The Virginia NAACP supports HB1662 (Jones), HB2030 (Anthony) and Hb2267(Anthony)

Plastic grocery bags typically are used for an average of 12 minutes, yet plastic persists in the environment for 100s if not 1,000s of years. While in the environment, it often ends up in waterways and in the ocean, where it photo degrades into tiny bits called microplastics. These are taken up by animals and enter the food chain. We all now have quantities of plastic chemicals in our organs and blood stream with unclear, but not good, health implications. In fact, plastic may be the new "lead" of environmental health dangers. So, when considering the cost of taking a step to control the huge impact of plastic on health and the environment (its manufacture is a major source of greenhouse gases), we have to remember these costs that will be paid in a degraded ecosystem, increased health issues, and worsening natural disasters from unfettered climate change. To ask that stores provide alternatives seems a small price to pay. Getting consumers ready with education, signage, and publicity will help the transition. If stores need to recoup any increased cost, they can charge a dime for a paper bag. People will learn to bring bags this way, as has been demonstrated in other states with the ban. This seems a small price to pay for the rewards it will bring to the beauty of our Commonwealth, the improvement of fisheries, and the health of our citizens. Respectfully yours, Caroline Sheridan

I sure wish we could get rid of plastic bags! I help with stream cleanups in the Shenandoah Valley and plastic bags, along with cigarette butts and styrofoam, are the worst offenders. I have lived in places (Germany, Massachusetts, California) where stores charge for plastic bags--it's really not that much--in Germany the bags were pretty sturdy and we re-used them over and over 9the Berliner Brieftasche, they were called). Or you ust get used to bringing your own most of the time, and paying when you forget. How hard is that. I'm attaching a little calculator for our area that Environment Virginia creates. I think it's interesting.

While the intent of this legislation to reduce environmental waste is commendable, the outright prohibition of plastic carryout bags by grocery stores has several significant drawbacks: Economic Burden on Consumers: Many consumers rely on plastic bags for convenience and reuse them for other household purposes. Alternatives like paper or cloth bags may impose additional costs on shoppers, disproportionately affecting low-income families. Paper bags are often less durable and require frequent replacements, further adding to the cost burden. Environmental Trade-Offs: While plastic bags have environmental drawbacks, alternatives also have their own impact. For example: Paper Bags: Require significantly more water and energy to produce, resulting in a higher carbon footprint during production and transportation. Reusable Cloth Bags: Often made from cotton or synthetic materials, their production demands extensive resources, and they must be reused hundreds of times to offset their environmental footprint. Impact on Small Businesses: Compliance with this legislation could increase operational costs for smaller grocery stores, forcing them to purchase and provide costlier alternatives. This burden could lead to higher prices for consumers or reduced competitiveness for local businesses. Ineffective Waste Management: Eliminating plastic bags from grocery stores does not address the broader issue of plastic waste. Many plastic bags are repurposed for trash liners or pet waste disposal. Without them, consumers may purchase other plastic products, such as trash bags, which are often thicker and contribute more to landfill waste. Consumer Behavior and Convenience: Banning plastic bags could alienate customers who value convenience. Policies encouraging voluntary behavioral changes, such as offering incentives for bringing reusable bags, might achieve similar goals without imposing a ban. Existing Recycling Efforts: Many grocery stores already participate in recycling programs for plastic bags. Enhancing and expanding these initiatives could provide a practical, less disruptive alternative to an outright ban. Conclusion: A more balanced approach is needed to address the environmental concerns associated with plastic bags. This could include improved recycling infrastructure, consumer education, and incentivized use of reusable bags, rather than a sweeping prohibition that may result in unintended economic and environmental consequences.

