment and service authorization for this waiver.
Waiting List A waiting list exists for the ID Waiver. The waiting list is maintained as follows:
All CSBs/Behavioral Health Authorities (BHAs) are responsible for maintaining their own waiting list for the ID Waiver. The waiting list maintained by the CSB/BHA consists of three categories: urgent, non-urgent, and a planning list. DBHDS maintains the Statewide
ATTACHMENT 2
ID Waiver Fact Sheet Page 2 of 5 October 2013
Waiting List to include the CSBs’ urgent and nonurgent lists. Those in the urgent category are provided priority. Only after all individuals who meet the urgent criteria have been served will individuals in the non-urgent category be served
If a slot becomes vacant or when a new slot is allocated, the CSB/BHA is responsible for assigning the slot to an individual in the urgent category, based on the needs of the individual at the time a slot becomes available and using criteria implemented statewide.
Slots are available for individuals transferring directly from institutions (including Money Follows the Person slots), in addition to the allocated community slots. These individuals do not follow the waiting list process described above.
Urgent Criteria The urgent category is assigned when the individual is determined to be at significant risk. The urgent category may be assigned only when the individual or legal guardian would accept the requested service if it were offered.
Satisfaction of one or more of the following criteria shall create a presumption that the individual is at significant risk and indicate that the individual should be placed on the Urgent Need of Waiver Services Waiting List:
• Both primary caregivers are 55 years of age or older, if there is one primary caregiver, that primary caregiver is 55 years of age or older;
• The individual is living with a primary caregiver who is providing the service voluntarily and without pay and the primary caregiver indicates that he or she can no longer care for the individual with Intellectual Disability;
• There is a clear risk of abuse, neglect, or exploitation;
• The primary caregiver has a chronic or long term physical or psychiatric condition or conditions which significantly limit his or her ability to care for the individual with ID;
• The individual is aging out of a publicly funded residential placement or otherwise becoming homeless (exclusive of children who are graduating from high school); or
• The individual with ID lives with the primary caregiver and there is a risk to the health or safety of the individual, primary caregiver, or other individual living in the home due to either of the following conditions:
1. The individual’s behavior or behaviors present a risk to himself or others which cannot be effectively managed by the primary caregiver even with generic or specialized support arranged or provided by the CSB/BHA; or
2. There are physical care needs (such as lifting or bathing) or medical needs that cannot be managed by the primary caregiver even with generic or specialized supports arranged or provided the CSB/BHA.
Definitions
(12VAC30-120-1000) "Assistive technology" means specialized medical equipment and supplies including those devices, controls, or appliances, specified in the Individual Support Plan but not available under the State Plan for Medical Assistance, which enable individuals to increase their abilities to perform activities of daily living, or to perceive, control, or communicate with the environment in which they live, or that are necessary to the proper functioning of the specialized equipment.
"Case management" means the assessing and planning of services; linking the individual to services and supports identified in the Individual Support Plan; assisting the individual directly for the purpose of locating, developing or obtaining needed services and resources;
ATTACHMENT 2
ID Waiver Fact Sheet Page 3 of 5 October 2013
coordinating services and service planning with other agencies and providers involved with the individual; enhancing community integration; making collateral contacts to promote the implementation of the Individual Support Plan and community integration; monitoring to assess ongoing progress and ensuring services are delivered; and education and counseling that guides the individual and develops a supportive relationship that promotes the Individual Support Plan.
"Companion services" means nonmedical care, support, and socialization, provided to an adult (age 18 and over). The provision of companion services does not entail routine hands-on care. It is provided in accordance with a therapeutic goal in the consumer service plan and is not purely diversional in nature.
"Consumer-directed model" means services for which the individual and the individual's employer of record, as appropriate, is responsible for hiring, training, supervising, and firing of the. person or persons who render the direct support or services reimbursed by DMAS.
"Crisis stabilization" means direct intervention to individuals with Intellectual Disability who are experiencing serious psychiatric or behavioral challenges that jeopardize their current community living situation, by providing temporary intensive services and supports that avert emergency psychiatric hospitalization or institutional placement or prevent other out-of-home placement. This service shall be designed to stabilize the individual and strengthen the current living situation so the individual can be supported in the community during and beyond the crisis period.
