Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 8, 1980 INFORMAL BRIEF RECORD OF COUNCIL BRIEFING FOR VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Virginia Beach, Virginia 8 December 1980 The Briefing of the Honorable Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, was called to order by Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr., in the Conference Room, in tbe City Hall Building, on Monday, 8 December 1980, at Ten-Thirty in the morning, for the purpose of meeting with tbe City's representatives from the General Assembly. Council Members Present: John A. Baum, F. Reid Ervin, Vice Mayor Harold H4ischober, Barbara M. Henley, Clarence A. Holland, W. H. Ki@,,hin, III, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor J. Henry McCoy, Jr., Donald W. Merrick, and Meyera E. oberndorf Council Members Absent: -Patrick L. Standing The following members from the Virginia General Assembly were present to discuss the proposed 1981 Legislative Package: Senator Joseph T. Fitzpatrick Delegate Glenn B. McClanan Senator Wi-lliam T. Parker Delegate J. William O'Brien Delegate William R. O'Brien Senator Stanley C. Walker Delegate Owen B. Pickett -lb- Mayor McCoy advised Council and the Legislators of three (3) Charter changes for General Assembly consideration: Pay increases for Council Members: $4,800 to $8,000 for Council $8,000 to $10,000 for Mayor Advisory Referendum Direct election of the Mayor The Public Hearing for the proposed Charter changes will be held on Monday, January 5, 1981. CARRIED OVER BILLS House Bill 125 & 415 These bills are similar to H.B. 630, but go beyond what is needed. Therefore, H.B. 630 is preferred in lieu of tbese bills House Bill 630 This Bill would provide for a formula in local Subdivision Ordinances to require participation by developers for improvements to roads adjacent to their development. The Virginia Beach City Council strongly SUPPORTS this Bill because the cost of public highways should be at least partially borne by those generating the need for such facilities. Also, with the reduction in State highway construction funds, localities with numerous over crowded roads must be able to widen and reconstruct them as development occurs. House Bill 152 This Bill provides that no agricultural or forestal operation which has been in operation for at least one year shall be considered a nuisance because of changed conditions and surrounding land uses. The Virginia Beach City Council GENERALLY SUPPORTS this Bill. However, it should be expanded to include an appropriate definition of agricultural and forestal operation, which is the position taken by the Virginia Farm Bureau and the Virginia Agri- Business Council. House Bill 731 This bill would place a cap on the retirement benefits received under the Virginia Supple- mental Retirement System. It proposes a retire- ment benefit structure which imposes a cap for lower salaried employees at the earliest retireing period of 25 years. Higher salaried employees would begin to lose money as longevity increased beyond 30 years. It would, therefore, be an incentive toward earlier retirement. The Virginia Beach City Council STRONGLY OPPOSES this Bill. An individual currently under VSRS is employed with the full knowledge of what his retirement benefits will be. To reduce these benefits after years of service and contributions to VSRS would be a breach of faith by the State. -lc- House Bill 804 This Bill would establish a "Virginia Alternative Retirement System", wbich would cover all employees coming in to service after July 1, 1981, and at the option of the employer or employee, would cover employees in service prior to that date. This alternative system would have a different retirement benefit structure from the current VSRS benef it structure. The Virginia Beach City Council OPPOSES this Bill because it would violate the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. No change should be made to the existing retirement benefit structure under VSRS for all employees. House Bill 467 This Bill would allow the State Corporation Commission to regulate any City-owned utility company as to the services it provides outside its jurisdictional limits. In effect, it would allow the State Corporation Commission to set the rates charged Virginia Beach by the City of Norfolk for water. The Virginia Beach City Council OPPOSES this Bill, because there is no need for the State Corporation Commission to become involved in rate making for a municipal utility. There is no apparent benefit to be derived from this State intervention. House Bill 84 This Bill would require certain general procedures for all local governments to follow in preparing budgets, making appropriations, and general financial record keeping. It goes beyond the uniform fiscal reporting requirements that were mandated by the General Assembly in 1978. Some provisions would tend to restrict Virginia Beach City Council in making budget adjustments and approving expenditures, which it is currently allowed to do by Charter. It appears to be an attempt to make local budgeting procedures uniform throughout the State and not allow for local differences as currently