I am totally against this bill which aims to prohibit the sale and distribution of plastic carryout bags by grocery stores starting January 1, 2027. Consumer Convenience: This ban removes a convenient option for consumers, particularly for those who might forget reusable bags or for spontaneous shopping trips, impacting the ease of grocery shopping. Economic Impact on Stores: Grocery stores will face increased costs due to the need to transition to alternative bagging solutions, which might be passed onto consumers, potentially raising the cost of groceries at a time when affordability is crucial. Job Losses: The transition away from plastic bags could lead to job losses in the plastic manufacturing sector, affecting local economies and workers dependent on this industry. Effectiveness Questionable: While the intention is environmental, the effectiveness of such bans in reducing overall plastic waste is debated. Without comprehensive recycling programs or alternatives, this might just shift the problem rather than solve it. Penalty Structure: The civil penalty system, starting with warnings and then fines, could be seen as punitive towards businesses trying to adapt, especially small grocery stores with limited resources to comply quickly. Reusable Bag Program Requirement: Mandating grocery stores to implement programs to encourage reusable bags adds an administrative burden, potentially diverting resources from other business operations or customer service improvements. Exempt Bag Loophole: The definition of exempt bags could lead to confusion or exploitation, where certain plastic bags might still be used under the guise of exemptions, undermining the bill's environmental goals. Lack of Public Readiness: Many consumers might not be ready or willing to switch to reusable bags by the set deadline, leading to resistance or non-compliance, which could affect the bill's success. Alternative Environmental Concerns: The production and disposal of alternatives like paper or cloth bags have their environmental impacts, which this bill does not address, potentially shifting the environmental burden rather than reducing it. I strongly oppose this legislation for its potential to inconvenience consumers, economically strain grocery stores, lead to job losses, and for its questionable effectiveness in truly reducing environmental impact without a holistic approach to waste management.

I strongly support banning grocery store plastic carryout bags. In discussion with both state legislators and Virginia Beach City Council members regarding the plastic bag fee legislation, I am frequently asked, "Why didn't the General Assembly just pass a bag bag ban in the first place?". In the meantime, plastic bags are despoiling our landscape and our waterways, harming our eco-systems (birds, fish, turtles, marine mammals) and clogging our storm water systems. Additionally, plastic bags stay in the environment indefinitely and eventually break down into micro and nano-plastics, making their way into our food chain and into every organ and system in our bodies. Please: Just Ban the Bags! Very Respectfully, James F. Deppe Virginia Beach

Hello, Please require retail establishments to post clear signage designating invasive plants and educating the public on what that means. Invasive plants are a tremendous issue threatening our ecosystems. They out-compete native plants that we need in order to enjoy our land, support animals for hunting and fishing, control floods and erosion, protect infrastructure, protect our trees, and protect wildlife. I work in watershed restoration cleaning up our waterways to provide safer drinking water, protect infrastructure, protect our ability to safely hunt and fish, and protect our native songbirds, trees, flowers, and wildlife. Most of our budget is spent on invasive species removal; it costs a lot, requires the use of herbicides, requires the use of heavy equipment, and requires many years of constant maintenance in order to prevent them from coming back. They damage our ecosystems and I have seen many beautiful old trees die because of invasive English ivy, tree-of-heaven, privet, and invasive honeysuckle. Our songbirds die eating berries from invasive plants. Please pass this legislation. Additionally, please pass the legislation supporting wildlife corridors; in addition to being needed to protect wildlife, this bill would protect so many people. Deer-auto collisions cost states millions each year and injure and kill many drivers. We are also at risk of losing many of our native wildlife species as a result; animals like frogs and salamanders need to cross roadways in order to reach wetlands to breed, and cannot escape cars.

