Loading...
09-29-71 Packet MACk T. DANIELS CLERK Oliver D. Rudy COMMONWEALTH ATTOR NE¥ CIRCUIT COURT CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA October 4, 1971 ERNEST P. GATES JUDGE DAVID MEADE WHITE JUDGE County Board of Supervisors Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virginia Gentlemen: I am enclosing a copy of the Attorney General's opinion relative to the advisory referendum question, together with supporting past opinions. ODR/cts Encls. ¥_,ery~ tru.ly y~rs Oliver . Rudy Commonwealth' s At~rney ANDRr'W P. MILLER ~. HARRI~I PARKIER RENO $. HARP, TTT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUPREME COURT BUILDIN<3 IIOI EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND,VIRGINIA ~'3 ;:~ I 9 703 -7"70- September 28, 1971 The Honorable Oliver D. Rudy Commonwealth's Attorney for Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 - My dear NLr. Rudy: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1971, in which you requested my opinion whether an advisory referendum could be held by the Board of Super- visors on the following questions: "1. Do you favor the neighborhood school concept? "2. Do you favor an amendmen±, to the United States ConstJ."~,tion forbidding busin9 of students for %he sole purpose of maintaining a racial b,n].nnce in orc]e~ to preserve the neighborhood school con- c ept?" I am not aware of any statute that confers the power upon the governing body of a county to conduct an advisory referendum on such questions. This view is consistent with previous opinions ':of this office to the'effect that the governing body of a county could not hold an advisory referendum in absence of specific legislative authority nor use %he election machinery for that purpose. See Report of the Attorney General (1949'1950),,p. 12, copy of which is enclosed, See also opinion to The Honorable The Honorable oliver D. Rudy,.. September 28, 1971 Page 2. C. William Clearon, Member, House of Delegates, dated September 8, 1971, a copy of which is enclosed. Should the Board of Supervisors wish to change t~e law, I suggest that %hey discuss this matter with Chesterfield County's representatives in the General Assembly. With kindest regards, I remain Sincerely yours, Andrew P. Attorney General 2:32L Encs. .. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, RICHMOND 1971 The Ronorable C. william Clearon Member, House of Delegates South Hill, Virginia 23970 My dear M re Cleatonl This is in reply to your letter of September 3, 1971, in which you request my opinion on the following questionl "Z had a question and a request for a ruling £rom you by one of the members of the Board of Supervisors in my county. In Mecklenburg County our Doard of Supervisors by a resolution passed banned the sale of beer on $.unday. This was about ten or twelve years ago. They now, by the request of some paopie in the court=y, want to =escind this so. that they can sell beer on sunday but there is a tremendous opposi- tion. "They had a public hearing this past Monday night at the courthouse. There resulted a check on the vote, six of the supervisors would vote to keep this ban on the sale of beer on Sunday and two of the supervisors would vote to rescind it. The large gather- lng at the public hearing proposed to re- solve the difference ~y holding a referen- dum to decide ~nether the people wan= it or not. ~ne questiom now is I would like for you to give me the ruling whether or not the county has a right to hold a referendum to decide The Honorable C. ~. Clearon Member, House of Delegates South Hill, Virginia SeptemberS, 1971 .Page 2 - In my opinion the Board of Supervisors is not authorized to conduct an advisory referendum on this q~estion. The' Board of Supervisors of Mecklenburg County ham the ~DOwer under ~ ~-97 of the Code of Virginia as =~ended, ". o . to adopt ordinancem effective in that portion o~ such county not ~brmced within the corporate limits of uny city or incorporated to~ . . . prohibiting' th~ sale.of beer and wine, or either beer or..winu, between the hours of twelve o'clock post meridian of each Saturday and six o'clock ante meridian of each ~ond~y, or f~ing hours within said period d. urinq which wine ~%d beer, or either, may be sold, and prescribing fines and other penal- ties for violations of such ordinances...." Z am not aware of any statute that conform tho ~DOw~ upon the governing body of a county to conduct an advisory referendum on such question. In a previouz opinion t]~'.