"Day support" means services that promote skill building and provide supports (assistance) and safety supports for the acquisition, retention, or improvement of self-help, socialization, and adaptive skills, which typically take place outside the home in which the individual resides. Day support services shall focus on enabling the individual to attain or maintain his highest potential level of functioning.
"Environmental modifications" means physical adaptations to a primary place of residence, primary vehicle or work site (when the work site modification exceeds reasonable accommodation requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act) that are necessary to ensure the individual's health and safety or enable functioning with greater independence when the adaptation is not being used to bring a substandard dwelling up to minimum habitation standards. Such EM shall be of direct medical or remedial benefit to the individual.
"Personal assistance services" means assistance with activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, access to the community, self-administration of medication, or other medical needs, and the monitoring of health status and physical condition.
"Personal emergency response system (PERS)" is an electronic device and monitoring service that enables certain individuals at high risk of institutionalization to secure help in an emergency. PERS services are limited to those individuals who live alone or are alone for significant parts of the day and who have no regular caregiver for extended periods of time, and who would otherwise require extensive routine supervision.
"Prevocational services" means services aimed at preparing an individual enrolled in the waiver for paid or unpaid employment. The services do not include activities that are specifically job-task oriented but focus on concepts such as accepting supervision,
ATTACHMENT 2
ID Waiver Fact Sheet Page 4 of 5 October 2013
attendance at work, task completion, problem solving and safety. Compensation for the individual, if provided, shall be less than 50% of the minimum wage.
"Residential support services" means support provided in the individual's home by a DBHDS-licensed residential provider or a VDSS-approved provider of adult foster care services. This service is one in which skill-building, supports, and safety supports are routinely provided to enable individuals to maintain or improve their health, to develop skills in daily living and safety use community resources, to be included in the community and home, to develop relationships, and to participate as citizens in the community.
"Respite services" means services provided to individuals who are unable to care for themselves, furnished on a short-term basis because of the absence or need for relief of those unpaid persons normally providing the care.
"Skilled nursing services" means both skilled and hands-on care, as rendered by either a licensed RN or LPN, of either a supportive or health-related nature and may include, but shall not be limited to, all skilled nursing care as ordered by the attending physician and documented on the Plan for Supports, assistance with ADLs, administration of medications or other medical needs, and monitoring of the health status and physical condition of the individual enrolled in the waiver.
"Supported employment" means paid supports provided in work in settings in which persons without disabilities are typically employed. Paid supports include skill-building supports related to paid employment, ongoing or intermittent routine supports, and safety supports to enable an individual with ID to maintain paid employment.
"Therapeutic consultation" means covered services designed to assist the individual and the individual's family/caregiver, as appropriate, with assessments, plan design, and teaching for the purpose of assisting the individual enrolled in the waiver.
"Transition services" means set-up expenses for individuals who are transitioning from an institution or licensed or certified provider-operated living arrangement to a living arrangement in a private residence where the person is directly responsible for his own living expenses. 12VAC30-120-2010 provides the service description, criteria, service units and limitations, and provider requirements for this service.
Quality Management
Review
DMAS conducts quality management reviews of the services provided and interviews individuals for all providers providing services in this waiver to ensure the health and safety of all individuals. Level of Functioning reviews are performed at least annually by the CSB support coordinator/case manager.
Reimbursement Rates
Reimbursement rates can be found on the DMAS website at http://www.dmas.virginia.gov/Content_atchs/ltc/ltc-mr_rts.pdf.
Dawn Traver, Community Resource Manager of DBHDS at (757) 253-4316 or by email at dawn.traver @dbhds.virginia.gov. Information can also be found on the DMAS website at www.dmas.virginia.gov or the DBHDS website at http://www.dbhds.virginia.gov/ODS-MRWaiver.htm.
Shawn M. Williams, Vice Chairman Broad Run District Suzanne M. Volpe, Algonkian District
Ralph M. Buona, Ashburn District Janet S. Clarke, Blue Ridge District Geary M. Higgins, Catoctin District
Matthew F. Letourneau, Dulles District Kenneth D. Reid, Leesburg District
Eugene A. Delgaudio, Sterling District
ATTACHMENT 3
(Reflects 9/17/14 Board Action only)
This page is left intentionally blank
ATTACHMENT 3
(Reflects 9/17/14 Board Action only)
PRIORITY STATEMENTS 1. Transportation The county supports increased state funding for primary and secondary road construction and maintenance, including providing adequate funding to pave higher volume dirt roads and safely maintain rural roads. The continued economic vitality of the region and the quality of life of its citizens require greater state investment in transportation infrastructure, and existing revenue sources are no longer adequate to keep pace with the county’s transportation needs. Continued state neglect of our transportation system imposes a tax on our citizens in the form of time wasted sitting in congestion and longer commutes, and it serves as a disincentive for businesses to locate or expand in the area. The Board of Supervisors identified the following transportation priorities in 2012, and most of these projects are moving forward toward construction. The Commonwealth’s continued commitment to these priorities, where applicable, is requested.