provided in local Charters. The Municipal Finance Officers Association of Virginia is currently reviewing this Bill, and unless it is modified to continue to provide for local differences, it should not be enacted. House Bill 766 This Bill would provide an additional means for a property owner, with the locality's approval, to vacate a portion of a subdivision. The Virginia Beach City Council OPPOSES this Bill because it seems to provide a back-door approa@h to the closing of streets. There are enough methods in the State Code for the vacation of a subdivision plat or closing of a public street without this proposal. House Bill 420 This Bill would allow a locality to impose a gross receipts tax on revenue received by a newspaper for the distribution of separately printed advertising material which is not an integral part of the newspaper, such as an advertising supplement. The Virginia Beach City Council SUPPORTS this bill, because it will provide an additional source of revenue if needecl, @ -ld- House Bill 838 This Bill would allow localities to exceed the current limitations on the tax allowed on consumers of electric light and power services if the locality exempts at least the first $25.00 of the monthly bill. Localities are currently empowered to tax up to 20% of the first $15.00 of a residential utility bill. The Virginia Beach City Council GENERALLY OPPOSES this Bill because by exempting the first $15.00 of a monthly bill, a locality would be forced to raise the tax rate for those who consume greater amounts of electricity and power. Tbis would place an unfair burden on those higher users who may not be able to afford it. House Bill 920 This Bill is similar to H.B. 838 in that it changes the manner in which localities may impose utility taxes on consumers of electric light and power or gas utility service. It would limit the tax rate to no more than 10% of a consumer's monthly residential bill and, at the same time, would exempt the first $39.99 of the bill from the tax. The Virginia Beach City Council GENERALLY OPPOSES this Bill because BY exempting the first $39.99 of a monthly bill, a locality would be forced to raise the tax rate for those who consume greater amounts of electricity and power. This would place an unfair burden on those higher users who may not be able to afford it. House Bill 300 This Bill provides that an applicant for a change of zoning on property may be someone other than the property owner, such as a contract purchaser, optionee, or agent. Currently, only the property owner can request a change of zoning. As a part of any con- sideration of zoning changes by a locality, there are usually certain understandings established, commitments made, or conditions for the rezoning that a party other than the owner will not necessarily be in a position to carry forth. Therefore, the Virginia Beach City Council feels IT SHOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE FOR ANY OTHER PARTY TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF ZONING CHANGES EXCEPT THE PROPERTY OWNER. House Bill 9B6 This Bill would establish a procedure for titling water craft with certain exceptions. it would also exempt the sale of these water craft from the State sales tax and place a 2% titling tax on them. It is intended to offer a better means of financing the sale of boats and for locatinlg lost or stolen boats and their owners. The general concept of the bill is good, however, it will cause a loss in sales tax revenues to localities. Virginia Beacb could lose from $30,000 to $60,000 in sales tax, however, some of this would be offset by better personal property tax collections on boats because of titling. The Bill SHOULD BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE ALL BOATS AT LEAST 14 FEET LONG AND WEIGHING 200 POUNDS. IT SHOULD ALSO BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE THAT BOATS WHICH MUST BE TITLED MUST ALSO BE NUMBERED. It these changes are made, the benefits of being able to account for all boats registered and numbered in Virginia Beach may offset the loss in local sales tax revenues. -le- House Bill 810 The State Code currently prohibits anyone from loitering or congregating within 40 feet of any polling place during an election. This Bill would continue tbat prohibition, but would pro- vide further that only one representative of each political party or independent candidate could be within 300 feet of any polling place. The City Council SUPPORTS this Bill, because it will reduce the number of people congregating around polling places during an election. Senate Bill 278 This Bill would require that a locality place its property and casualty insurance out for competitive bidding every three years. The Virginia Beach City Council does not object to the concept of bidding insurance coverage. However, they do oppose this State requirement because the option to bid should be left totally up to the locality. Other States have found that in the long run, mandatory bidding has resulted in higher premium costs and restricted insurance markets. The lowest bid does not always provide adequate coverage and service. Senate Bill 257 This Bill would, on a graduated