I support these

Hi There, We are looking for installation partners in your area. NO COST TO YOU. We sell PVC Marble Design Panels to homeowners and contractors. When a homeowner buys panels but is not handy enough to install them themselves, we want to be able to recommend a vetted installation company. Please check out our website to learn more and to apply for partnership: https://gpe-partners.com We are looking forward to working with you. Marc Wagner COO Great Products Enterprise

Hi There, We are looking for installation partners in your area. NO COST TO YOU. We sell PVC Marble Design Panels to homeowners and contractors. When a homeowner buys panels but is not handy enough to install them themselves, we want to be able to recommend a vetted installation company. Please check out our website to learn more and to apply for partnership: https://gpe-partners.com We are looking forward to working with you. Marc Wagner COO Great Products Enterprise

I am totally against this bill which seeks to amend the Dam Safety Act in ways that could compromise safety and accountability. Weakened Enforcement: Streamlining the Department of Conservation and Recreation's enforcement powers might reduce the rigor and oversight necessary to ensure dam safety, potentially leading to less stringent compliance with safety standards. Ambiguity in Responsibilities: Clarifying the Department's duties during an active dam failure is good, but the bill adds complexity to dam owners' responsibilities, potentially leading to confusion or non-compliance, especially for owners of low hazard structures. Increased Owner Burden: Requiring dam owners to perform safety inspections for structures presenting imminent danger shifts more responsibility onto them without necessarily providing additional support or resources, which could be overwhelming for smaller or less experienced owners. Inundation Zone Identification: Allowing dam owners to identify dam break inundation zones by providing limits rather than filing a map could lead to less precise emergency planning, potentially endangering lives and property downstream. Funding Criteria Changes: Altering the criteria for receiving funds from the Dam Safety, Flood Prevention and Protection Assistance Fund, including project match requirements, might make it harder for some dam owners, particularly those with limited financial means, to secure necessary funding for safety improvements. Repeal of Civil Penalties: Removing civil penalties removes a deterrent for non-compliance with the Act, which could lead to lax attitudes towards dam maintenance and safety, increasing the risk of failures and subsequent disasters. Public Safety Concerns: Overall, these changes could dilute the focus on public safety by reducing the accountability of dam owners and the regulatory power of the Department, potentially leading to more frequent or severe dam-related incidents. Environmental Impact: Dams play a crucial role in managing water resources and preventing floods. Weakening the regulatory framework could have unintended environmental consequences, affecting water quality, wildlife, and flood control efforts. I strongly oppose this legislation for its potential to undermine the safety, regulatory oversight, and environmental integrity associated with dam management in Virginia, urging its rejection to maintain stringent safety standards and accountability.

Hi There, We are looking for installation partners in your area. NO COST TO YOU. We sell PVC Marble Design Panels to homeowners and contractors. When a homeowner buys panels but is not handy enough to install them themselves, we want to be able to recommend a vetted installation company. Please check out our website to learn more and to apply for partnership: https://gpe-partners.com We are looking forward to working with you. Marc Wagner COO Great Products Enterprise

The Virginia NAACP supports HB1662 (Jones), HB2030 (Anthony) and Hb2267(Anthony)

I am against this bill which proposes the creation of an Environmental Justice Task Force in Virginia. Bureaucratic Overload: Establishing another task force adds to the bureaucratic structure, potentially leading to redundancy with existing environmental and community development agencies, which already address similar issues. Funding Concerns: The creation of this task force would require funding, which could divert resources from direct environmental protection or community support programs to administrative costs, potentially reducing the effectiveness of current initiatives. Political Influence: The composition of the task force, with appointees from various state departments, might lead to political influence overshadowing genuine environmental justice concerns, risking the task force becoming more about political agendas than community needs. Inefficiency in Policy Making: Tasking this group with advising on policies might slow down decision-making processes, as adding another layer of review could complicate and delay the implementation of necessary environmental actions. Scope and Focus: While the focus on historically economically disadvantaged communities is commendable, the broad mandate of the task force might dilute efforts, spreading resources too thin across various issues without achieving significant, focused outcomes. Reporting Burden: Requiring annual reports could become a formality rather than a tool for actionable change, with the risk of these reports gathering dust rather than prompting real policy shifts or community improvements. Lack of Direct Action: The emphasis on reporting and advising rather than implementing direct action might mean that while issues are highlighted, practical solutions or immediate relief for affected communities could be delayed or overlooked. Potential for Overlap: There's a risk of overlap with existing initiatives or task forces, leading to confusion over jurisdiction and responsibility, which could hinder coordinated efforts on environmental justice. I oppose this legislation due to concerns over bureaucratic expansion, potential inefficiency, and the risk of diverting funds from direct action to administrative overhead, urging instead for more direct, community-focused environmental justice initiatives.

