OCTOBER 20, 1994 MINUTES
MEYERA E. OBEANDORF MUNICIPAL CENTER
MAYOR 'IRC
@INIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-wm
(804) 427-4581
FAX (804) 426-5669
October 18, 1994
Senator Stanley C. Walker
100 West Plume Street, Suite 332
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
Dear Senator Walker:
I am sure that you share my disappointment in the fact that Virginia Beach did not
receive the license for Virginia's Horse Racing Track.
The Council, staff and, I am sure, you agree that we offered the highest quality proposal,
the best partner, the best site, and clearly the greatest potential for return of revenue to the
Commonwealth. Nevertheless, the Racing Commission granted the license to the Colonial
Downs group.
Attached, for your information, is the decision document from the Racing Commission
More important than the reasons that New Kent County and the Colonial Downs group received
the license, are the reasons stated for Virginia Beach not getting the license. Obviously, the
issue of noise from aircraft operating from Oceana Master Jet Base was an issue that had been
discussed at great length. We, and Churchill Downs, had done extensive testing on the effects
of the noise on the horses, both while racing and otherwise, and demonstrated that it was a non-
issue. In fact, the Navy had signed off on the location of the track as being compatible with
their AICUZ Noise Zones. Nevertheless, the Racing Commission cited that as an issue. The
obvious point here is that, if it came down to the choice between Oceana and the race track, the
$450 million a year payroll impact of Oceana far outweighs any potential impact from the race
track.
However, another reason that we did not get the track license is more difficult to
understand. Traffic congestion at the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel was cited as a factor in
Virginia Beach not getting the nod for the license. The logic of giving New Kent County the
license suggests that people will be drawn from South Hampton Roads to wager at the track;
how then does the traffic from South Hampton Roads to New Kent County not create as rrluch
of a problem for New Kent County as traffic travelling southbound to Virginia Beach?
I
Senator Stanley C. Walker
October 18, 1994
Page 2
These issues will be discussed for quite some time and, perhaps in five years, we will
be in a much better position to second-guess or agree with the Racing Commission's decision.
nevertheless, their decision has been made and we must nove forward.
The lesson that we must learn from this exercise is that, if informed sources within the
State of Virginia consider the Hampton Roads Bridge runnel to be an impediment to
development potential in South Hampton Roads, then it must certainly be a consideration when
companies consider locating here from elsewhere in the Commonwealth or the United States.
I recognize that a Hampton Roads Crossing Study is underway; however, this is a problem that
must addressed soon and aggressively. This should be an item of utmost priority for all of us
in the coming years.
Finally, there may be a silver lining to the cloud in that persons interested in Oceana
closing had already begun to use the argument of the impact of the race track on the operations
of Oceana. Obviously that argument, which never had any validity, has been put to rest.
On behalf of the City Council and the citizens of Virginia Beach, I want to thank you for
the efforts you extended in assisting us over the last year in pursuing Princess Anne Downs.
It is now time for us to re-group, re-examine the viability and desirability of Off Track Betting
(OTB) in Hampton Roads, Riverboat Gaming, and other related issues and how they may impact
the City and the Commonwealth. This is but a momentary set-back in the growth of our great
City,
Sincei-eiv.
Meyera E Ob,:rndorf
Mayo@
MEO:RRM:jmf
Attaclunent
cc: Members of City Council
I
@i
e,,
DRAFT
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
1995
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE
OCTOBER 7, 1994
1995 LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE
FUNDING ISSUES IN PRIORITY ORDER
1. Request $5 million to fund the constniction of the expansion of the Marine Science
Museum
2. Request $458,950, which is 50% of the cost, to relocate the Pendleton Child Service
Center.
3. Request $5 million for partial funding of the Hurricane Protection Program.
4. Request for the State to pay the City's share of the cost of establishing the new family
court system, if the system is established. The total local cost is estimated at $800,000.
STATEWIDE FUNDING POLICY ISSUES
1. Request for ftill funding of education and full funding of any mandated teacher salary
increases.
2. Request for full flmding for State Aid to Libraries.
3. The Commonwealth is requested to include funding for Constitutional Officers' fringe
benefits which was deleted for fiscal year 1996 during the adoption of the current
biennium budget.
