Showing posts with label Virginia General Assembly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Virginia General Assembly. Show all posts

Monday, September 22, 2014

Governor McAuliffe Announces Administration Appointments (They Just Keep Leaving)

English: Photo of the Virginia State Capitol b...
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
RICHMOND – Governor Terry McAuliffe announced additional appointments to his administration today. The appointees will join McAuliffe’s administration focused on finding common ground with members of both parties to build a new Virginia economy and create more jobs across the Commonwealth.


Secretariat of Agriculture

Carrie Hileman Chenery, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry
Carrie Hileman Chenery most recently served as the Manager of Legislation & Policy for the Virginia Economic Development Partnership.  Prior to that, she was a director of government affairs on the government relations team at the law firm Williams Mullen.  Carrie grew up on a family farm in Lexington, Virginia, and received her B.S. in Environmental Policy & Planning and Agricultural & Applied Economics from Virginia Tech.  She also served as Governor’s Fellow in the natural resources secretariat under Governor Kaine and is a graduate of the 2013 Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership Political Leaders Program at the University of Virginia.


Travis Hill, Chief Operating Officer, Virginia Department of Alcholic Beverage Control
Travis Hill was previously reappointed as Deputy Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry by Governor McAuliffe in January 2014 after serving in the same capacity under Governor McDonnell since July 2011.  Acting in this role, Travis helped to advance the integration of agriculture and forestry into Virginia’s economic development agenda, including the development of the Governor’s Agriculture and Forestry Industry Development Fund (AFID).  Travis worked with Virginia ABC and Virginia wineries, craft breweries and craft distilleries to promote growth in these industries and increase their use of Virginia grown products.  Prior to his appointment to the Administration, Travis worked eight years as an attorney in the Richmond office of Williams Mullen, representing a wide variety of clients before the Virginia General Assembly, the State Corporation Commission and other regulatory bodies, including Virginia ABC. Travis received both his BA and JD degrees from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Secretariat of the Commonwealth
Board Appointments

Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Commission

  • Sharon E. Davis of Arlington, Archivist, the Honorable John D. Dingell

Board for Contractors

  • Vance T. Ayres of King George, National Coordinator, EIWPF
  • Gene E. Magruder of Newport News, Tradesman, Newport News Shipbuilding
  • Shawn Mitchell of Broadlands, CEO & President, Modern Mechanical
  • Michael D. Redifer of Waynesboro, Building Official, City of Newport News

Board of Visitors of the School for the Deaf and Blind

  • Michael P. Asip, Ed.D of Powhatan, Director of Exceptional Education, Chesterfield County Public Schools
  • Alice B. Frick* of Staunton, retired teacher, VSDB (1965-1995)
  • Ann Latham-Anderson of Crozet, Workforce Manager/Analyst, ChildFund International, Richmond
  • John C. Pleasants* of Sandston, retired, Virginia Department of Corrections
  • Judy S. Sorrell, M.Ed of Staunton, retired Director of the Shenandoah Valley Regional Program for Special Education; current Director, Community Development for Commonwealth Autism Service
  • Paula Young-Johnson of Glen Allen, Sign Language Interpreter, Henrico County Public Schools

Board for Waste Management Facility Operators

  • Christopher A. Chiodo of Richmond, Senior District Manager, Waste Management, Inc.
  • Justin Williams of Richmond, Director, Office of Waste Permitting & Compliance, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Legislative Advisory Council to the Southern Regional Education Board

  • The Honorable David L. Bulova of Fairfax, Member, Virginia House of Delegates
  • The Honorable Janet Denison Howell of Reston, Member, Senate of Virginia
  • The Honorable Mamie E. Locke of Hampton, Member, Senate of Virginia
  • The Honorable Jennifer L. McClellan of Richmond, Member, Virginia House of Delegates

Virginia Offshore Wind Development Authority

  • John R. Broderick of Norfolk, President, Old Dominion University


*Denotes reappointment


Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Governor McAuliffe Statement on Upcoming Special Session

Governor Terry McAuliffe released the following statement today on this week’s special session of the General Assembly to consider proposals to expand access to health care for Virginians:

“As legislators prepare to come back to Richmond to consider proposals to expand access to health care for Virginians who need it, I hope they will join me in moving past the partisan division that has characterized this debate so far. To that end, Delegate Tom Rust has introduced a conservative compromise proposal that will get Virginians the care that they are already paying for, without exposing our Commonwealth to undue fiscal risk. I hope the General Assembly will pass the Rust bill this week so that I can sign it right away.