Hi There, We are looking for installation partners in your area. NO COST TO YOU. We sell PVC Marble Design Panels to homeowners and contractors. When a homeowner buys panels but is not handy enough to install them themselves, we want to be able to recommend a vetted installation company. Please check out our website to learn more and to apply for partnership: https://gpe-partners.com We are looking forward to working with you. Marc Wagner COO Great Products Enterprise

I am in favor of this bill which authorizes the Department of Forestry to engage in a boundary line agreement and quitclaim of interest concerning property adjacent to Cumberland State Forest. Facilitates Land Management: This legislation allows for better management and clarity of land ownership around Cumberland State Forest, reducing potential disputes over property lines and enhancing the forest's administration. Enhances Accessibility: By accepting a perpetual access easement from Stella Watson Chambliss, Rick Matthew Chambliss, Weyerhaeuser Company, and Wayne Rosson, the bill ensures improved access to parts of the forest not previously connected by an express right-of-way, which is crucial for maintenance, emergency response, and public use. Community and Economic Benefits: Improved access can stimulate local economies by making the forest more accessible for recreational activities, potentially increasing tourism and related economic activities in the area. Environmental Stewardship: Clear boundary agreements and easements support conservation efforts by defining responsibilities and rights, ensuring that the forest can be managed sustainably with less risk of encroachment or misuse. Legal Clarity: The quitclaim of interest and boundary line agreement provide legal clarity, reducing the likelihood of future legal challenges or misunderstandings regarding land use, which is beneficial for both the state and private landowners. Public Safety: Enhanced access routes are vital for safety, allowing quicker response times for emergencies like wildfires or for rescue operations within the forest. Partnership with Private Landowners: This bill fosters a cooperative relationship between the state and private landowners, setting a precedent for future collaborations in land management and conservation efforts. I strongly support this legislation for its practical approach to land management, enhancing accessibility, supporting local economies, promoting environmental stewardship, and ensuring public safety through clear legal frameworks and cooperative agreements.

Hi There, We are looking for installation partners in your area. NO COST TO YOU. We sell PVC Marble Design Panels to homeowners and contractors. When a homeowner buys panels but is not handy enough to install them themselves, we want to be able to recommend a vetted installation company. Please check out our website to learn more and to apply for partnership: https://gpe-partners.com We are looking forward to working with you. Marc Wagner COO Great Products Enterprise

Please support HB2238 as enabling legislation to allow localities the option to adopt ordinance language which would ensure that the "critical root zones" (CRZ) of trees targeted for preservation as a way to meet all or part of the tree canopy requirements on a site are adequately mapped ahead of a project. The CRZ is the area of soil around a tree where most of its roots are located - it's an area of soil that, when disturbed, could mean significant impacts to a tree, ultimately killing. Allowing localities to get this CRZ information could help inform projects about the likelihood of tree preservation over the long term based on CRZ impacts. This could help ensure preservation of tree canopy in a way that we do not have today by allowing a dialog about modifications to a site plan that may better preserve tree canopy intended to be saved. This proposed legislation acknowledges the importance of tree preservation and provides a tool to help localities more effectively preserve existing canopy (which can otherwise take a decade or more to be replaced upon the death of a tree identified for preservation). This would provide an important benefit to urbanized and urbanizing areas where preservation of existing canopy is critical to mitigate heat island effects, particularly in areas suffering environmental inequities which disproportionately affect those most vulnerable. Please support HB2238.