• State Route 606 (Old Ox Road/Loudoun Co. Parkway) Widening Project Between US Route 50 and State Route 28;
• State Route 625 (Waxpool Road) Improvements Project • State Route 659 (Belmont Ridge Road) Widening Project Between Gloucester • Parkway and Hay Road and Truro Parish Drive and Croson Lane • US Route 50/State Route 606 Interchange
The Commonwealth’s commitment to these priorities is also requested:
• Loudoun County Parkway (missing link); • Route 659: Belmont Ridge Road (accelerate funding/joint projects); • Route 625: Waxpool Road (expand to six (6) lanes to Ashburn Road); • Route 7/Battlefield Parkway Interchange; • Route 15 Bypass/Battlefield Parkway Interchange; • Route 15 Bypass/Edwards Ferry Interchange; • Route 625: Waxpool/Loudoun County Parkway Intersection; • Northstar Boulevard/Arcola/Glasscock Area; • Route 7/Route 690 Interchange; • Route 9/287 roundabout; and • Sterling Boulevard Extension (Rail Station needs) • Bi-County Parkway between Loudoun and Prince William counties (Loudoun CTP version)
2. Land Use The county supports maintaining its existing statutory authority in the area of land use and development. The ability to adequately plan, zone, and enforce land use regulations is necessary to maintain the quality of life in our communities and an environment that encourages business to invest in the county. The county is opposed to legislative measures that erode local land use authority.
3. Taxing Authority The county supports keeping its existing taxing authority. Loudoun, like most localities, is heavily reliant on the real property tax to fund necessary public operations, from schools and parks to public safety. Reducing or eliminating the few other local revenue streams, such as BPOL or machinery and tools taxes, would only put greater pressure on property owners and the real estate tax. 4. State Funding The county supports the state living up to its financial commitments in the areas of public education, public safety, and health and human services, and opposes state imposed mandates on the county that are inadequately funded by the state.
ATTACHMENT 3
(Reflects 9/17/14 Board Action only)
PRIORITY INITIATIVES
Education Cost of Competing – Seek and support the full restoration of the Northern Virginia cost of competing funding for teachers and support staff in the state’s FY ’15-16 biennial budget. Elections—Election Districts Support technical corrections to the state legislative election districts in the County as a part of the omnibus election district “clean-up” legislation. This will avoid unnecessary local costs resulting from election precincts with very small numbers of voters, and will help limit the inconvenience to some voters that resulted from the recent decennial redistricting.
Procurement Increased dollar limits for awarding multiple projects to Engineering/Architectural firms - Support seeking legislation that would increase the “task order” contract limits for architectural/engineering (A/E) contracts under the Public Procurement Act from the existing $2 million per year for individual tasks (projects)/$5 million per annual term to $2.5 million per project and $10 million per term to help expedite public procurement, especially for transportation projects. Increased dollar limits for awarding job order contracts – Increase the Job Order Contract Threshold Limits as Stipulated by State code from $400,000 per Project to $500,000 per Project and from $2 million per year to $4 million per year. (New) Land Use
Support and/or seek legislation to clarify the period for Board of Supervisors review of Certain Commission Permits by establishing a 90 day period for review. (NEW)
ATTACHMENT 3
(Reflects 9/17/14 Board Action only)
POLICY STATEMENTS Education
Teacher pensions Support legislation to require the State to place its share of teacher pension liabilities on its financial statements. Out-of-state enrollment in state institutions of higher education - Support legislation requiring the state’s institutions of higher education to maintain undergraduate enrollment ratios of no greater than 25% out-of-state students. Further, support legislation to enforce such standard with financial or other disincentives. Increases to SOQ Funding Support a significant increase in State education funding so that the State fully funds its share of the actual costs of meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ).
