VAELA cannot support SB 302 as currently drafted. (1) We do not support the language at lines 77-80 of the amended version of SB 302. This language is somewhat confusing and forces the Health Care Decisions Act (54.1-2981 et seq.) into a position within the guardianship statute that it was never meant to occupy. (2)VAELA is in agreement with the amendment at lines 11-12 of the amended version of SB 302 as it clarifies that community service boards and other governmental agencies may bring petitions. (3) We do not take a position on the workgroup language starting at line 106, though we note that JLARC just concluded a comprehensive study on Virginia's guardianship laws. To the best of our knowledge, this bill, SB 302, does not track JLARC's recommendations as they arose from that study.

Comments Document

Please support SB 348. If passed, SB348 will bring the state of Virginia millions of dollars. Conversely, “the state could LOSE between $3.1 million and $157 million in TANF funding annually”, according to the Fiscal Impact Statement for SB348. “While some custodial parents may see a reduction in support payments, the Department of Social Services is rarely able to collect support from incarcerated parents, so any fiscal impact before the federal compliance date (fall 2022) would be minimal. Additionally, most of the support collected is transferred to the custodial parent. However, if the legislation is not passed, the state could lose federal funds. The federal final rule provides that state guidelines under 45 CFR 302.56(c)(3) may not treat incarceration as voluntary unemployment in establishing or modifying child support orders. The rule prohibits states from legally barring modification of support obligations during incarceration. The agency estimates a loss of $76 million in federal child support funding annually.” - Department of Planning and Budget, 2022 Fiscal Impact Statement Furthermore, SB348 will reduce the crime rate. If non-custodial parents are under crushing child support obligations, they may drop out of formal employment (if 65% of their wages are being garnished, leaving them essentially nothing to live on), and go back into the black market, such as dealing drugs. When parents are ordered to pay more than they can afford, they may just give up and pay nothing. SB348 will allow access to higher paying jobs. Non-custodial parents released from prison typically have almost nothing, and simply can't pay child support that accrued while in prison. Forcing non-custodial parents to pay child support before their release will result in them losing their driver’s license (suspended due to nonpayment) and thus their ability to hold a decent job that will enable them to pay a decent amount of child support going forward. People who can drive "have access to 30 times as many jobs as low‐income people dependent on transit." See Randal O'Toole, Helping People Reach Jobs, Cato Institute, Nov. 15, 2017 Even if non-custodial parents genuinely can't pay their child support during their incarceration, as noted in the Fiscal Impact Statement, the state of Virginia will still likely waste time and money trying to collect it. That's because noncustodial parents can't challenge a supposedly excessive court child-support order without putting up an appeal bond for child support they say they are unable to pay -- which some call a catch-22 situation, because if you are too broke to pay the ordered child support, you are also too broke to afford an appeal bond. By supporting SB348, you will be supporting the rights of parents and children in Virginia, in addition to bringing millions of dollars into the state. Karen Merwin Co-director, State Legislative Initiative Family Reunion https://www.familyreunionusa.org Family Reunion is a national, non-profit organization that works with lawmakers, existing organizations, and experts dedicated to making much-needed changes to the family court system so the best interests of children can be supported. We focus on positively influencing family laws and policies that often discount one parent and ultimately harm the children.

