Attorneys specializing in tax-exempt bond transactions frequently appear before Economic Development Authorities, Redevelopment and Housing Authorities, and local governing bodies (Boards of Supervisors or City Councils) to obtain the local approvals required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code in connection with the issuance of bonds that are obligations of private parties (e.g., 501c3 organizations) but are issued through a local government body as "conduit issuers" that have no liability for payment of the bonds. These limited interactions would likely fall under the scope of SB50 and require bond attorneys such as myself to register as lobbyists seeking to influence "local government action." It is unlikely that this scenario was considered in the drafting of SB50. It would be helpful if an exemption could be considered to carve out "Local approvals required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code" or something to that effect. I can be reached at 804-762-6036, or kevin.white@butlersnow.com, if you would like to discuss. Thank you.

I strongly support SB56 to make the cost of a FOIA request reasonable and predictable. I worked for city government for over thirty years so I experienced FOIA from the receiving end. I know that a FOIA request can be a little scary. But it is more important that we remember that government works for the people. As the law says, "The affairs of government are not intended to be conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy since at all times the public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government." As a government employee I tried to live by that. SB56 balances the reasonable costs of FOIA with the principle in our state Code and the need of the people to be informed about the actions of government. Please support SB56.

Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Natalie Nguyen, and I am the in-house counsel for L. F. Jennings, Inc., a general contractor based in Falls Church, Northern Virginia. Last year, we performed nearly 100 projects in Virginia alone. As a trend, L. F. Jennings is seeing an uptick in late payments from owners, particularly on the last payment when retainage is being released. Though general contractors and subcontractors may have some protection under the mechanics' lien statute, passage of this bill would significantly ease the cash flow difficulties our subcontractors face, which could quickly lead to default. Shedding light from another angle, financial backlog is one of the prequalification metrics that general contractors employ to vet subcontractors. If a retainage bond allows retainage to be promptly released and accurately reflects subcontractors' financial health, it would greatly benefit general contractors in our qualification process.

Honorable members of the General Laws - Procurement/Open Government Subcommittee I oppose SB699 because it does not strike an appropriate balance between government openness and effectiveness. Limiting the ability of public bodies to take final action on items that were not on the agenda before a meeting even commenced, those public bodies are subject to the whims of whoever drafts meeting agendas. In Oklahoma, former state superintendent Ryan Walters gained notoriety for refusing to include agenda items he disagreed with, abusing a similar notice law to prevent the Oklahoma State Board of Education from even considering actions he disagreed with. This could happen in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The limits of SB699 are also likely to undermine the ability of public bodies to amend items before they are adopted, for fear of judicial intervention. This would likely lead to public bodies either adopting items that could have been improved through deliberation or trying to hammer out details before an agenda has been finalized. Thus, public bodies would be encouraged to either produce mediocre decisions or engage in outside discussions that, even if structured to avoid violating the laws on open meetings, go against their spirit. The goals of this bill are honorable. But the implementation is still defective. Please defer action on this bill until a proper balance between openness and governance effectiveness is met.

Opposed to this bill because it would allow for pocket vetoes on meeting agendas. Please see the attached letter.