Relax Mandates In the event of reductions to State general funding for public education, support relaxing State mandates and increasing local autonomy in order to give local school divisions the flexibility to efficiently target resources where they are most needed.
School Construction Support Support additional new State revenues to assist localities to fund new school construction, renovation of public school facilities, technology infrastructure and debt service.
Employment and Benefits
Line of Duty Benefits for Public Safety Personnel Support efforts to shift responsibility for Line of Duty benefits back to the state which pushed this long time program back to local governments. Should localities continue to be required to pay these benefits, they should at the very least be authorized to establish the level of benefits, instead of the state mandating benefits.
Worker’s Compensation Support the current Virginia Worker’s Compensation Act and oppose any expansion of the heart/lung/cancer presumption statute. Support legislation to implement a schedule for medical services provided under a worker’s compensation claim that reduces such costs for the county and provides more uniformity and predictability in the rates. (NEW) Expanded Benefits Oppose any legislation mandating new and/or expanded benefits on local governments that are not fully funded in perpetuity by the State, and oppose new or expanded employment benefits for public employees and/or volunteers unless a local option is provided.
ATTACHMENT 3
(Reflects 9/17/14 Board Action only)
Collective Bargaining Oppose any attempt by the state or federal government to impose collective bargaining or stipulate grievance procedures for state and local employees. Health and Human Services
Comprehensive Services Act; Support state funding and certain programmatic changes, including but not limited to:
• Support the State maintaining the sum-sufficiency provisions in Code of Virginia, § 2.2-5211
relating to the General Assembly’s obligation to fund special education and foster care services and to meet relevant federal mandates for the provision of these services.
• Support adequate State funding to cover both mandated and court-ordered non-mandated
placement of children and to cover local costs for administering the Comprehensive Services Act. • Support legislation to include educational services to children in Medicaid-funded
residential treatment as a Medicaid-reimbursable service. • The State should fully fund localities for state mandated human services, including the
Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk Youth, and should provide program flexibility so that localities can provide comprehensive and case-tailored services.
Governor’s Task Force on Lyme Disease Continue to support state administrative, budget or legislative action necessary for implementation of the recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Lyme Disease except in areas where they become unfunded mandates on localities.
Note: HB 1933 (Comstock) passed during the 2013 legislative session. This law requires physicians to provide to each patient for whom a test for the presence of Lyme disease is ordered a written notice about Lyme disease, about testing for Lyme disease, and about the need for the patient to contact his physician with questions or concerns about Lyme disease. The bill also provides that licensees are immune from civil liability for providing such notice absent gross negligence or willful misconduct. The bill has an expiration date of July 1, 2018. Delegates Greason, Ramadan and Minchew were co-patrons.
Land Use, Zoning, and Property Maintenance
Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan/State funding for agricultural BMP and other cost-sharing programs Support efforts to increase state appropriations for cost-sharing programs, including but not limited to the Virginia Natural Resources Commitment Fund (VNRCF). The VNRF supports Virginia Agricultural Cost-Share (Cost-Share) programs including installation of cost-effective best management practices that are necessary to meet Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan local pollution reduction goals. Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems Oppose legislation that further restricts local authority in this area.
Conditional Zoning (Cash and In-Kind Proffers) Support existing local authority to accept cash and in-kind proffers from developers to assist localities in financing the capital facilities and infrastructure needed to serve new development and oppose legislation to eliminate or restrict that authority.
Connection Fees Support the existing authority of localities or locally created authorities to impose connection fees and rates adequate to support the full cost of water, wastewater and stormwater utility systems, and oppose any legislation that would limit that authority.
Erosion and Sediment Control/Stormwater Management Oppose legislation that reduces or eliminates local authority in the areas of erosion and sediment control and stormwater management.
Impact Fees Oppose any proposal for replacing proffers with development impact fees, if such a change would diminish the amount of such capital assistance received by localities.
Local Authority Enhancement Support, generally, the granting of additional land use, zoning and property maintenance authority to localities, especially in areas experiencing high rates of sustained growth, and as a means to address the fiscal burdens experienced by localities in providing needed public services to local residents.
Payments in Lieu of Facility Contributions Support any and all legislation to allocate stale cash contributions made by developers in lieu of improvements otherwise required by ordinances. Soil & Site Evaluation Determines Type of Sewage System Support legislation that would require that a soil and site evaluation determine if a conventional septic system can be designed to serve a proposed use. If so, the conventional septic system shall be proposed but if a conventional septic system cannot be designed for the site, a statement must accompany the soil evaluation, signed by a licensed onsite soil evaluator that states the site restrictions that restrict the site to an alternative onsite septic system.
