Several times during the past 2 ½ weeks of the General Assembly session I have been asked about the possibility of funding for projects—healthcare, education, capital improvements—and my answer is “transportation is driving the course of action for all legislation.” Until we finalize transportation funding there is continued hesitancy to forge ahead with critically needed allocations for other pressing concerns. The legislature, primarily because of the failure of the House leadership to comprehend the urgency of crafting a long term transportation solution that addresses the future and includes the needs of the entire Commonwealth, has stalled the process for two years.

The House and Senate have finally cobbled together a plan that has elements pointing toward success, and a great deal of our time remaining will be spent defining and refining a final package. But, before I embrace the new proposal I think it’s important to put transportation funding in perspective. Twenty years ago was the last time the legislature addressed transportation from a comprehensive, long-term outlook. At that time, in the interests of ensuring funding for all core responsibilities of government, the General Assembly structured a duel funding process that removed transportation from the demands of General Fund (GF) requirements—education, health, public safety—and placed it in a Transportation Trust Fund that utilizes user fees to finance road projects. The General Fund is the accumulation of taxes (sales, income) paid by Virginia citizens. The Transportation Trust Fund includes but is not limited to revenue from tolls, vehicle fees and gas taxes. The theory behind the split in allocations is that general taxes should support the core responsibilities that touch each Virginia family, while the cost of roads, heavily used by commercial and private vehicles often from out-of-state, can and should equitably be distributed among those who use them. I support that structure, and when the General Assembly has been vigilant about maintaining adequate funding, the split system has been effective. But, years ago it became evident that our transportation system needed attention and if fees were not brought into line with current demand, our road system could rapidly deteriorate. The unwillingness to take on that requisite has brought us to where we are today—years behind the $1 billion the state needs annually to maintain the current road system.

I have not thoroughly examined the new plan before us so I cannot provide a comprehensive response, but I do have concerns about the provision in the proposal that ultimately removes $400 million from the General Fund to offset transportation needs. I am leery of breaking the division between the two funds, but of equal concern is the loss to those programs that must be cut to compensate for roads. Four-hundred million dollars is a substantial sum. It is more than the combined GF budgets of the State Police, Department of Emergency Management and the Department of Veterans Services. It is more than the combined GF operating budgets of all of Virginia’s Natural Resource agencies. In light of the security and environmental issues that loom before us, the proposed loss to the General Fund has enormous implications. I am hesitant to draw dollars away from programs the state has identified as essential to our core values and responsibilities—especially when I believe our commitment is to create a long term funding source that will ensure our transportation needs are addressed annually. There are other components of the proposed plan that need further attention—land use stipulations and questions about long range planning so we do not have to revisit crucial road needs each year—but those are for a future report.

On a more personal note, I enjoyed seeing some constituents this passed week. Threatening weather in the New River Valley kept the Montgomery County teachers from making the trip, but Commissioners of Revenue from throughout the state gathered in Richmond and Valerie Bruffey and Cathy Kimberlin from Alleghany County and Anne Chambers from Giles County stopped at the office. Joe Sargeant, director of the Community Services Board in Alleghany County dropped by to discuss progress with CSB regional projects. President Richard Teaff with staff and students from Dabney Lancaster Community College came to Richmond on behalf of legislative and budget issues of concern to the Community College system—most significantly to support the transfer grant bill that will provide assistance to low income Community College students with top grades when they transfer to a 4-year Virginia college or university. Molly McClintock and The Reverend Scott Russell were in Richmond lobbying for equity issues. I am always grateful that 12 th district constituents are willing to take the time to bring their concerns in person to the legislative process. I know it is a long drive and often my time is minimal or non existent, but I always welcome the efforts of the visitors from home.

If you have questions or concerns about legislation mentioned in this report, or any legislative matter, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me at any of the following addresses.