“This special session is an opportunity to continue to prove to Virginians that Republicans and Democrats can work together on common sense solutions to make their lives better. I am ready to negotiate and sign any proposal that brings our taxpayer dollars home to expand access to care, and I invite my friends in both parties to join me at the table.

“Virginia families, businesses and hospitals will be watching the actions that we take here this week. We owe it to them to bring our tax dollars home to expand health care access, create jobs and bring savings to our budget. We cannot afford to fall short of that goal.”




Sunday, August 3, 2014

Gloucester, VA Ernest Lane Gate?, (Part 2)


Above is a picture looking south on route 17 with Ernest Lane to the right of Turlington Septic Service Sign and the stop sign.


In this picture, we have Ernest Lane at it's very front beginning.  Where the shadow shows up in the picture above along the road, this is where blacktopping ends and the road becomes gravel.  To the right is Turlington Septic Service.


When we went to Ernest Lane to look around, we counted that Turlington has 6 commercial trucks in their yard.  This will become important as we go along.


A better view of the trucks at Turlington.


This is a view looking East on Ernest Lane.  Gives you an idea of the type of road that is being discussed.  This is not a blacktopped road.  It is a state maintained road however.  Now let's look at the VDOT Rural Rustic Road project that is up for vote this coming Tuesday night before the Board of Supervisors.

VDOT RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PROGRAM MANUAL

Background

The Rural Rustic Road concept, first enacted by the 2002 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia, is a practical approach to paving Virginia's low volume unpaved roads. A pilot program, implemented in July 2002, demonstrated the success of this concept. It ensures that VDOT practices environmental and financial stewardship while providing basic paved access to more of Virginia’s rural countryside. The 2003 Session of the General Assembly amended the legislation to provide that this method be considered as a first alternative for improving all unpaved roads in the future. The Rural Rustic Road Program, under § 33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, became effective July 1, 2003. The Virginia Department of Transportation’s Local 
Assistance Division working with the Rural Rustic Road Policy Committee established the initial 
guidelines for this program.

The Local Assistance Division, in consultation with the Location and Design Division, has periodically updated the guidelines to reflect legislative revisions to the program. During the 2006 Session, and again during the 2008 Session, the General Assembly expanded the program by increasing the maximum traffic count on eligible roads from the initial 500 vehicles per day (VPD) to the current 1,500 VPD. In addition, during its 2008 Session, the General Assembly established that the maximum speed limit for a road designated as a Rural Rustic Road, on or after July, 1 2008, is 35 MPH. The Commissioner of Highways is authorized under § 46.2-878 of the Code of Virginia to increase, or decrease, this speed limit based on an engineering study.

The 2011 General Assembly Session amended the legislation to provide additional flexibility 
regarding Virginia Storm water Management Program regulations for Rural Rustic Road projects that meet certain criteria. This legislation provided that Rural Rustic Road projects placing a hard surface along the same basic alignment as the prior gravel impervious area with accompanying shoulder and drainage work are treated as routine maintenance activities for the purpose of VSMP regulations. This revision of the Rural Rustic Road Program Manual incorporates all prior legislative changes and provides additional clarifications.

Rural Rustic Road Concept

Fundamentally, the Rural Rustic Road concept is the paving of an existing unpaved road with a 
compacted or impervious surface and reestablishment of existing associated ditches and shoulders, and usually the new hard-surfaced road is on the same horizontal and vertical alignment as the prior gravel impervious area. Furthermore, a focal point of the program is on leaving trees, vegetation, side slopes, and open drainage abutting the roadway, undisturbed to the maximum extent possible.