basis over a number of years, eliminate the State sales tax on food purchased for human consumption. Localities could still have their local 1% tax on food and would continue to receive one-third of the 3% State sales tax now being collected. The Bill would greatly reduce State sales tax revenues and could result in the City being pressured to eliminate its local tax. Therefore, the Virginia Beach City Council OPPOSES this Bill unless the lost revenue is made up from some other source. Senate Bill 459 This Bill would provide for the reimbursement by the Commonwealth to localities for their loss of real estate tax revenues due to deferrals or exemptions for the elderly and handicapped. The Virginia Beach City Council STRONGLY SUPPORTS this Bill because it would offset lost tax revenues. Senate Bill 467 This Bill would limit local real estate tax increases, excluding new construction and additions to existing improvements to no more than 7% of the real estate tax levied during the preceeding tax year. The Virginia Beach City Council STRONGLY OPPOSES this Bill, because it would limit their authority to increase the real estate tax rate beyond 7%. This decision should be left totally to the local governing body. House Bill 3 This Bill would eliminate the sales tax on non-prescription drugs. The Virginia Beach City Council OPPOSES this Bill, because it would result in a decrease in City revenues. -if - House Bill 322 This Bill would create the "Neighborhood Assistance Act of 1980", aud provide an income tax credit for business firms providing certain types of assistance to impoverished neighbor- boods as approved by the Act. The Virginia Beach City Council SUPPORTS this Bill because it could result in a decrease in the amount of funds spent by the State and City in the areas of public assistance, law enforcement, and education. Senate Bill 213 This Bill would establish the "Virginia Municipal Leasing Authority", wbose primary function would be to acquire equipment for lease to municipalities upon request. The Authority would acquire the equipment primarily through the issuance of tax free revenue bonds to be payable solely from tbe funds of the Authority. The Virginia Beach City Council SUPPORTS this Bill, because it could benefit licalities by giving them an alternative source for leasing or financing certain capital expenditures. The economies of scale derived by the Authority making bulk purchases could be passed along to localities and decrease their leasing cost. House Bill 16, 17 These Bills are an attempt to reorganize, 18 and 19 revise, and standardize Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia as it relates to all local governments. They speak to forms of local government and powers, duties, rights, and procedures of local governing bodies. These Bills have been introduced in varying forms over the past several years and, originally, they were intended to standardize local governments and eliminate many of the different charter powers certain localities have. These Bills, however, include a provision which states that they do not overrule any provision currently included in a City Charter. While they appear watered down and innocuous enough at the moment, there is some concern over what impact they will have on City Charters which have adopted the State Cbarter Act by reference. If provisions of the State Charter Act are changed by these Bills, it could inadvertently change the Virginia Beach Charter. House Bill 252 This Bill further clarified how local zoning ordinances must provide for homes for certain handicapped persons by adding the words "physically handicapped and mentally ill" to the sections already including "mentally retarded and other developmentally disabled persons". Tbis Bill does not present a particular problem in Virginia Beach, however an adequate definition of mentally ill sbould be provided since this phrase can cover a variety of meanings. House Bill 215 This Bill would provide a procedure whereby every State agency which proposes to adopt regulations must advertise this fact prior to their adoption. Also, immediately following the adoption of any agency regulations, a copy must be sent to the appropriate committee of the General Assembly for their review. The Committee could then act to delay tbe regulations until approved by the full General Assembly if they so desire. The Virginia Beach City Council GENERALLY SUPPORTS this Bill, because it would -Ig - 1 9 8 1 L E G I S L A T I V E P R 0 P 0 S A L S 1. INTER-BASIN TRANSFER OF WATER WITH ULTIMATE STATE CONTROL Comment; Southeastern Virginia is currently facing the most critical water shortage in its history. A water allocation plan has been implemented in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, which requires that all water customers cut their consumption by 25%. The citizens have risen to the challenge during this crisis, Ilowever, they cannot live forever in emergency conditions. The State Water Study Commission is currently considering three alternatives for solving the surface and ground water supply and allocation problems throughout the State. Alternative A offers no significent changes to the