OTHER ISSUES
1 . Post Labor Day School Opening
2. Constitutional amendment to allow elected school board with taxing power.
3. Recordation of Plats for Public Purpose Uses
4. Liquidation of Assets of Dissolved Corporations
5. Route 44 Tolls
6. Virginia Indoor Clean Air Act
7. Relief from E-911 Tax
8. Auto Decals for Survivors of Disabled Veterans
ADDENDUM PUBLIC SAFETY PACKAGE
2
LOCAL FUNDING ISSUES
IN PRIORITY ORDER
3
VIRGINIA MARINE SCIENCE MUSEUM
The Virginia Marine Science Museum is the most heavily visited museum in Virginia.
The City is embarking on a $35 million expansion of the facility, which will greatly increase the
facilities' appeal as a tourist attraction and as an educational facility. Of the over two and one-
half million overnight visitors, who come to Virginia Beach each year, a large majority of them
visit the Virginia Marine Science Museum. It is expected that the expansion of the Virginia
Marine Science Museum will generate several hundred thousand additional visitor days. This
will increase the amount of direct tax revenue to the Commonwealth over the approximate #20
million that is now generated from tourism in the City.
RECOMMENDATION
The General Assembly is requested to appropriate $5 million to partially fund the
expansion of the Virginia Marine Science Museum. The General Assembly in the past has been
extremely generous in support to the facility and this will continue the partnership that exists
between the City and the Commonwealth on this facility.
4
PENDLETON CHILD SERVICE CENTER RELOCATION
The Pendleton Child Service Center has been located on the Camp Pendleton State
Military Reservation (SMR) since its conception in the mid-1970's. The City is being required
to relocate the Child Service Center off of the SMR. Total Cost of the project is
estimated at $1.4 million.
RECOMMENDATION
The General Assembly is requested to provide $458,950 as the State's share of relocating
the Child Service Center. The Child Service Center is a Certified Group Home, and is eligible
under the code for the State to provide 50% of the capital costs. The additional costs wfli be
borne by the Cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.
5
VIRGIMA BEACH HURRICANE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
The City has been working with the Corps of Engineers for a number of years to receive
Congressional authorization and funding for a Hurricane Protection and Erosion Control Project
at the oceanfront. This would be an expanded beach and dune system from Rudee Inlet to 89th
Street, include a new bulkhead between Rudee Inlet and 58th Street, and a new boardwalk
between Rudee Inlet and 40th Street. The project would also include relocation of the existing
interior drainage system; with the stormwater disposed of through submarine pipelines. The
City will expend approximately $70 million on the resort streetscape improvements; and the
Hurricane Protection Project is needed to protect those investments, Also, the new beach, which
will be higher and three times as wide as the existing beach, will increase Virginia Beach's
preeminence as a vacation beach on the Atlantic seaboard. This will allow the City to better
market itself, and also, will produce extended stays, whi@h will generate additional direct tax
revenue to the City and to the Commonwealth.
RECOMNENDATION
The General Assembly is requested to appropriate $5 million in funding over the
biennium for the Virginia Beach Hurricane Protection and Erosion Control Project. This project
is now currently estimated to cost approximately $80 million with the City's share at 35 % of this
figure. State assistance is justified to assist the City in protecting the investments already in
place on the oceanfront, and to increase tourism in Virginia.
6
FAMILY COURT SYSTEM
The State may initiate a new family court system. This will require the addition of new
court and office space where these services will be provided. The City has just completed the
construction of the $32 million court complex and it is appropriate that the State pay for capital
costs of this new mandated family court system.
RECOMMENDATION
The General Assembly is requested to pay the local capital cost of $800,000 necessary
to provide the appropriate space for the new family court if it is established. This would include
court rooms and office space, etc. The cases are currently handled within the existing court
rooms and office space. However, by creating the court system, the State is establishing a new
tier in the justice system, and it should not be the City's responsibility to provide office and
court space for this mandate.