~ office'ha~ e~.ressed the view'that tl~e governing body of a county could noz hol~ an advisory referendum in the absence of specific icgislutive authority nor use the election machinary, for that (See Report of the Attorney General (1949-1950}, p. 12, ~Ol~fOf which is enclosed.) With kin~est regards. I remain Sincerely yours, Andrew P. Miller Attorney General 6836 1 REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL referendum. If such i ' into 'c~! .Any apphca..nt or recipient aggrieved by~affy decision graut- For example, your ~ ~ rog, C~l~nglllg, suspenamg or refusing or by failu~( to m~k~ ~ decision electiou and whethm I within a~easonable time under the provisibns?f this act, may, within ' ' ~ ~ ~thirt~ da~ ~fter receiv, ing uotice ia ~writln~o/. such de~i~i,m, appca~ visors. There appea ' tber~fron{ t~ or ask for a ~eview of the sa~{e by. the comn,i~sion. ~ ,, , . statute stating that i strange to say that ' ] " ...... f~r'a 5~r ,?~gffmnnss,o,},shall .prov~d~./i,po,, request an oppormuity electiou be held ~, reasoname notme ot,~'hich shall be given in writing the results of such '" to the applicant ~r. rccipicnt and to tl~proper local boa¢d in such man- } sence of specific lcgi: . . n~.and form as,tl~commissJon m~ prescri )e The commission shalt ~ .... ~,] endmn such an electi ] ' ~f it deenli 6~ope? ~qke o?' caul(6 be. made an ihvestigation of tie' { ' not be nsed for that ~.,. ~acts.. The ~ommissio~shall ~'e fair and impartial consideralion io .... { ~ · i ~ . the testin2ouy of wituess~, o~oU~er evideuce produced at t m hcarim-, l ~' ~* ' ~rJ~s~t re. vest,garcons opine locaF board and local sul,cri,;temlout ,~ .a.. i ~ ~, ~.- . : gauons ma~e or~q/A~d to be ma.lc by the c ~ , '- ' '~ ' , -- e · , :~OJllIll~9~Oll III ......... i'IOIICI tO cuame it to BOARDS OF SUF . , , aectde Ialrly the anoe~,or revieW." ' ' ' I ' ', ' In my opinion, the~ndme~,Nj, elimlnatim, the firs( ~e,~et~ce of . . . [ ,, Ho~o~xnLgJ. t-IAs~o- .' . · . .'~ t' .... e ..... ~t-)-ll,t/$*,l~MI' ;lll(i lll I Treasurer'of Brun: i ~ . ~l~:.the .o?,w ~{a;;/"~Ic,,,ly. attthorizes ,he ..... mqssicn,':!, '. :., ,t .... [ ' . . . = ~ %~upt r¢gutauo~a that the afitual h'aring ~ ml be ~ , r This is m rcl)ty :-.. ~ts Executive q~'~arv or o{)mr a~en~ ~-i~; ..... ~ "'~ · : '"lg.t b~ .' · , , o ' . . . ,~,~tnur agClltWlto SlIDIIIrl l)l'tke 'hi~ tel ..' 1o' lbo' ~- . c. I ' ' ' 1, . ~?mm~¢aon ~~t tbey .c~n properly re{qo~v ;~,~ ~,.~:.~2 ;, .:-- ~ "Your : ' ' lnis ties iu'/~~~'fi~](~}.... '. ~' '-U'u.~)eslv'~ .~2" matter' 1~. ',:,', L ,,' "A prnp.,', ~ i t .a_~J_~'~jla~b%ucc?sary o~ ~[,~?able .tlx ca~y ou~ 4lie t.,1.il,., x' ~ .... i, tl,e esthm~lc( . I i~ :),Iverllsed ~ vu'vu=c~~m ~rovide for the admmistratiod~ of the sa ne .~ . a~~ig;,[~essary for the ~bmmission itself i or,l,,red .... : ' t~~i-tl¥'a3~}al by a person ~vl;~e clalm ior ' purposes as i, , ~ ) .... firat ~ ....... :... '. - .... : · t:{~i~ ~ ........... 7 year FUndcovere,O[ : ... P ........ levy had b ins lalhnc-t i BOARD8 0F 8U ERVISORS~Advlso~ referendum; no authori~ to call. ' ~.aa which ih(: ~ Ho~oa~L~ Ro~m~ C. Goa~, June 20, 1950. "The i: i allowing the ~ Comonwealth's Attorney for Nelson County. ment :tnd the funds whi, This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 195b, in which you ask my Service' and so opinion on two questions. I quote from your letter as follows: merit for a new "Th ' "Does the ere ~s a strong difference of opinion among the citi[ens of. enter such an Nelson County on the question of whether or not a '~onsolidatCd hlgh~ - '- %Vould school for all white cbildren should be coustructed, the effect of which by the School 1 xmuld be to consolidate the four }iksting white high schools iuto one. · * * * * * The question pr, "(1) Does the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County have the the Board of Super,' autkority .under the law to orde~ a special ,referendmh- 8n the question for some other put,' of consolidation, as set forth above? needed for the budg~'~ "(2) And, if they do have such authority, does this Board havi levy for general cou: the further authority to pay the expenses of such ,an eJ~tion out of derived from a levy the general fund of the County, or out ~f'afiy ~blic'fmidg in the fiands for debt service ma~' of the County Treasurer?" than the levy, as COtmty purposes, I have had reason to review the Virginia statute on this suhject previ- although not covc~ ously, and I was unable then and am still unable to find any statutq authoriz- closing a copy of ing the board of supervisors of a county ~ a eourt'to, ~dee ~fl ~dviso~ Commonwealth's A z., . ,. -. " . ..... i ~ ~ng with a somewh:' 4.. {.l " "~-~- ~ ~,.,~. ,~.,_..r~,.~,~-~.7~,~m--c .......-.~..,..,~ ...... w~.~,~.~;~'~..~.~== - ~ -'~t'~-,~ ........ - .... ~ ...... ~~.j~.~...~ ...... ~'" Y GENERAL as follows: grieved by any decision gr~nt- ' by failure to make a decision ,'isions of this act, may, withiu riting oW such decision appeal same by, the commission. :, upon request an opportunity ehicb shall be given in writing roper local board in such man- :scribe. The commissiou shall · made an investigation of the and impartial consideration to tence produced at the hearing; rd and local superintendent or adc by the commission, or any deem proper to enable it to [minating the first sentenc'e of eforc the commission" rly authorizes the Commission hearing shall be conducted b:~' hould make his report to the cview aud decide the matter. aission by Section 37 to make or desirable to carry out the ministration of the same. lure outlined in your letter is ary for the Commission itself by a person whose claim for ,rendum; no authority to call% June 20, 1950. 1950, in which you ask my tter as follows: nion among the citizens of r or not a consolidated high ~struct~d, the effect of 'which whit. e high,schools into one. of Nelson County have the refercndmn on the question ~ority, does this Board have of such an election out of ny public funds in the hands REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 13 mtute on this subject previ- to find any statute authoriz- court to order an advisory referendum. If such an election were diredted, several questions xvould arise. For example, your second qui2stion with reference to the expenses of the election and xvhether the election would be bindiug on the board of super- visors. There appears to be no statute authorizing such an election; and no statute stating that such an election would be binding, and it xvould seem strange to say that the board of supervisors or a court could direct that an election be held but that the governing body would not then be bound by the results of such an election. It is my opinion, therefore, that in the ab- sence of specific legislative authority for the holding of an informative refer- endum such an election could not be ordered and the election machinery could not be used for that purpose. OF SUPERVISORS--Authority to amend budget. F-33 April 11, 1950. J. HASKINS ROGERS, Of Brunswick County. in reply to your letter of April 4, which ! 