pr6sent State Law. Alternative Bo would allow for inter-basis transfer of water and is somewhat of an improvement over the present law. Alternative C would completely replace the present Riparian Doctrine and would make all waters in Virginia Beach the property of the State to be distributed by State officials for the most beneficial use. In order to solve the problems currently existing in Southeastern Virginia, provisions for inter-basin transfer of water including harmless use legislation must be enacted now by the General Assembly. However, @ecause surface and ground water in Virginia is such a precious natural resource and should not be denied to any locality which needs it, the best long term solution is for water to be completely controlled by tbe State and allocated through a permit process to those who need it the most. Recommendation: The General Assembly should enact legislation whicb would implement Alternative B (inter-basin transfer of water), as an interim step during the 1981 session. The General Assembly should also continue the State Water Study Commission another year so that it can hold public hearings to develop and refind Alternative C (substitution of a public trust doctrine for Riparian common law), for enactment during the 1982 session of the General Assembly. -lh - 2. Increased Highway Construction Fundi@ Comment: Virginia Beach is the third fastest growning City in the United States, with a 1980 population of approximately 260,000. We also have over 21/2 million overnight tourists each year. These two factors create a need for continual upgrading and improving of City bighways. Through the next five years, there is an estimated need of over $106 Million for highway construction and esign in Virginia Beach. In 1979, with the decrease in gasoline tax revenues to the State, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation adopted a policy of applying State funds only a6 a match to Federal Highway Administration funds for highway construction. This policy has eliminated the previous practice of applying 95% State funds to certain highway construction projects and placed more of a burden on localities. It is clear that increased funding is needed in Virginia Beach for highway construction, and State funds should be allocated to all localities based upon need. Recommendation: The General Assembly should: (1) Amend Section 33.1-23.1 of the Code of Virginia to substitute a new system for allocating construction funds to primary, secondary, and urban highway systems based upon need, instead of the current formula which requires tbat 50% be allocated to the primary system, 25% to the urban system, and 25% to tbe secondary system. (2) Amend Section 33.1-23.1 of the Code of Virginia to allow federal highway bridge repair and replacement funds to be allocated to localities separately from all other State highway construction funds. (3) Convert the State gasoline tax to a percentage of the wholesale price instead of a fixed amount per gallon. 3 Funding of Education Comment: The Constitution of Virginia states, "The General Assembly shall provide for a school of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of school age throughout the Commonwealth and shall seek to ensure that an educational program of high quality is established and continually maintained." To meet this requirements, the legislature has established the Standards of Quality which mandates the existence of educational programs throughout the State. Because the General Assembly is responsible for providing a system of free public education, it should also support financially those aspects of the educational program which it mandates by law. These mandates should be funded on the basis of realistic average costs and the State sbould bear a fair share of the cost. It is the responsibility of the State to fund, on a statewide basis, the Basic Educational Program to a student in tbe Commonwealth. Foremost consideration should be given to realistic funding of the 1981-82 Standards of Quality basic aid formula. Last year, the Governor's 1980-82 biennium budget for education included a Standards of Quality per pupil allocation of $1,027 for scbool year 1980-81,. and $1,099 for school year 1981-82. The total cost of this proposal is approximately $285 million below the request of the State Board of Education which realistically projected the actual cost 'of tbe Basic Educational Program in Virginia. The General Assembly approved an increase in the 1980-81 per pupil allocation from $1,027 to $1,075. There was no change in the Governor's recommended 1981-82 per pupil allocation of $1,099. However, the General Assembly did commit itself to raising the 1981-82 per pupil allocation if additional funding became available for tbe second year of the biennium. Recommendation: The General Assembly should raise the per pupil allocation for 1981-82 to $1,373 which was recommended by the State Board of Education and reflects the actual cost of the Standards of Quality in Virginia. 