The Rappahannock Rapidan Regional Commission is supportive of HB 725, as we believe it will allow us to be customer/citizen service-focused without sacrificing necessary transparency.
The current requirement of local governments in this Code section is to tell citizens seeking a residential only utility service easement across local government-owned property that they must wait 30-days to get electric service, for example, so that a public hearing can be held. HB 725 would apply very narrowly to utility easements for a residential property adjacent to property owned by the locality.
As mentioned, the current Code section requires the holding of a public hearing for any public or private sale, exchange, lease as lessor, mortgage, pledge, subordinate interest in or otherwise disposal of real property.
There are currently some very reasonable exceptions to the holding of a public hearing including (i) the leasing of real property to another public body, political subdivision or authority of the Commonwealth; (ii) conveyance of site development easements, or utility easements related to transportation projects, across public property, including easements for ingress, egress, utilities, cable, telecommunications, storm water management and other similar conveyances.
For Orange County, and other local governments, it would seem that providing an exception to the public hearing process when it is a routine easement request for residential utility service that happens to involve local government property, is a reasonable accommodation in order to provide more timely service to citizens seeking residential utility services. The public hearing requirement in this instance does not advance the public interest, but rather adds delay to providing residential taxpayer’s utility service.
The Rappahannock Rapidan Regional Commission is supportive of HB 725, as we believe it will allow us to be customer/citizen service-focused without sacrificing necessary transparency. The current requirement of local governments in this Code section is to tell citizens seeking a residential only utility service easement across local government-owned property that they must wait 30-days to get electric service, for example, so that a public hearing can be held. HB 725 would apply very narrowly to utility easements for a residential property adjacent to property owned by the locality. As mentioned, the current Code section requires the holding of a public hearing for any public or private sale, exchange, lease as lessor, mortgage, pledge, subordinate interest in or otherwise disposal of real property. There are currently some very reasonable exceptions to the holding of a public hearing including (i) the leasing of real property to another public body, political subdivision or authority of the Commonwealth; (ii) conveyance of site development easements, or utility easements related to transportation projects, across public property, including easements for ingress, egress, utilities, cable, telecommunications, storm water management and other similar conveyances. For Orange County, and other local governments, it would seem that providing an exception to the public hearing process when it is a routine easement request for residential utility service that happens to involve local government property, is a reasonable accommodation in order to provide more timely service to citizens seeking residential utility services. The public hearing requirement in this instance does not advance the public interest, but rather adds delay to providing residential taxpayer’s utility service.