Improvements along a Rural Rustic Road project may be less than minimum design standards, as outlined in the Chief Engineer’s Memorandum dated June 11, 2002, Appendix V. AASHTO’s Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT ≤400) may be used as  a guide for roads with current traffic volumes up to 400 VPD. For roads with traffic volumes between 400 and 1,500 VPD, an 18-foot paved surface with 2-foot shoulders is desirable, but not required. The District Location and Design Engineer will be consulted for the higher volume roads (over 400 VPD).

The ideal Rural Rustic Road project usually involves reshaping of the roadbed, cleaning ditches and applying a hard surface within existing right of way. In most cases, it is assumed there are no actual construction plans and therefore, few occasions when a Rural Rustic Road project would require an engineered solution. The Rural Rustic Road concept may still be used to address more significant needed improvements if deemed appropriate. However, improvements beyond those required to address specific safety issues should be weighed against their probable cost. In lieu of more costly improvements, consideration should be given to the use of appropriate warning signs as needed recognizing the program goals of minimal disturbance and providing hard surfacing at the lowest possible cost. Typical examples of when engineered solutions may be required on rural rustic roads are when alignment improvements are needed to address identified safety issues, or improvements are needed to address severe drainage and/or erosion issues. Engineered solutions should be noted on the Scoping Report
 (Appendix II)

 and will usually trigger additional requirements typical of traditional construction projects such as the requirement to have plans signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer in accordance with the 
Department’s IIM-LD-243, as well as those requirements further detailed under the 
Environmental and Hydraulic Requirements.

Program Eligibility Criteria

The following criteria are those by which a candidate road is evaluated to determine its eligibility for hard-surfacing under the Rural Rustic Road Program. The road:

Must be an unpaved road already within the State Secondary System.

* Must carry no more than 1,500 VPD.

* Must be a priority (line item) in the locality’s approved Secondary Six-Year Plan (SSYP) 
if the funding source is from secondary system allocations. If secondary system 
allocations are not used, the project is not required to be in the SSYP. However, the 
applicable provisions for public involvement must be met.

* Must be used predominately for local traffic. The local nature of the road means that most 
motorists using the road have traveled it before and are familiar with its features.

* Must have minimal anticipated traffic growth. The County Board of Supervisors will 
endeavor to limit growth on roads improved under the Rural Rustic Road Program, and 
cooperate with VDOT through its comprehensive planning process to develop adjacent 
lands consistent with rural rustic road concepts.

In addition, the Board of Supervisors, by resolution, must designate the road as a Rural Rustic Road.

Planning and Approval Process

The Local VDOT Manager, as described herein, is the Department’s local liaison responsible for dealing with a County’s Board of Supervisors regarding Rural Rustic Roads. This is typically the Residency Administrator, unless otherwise designated by the 
District Administrator.

A candidate project is initiated when the Board of Supervisors requests the Local VDOT Manager to evaluate a section of road for the Rural Rustic Road Program or when the Local VDOT Manager reviews a new proposed unpaved road project in the locality’s approved SSYP for eligibility as a Rural Rustic Road project. The comparison of unpaved road improvement options is Appendix VI of this manual.

The Local VDOT Manager will consult with other technical experts as deemed appropriate to evaluate the roadway.

Following evaluation, the Local VDOT Manager advises the Board of Supervisors whether the unpaved road can be hard-surfaced through the Rural Rustic Road Program. If the road is not eligible, the Board of Supervisors may appeal the decision through the Local VDOT Manager to the District Administrator, and ultimately the Chief Engineer 
for consideration by the Commissioner of Highways.

The Board of Supervisors, by resolution, designates the road as a Rural Rustic Road. A sample resolution is Appendix III of this manual.

The Local VDOT Manager notifies the District Administrator and the Regional Operations Director that the road has been designated as a Rural Rustic Road. The Regional Operations Director may conduct a traffic engineering study to evaluate the road for a posted speed limit, or post the road at the 35 MPH maximum established in §46.2-873.2 of the Code of Virginia.

The Project Manager/Local VDOT Manager conducts a scoping meeting, as appropriate, and completes the Rural Rustic Road Program Project Scoping Report (Appendix II). An exemption has been provided for this program to utilize this scoping report instead of the traditional scoping report (PM-100).

Now let's go back and once again look at what is already planned for this rural rustic road that comes from Bedford Falls subdivision.