Stormwater Management Support a reduction in the Commonwealth of Virginia’s current 28% portion of the Stormwater Management Programs permit fee, since the County, not the state, is predominantly administering the program locally. (NEW) Undergrounding Electric Distribution, or “Feeder” Lines Support legislation which increases and/or promotes the number of underground electric distribution, or “feeder” lines in addition to the pilot programs for long-range transmission lines.
ATTACHMENT 3
(Reflects 9/17/14 Board Action only)
Public Safety Fire sprinklers in New Residential Construction Support action by the Board of Housing and Community Development and/or enabling legislation by the Virginia General Assembly to enable local governing bodies the ability to self- determine the appropriate regulations or codified ordinances for residential sprinkler requirements for their localities.
Sex Offenders Supplemental Registry (Robby’s Rule) Support legislation that requires the state to establish, maintain and supplement the current SOACMR with the names of individuals who had the offense occurred today would have to register but were not required to register at the time of their offense. (NEW) Predatory Lending
Support legislation strictly prohibiting and deterring all predatory, usurious lending practices, including but not limited to provisions that would:
• Impose an interest rate cap of thirty-six percent (36%), calculated as an effective annual
percentage rate including all fees or charges of any kind, for any consumer credit extended in the Commonwealth of Virginia;
• Prohibit a creditor’s use of a personal check or other device as a means, directly or indirectly, to gain access to a consumer’s bank account; and incorporate into the Virginia Code the protections to gain access to a consumer’s bank account and incorporate into the Virginia Code the protections regarding consumer credit to military personnel as reflected in the Military Lending Act, 10 United States Code Section 987.
Tax and Revenue
Machinery and Tools / Business and Professional Occupation License Taxes The state should not eliminate these local revenue sources, unless the General Assembly provides replacement sources of revenue for localities. In Loudoun County alone, BPOL receipts were $31.0 million and M&T receipts were $1.1 million in FY 14. Estimates for FY 15 are $30.0 million (BPOL) and $1.0 million (M&T). This revenue should not be unilaterally eliminated - especially when the state is reducing its funding commitments to public education, human services, and other state responsible, but locally administered programs. Eliminating these local sources of revenue simply puts even more pressure on property owners through the local real estate tax, especially if counties are never given the ability to diversify their revenue base like municipalities can. Revenue Sharing with State Support any State revenue sharing formula to assist local governments with public infrastructure needs so long as the formula includes recognition of the needs in high residential growth localities.
ATTACHMENT 3
(Reflects 9/17/14 Board Action only)
Transient occupancy Tax The Commonwealth should not allow online travel companies to avoid paying the full transient occupancy tax and the Board supports legislation to clarify this in statute. Transportation “Devolution” of Secondary Road Maintenance Oppose any legislative or regulatory moratorium on the transfer of newly constructed secondary roads to VDOT for the purposes of ongoing maintenance, and oppose any legislation that would require the transfer of secondary road construction and maintenance responsibilities to counties. Dulles Greenway Distance and Time-Based Pricing Support any and all legislation that supports both distance-based and time-based tolling on the Dulles Greenway. Move Station to Accommodate Weighing Truck Traffic for Both Routes 50 and 15 Support administrative or budget action that would allow the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles the ability to move their truck weigh station on Route 50 west of Gilbert’s Corner in order to accommodate weighing trucks on Route 15 at Gilbert’s Corner and at Route 50. Local Authority to Regulate Taxicab Services Oppose legislation that removes the authority of local governments to regulate taxicab services and operators. (NEW) Transportation Funding General Support additional state and regional transportation funding for highway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Virginia Department of Transportation Staffing Levels Support state funding for providing additional staffing of VDOT personnel designated for and preferably located in Loudoun County for the purposes of greater efficiency. Bi-County Parkway Parkway between Prince William County and Loudoun County Support the bi-county parkway between Prince William and Loudoun Counties as called for in the Loudoun Countywide Transportation Plan. The parkway is needed to foster the region’s economic development, reduce existing traffic congestion and accommodate planned residential growth. In addition, by greatly improving both passenger and commercial cargo access to the Dulles International Airport the bi-county parkway will produce tangible quality of life and economic benefits for the entire Commonwealth .