I am against this bill which would allow certain localities to impose stringent requirements on developers regarding the preservation of existing trees during development. Increased Development Costs: Requiring developers to submit detailed surveys or maps of tree root zones would significantly increase the cost of development. This could lead to higher housing or commercial space prices, potentially making development less affordable or feasible, especially for smaller projects. Delay in Development: The additional step of mapping critical root zones or providing extensive information could delay project timelines, slowing down economic growth and housing availability in areas where development is critically needed. Legal and Compliance Burdens: This bill adds legal complexities by requiring developers to consider tree roots extending onto adjacent properties, potentially leading to disputes over property rights and complicating the development process with additional legal considerations. Overregulation: By allowing local ordinances to dictate such detailed aspects of development, this bill contributes to overregulation, which can stifle innovation and flexibility in urban planning and development practices. Impact on Property Rights: The requirement might infringe on property rights by imposing conditions that could affect how landowners utilize their property, especially when considering roots crossing property lines, which could lead to conflicts with adjacent landowners. Potential for Inequity: Smaller developers or individual homeowners might find compliance with these requirements disproportionately burdensome compared to larger entities with more resources, leading to inequity in development opportunities. Environmental Focus Disparity: While tree preservation is important, this focus might overshadow other environmental considerations in development, like water management, energy efficiency, or habitat creation, potentially leading to a less holistic approach to sustainable development. Administrative Overhead: Local governments would need to increase their administrative capacity to handle the review of these additional submissions, potentially diverting resources from other municipal services or environmental initiatives. I oppose this legislation due to its potential to increase costs, delay projects, complicate legal compliance, and overregulate development, urging instead for a balanced approach that considers economic viability alongside environmental preservation.

Dear Madam Chair and Members of the Natural Resources Subcommittee Committee, I am writing to express my strong support for House Bill 2238, which strengthens tree preservation requirements during development. This legislation has the potential to bring significant benefits to communities while addressing critical issues stemming from the loss of urban tree canopies. Trees are essential to public health and environmental sustainability. They improve air and water quality, reduce urban heat islands, and manage stormwater runoff. In communities like those served by Southside ReLeaf, where tree canopy is limited, these benefits are critical for addressing environmental inequities that disproportionately affect those most vulnerable. There are higher asthma rates, greater hospital visits for heat illnesses, and up to a 20-year shorter life expectancy in neighborhoods with a tree deficit. Preserving trees during development can mitigate these disparities, promoting healthier and more resilient communities. Trees are important infrastructure assets that provide essential services in a cooperative system with utilities, transportation, public works, and other facilities that make communities livable. Unlike other infrastructural services that decline or need to be replaced over time, trees yield more benefits as they mature. We should not see trees as being in conflict with how we build and grow our communities but rather protect these investments. Additionally, requiring site plans to include the preservation of existing trees or the planting of new ones ensures that development protects and enhances our tree canopy. This bill establishes a vital framework to hold developers accountable for maintaining or replacing trees during development, preventing the loss of essential tree canopy and aiding in the long-term health of our communities. Without action, the continued loss of tree canopy due to unchecked development will exacerbate these environmental harms. Communities will face increased risks of flooding, reduced climate resilience, and declining public health. HB2238 offers a proactive solution, ensuring that development respects the value of existing natural resources and prioritizes sustainable growth. This bill represents a chance to invest in a future where economic development and environmental preservation go hand in hand, providing long-term benefits for all residents. I urge you to support HB2238 and its vision for a greener and healthier Virginia.

On behalf of Southside ReLeaf, I am writing to express our support for HB2267, which expands and codifies air quality monitoring efforts by the Department of Environmental Quality in the Hampton Roads area. In Southside Richmond, we know all too well how poor air quality impacts community members' health. Life expectancy here is up to 20 years shorter compared to other parts of the city, and Richmond ranks second nationally for asthma-related deaths, according to the 2023 Asthma Capitals Report. We believe the data collected through this legislation will provide valuable insights that can lead to better health outcomes and inform strategies to mitigate air pollution’s effects. We also hope this initiative in Hampton Roads will serve as a foundation for further efforts across the Commonwealth to collect much-needed statewide data for fenceline communities, address air quality issues, and guide future policy decisions.