'quote in full: aur opinion on the following problem will be appreciated. roposed county budget for all county purposes contains an item in the hated school needs for 'Debt Service'. Said proposed budget is in accordance with law, and upon the day advertised for public and the laying of the levy, the Board of J6pervisors ordered a for the year involved, appropriating a Spfi~ for school purposes as rth in the proposed budget. "The basis :he 'Debt Service' is for the purpos'e of paying the first iustallment ~terest on a loan being received:from the Literary Fund of Virginia. item had been advertised as a need for the year covered by the ~osed budget. However, it developed, after the levy had been orderer it might be possible to postpone this first installment and interest the year imm.ediately following that for which the proposed budget ts advertised.~/nd levy ordered. "The Board of Supervi was then:petitioned to enter an order allo~ving the School discr'~tion, to have the first install- merit and interest on said aegs postponed accordingly, and use the funds which had been include in the proposed budget for 'Debt Service' and so advertised, the purpose of purchasing equip- ment for a new school ter construction. "Does the Board of Sup authority under the law to enter such an order? .." \ "Would warrants dra~;n on the county -tr~easurer against said funds by the School Board f?~ such diverted purpo~ae~ be legal warrants?" The question present(d by your letter as whethL~r, funds budgeted by the Board of Supervisor~ for the purpose of servicing ~.debt may be used for some other purP9s% when it is found that the sum x¥ijl not in fact be needed for the budgeted purpose. Since the Board of Supcr~sors laid a unit levy for general ,e6unty purposes, it cannot be said that thd%e funds were derived from a lgvy Specifically made for debt purposes. The s'tqn budgeted for debt servi.cd may well have come in whole or in part from sot~ces other than the lev,3¢, as for example A. B. C. fuuds. The levy being fdk general county puHSoses, the funds may be used for any appropriate county lkurpose, although/not covered by the original budget. In this connection ! ~n'en- closing.'a copy of an opinion rendered to the Honorable Daniel W. l~f~Neil, ConWnonwealth's Attorney for Rockbridge County, on March 20, 1950, deal- '-~ing/with a somewhat related question. / Expenditures: Land Construction Contingencies Buildings CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT State Local State Federal Local 150~000 150~000 300,000 300~000 360,150 360,150 614~167 720,300 76,708 76,708 40,031 153,~16 420~000 80~000 0 500~000 TOTALS lt006~858 666,858 954~198 1,673,716 and Utilities 500~000 500~000 Cost of 300~000 3D0~000 Industrial land Total 1,806~858 666~858 954,198 2,473,716 REVENUES: Land Sales 350-acres $ $10,000 per Acre Minimum $3~500~000 Possible revenue from lease agreements. TO: Board. of Superv.isors FROM,: Mo C, Ritz DATE September ]6, 1971 The Preparation of Materials for Airport Industrial Park. Mr. Burnett bas asked John Longmire and myself to prepare a pro- posal for your action concer~ing the above. John and I would propose that three different items be prepared. These would in- clude the following: (1) A sales t__joe brouchure. This would include a four page or fold out commercially p~epared .b~.ouchure poihting out the obvious and most necessary facts about our park. It would include necessarily the following: a graphic map of the entire airport complex, a location map, the sizes of sites available, utilities available, access, who to contact, the name of the owner, a price per acre if available, the name of the park, and the date that improved sites will be available. It 'is assumed that we could, use from 1000 to 1500 of these "Sales Brouchures". These would not be detailed fact sheets no~ include all the necessary information for a person to make a decision about purchasing a site from us. It would merely be a means to get people interested enough to contact us. (2) A fact sheet for Industrial Development in Chesterfield County. This fact sheet would include from four to ten (3) pages and would be similar in content to the first eight pages of the Vepco