7
STATEWIDE FUNDING ISSUES
8
EDUCATIONAL FUNDING
Although the General Assembly provides funding for its share of the Standards of
Quality, all jurisdictions throughout Hampton Roads contribute a much larger amount than is
required bv law on a per pupil basis. Furthermore, many localities, especially Virginia Beach,
are required to provide capital facilities without any assistance whatsoever from the
Commonwealth,
RECOMMENDATION
The General Assembly should fully fund the Standards of Quality without any unfunded
mandates for teachers' salaries, nurses, or other requirements. Furthermore, the State should
begin a program of funding the costs of capital facilities necessary for educating the children of
the Commonwealth.
Finally, the General Assembly is requested to examine increasing the Standards of
Quality to reflect actual expenditures by Virginia localities. Many Virginia localities greatly
overpsend the mandated SOQ amount in order to provide a quality educational K-12 system.
The Commonwealth should acknowledge the need to raise the SOQ along with state-funding.
9
STATE AID TO LIBRARIES
The Commonwealth provides direct grants to localities based on a per capita basis under
the category of State Aid to Libraries. This money is used for the provision of higher quality
library services than would otherwise be allowed through only local revenue measures. The
Commonwealth in the past has proposed cutting State Aid to Libraries and the City is extremely
concerned this may be proposed during the 1994/1996 bienium.
RECOMNENDATION
The General Assembly is requested to maintain a full funding for State Aid to Libraries.
This will allow the City to continue to provide books and other reading materials through the
use of this food in the ever growing Virginia Beach library system.
10
OTHER ISSUES
11
POST LABOR DAY SCHOOL OPENING
The Code of Virginia currently requires Virginia school systems to open after Labor Day.
Variances can be given by the Secretary of Education to allow school systems who are affected
by severe weather or for other reasons The post Labor Day school opening requirement has
increased tourism within the Commonwealth and increased employment opportunity for students
who work in the Commonwealth's many tourist attractions. A change in the post Labor Day
school law would be detrimental to tourism on a statewide basis and would be especially harmful
to the City of Virginia Beach
RECOMMENDATION
The General Assembly is requested to retain the requirement that schools not open until
after Labor Day. The code does allow for variances to be given to school systems who have
severe weather in the winter; wherein the post Labor Day school opening would require the
school calendar to extend further into the month of June than would otherwise be needed. This
request is made because of the importance of tourism to the economy of not only Virginia Beach
but the entire Commonwealth.
12
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD WITH TAXING POWER
Virginia Beach and a number of other jurisdictions across the Commonwealth will soon
be electing school boards. However, based on the Experience in other states, elected school
boards that are not responsible for the financing of the decisions they make are not fully
responsive to the public. Fiscally autonomous elected boards with the power and responsibility
to raise the revenue needed for programs that they propose are seen as a much more viable and
responsible way for the public to be represented
RECOMMENDATION
The General Assembly is requested to begin the process to amend the Constitution of
Virginia. The Constitution requires two succeeding sessions of the General Assembly must
adopt a resolution on a constitutional amendment before the issue is then put before the voters
at the November election following the second approval of the resolution. The constitutional
amendment will not spell out, in detail, the exact limitations of the taxing power as this is done
in the enabling legislation usually passed after the constitutional amendment has been approved
by the voters. A constitutional amendment such as Senator C.A. Holland's Joint Resolution 17
of the 1993 Session is a very workable starting point. Senator Holland's resolution would
require independent school debt to have the same limitations applicable to county/municipal debt,
would provide by general law how the debt limitation should be allocated between the debt of
the independent school division and the debt of the locality, and would require the voters of each
area where elected school boards with taxing power are proposed to approve such authority
through referenda. Therefore, It would require the General Assembly approval in two
succeeding sessions of the resolution authorizing the referendum question on this amendment to
the Constitution to allow elected school boards with taxing powers. Then, for enabling
legislation to be adopted by the General Assembly, and finally for each locality to have its voters
approve taxing power being given to school boards before it could be utilized.
13
RECORDATION OF PLATS FOR PUBLIC USES
Under present law, only streets and casements for public passage may be dedicated to
localities by plats. Other types of easements, such as for water, sewer, and drainage purposes,
must be dedicated by deed. This procedure is cumbersome and, but for the fact that it is legally
required, unnecessary. It would streamline the subdivision review process, both for City staff
and development interest, if utility and drainage easements could be dedicated to the City by
plat.