The Virginia NAACP supports HB1662 (Jones), HB2030 (Anthony) and Hb2267(Anthony)

On behalf of Southside ReLeaf, I am writing to express our support for HB2267, which expands and codifies air quality monitoring efforts by the Department of Environmental Quality in the Hampton Roads area. In Southside Richmond, we know all too well how poor air quality impacts community members' health. Life expectancy here is up to 20 years shorter compared to other parts of the city, and Richmond ranks second nationally for asthma-related deaths, according to the 2023 Asthma Capitals Report. We believe the data collected through this legislation will provide valuable insights that can lead to better health outcomes and inform strategies to mitigate air pollution’s effects. We also hope this initiative in Hampton Roads will serve as a foundation for further efforts across the Commonwealth to collect much-needed statewide data for fenceline communities, address air quality issues, and guide future policy decisions. For these reasons, we ask that you support this bill

I am against this bill which mandates the Department of Environmental Quality to establish an air quality monitoring program specifically for fenceline communities in Virginia. Resource Allocation: Implementing this program would require significant resources, potentially diverting funds from other critical environmental initiatives or general state services, which might be more broadly beneficial. Administrative Burden: The ongoing nature of the monitoring and the requirement for annual reporting would add considerable administrative workload to the Department of Environmental Quality, possibly straining its capacity to address other environmental issues efficiently. Selective Focus: By focusing solely on fenceline communities, this bill might neglect other areas or populations within the state that could also benefit from enhanced air quality monitoring, leading to an uneven distribution of environmental attention and resources. Potential for Overregulation: The detailed reporting requirements and the involvement of the Virginia Council on Environmental Justice could lead to overregulation, where recommendations might push for unnecessary legislative changes, complicating business operations in affected areas. Economic Impact: Businesses in or near these fenceline communities might face increased scrutiny and potential regulatory actions, which could deter investment or expansion, impacting local economies negatively. Data Overload: The requirement to analyze data on pollution levels, health risks, and recommend actions could overwhelm decision-makers with information, potentially leading to paralysis by analysis rather than actionable change. Legislative Overreach: Directing the General Assembly to review findings annually and consider legislation based on these reports could lead to a cycle of reactive law-making, potentially not allowing enough time for comprehensive assessment or for the implementation of previous legislative changes to take effect. Council Influence: While the involvement of the Virginia Council on Environmental Justice is intended to provide expert advice, there's a risk that political or special interest influences could skew recommendations, affecting the objectivity of the process. I oppose this legislation due to concerns over resource allocation, administrative efficiency, the risk of overregulation, economic impacts, data management, legislative overreach, and the potential for biased influence, advocating instead for a more balanced approach to environmental monitoring that considers the broader needs of the Commonwealth.

Hi There, We are looking for installation partners in your area. NO COST TO YOU. We sell PVC Marble Design Panels to homeowners and contractors. When a homeowner buys panels but is not handy enough to install them themselves, we want to be able to recommend a vetted installation company. Please check out our website to learn more and to apply for partnership: https://gpe-partners.com We are looking forward to working with you. Marc Wagner COO Great Products Enterprise

Please support HB2306. This legislation would not only protect and ensure public access to the last surviving privately-held, founding-era, presidential home (of American’s 5th President James Monroe), but it would provide much-needed outdoor recreation access in a rapidly urbanizing area of Loudoun County. Importantly, this area has already been identified as having a high need for outdoor recreation facilities which this site could address. This unique opportunity is fiscally exciting too: Acquisition costs and significant start-up costs have already been covered through non-General Fund sources. As of January 1, 2025, $41.35M has been committed to Oak Hill State Park, towards a total goal of $52M for a property that is expected to have an annual revenue of at least at least $1M. We ask for your support of HB2306 to create a new state park in Loudoun County at James Monroe's Oak Hill.