Now again we see from Maps that are on the Gloucester County Government website, Bedford Falls has already stated they plan on putting in a road between themselves and Ernest Lane which is going to significantly increase traffic along Ernest Lane.  But it appears they are waiting to put that road in after Ernest Lane is paved by VDOT at the expense of the taxpayers.  So can it still be argued that these are just plans and that they are subject to change?  Well the argument can be made, but we went to Bedford Falls and took pictures there are well.  Here is what we found.


This is a view down Shyan Way.  Just to the right of the white truck is a sign that shows the names of the roads, both under construction and planned.  Let's take a close up look at that sign.


Well there is the sign for Songbird Path.  So it would seem if the argument were to be brought up that it was only something in the planning stages and subject to being scrapped, the argument is no longer valid as the sign is already in place to put that road between Bedford Falls and Ernest Lane.

Let's look at some other issues here as well.


The picture above is from Google Maps and is a view covering Providence Road to Ernest Lane.  Providence is at the bottom while Ernest is towards the top.  Why is this important?  It shows that there is no North Bound traffic entrance directly to Ernest Lane.  If you are traveling North on route 17 from coming across the bridge, you have one of two options to get to your home in Bedford Falls at the moment.  One is to turn left onto Providence Road and drive through some side road neighborhoods before you can get to yours, or you have to travel to Ernest Lane, make a U Turn and turn into Lakeview Drive to get to Bedford Falls.

  Neither one is a great option at the moment.


In the Google map above, at the bottom left of the two roads is Lakeview Drive, at the moment the main way into Seawell's Trace and Bedford Falls, and the upper road is Ernest Lane.  You can not turn left off of route 17 North bound on to Lakeview Drive.  You can turn left on to Ernest Lane however from route 17 North bound.  However, at present, you can not enter Bedford Falls from Ernest Lane.

Now for some other issues.


This is an up close view of Ernest Lane from Route 17.  Now traveling on 17 north bound, there is a turn off lane so that drives are not blocking traffic along 17.  What is lacking here are a number of other issues that must be taken into consideration before Songbird Lane can become a main feed into Bedford Falls and Seawell's Trace stemming from Ernest Lane.  

  First, coming off of Ernest Lane, one can not easily turn left to travel north on route 17.  A light needs to be installed for that.  Also, there is no turn off lane from 17 south onto Ernest lane.  With the increased traffic from these two developments onto Ernest Lane, these matters have not at all been taken into consideration.  

  Further, with Turlington Septic Services being on the dirt road part of Ernest Lane with 6 trucks in their yard, the level of surfacing that VDOT will be putting down on Ernest Lane may not be enough to handle the business use at the front of Ernest Lane.  There are also several people who live along Ernest Land who make their living driving tractor trailer trucks and sometimes those trucks do travel Ernest Lane, so again, there may prove to be issues as to whether the surfacing will even hold up.

  So the question really is, does Ernest Lane qualify under the Rustic Rural Road program or not?  It does not appear to us as though it does.  Now it would if Songbird Path was not planned.  Then it would appear that Ernest Lane does qualify.  Bedford Falls and Seawell's Trace are a real game changer to the entire picture here however.  Plus, with all the other open land around this area, further development will cause even more complications that would need these issues addressed.  If that is not all, there is still more.




Pictures taken between Ernest Lane and the back end of Bedford Falls homes, seems to show wetland grasses along the property lines.  Has a study even been conducted to show that Songbird Path will "NOT" be crossing any wetlands to enter onto Ernest Lane?  It appears that a lot of issues have not been looked at here and need to be addressed before the Board of Supervisors are even asked to consider keeping Ernest Lane on the Rural Rustic Road program.  Again, it does not look like it qualifies based on developer plans.  Now if the developers want to pave the road properly, put in the stop light along route 17 and also put in the turn off lane going to Ernest Lane, then that is a different story.  In fact, the developers should be made to pay these expenses.  It's not the responsibility of the majority of the taxpayers. 