RECOMMENDATION
The General Assembly is requested to amend the Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-478 to
enable but not require localities to provide by ordinance that water, sewer, and drainage
easements may be dedicated by plat. "Dedicated" could be to the locality itself or to a person
or entity designated by the locality. The recommended wording is as follows:
15.1-478 Recordation of plat as transfer of streets, termination of easements and rights-of-
way, etc. - The recordation of such plat shall operate to transfer, in fee simple, to the respective
counties and municipalities in which the land lies such portion of the premises platted as is on such
plat set apart for streets, alleys or other public use and to transfer to such county or municipality
any easement indicated on such plat to create a public right of passage over the same; but nothing
contained in this article shall affect any right of a subdivider of land heretofore validly reserved.
Any county or municipality may also. by ordinance, provide that the recordation of such plat shall
operate to transfer to the county or municpality such easements for the conveys= of stormwater,
domestic water and sewerage, including the installation and maintenance of any facilities utilized
for such purposes, as the county or municipality may require.
Provided, that where the authorized officials of a county, town or city within which land is
located, approve in accordance with the subdivision ordinances of such county, town or city a plat
or replat of land therein, then upon the recording of such plat or replat in the clerk's office
wherein land records are maintained, all rights-of-way, easements or other interest of the county,
town or city in the land included on the plat or replat, except as shown thereon, shall be
terminated and extinguished, except that an interest acquired by the county, town or city by
condenmation, by purchase for valuable consideration and evidenced by a separate instrument of
record, or streets, alleys or easements for public passage or for the conveyance of stormwater,
domestic water and sewerage subject to the provision of 15.1-481 or 15.1-482 shall not be affected
thereby.
14
LIOUIDATION OF ASSETS OF DISSOLVED CORPORATIONS
Under Section 13.1-747B and 13.1-909B of the Code of Virginia dealing with judicial
dissolution of corporation, circuit courts may liquidate the assets and business of corporations
at any time after the termination of corporate existence, pursuant to the sections or any laws of
the Commonwealth in effect at any time prior to January 1, 1986. The ability to use laws in
effect prior to January 1, 1986, allows for some very ambiguous and difficult to track corporate
records. Furthermore, when a judicial proceeding is bought to dissolve a corporation, the court
shall hold a hearing after notifying all parties to the proceeding and any interested person
designated by the court. This does not necessarily include owners of contiguous real property
interests that may be affected by the transfer of the assets of the Corporation.
RECOMMENDATION
The General Assembly is requested to amend the Code of Virginia to remove the
provision in Section 13.1-747B and 13.1-909B of the Code that includes the language concerning
laws of the Commonwealth in effect any time prior to January 1, 1986. The new code section
should read as follows:
"The circuit court in the city or county named in subsection C of this section shall have
full power to liquidate the assets and business of the corporation at any time after the termination
of corporate existence, pursuant to the provision of this chapter, upon the application for any
person, for good cause, with regard to any assets or business that may remain. The jurisdiction
conferred by this clause may also be exercised by any such court in any city or county where
any property may be situated whether of a domestic or a foreign corporation that ceased to
exist. " (This wording removes the reference to January 1,1986)
Furthermore, it is recormnended that Code Section 13.1-748A and 13.1-910A be amended
so that property owners of contiguous real property that may affected by the dissolution of
corporations shall be informed of the public hearing to accomplish same. The proposed
language for this code section is as follows:
"A court in a judicial proceeding brought to dissolve a corporation may appoint one of
more receivers to wind up and liquidate, or one or more custodians to manage while the
proceeding is pending, the business and affairs of the corporation. The court shall hold a
hearing, after notifying all parties to the proceeding including but not limited to owners of
contiguous real property interests that may be affected by the transfer of the assets of the
corporation before appointing a receiver or custodian. The court appointing a receiver or
custodian has exclusive jurisdiction over the corporation and all its property wherever located.