I am against this bill which authorizes the Department of Conservation and Recreation to accept property for establishing a new state park in Loudoun County. Financial Implications: Accepting and developing approximately 1,240 acres into a state park would require significant financial investment from the state for acquisition, maintenance, and operation, potentially diverting funds from other necessary conservation or public service projects. Land Use Concerns: The property in question, Oak Hill Farm, might be more beneficial if used for agricultural purposes or left in private hands for local economic activities, contributing to food security or local employment rather than being converted into a park. Local Community Impact: The establishment of a state park could alter the character of the local community, potentially affecting property values, local traffic, and the way of life for residents, especially without broad community consultation. Environmental Management: While creating a state park aims at conservation, the process of converting land, especially if it involves construction or significant landscape changes, might initially disturb local ecosystems before achieving long-term conservation benefits. Maintenance and Operational Challenges: State parks require ongoing maintenance and management, which could strain the Department of Conservation and Recreation's resources, especially if the park does not generate sufficient visitor revenue to offset these costs. Precedent for Future Acquisitions: This bill sets a precedent for future land acquisitions by the state, which might lead to expectations or pressures for similar actions in other areas, potentially leading to overreach in state land ownership. Opportunity Cost: The resources and focus dedicated to this new park could mean less attention or funding for existing state parks or other conservation efforts that might need enhancement or are underutilized. Lack of Public Invitation: There seems to be a lack of public process or community input in the decision to accept this land, which could lead to dissatisfaction or opposition from local residents who might have different visions for the land's use. I oppose this legislation due to the financial burden, potential negative impacts on local land use, community dynamics, and the environment, alongside concerns over resource allocation and the lack of inclusive decision-making, urging for a more considered approach to land acquisition for state parks.

Hi There, We are looking for installation partners in your area. NO COST TO YOU. We sell PVC Marble Design Panels to homeowners and contractors. When a homeowner buys panels but is not handy enough to install them themselves, we want to be able to recommend a vetted installation company. Please check out our website to learn more and to apply for partnership: https://gpe-partners.com We are looking forward to working with you. Marc Wagner COO Great Products Enterprise

I am in favor of this bill which grants the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA) the authority to dissolve itself under certain conditions. Local Control: By allowing the VRFA to transfer its property to local governments upon dissolution, this bill ensures that control of recreational facilities and associated lands remains with local entities, who are better positioned to understand and cater to community needs. Efficient Asset Management: This legislation promotes efficient management of assets by enabling the VRFA to divest when its objectives are met, ensuring that properties are not left idle or underutilized, which could happen if they automatically reverted to the Commonwealth. Community Benefit: Transferring property to the locality where the majority of the VRFA's assets are located directly benefits local residents by keeping recreational facilities accessible and potentially enhancing local recreational offerings. Financial Responsibility: The requirement that all bonds and obligations must be settled or provisions made for their payment before dissolution ensures financial responsibility, protecting taxpayers from any residual liabilities. Streamlined Process: The process outlined for dissolution, including the requirement to deliver a resolution to the Governor for legislative action, provides a clear and structured method for ending the Authority's operations, reducing potential legal or administrative confusion. Flexibility for Future Use: Allowing localities to take over the property gives them the flexibility to repurpose or maintain these facilities according to current and future community demands, fostering adaptive reuse. Accountability: The dissolution process, requiring a formal resolution and legislative review, adds a layer of accountability, ensuring that the decision to dissolve is well-considered and in the public interest. Precedent for Other Authorities: This bill sets a positive precedent for other state authorities, demonstrating a mechanism for orderly dissolution when their purposes are fulfilled, which could be beneficial for future governance models. I strongly support this legislation for its focus on local governance, efficient asset management, community benefit, financial prudence, and for providing a clear, accountable process for the dissolution of state authorities when their mission is accomplished.