Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 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