15
ROUTE 44
The Norfolk-Virginia Beach Toll Road, Route 44, was constructed as a toll road with 40-
year term bonds that were issued in 1964. The pay-off for the bonds is expected to be in the
2004. Since the road was constructed, it has been expanded from a 4-lane facility with partial
interchanges to a 10, 8, and 6 lane facility with mostly full interchanges. These improvements
have been made possible by the tremendous amount of traffic over that projected for the
roadway. During this time, however, tolls have not been increased; as a matter of fact, reduced
fare commuter tickets were made available. Route 44 is expected to carry 87% more traffic by
the year 2010. Most of the growth in traffic is projected to be in the section between the main
toll plaza and beyond Rosemont Road. Currently, the partial interchange at Witchduck Road
and the partial interchange at Rosemont Road operate at a Service Level of "F". Also, certain
areas along the toll road would qualify for sound attenuation barriers if this were a federally-
funded interstate highway. If toll funds are not available, the City must compete for scare State
"primary" funds for any improvements. Also, toll funds allow for enhanced maintenance on
Route 44 - the Gateway to Virginia Beach.
RECOMMENDATION
The General Assembly of Virginia is requested to remove the tolls from Route 44 as soon
as practical. However, the removal of tolls should only be done after the current approved work
program is accomplished. This includes certain minor interchange improvements at Rosemont
Road, the creation of an additional loop and other improvements at the Birdneck Road
interchange, resurfacing of the entire toll road and expansion of the intelligent highway system.
Furthermore, it is requested that a full interchange improvement be accomplished at Witchduck
Road and that the interchange at Rosemont Road be improved to mclude sufficient improvements
to increase, markedly, the level of service at that interchange. This will include an exit loop for
eastbound traffic to proceed north on Rosemont Road and improvements to the slip ramps, etc.
on the northside of the interchange. Also, it is requested that a formal investigation of the
suitability of sound attenuation barriers be undertaken and that, where justified according to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board rules and regulations, these be constructed. It is estimated
that approximately seven miles of roadway meet the basic criteria of being adjacent to
residentially-zoned or utilized land. This request is in keeping with the resolution adopted by
the Council of the City of Virginia Beach during then 1994 session of the General Assembly.
16
VIRGINIA INDOOR CLEAN AIR ACT
Virginia Code Section 15.1-291.2C currently provides that "[alny restaurant having a
seating capacity of fifty or more persons shall have a designated no-smoking area sufficient to
meet customer demand." (Emphasis added). Because this requirement is not specific, it has
proven to be difficult for restaurants to comply with, and for localities to enforce. Therefore,
it is considered advisable to amend this section of the Code to provide a more specific,
quantifiable requirement,
RECOMMENDATION
This proposed amendment to Virginia Code Section 15.1-291.2C would impose a
requirement that any restaurant having a seating capacity of fifty or more persons shall have a
designated no-smoking area which constitutes a specific percentage of the area open and
available for the seating of customers.
15.1-291.2 Statewide Regulation of Smoking. - Any restaurant having a seating
capacity of fifty or more persons shall have a designated no-smoking area sufficient to meet
customer demand. which constitutes no less than twenty-five percent of the area of the restaurant
open and available for the seating of customers.
17
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 58.1-3813 (LOCAL E-911
TAX) TO EXEMPT RESIDENTS OF NURSING HOME FROM TAX LIABILITY
Virginia Code § 58.1-3813 provides that localities may impose upon subscribers of
telephone service which includes the enhanced E-911 system, a tax to pay for the cost of
providing such enhanced E-911 service. Persons residing in nursing homes and similar care
facilities who have personal telephone service have no need for individual E-911 service, in that
emergency response is normally provide by the care-provider staff; however, such individuals,
often subsisting on limited incomes, are nonetheless required to pay the E-911 tax.
RECOMMENDATION:
This proposed amendment to Virginia Code § 58.1-3813 would enable local governments
to exempt residents of nursing homes and similar adult care facilities from payment of the
consumer tax imposed for enhanced E-911 service.
§ 58.1-3813. LOCAL TAX FOR ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE
A. Notwithstanding the rate limitations impose under § 58.1-3812, any county, city or town
which has, singly or by joint agreement, established or will establish an enhanced 911
emergency telephone system, hereinafter referred to as E-911, as defined herein, may
impose a special tax on the consumers of the telephone service or services provided by
any corporation coming within the provisions of Chapter 26, except that no such taxes
shall be imposed on federal, state and local government agencies.