ATTACHMENT 3
(Reflects 9/17/14 Board Action only)
General Government Unfunded Mandates New State Mandates & Shifting Responsibility to Localities Oppose any new state mandates that are not fully funded by the Commonwealth, and oppose the shifting of fiscal responsibility from the state to localities for existing programs. Governor’s Task Force for Local Government Mandate Review Recommendations Support the recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force for Local Government Mandate Review. Dog and cat license fees Support legislation amending state law to allow local cat/dog license fees to be set at a “fair and reasonable” level by the locality, instead of current law that limits the fee to no more than $10.00. Support amendments to state law to allow local treasurers to use a portion of the dog/cat license fees they collect to go towards the cost of processing and administering those fees. Coordination of state, county and courts holiday schedules Support legislation to provide for a uniform approach to holidays in Virginia where there is consistency between the Courts, the Governor and the local governments. Excess Court Fees Support legislation that returns the majority of excess court fees formula back to the original 1/3 for the Commonwealth and 2/3 for the locality. Support and/or seek legislation that would make this change only applicable to the 20th Judicial Circuit (in addition to the 31st Judicial Circuit, the only circuit that was exempted formula this state formula change). Retention of Election Ballots Support legislation to authorize Circuit Court Clerks to retain digital images of election ballots instead of the actual paper ballots for the required (2 year) time period.
ATTACHMENT 3
(Reflects 9/17/14 Board Action only)
Loudoun County Facts (NOTE: will be updated prior to the beginning of the 2015 GA Session)
Loudoun County was a part of the five million acre Northern Neck of Virginia Proprietary granted by King Charles II of England to seven noblemen in 1649. The Town of Leesburg, named after one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, has continuously served as the County Seat since 1757. Loudoun County encompasses a 520 square mile area on the rolling Piedmont section of Northern Virginia and is bordered by the Blue Ridge Mountains on the northwest and the Potomac River on the northeast. It is 25 miles northwest of Washington D.C. and is one of the fastest growing counties in the Washington Metropolitan region and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Between 2000 and 2010, Loudoun was the fifth fastest growing county in the nation and is home to several of the nation's leading technology-oriented businesses such as Verizon Business, Raytheon, NeuStar, Digital Realty Trust, Equinix, Orbital Sciences Corporation, M.C. Dean, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Research Campus at Janelia Farm. Population – 2013 estimate 339,709
2010 Census 312,311 2000 Census 169,599
Population growth 2000-2013 100% Population – 2020 forecast 417,649 Density (persons per square mile) - 2013 estimate 653 Median Age – 2012 35.3 years Student population estimate - September 2013 70,858
September 2000 33,864 Student population growth 2000 – 2013 109% Student population forecast – September 2017 76,902 Bond ratings
Fitch AAA Moody’s Aaa Standard & Poor’s AAA
Total households 104,583 (2010) 113,587 (2012 estimate) 139,468 (2020 forecast) Household size – 2010 Census 2.98 (Loudoun) 2.64 (DC MSA) 2.54 (Virginia) 2.58 (U.S.) Real property tax rate – FY 2014 $1.205 per $100 of assessed value Machinery and tools tax rate – CY 2013 $2.75 per $100 of assessed value Commercial & industrial (% of total base) 2013 actual 19% Assessed value of taxable real property – 2013 actual $60.04 billion Personal property tax rate – 2013 $4.20 per $100 of assessed value State reimbursement for personal property taxes $48.1 million Assessed value of personal property – 2013 estimate $4.7 billion FY 2014 Adopted School System operating budget $853.7 million FY 2014 Adopted General Government operating budget $418.3 million School System employees – 2014 adopted 9,730 General Government employees – 2014 adopted 3,526 Adopted 6-Yr Capital Improvement Program (FYs 2013-18) $1.733 billion
% of 6-Yr CIP total expenditures debt financed 79.6% FY 2012 Debt service expenditures $179.7 million FY 2012 Debt service per capita $3,156 FY 2012 Debt to estimated value of taxable real property 1.67% FY 2012 Debt to per capita income 5.39% FY 2012 Debt to governmental fund expenditures 9.95% Schools 84 (2013) 88 (2015) Voting precincts – October 16, 2013 85 Registered voters – September 1, 2013 209,994 Local electoral districts (includes at-large) 9