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Governor McAuliffe Announces Solicitation of Applications for a Second Round of FACT Fund Grants

Ops-Core Base Jump Military Helmet
(Photo credit: ussocom_ru)
Governor McAuliffe announced that grant applications are being accepted from Virginia localities to address encroachment of military or security installations.  These grants are being supported with $4,361,600 in the Virginia Federal Action Contingency Trust (FACT) Fund. Virginia localities that have had or have pending identifiable or measurable negative impacts caused by encroachment upon military or security installations are eligible to apply for these grant funds.

The deadline for the receipt of applications is July 31 and the application and guidance documents can be found on the website of the Virginia Secretary of Finance http://finance.virginia.gov/agency-information/fact-fund/.

During the 2014 Special Session, the General Assembly reverted $4,361,600 of the FACT Fund balance included in the introduced Budget Bill.  During the 2014 Reconvened Session, the Governor vetoed this reversion. The Governor’s veto had the effect of restoring the balance to the FACT fund, making it available for the 2014-2015 FACT Fund grants.

“Virginia’s military installations play a critical role in keeping our nation safe and our Commonwealth’s economy healthy,” said Governor McAuliffe. “The FACT Fund is an invaluable tool to help mitigate the threat of encroachment or other issues that could put our bases at risk. That is why I fought to keep this funding in the budget, and why I am looking forward to reviewing these applications from communities that are invested in keeping our military assets and the jobs and economic growth that come with them in the Commonwealth.”

The FACT Fund was created by the Virginia General Assembly in 2012 to limit risks associated with or offset the adverse economic impacts of closure, relocation, or realignment of federal military or security installations or other federal agencies located in Virginia. 

Friday, June 27, 2014

Letter from the President -- FY 2015 Budget Amendments

Seal of the Office of Management and Budget of...
Seal of the Office of Management and Budget of the US Government (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
June 26, 2014
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I ask the Congress to consider the enclosed Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Budget amendments for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of State and Other International Programs (State/OIP) to fund Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). These amendments would provide $58.6 billion for DOD OCO activities, which is $20.9 billion less than the $79.4 billion placeholder for DOD OCO in the FY 2015 Budget. It would also provide $1.4 billion for State/OIP OCO activities, which is in addition to the $5.9 billion for State/OIP included in the FY 2015 Budget. Overall, these amendments would decrease the total OCO funding requested for FY 2015 by $19.5 billion.
Final decisions about the number and activities of U.S. forces in Afghanistan after December 2014 had not yet been made at the time the FY 2015 Budget was submitted. As a result, the Budget included a placeholder for DOD FY 2015 OCO funding equivalent to the amount requested in the FY 2014 Budget. The Administration noted in the FY 2015 Budget that after determining required force levels in Afghanistan, a Budget amendment updating the OCO request would be submitted to the Congress. The enclosed amendments include the necessary updates to the OCO request in order to fund military operations in Afghanistan, a significant portion of the U.S. military presence around the Middle East, the Administration's proposed Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund and European Reassurance Initiative, and State/OIP peacekeeping costs in the Central African Republic.
The details of these amendments are set forth in the enclosed letter from the Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Sincerely,

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Statement of Governor Terence McAuliffe on 2015-2016 Budget Actions

Virginia General Assembly
Virginia General Assembly (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Good Morning.

Over the past six days, my finance team and I have carefully reviewed the Biennial Budget that was transmitted to my office last Sunday by the General Assembly.

This budget was completed almost three months late, after the Republican leadership of the House of Delegates stubbornly refused to take even the most modest steps toward closing the health care coverage gap. 

Virginians in every corner of the Commonwealth know that the lack of health care is hurting families, stunting economic growth, damaging hospitals and clinics, and causing too many of our citizens to suffer needlessly.

It is unconscionable that one of the wealthiest states in one of the wealthiest nations in the world does not provide health care to its needy citizens, particularly when we have already paid for it. 

Providing health care to people who are sick is a moral imperative.

Time and time again, a bipartisan coalition in the Senate and I offered the House Republicans the opportunity to compromise.  They had the chance to come to the table and help fix this serious problem, and every single time, they said NO.

When I took the oath of office in January, I had just come off a campaign in which I ran and won on a platform of expanding Medicaid services to 400,000 Virginians.  This was a program just like 27 other states have enacted. 