Such tax shall be subject to the notification and jurisdictional provisions of § 58.1-3812.
B. The following phrases shall have the following meanings:
1. An "E-911 system" means a telephone service which utilizes a computerized
system to automatically route emergency telephone calls placed by dialing the
digits "911 " to the proper public safety answering point servicing the jurisdiction
from which the emergency telephone call was placed. An E-911 system includes
selective routing of telephone calls, automatic telephone number identification,
and automatic location identification performed by computers and other ancillary
control center connnunications equipment.
2. "Public safety answering point" means a connnunications facility operated on a
twenty-four-hour basis which first receives E-911 calls from persons in an E-911
service area and which may, as appropriate, directly dispatch public safety
services or extend, transfer, or relay E-911 calls to appropriate public safety
agencies.
3. "Public safety agency" means a functional division of a public agency which
provides fire-fighting, police, medical, or other emergency services or a private
entity which provides such services on a voluntary basis.
18
C. Prior to imposing such tax, the governing body of any city, town or county must find
that an E-911 emergency telephone system is defined in Subsection B of this section has
been or will be installed in its respective locality and that the telephone company has
central office equipment which will permit such system to be established.
D. Any such taxes imposed by this section shall be first utilized solely for the initial capital,
installation and maintenance costs of the E-911 emergency telephone system. The
jurisdiction shall reduce such tax when capital and installation costs have been fully
recovered to the level necessary to offset recurring maintenance costs only
E. For the purpose of compensating a telephone utility for accounting for and remitting the
tax levied by this section, such telephone utility shall be allowed three percent of the
amount of tax due and accounted for in the form of a deduction in submitting the return
and paying the amount due by it.
F. The governing boyd of any county, city or town may exempt from payment of the tax
imposed by this section any subscriber to individual telephone service who resides in a
nursing home or similar adult care facility.
19
AMENDMENT OF VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 46.2-755 (LIMITATIONS ON
IMPOSITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES AND FEES)
Virginia Code Section 46.2-755.B. provides that any disabled veteran shall be entitled
to one local (county, city or town) vehicle license without payment of the license fee. It is
considered desirable to provide a similar benefit to widows of members of the military who died
in wartime service.
RECOMMENDATION
This proposed amendment to Virginia Code Section 46.2-755.B. will exempt unmarried
widows of members of the military who die in wartime service, who are entitled under federal
law to federal dependency indemnity compensation.
§ 46.2-755. LIMITATIONS ON IMPOSITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE TAXES
AND FEES.
A. No county, city, or town shall impose any motor vehicle license tax or fee on any motor
vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer when:
l. A similar tax or fee is imposed by the county, city, or town wherein the vehicle
is normally garaged, stored, or parked;
2. The vehicle is owned by a nonresident of such locality and is used exclusively
for pleasure or personal transportation and not for hire or for the conduct of any
business or occupation other than that set forth in subdivision 3 of this subsection;
3. The vehicle is (i) owned by a nonresident and (ii) used for transporting into and
within the locality, for sale in person or by his employees, wood, meats, poultry,
fruits, flowers, vegetables, milk, butter, cream, or eggs produced or grown by
him, and not purchased by him for sale;
4. The motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer is owned by an officer or employee of
the Commonwealth who is a nonresident of such county, city, or town and who
uses the vehicle in the performance of his duties for the Commonwealth under an
agreement for such use;
5. The motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer is kept by a dealer or manufacturer for
sale or for sales demonstration;
6. The motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer is operated by a common carrier of
persons or property operating between cities and towns in the Commonwealth and
not in intracity transportation or between cities and towns on the one hand and
points and places outside cities and towns on the other and not in intracity
transportation.
20
B. No county, city, or town shall impose a license fee for any one motor vehicle owned and
used personally by (i) any veteran who holds a current state motor vehicle registration
card establishing that he has received a disabled veteran's exemption from the
Department and has been issued a disabled veteran's motor vehicle license plate as
prescribed in § 46.2-739, or (ii) any unmarried widow of a member of the United States
armed forces who died in wartime service who holds a letter issued by the Veterans
Administration certifying entitlement to dependency indemnity compensation.