Lines 207-210 have same effect as original SB666. The fiscal impact statement on SB666 indicated at least $700,000 annually for increased litigation costs. SB694, if reported by the committee in its current form should be sent to Appropriations. FIS on SB666, part “ Additionally, according to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) the deletion of the language concerning inverse condemnation is likely to increase the number of inverse condemnation cases that would be filed because it gives the ability to file inverse condemnation cases for temporary interference with a business or farm operation, resulting in increased costs to the Commonwealth for attorney’s fees and expert expenses. Such cases would be defended by the OAG or be referred to outside counsel. The OAG estimates an additional two to five additional attorneys may be necessary to cover such cases; annual costs for five additional attorneys would be approximately $700,000. The OAG and VDOT currently have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) specifying that costs related to transportation-related legal services are to be paid to the OAG by VDOT. In the event that outside counsel is needed, the costs would be paid by VDOT directly to such counsel. VDOT anticipates that outside counsel will likely be needed for cases resulting from changes proposed by this legislation. Additionally, according to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) the deletion of the language concerning inverse condemnation is likely to increase the number of inverse condemnation cases that would be filed because it gives the ability to file inverse condemnation cases for temporary interference with a business or farm operation, resulting in increased costs to the Commonwealth for attorney’s fees and expert expenses. Such cases would be defended by the OAG or be referred to outside counsel. The OAG estimates an additional two to five additional attorneys may be necessary to cover such cases; annual costs for five additional attorneys would be approximately $700,000. The OAG and VDOT currently have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) specifying that costs related to transportation-related legal services are to be paid to the OAG by VDOT. In the event that outside counsel is needed, the costs would be paid by VDOT directly to such counsel. VDOT anticipates that outside counsel will likely be needed for cases resulting from changes proposed by this legislation.

Comments Document

Chairman Bell and members, The Virginia Municipal League asks the committee to reject the substitute recommended by subcommittee 2 as you consider SB694. The reasons for our request are attached. In its current form, SB694 undoes decades of case law and code provisions that create a balance between the needs of the public and the rights of individual property owners.

On behalf of the City of Chesapeake and as a long standing member of the Virginia Municipal League we raise concerns about a bill that our friend from Rockingham has. SB694 (Obenshain) was dramatically altered by a substitute on Monday in the House Courts Subcommittee. In its present form, the bill makes taking or affecting land for road, water, sewer, and other public projects significantly more expensive for local governments. Concerns: The House substitute to SB694 does the following things: Creates a new rule on when a landowner can sue for loss of access. Since at least the 1970s, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that a landowner is not entitled to payment for a change in access to his property, so long as the landowner retains reasonable access. Line 48 of the substitute throws more than 50 years of court decisions out the window, by allowing a suit for any “change of vehicular access”. Does away with the stipulation in the current law that only protects direct access to a road. (Lines 157-158). Requires a landowner to be paid for loss of access or profits even if the benefits paid to the landowner are greater than those losses. Further, under current law, if the landowner is affected in the same way as all other property owners in the area of a project, there is no compensation. The substitute does away with that limit. (Lines 163-170). Allows a landowner to be paid for damages where no land is taken – such as a street festival, parade, or temporary water line project that closes a street for a few days. This same provision was in SB666, but the patron of that bill agreed to fix it. In its current form, SB694 includes this harmful provision. What are we asking? Reject the House Courts Subcommittee substitute; and, Include an amendment to provide that the government must certify the end date of a temporary construction easement if the government knows that date.

The City of Portsmouth opposes the House substitute to SB694 Substitute. SB694 (Obenshain) was dramatically altered by a substitute on Monday in the House Courts Subcommittee. In its present form, the bill makes taking or affecting land for road, water, sewer, and other public projects significantly more expensive for local governments. Our concerns: The House substitute to SB694 does the following things: 1. Creates a new rule on when a landowner can sue for loss of access. Since at least the 1970s, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that a landowner is not entitled to payment for a change in access to his property, so long as the landowner retains reasonable access. Line 48 of the substitute throws more than 50 years of court decisions out the window, by allowing a suit for any “change of vehicular access”. 2. Does away with the stipulation in the current law that only protects direct access to a road. (Lines 157-158). 3. Requires a landowner to be paid for loss of access or profits even if the benefits paid to the landowner are greater than those losses. Further, under current law, if the landowner is affected in the same way as all other property owners in the area of a project, there is no compensation. The substitute does away with that limit. (Lines 163-170). 4. Allows a landowner to be paid for damages where no land is taken – such as a street festival, parade, or temporary water line project that closes a street for a few days. This same provision was in SB666, but the patron of that bill agreed to fix it. In its current form, SB694 includes this harmful provision. Our action request: Please reject the House Courts Subcommittee substitute; and, • INCLUDE an amendment to provide that the government must certify the end date of a temporary construction easement IF the government knows that date.