Some of the most conservative Governors in the nation have implemented this program.  Not only did the Republican leadership refuse to compromise, they refused to even discuss the issue.

My team and I then worked very closely with Republican members of the Senate on a compromise plan called Marketplace Virginia. 

As with any compromise, I didn’t like every part of Marketplace Virginia, but I knew that it was our best chance to get a plan through the House of Delegates, and to thereby help those Virginians who desperately need health care.

Presented with the idea of Marketplace Virginia, the Republican leadership of the House of Delegates responded with a resounding NO.

Again, they rejected compromise.

When the General Assembly failed to complete its work on time and adjourned March 8th without a budget, I offered yet another compromise.

I proposed to close the health care coverage gap with a two-year pilot program and received a written commitment from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services affirming that Virginia could withdraw from the expanded program at any point we wanted with no ongoing obligation to the beneficiaries.

Once again, the Republican leadership of the House of Delegates said NO and refused to compromise. 

They chose instead to subject our citizens to a protracted budget stalemate that was unfair to local governments, veterans, law enforcement officers, our state workforce and most importantly the vulnerable men, women and children who depend on state government for important human services.

Then, last Thursday night, after the Senate of Virginia acceded to the demands of the House to “decouple” health care from the budget, and to drop Marketplace Virginia completely, the House again said NO. 

Together with their new-found majority in the Senate, House Republicans demanded an amendment that effectively eliminated the Medicaid Innovation and Reform Commission or MIRC as a vehicle for closing the coverage gap.

By refusing any and all compromise, the House leadership has turned its back on people all over Virginia who were looking to us to help them and their families gain access to life-saving treatments and medicine.

By refusing any and all compromise, the Republican leadership has elected to forfeit more than $5 million per day in funding that our people have already sent to Washington.

We have already lost $852 million as of this morning.

This is the context in which I had to evaluate this budget. 

It was long overdue. 

It failed to address health care – one of the most pressing needs of our people. 

And it contained reductions in spending that were much deeper than necessary because the General Assembly refused to accept Medicaid funding.

Frankly, if it were not June 20th – with only 10 days left in this fiscal year, I may well have vetoed the entire budget.  But given the severe difficulties the General Assembly had in getting even this weak budget to me, I seriously doubt that they could have prepared a budget in the next week without disrupting or imperiling critical services or jeopardizing our AAA Bond Rating.

Let me be crystal clear, I am moving forward to get Virginians health care.   

I intend to sign this legislation, but not without using my constitutional authority to make several line item vetoes.  Today, I am announcing that I will be vetoing several items in this budget:

First, I am vetoing the MIRC entirely.  It is increasingly clear to me that the MIRC is merely a sham to pretend that the legislature is serious about Medicaid reform and expansion. Even the former Attorney General questioned its constitutionality. 

My administration will continue to press for and achieve greater efficiency in Medicaid and other health care delivery programs.  My administration has demonstrated time and time again that we will work with anyone in the General Assembly – Democrat or Republican – to advance these goals. 

What we will NOT do is waste any more time on a process in which:
·         the needs of real people are not even discussed;
·         the metrics of reform are ignored; and,
·         the goal posts are moved or even uprooted constantly.

I have instructed Secretary Hazel and Secretary Brown and their teams not to attend or assist with any more meaningless MIRC meetings.

Second, I am vetoing the Stanley floor amendment because it is unnecessary given that there is no appropriation for expanded Medicaid pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. 

It restricts something that doesn’t exist.

With respect to health care, I am moving forward. There are several options available to me.

I have directed Secretary Hazel to work with our federal partners in Washington, the insurance industry, health care providers, our university medical centers, non-profit organizations, our local health departments, and the hospital industry to extend the promise of health care to our people.

Secretary Hazel will have a plan on my desk by no later than September 1st detailing how we can move Virginia health care forward even in the face of the demagoguery, lies, fear and cowardice that have gripped this debate for too long.

Third, I am vetoing funding for all new judgeships in which confirmation is limited to a regular or special session of the General Assembly.  This language is plainly an attempt to significantly limit the power of the Governor and is thus unacceptable.