C. No county, city, or town shall impose any license tax or license fee upon any daily rental
passenger car, the rental of which is subject to the tax imposed by § 58.1-2402 A 4
21
I
ADDENDUM PUBLIC SAFETY
PACKAGE
22
The Addendum Pubfic Safety Package
It is requested the General Assembly amend the Code of Virginia dealing with indecent
exposure violations. Currently, indecent exposure, regardless of the number of
convictions for this violation, is considered a misdemeanor. It is recommended that the
third conviction for indecent exposure be considered a felony.
The General Assembly is requested to change the Code of Virginia which would make
carrying concealed edged or pointed weapons (such as ice picks) a violation of the Code.
Currently, Magistrates have refused to issue warrants for arrest for carrying concealed
ice picks, etc.
The General Assembly is requested to amend the Code dealing with driving while
intoxicated that would allow when serious physical injuries to another are caused, the
offender may be charged with a Class 6 felony instead of a misdemeanor that is currently
the case.
The General Assembly is requested to amend the Code so that carrying a concealed
firearm becomes a Class 6 felony upon the first conviction instead of a Class 1
misdemeanor.
Section 19.2-81 of the State Code presently provides that "officers may ... arrest without
a warrant for an alleged misdemeanor not committed in their presence involving (i)
shoplifting in violation of $18.2-96 or $18.2-103, (ii) carrying a weapon on school
property in violation of $18.2-308.1, (iv) destruction of property in violation of 18.2-
137 ... based on probable cause upon reasonable complaint of the person who observed
the alleged offense.' Since 19.2-81 requires that the above-referenced misdemeanors be
in violation of the State Code, an officer is precluded from charging an offender under
a similar local ordinance unless the officer actually observes a person violating the law.
Therefore, the General Assembly is requested to amend Section 19.2-81 to enable an
officer to make an arrest without warrant for the misdemeanors referenced therein
whether the misdemeanor constitutes a violation of State law, "or a similar local
ordinance."
The Code of Virginia Section 19.2-81, dealing with arrest without warrants in certain
cases, authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest without a warrant for certain
misdemeanor violations of the Code based on probable cause upon the reasonable
complaint of the person who observed the alleged offense. This requires, however, that
the offense must be in violation of the Code of Virginia, and precludes an officer from
charging an offender under a local ordinance unless the officer actually observes the
commission of the offense. The General Assembly is requested to amend Section 19.2-
81 to enable an officer to make an arrest without warrant for designated misdemeanors
such as shoplifting, carrying a concealed weapon or carrying a weapon on school
property, in violation of either the State law "or a similar local ordinance" upon the
reasonable complaint of one who observed the offense.
23
It is requested the Code be amended to expand the Zero Tolerance provision of the
Omnibus Alcohol Safety Act to include all the DUI boating codes. It is now illegal for
an underage person to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .02
to .08; however, it is possible for an underage person to operate a water craft or vessel
after having consumed alcohol. Thus, it is recommended that Zero Tolerance be
expanded to include persons under the age of 21 with a BAC of .02 to .08 who are
operating a vessel within the waters of the Commonwealth.
Section 29.1-744.1 of the State Code presently provides that "[a]ny county, city, or town
may, by ordinance, regulate the distance personal watercraft in operation shall maintain
from the shore, docks, and swimmers, provided that such distance is not greater than
fifty feet. " The General Assembly is requested to amend Section 29.1-744.1 to increase,
from fifty to one hundred feet, the distance that localities may require personal watercraft
to maintain from the shore, docks, and swimmers.