4. Indirect Cost Reimbursement for Certain Welfare Programs Comment: The City of Virginia Beach, like a number of other localities throughout the State, has prepared and had approved a Central Service Cost Allocation Plan. Under this plan, the indirect costs of providing such services as accounting, payroll, data processing, and personnel are allocated to all City agencies. The Virginia Beach Department of Social Services has included these indirect costs as part of the City's costs of administering certain welfare and grant programs when requested for reimbursement are submitted to the State Board of Welfare. Tbe State Board of Welfare has now changed its policy regarding tbe reimbursement of indirect cost to localities for certain programs. Localities are no longer to be reimbursed for the State's share of indirect costs applicable to the administration of Aid to Dependent Children, Medicaid and Food Stamp Programs. This will cost Virginia Beach approximately $26,700. in addition, localities can only be reimbursed for their indirect costs on the federal share of the locality's allocation under the Title XX Program is there is a surplus in funds for that locality after all direct costs for tbe program year have been met. Indirect costs could be reimbursed if a surplus of federal Title XX funds existed at the State level, but this is unlikely. In the past, localities could decide whether or not to use tbe federal Title XX allocation for indirect as well as direct costs. However, under the new policy, localities no longer have this option. Since some local welfare departments have accounting, payroll, data processing, and personnel functions totally within their department, they are able to charge these as direct costs of administering various welfare and grant programs. However, the new policy of the State Board of Welfare penalizes those local welfare departments who rely on centralized administrative services from their locality and could cost Virginia Beach approximately $120,000 in indirect cost reimbursements for administering the Title XX Program. Recommendation: The General Assembly should enact legislation which would require the State Board of Welfare to provide reimbursement to all localities for the indirect costs (accounting, payroll, data processing, personnel, etc.) of administration of the Aid to Dependent Children, Medicaid, Food Stamp Programs, and the Federal Title XX Program. -lk- 5. Arrest on Past Misdemeanors Upon Probable Cause and Reasonable Complaint Comment: Section 19.2-81 of the Code of Virginia specifies that various State and local police forces may arrest persons without a warrant for any crimes committed on their presence and for felony offenses not committed in their presence. However, the only misdemeanor not committed in their presence for which they can arrest involves shoplifting. In 1966, American Law Institute recommended that a power of arrest be authorized without warrant for misdemeanors not committed in tbe officer's presence in case of necessity. Several States have since passed legislation abolishing the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors. Illinois, for example, provides that a peace officer may arrest a person when be has reasonable grounds to believe that the person committing or has committed an offense. In the case of certain misdemeanor offenses like destruction of property or assault and battery, many citizens are reluctant to swear out a warrant against an individual they know committed the crime for fear of reprisals. However, they would gladly testify against the offender if subpoenaed by an arresting officer. Also, multiple offenses which show a pattern can readily lead to an offender. However, without an eye witness, the offender cannot be arrested by an officer. Petit larceny is another major misdemeanor which, in many cases, goes unresolved because of the inability of an officer to arrest the offender. Specific problems in Virginia Beach occur when people fail to pay a hotel or restaurant bill and most recently with the gasoline shortage, fail to pay for gasoline as a self-service pump. During the 1980 session of the General Assembly, Senate Bill 451, introduced by Senator Stanley Walker, would have allowed police officers to make arrests for assault and battery, larcency, and destruction of property charges, not committed in their presence, but based upon probably cause and reasonable complaint. This Bill passed the Senate, but was killed in the House Courts of Justice Committee. Recommendation: The General Assembly sbould amend Section 19.2-81 of the Code of Virginia by adding on line 24 after 18.2-103 the words assauli and battery, larceny and destruction of property." -11- 6. Issuance of Summons in Pre-Trial Release of Persons Charged With Certain Misdemeanors Comment: During the 1980 session of the General Assembly, House Bill 332 was introduced by Delegate James F. Almand. This Bill, which was passed by tbe General Assembly and signed into law created Section 19.2-74.1 of tbe Code of Virginia, which says that a police officer arresting a person committing a misdemeanor for which be cannot receive a jail sentence, may not take the person before a Magistrate if he refuses to give written promise to appear or sign a summons. Therefore, the police officer must let the person so if he refuses to sign a summons. For the most part, this provision applies to Class III and Class IV misdemeanors. There are at least 82 sections of the State Code for which violations are Class III and Class IV misdemeanors. There are also at least 75 provisions of the Code of Virginia Beach for which violations are Class III or IV misdemeanors. This means there are over 150 State and local laws under which a police officer cannot arrest a person who violates them. The violator may actually go about his business if be refuses to sign a summons or he may continue to commit the offense. The officer is helpless to take any action against him. Recommendation: The General Assembly sbould repeal Section 19.2-74.1 of the Code of Virginia. 