Fourth, I am vetoing an appropriation that will allow Chesterfield County to partner with the City of Petersburg to address challenges confronted by the Petersburg schools.  This presents a number of legal problems and bad precedents, and was not requested by either locality.

Fifth, I am vetoing the item that would take $4.6 million from the Federal Action Contingency Trust (FACT) fund.  My intent would be to use some or all of this money to protect our interests in military facilities that may otherwise be at risk of federal cut backs.

I will not sit idle and allow the General Assembly to cripple our military assets. 

Sixth, I am vetoing the appropriation for the newly created Virginia Conflicts of Interest and Ethics Advisory Commission.  The ethics reform bill passed by the General Assembly was far weaker than what Virginians deserve of proper ethics reform. 

I plan to present revised legislation to the 2015 General Assembly session on this topic, and the creation of a new bureaucracy beforehand would be unwise and premature.  I also question the constitutionality of the commission given its scope of responsibilities. 

My Administration and their families live under a $100 gift band.  Virginians deserve a General Assembly that gets closer to that standard. 

Seventh, at the request of the Attorney General, I am vetoing language dealing with asset forfeiture settlements. 

The Attorney General has indicated that while they are willing to continue to work on a possible resolution of issues, the adopted language will cause the Commonwealth difficulty in executing future settlements of this type.  Put simply, the language is half baked and needs more work.

While not a veto, I have also directed the Department of General Services and other staff to suspend all activities to advance the replacement of the General Assembly building, the renovation of Old City Hall or the construction of the new parking deck near Capitol Square. 

In my view, it simply sends the wrong signal to our people to be constructing expensive new facilities in Richmond at a time when we can’t find $10 million to decrease homelessness.

My staff and I will continue to examine the budget through the weekend, and it is likely that we will have additional vetoes or amendments. 

I appreciate the work that the money committee staffs have done and will continue to do on this budget during the weekend.

Finally, I want to thank Virginia’s dedicated state workforce for their patience and continued hard work during this period of uncertainty.

It is our workforce that makes state government so effective and I am grateful to them for all they do.

Thank you.



Governor McAuliffe’s Announced Budget Actions:
1.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto language authorizing the Medicaid Innovation and Reform Commission to Approve Medicaid reforms as a requirement for Medicaid Expansion (MIRC). The General Assembly made the Commission irrelevant by removing their appropriations authority from the budget. The MIRC has also consistently allowed partisan political considerations prevent action despite the criteria for Medicaid expansion having been fulfilled.

2.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto the amendment limiting any appropriation or expenditure of funds in the State Treasury to address the health care coverage gap without specific authorization or an appropriation bill enacted by the General Assembly on or after July 1, 2014. The amendment is unnecessary given its intent to restrict an appropriation that does not exist anywhere in the budget.

3.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto funding for all new judges to which the General Assembly has attached language limiting the Governor from making appointments when the legislature is out of session. The Governor’s right to fill judicial vacancies when the General Assembly is out of session is key to keeping the judiciary running efficiently.

4.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto an appropriation that will allow Chesterfield County to partner with the City of Petersburg to improve the quality of Petersburg schools. The Governor is committed to improving underperforming schools, but he is concerned about the constitutionality of the legislation and neither locality requested the change.
5.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto an item that would revert $4.6 million away from the Federal Action Contingency Trust (FACT) Fund. This money is needed to help protect Virginia’s military installations from federal cuts or potential actions of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission.

6.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto the appropriation for the newly created Virginia Conflicts of Interest Advisory Commission out of his concern over the weakness of the ethics legislation passed by the General Assembly. He intends to introduce stronger legislation in the next session, making the creation of a new bureaucracy premature and unwise.

7.      Governor McAuliffe intends to veto budget language dealing with asset forfeiture settlements at the request of the Office of the Attorney General. The Attorney General has indicated that while they are willing to continue to work on a possible resolution of issues, the adopted language will cause the Commonwealth difficulty in executing future settlements of this type.

8.      The Governor also announced that, in addition to his actions on the budget, he has directed the Virginia Department of General Services to suspend any actions on the new $300 million General Assembly Building in Richmond. He believes building new expensive offices for legislators to use part time is wrong when the General Assembly could not even find additional money to fight homelessness in Virginia.