The General Assembly is requested to amend the Code of Virginia, Section 46.2-1217
and Section 46.2-1231 dealing with the towing of motor vehicles. Currently, the City
requires any person whose vehicle is towed at police direction shall be entitled to an
administrative hearing to determine the legality of the removal. This is based upon a
holding of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that police authorized towing without the
vehicle owner's consent is a taking of property. It is recommended this section be added
to address such required hearing, and this section also include vehicles towed from
private property at the property owner's request. The suggested wording is as follows:
The owner of a vehicle towed from either public or private
property, without the vehicle owner's consent, shall be entitled to
a prompt post-tow hearing to determine whether there was lawful
grounds to remove the vehicle. The governing body of any
county, city, or town by ordinance may adopt procedures to notify
the vehicle owner or custodian of the right to a hearing to
determine if the vehicle was lawfully towed for any reason as set
forth by any state, county, city, or town ordinance. Provided, the
hearing shall be requested within three (3) weeks from the date
that the notice was mailed by the Police Department, or from the
date that the owner or custodian of the vehicle was personally
notified that his vehicle has been towed. The hearing shall be
conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the governing body or
by the chief administrative officer of the country, city, or town.
Such hearing officer shall not be a sworn police officer or be
engaged in a business involving the towing of vehicles.
24
CHARTER § 3.05
election of councilmen to replace those whose terms by a qualified voter residing in the same ward or
expire at the end of June of that year. The term of borough.
office for each councilman shall commence on July
1 next following the date of election and shall If a vacancy shall occur in the office of mayor,
the council shall choose by majority vote of the
continue until his successor has been duly elected remaining members thereof one of its members to
and qualified. All councilmen and the mayor shall be mayor until his successor is elected and quali-
be elected for terms of four years. Each candidate fied in accordance with general law. (Acts 1987.
shall @te, at the time of filing, whether he is Ch. 227, § 1)
running at large from the borough of his resi-
dence or for raayor. Candidates for council:hall
be nominated only by petition in the marine pre- See- 3.04. Compensation of members of
scribed by general law. (Acts 1970, Ch. 206, § 1; coun@- appointment of mem-
Acts 1971, Ex. Sess., Ch. 86, § 1; Acts 1987, Ch. ber to office of profit.
227, § 1) Councilmen @ mmive as compensation
for their @ces such amounta as the council
Sec. 3.02:2. Election of mayor. may determine, not to exceed$18,000 per
The mayor shall be elected at the general elec- annum for councilmen and $20, 000 per
tion on the first Tuesday in May 1988, and each annum for the mayor. No member of the
fourth year thereafter, to serve for a term of fo council shall be appoipted to any office of
Ur profit under the city government during the
years. Candidates for mayor shall run for one of
the at-large seats. A candidate running for mayor term for which elww and for one year
shall not run for any other seat. thereafter. (Acts 1970, Ch. 206, § 1; Act& 1975,
Ch. 61, § 1; Acts 1981, Ch. 350, § 1)
In the event any councilman, i the mayor,
shall decide during his term of office to be a can- See. 3.05. Powers of council generally.
didate for mayor, he shall tender his resignation
as a councilman not less than ten days prior to All. powers vested in the city 6a be
the date for the filing of petitions as required by exercised by the council except as otherwise
general law. Such resignation shall be effective provided in this Charter. In addition to the
on June 30, shall constitute the councilman's in- !Oregoing, the council shall have the follow-
tention to run for mayor, shall require no formal ing powers:
acceptance by the remaining councilmen and shall (a) Organization, etc., of city departments,
be final and irrevocable when tendered. etc. To provide for the organization,
The unexpired portion of the term of any coun- conduct and operatioit of all departments,
cilman who has resigned to run for mayor shall bureaus, divisions, boards, commissions.
be filled at the same general election. (Acts 1987, offices and agencies of the city.
Ch. 227, § 1) (b) Creation, etc., of departments, etc., gene@r-
ally. To create, alter or @lish depart-
Sec. 3.03. FURng vacancies in office of coun- ments, bureaus, divisions, boards. com-
cflmen and mayor. ngWonB, officn and agencies, except as
Vacancies in the office of councilmen, from what- specifically provided herein to the con-
ever cause arising, except where such vacancy trary.
occurs due to a resignation to run for the ofrice of (c) Creation, etc., of bureaus, etc. To create,
mayor, shall be filled within sixty days for the alter or abofish and to assign and
unexpired portion of the term by a majority vote @ign to departments, all bureaus,
of the remaining members of the council, provided divisions, offices and agencies, except as
that so long as any councilmen are elected by and specifically provided herein to the con-
from wards or boroughs the vacancy shall be filled trary.
Supp. No. 29
7