7. Disability from Respiratory Disease, Hypertension, and Heart D i-sea se Comment: Section 65.1-47.1 of the Code of Virginia says in part that the death of or any condition or impairment of health of fire- fighters caused by respiratory disease and of any firefighters, policemen, sheriffs, and City Sergeants caused by hypertension or heart disease shall be presumed to be an occupational disease suffered in the line of duty subject to certain limitations. Employees or their beneficiaries who fall in this category may make claims for benefits under Workmen's Compensation Act. The death or impairment of health does not have to take place on the job, but is presumed to be job related. Since the enactment of this legislation, there have been three police officers and one firefighter, employed by the City of Virginia Beach, to file disability claims under this section. Two of the claims were definitely job related, bowever, two police officers' claims were questionable. Under Section 65.1-47.1, the Courts have held the presumption of heart disease atd hypertension for police officers to be almost irrefutable. Therefore, in two cases, the City of Virginia Beach incurred an expense of $98,000 in disability claims which were not clearly job related. The Law and Procedures Subcommittee of the Workmen's Compensation Study Committee, established by the 1980 General Assembly, is studying this problem. Hopefully, the Committee will address the question regarding the ability of a locality to reasonably protect itself from claims of police officers and firefighters when competent evidence indicates such impairment did not arise out of the line of duty. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 65.1-47.1 of the Code of Virginia to state that heart and lung disabilities for firefighters and police officers which are presumed to be job related, may be refuted when competent evidence indicates such impairment did not arise out of the line of duty. -In- 8. Smoke Detectors in All Residential Units Comment: In 1975, the Statewide Uniform Building Code was amended to require the installation of smoke detectors in all new construction. However, there are still a considerable number of residential units constructed prior to 1975, which do not have smoke detectors. it is generally believed that the presenceof functioning smoke detectors in a home will reduce the likelihood of death or injury and reduce property loss in the event of a fire. A study prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Acency in September, 1980, includes data covering 1,168 fire incidents attended by fire departments in 12 jurisdictions throughout the United States. The data indicates tbat in the case of unwanted fires, the presence of a smoke detector in the building would have reduced the likelihood of death or injury by 40%, and a reduction in property loss by over 50%. These statistics are brought close to home by tragedies such as occurred in Virginia Beach on August 9, 1980. On that day, three children died in a fire in a townhouse, which was constructed prior to 1975. There was no smoke detector in the house, and Virginia Beach fire officials believe the chances of survival in this incident would have been much greater with a functioning smoke detector in the home. Recommendation: The General Assembly should enact legislation which would allow localities to adopt local ordinances requiring the installation of smoke detectors in all residential units, both new and old. -lo- 9. Credit of All VSRS Contributions to Employee's Account Comment: During the 1980 session, the General Assembly adopted House Bill 9, which placed a cap on retirement benefits for individuals entering the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System (VSRS) after March 31, 1980. The Attorney General has ruled that under House Bill 9, if employers choose to pay their employee's share of contributions to VSRS, these payments can only be credited to the employee's account for those employees hired on or after April 1, 1980. Payments made on behalf of employees hired prior to that date must be credited to the employer's account. This places localities currently paying the employee's share in an untenable position, and has caused morale problems among employees in the City of Virginia Beach. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 51.111.46 of the Code of Virginia to allow employee contributions paid to VSRS by the employer to be credited to employee accounts for all employees in the system. -lp- 10. Permitted Provisions of Local Zoning Ordinances Comment: Section 15.1-491 of the Code of Virginia contains numerous provisions which may be included in local zoning ordinances. One provision states that the local governing body may reserve unto itself the right to issue special exceptions to the zoning ordinance or use permits. While the State Code appears to grant localities broad authority to allow these exceptions, the Courts have construed this authorization very narrowly and in many cases in Virginia Beach, have overruled the City Council's decision to allow or not allow an exception. As elected representatives of the citizens, it is important for the local governing body to have absolute discretion in granting exceptions to the zoning ordinance, which they feel are in the best interest of the general public. Another section of this statue allows localities to establish: a specified interval of time between one consideration of a proposed zoning change and the second consideration, providing the specified interval does not exceed one year. The Virginia Beach City Council has a full agenda of zoning matters to consider every month. This includes an average of ten applications for rezonings plus applications for special use permits and street closures. Because of the workload placed upon the City Coundil and staff, and the inconvenience imposed upon the public who may oppose a rezoning, it appears that a long@r interval between considerations of applications for rezoning on any particular property should be established. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 15.1-491 of the Code of Virginia to: (1) Add the following sentence to the end of Subsection C: "In issuing sucb special exception or use permit, the governing body shall bave absolute discretion." (2) Amend Subsection G to allow a maximum of two years for consideration of proposed amendments to a zoning Ordinance involving the same property. -lq- 11. Erosion and Sediment Control Law Comment: The State Erosion and Sediment Control Law requires that no person may engage in a land disturbing activity after the adoption of a local erosion and sediment control ordinance until he has submitted to the locality an erosion and sediment control plan for the land disturbing activity, and the plan is approved. Section 21-89.3(a) of the Code of Virginia defines a land disturbing activity but allows for certain exceptions. One exception is the tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops. Although@it:@is presumed necessary that agricultural or horticultural lands must be cleared before they are used and adequate drainage provided, these particular activities are not included as exceptions to land disturbing activities. In order to expand local erosion and sediment control ordinances to allow exceptions for clearing of agricultural lands and digging of adequate drainage ditches, the State Code must be amended. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 21-89.c(a)(v) of the Code of Virginia by adding the following clause: "the clearing of wooded or brush lands for agricultural or horticultural production and the digging of ditches for agricultural drainage." -lr- 12. Consolidated Mosquito Control Districts Comment: The City of Virginia Beacb has created three mosquito control districts, as provided under Section 32.1-187 of the Code of Virginia, which emcompass the entire City. Each of the district commissions performs the same function, and there is no longer any special tax within each district. The three commission's activities are paid for from the general revenues derived by the City government. Section 32.1-188 of the Code of Virginia provides that the governing body of any City which bas established more than one mosquito control district may consolidate such districts under a single commission which shall function under the Health Department of the City. While the control and elimination of mosquitoes is generally considered necessary for health reasons, the actual operations of mosquito control personnel are similar to those public works functions performed by Cities' such as digging and maintaining canals and ditches. In fact,;it is often confusing to the public as to which agency within a City bas responsibility for certain drainage maintenance work. Tberefore, it may be appropriate, for coordination of work, to place Mosquito Control Commission functions under another department besides the local Health Departmerit, should a City choose to consolidate its mosquito control districts. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 32.1-188 of the Code of Virginia to allow localities who choose to consolidate their mosquito control districts under a single commission to place the commission under the appropriate City department as determined by the local governing body. -Is- 13. Assessments for Street Improvements Comment: In 1977, at the request of the Virginia Beach City Council, legislation was introduced to amend Section 15.1-239 of the Code of Virginia to allow local governing bodies to impose assessments upon adjacent property owners for the initial improving and paving of streets. The bill was passed, however, it was amended to include a limit of no more than $5.00 per front foot, not to exceed $500.00 for each property owner. Section 15.1-239 allows localities to impose assessments for many other public improvements such as sewer and water, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and storm water sewers. However, the only restriction upon these assessments is that they shall not be in excess of the peculiar benefits resulting from the improvements. Because of the de@rease in State funding for highway construction and the continued need for highway improvements in Virginia Beach estimated at over $100 million for the next five years, it is necessary to expand available alternatives for financing street improvements. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 15.1-239 of the Code of Virginia by eliminating the following phrase at the end of the third paragraph: "and in no event shall such amount exceed the sum of $5.00 per front foot of property abutting such street or the sum of $500.00 for any one subdivided lot or parcel abutting such street, whichever is the lesser." -It- 14. Membership in the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System Comment: Section 51-111.31 of the Code of Virginia provides that the governing body of any licality in Virginia may elect to have its officers and employees who are regularly employed full time on a salary basis, whose tenure is not restricted as to temporary or provisional appointment, become eligible to participate in VSRS. Prior to 1977, State and local legislators were not eligible to become members of VSRS. However, in 1977, tbe General Assembly amended Section 51-111.10 of the Code of Virginia to define a member of VSRS as including "any member of the General Assembly serving in such capacity on January 1, 1972, regardless of age." It seems logical that if State legislators are eligible to become members of VSRS and receive certain benefits upon retirement from service to the citizens of the Commonw6alth, then governing bodies of localities which are members of VSRS should also receive that benefit. These part time local governing bodies serve tbe citizens of their community on a daily basis. Tbeir service should be rewarded upon retirement just as members of the General Assembly. Recommendation: The General Assembly should amend Section 51-111.31 of the Code of Virginia to allow any 16cality which chooses to have its employees become eligible to participate in VSRS also have its local governing body become members of VSRS. -lu- 15. Determination As to Seasonal Employment and Seasonal Employers Comment: Sections 60.1-53 tbrough 60.1-57 of tbe Code of Virginia were repealed by tbe General Assembly in 1978. These sections provided that any employer in Virginia could petition for a hearing and determination as to declaring separate divisions, establishments or departments thereof to be designated as seasonal employer, thereby rendering seasonal employees ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Considering the current financial status of the trust fund, as a resulf of the national and local economic environment, there is a need to re-enact these seasonal employment provisions to provide some relief to the trust fund and reserve unemployment funds for laid-off permanent employees. Recommendation: The General Assembly should re-enact Sections 60.1-53 througb 60.1-57 of the Code of Virginia to allow any employer to determine which of its employees are seasonal and, in such cases, bave those seasonal employees declared ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. -lv- 16. RedistrictinIz for Virginia Beach Comment: Since the 1971 State reapportionment and the combining of the 5th, 6th, and 7th Senatorial Districts by the Courts, in the case of Mahan vs. Howell, Virginia Beach has had two Senatorial Disticts overlapping with adjacent localities and one floater House District with two adjacent localities. The 5th, 6tb, and 7th Senatorial Districts were combined by the District Court because during the 1970 census, all Naval personnel home-ported At the U. S. Naval Station in Norfolk were counted in the 5th Senatorial District even though at least two-thirds lived in other portions of Norfolk and Virginia Beach. The 1980 census regulations will not allow this disparity to take place again. All persons home- ported at Norfolk Naval Base but living within a 50-mile radius will be counted in the City in which they reside. Therefore, it will no longer be necessary to bave a multi-member Senatorial District between Norfolk and Virginia Beach. The projected 1980 population for Virginia, as determined by the State Department of Planning and Budget, is 5,313,000. The projected Virginia Beach population in 1980 is 260,000. This should give Virginia Beach at least five Delegates and two State Senators. Recommendation: The General Assembly should redistrict the Tidewater area to provide for two Senatorial Districts totally within the boundaries of Virginia Beach and five House of Delegates seats totally within the boundaries of Virginia Beach.