Industrial Survey of Chesterfield County. We would propose that this fact sheet be updated every six months and that it be in the form of a multi lithed report prepared by the Planning Deoartment using County duplicating equipment. It is anticipated that we would prepare these fact sheets in quantities necessary to supply only a short run demand so that we can update the fact sheet frequent].y without having to throw away a great number of old fact sheets. Reference to these fact sheets would be made in the sale brouchure which would be available either from the Planning Department Or the Executive Secretary's Office. Plat RestrJcticns. We :,~ould prepare to propose plat re- strictions for our Industrial Park Subdivision. These restrictions would include references to sign control, landscaping, archit coura~, control, right of first re- pla'a :~'evievz, po!lut:~.or, cont?".~[s> etc. !t is su,<[:ested that after a rev~e~,,, by 'bbc I3oa::'d. that tl'~ese be made ava~.lable in a format su~.2al')]c to Count~, dup].icatint~ equipment arid in a limited quantity, We would imai:;ine that: some oooies of these would be bound using County spiral binae? equipment. The above items would be available upon reouest from the Execu-- tive Secretauy's Office or the County P]annin~ Department. If the Board feels that the above _te~=u.~ ~ ~ are necessary an~ should be prepared, i'4z,, Lon?:,~;ire and i are wi].linp to be~in immed~ateLy to prepare t~em, We would .5' "~ apozec_~.,te an JndScation from the Board of their ideas and comments orior to beginnin6 preparation of these items. WHEREAS! Truck Bnterprizes, Inc.~ A Virginia Corppration~ has agr&ed to p~chase a 7.5 a~e tract of l~d at the W~i~S Road Interchange w~ R~,95 ~d cons~uc~ a $200~00~ build~g ~ which said Comply proposes to employ 40 people gen~at~ng gross sales ~f $5~000e000 per ye~ ~d W~E~ a 6~ft~ right~f~a~ has be~ provt~ free o~ ~y enc~r~ces for a length of 1630 feet on which said ~p~ estimates i~ ~ill have 150 c~s per day ~d the R~la will ~e said road ~ a ~cill~y ~a/ftc =~ f~ tr~ c~s per day~ ~d ~lt~$, the construction of this road will play a ~lt~=~ p~2 ~ this entire proJ~ to the ~t~t of which ~t~c~pati~ b~ the Hiphway De~~2 ~s not for~hc~g~ the constmuction of ~h~sproJ~ct may be ~n doubt. t NO~ '~ERSFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, ha'~ this Bo~d the Highwa~ ~p~.~2~ in view of the cons~uction of Ent~prizes~ Inc. ~d the other uses adjacent to said to constru=~ by Industrial Access Funds a 1630 ft. roadway n~w~dly from W~11~s Road~ ~i~ing at a po~t 410 fee2 f=om ~2s ~t~s~tion with at.95, according to a plat presented w~h this resolution, WHEREAS~ the construction of roads in the Glen Connor Subdivision was engineered and financed on plans originally approved by the State Highway Department, which plans included recommendations of the Highway Department for drainage ~nd the necessary drainage structures, and WHEREAS, the homes built an said Subdivision were priced and sold according to the costs of the roadst utilities and construction of homes, and WHEREAS~ it appears at this time that the Highway Department wishes the developer to pave the ditch line along Strathmore Road due to the installation of the culvert under Westwood Street at its intersection with Strathmore Road, which culvert was raised by the Highway Department in order to avoid the water trunk line of the Defense General'Supply Depot, and WHEREAS~ it appears that the developer has no way to be compensated for this extra expense after the houses have been sold, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, on motion of~o. ~~/ seconded by ~_c~~.?._~<3~, that since the Highway Dep tment altered the drainage plans of this Subdivision, that this Board requests the Highway Department to accept the roads in Glen Connor Subdivision and to make the necessary improvements to the drainage ditches as are necessary at the State Highway Department's expense.