Richlands, Town of; amending charter, relates to ordinance.
SB873 amends the charter of the Town of Richlands in Tazewell County, Virginia, by updating the provisions governing town ordinances and town appointments. The bill restates the rules for how the town council may adopt ordinances and resolutions, including requirements for readings, voting, recording, emergency measures, and notice before tax increases or new taxes. It also preserves and clarifies the council’s authority to act by ordinance or resolution, the voting requirements for final passage, and the prohibition on members voting where they have a personal or financial interest.
The bill also revises the town’s administrative structure by detailing the appointment and duties of the town manager, town clerk, and town attorney. It confirms that the town manager serves as the town’s administrative and executive head, may hire and supervise staff subject to council authorization, prepares the budget, manages contracts and expenditures, and may also serve as treasurer under certain conditions. The town clerk and town attorney provisions similarly define their terms, qualifications, compensation, and responsibilities. Overall, the measure is a charter update that modernizes and codifies local governance procedures for Richlands rather than changing statewide municipal law.
SB873 affects only the Town of Richlands’ local charter provisions in Chapter 519 of the Acts of Assembly of 2013. It amends the town’s ordinance procedures and administrative appointment rules, but does not broadly alter general Virginia municipal law; instead, it refines how Richlands’ council, town manager, clerk, and attorney operate under its special charter. The practical impact is on local governance, budgeting, contracting, personnel administration, and ordinance adoption within the town.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It advanced through the Senate and House with unanimous or near-unanimous votes, including 13-0 in Senate Local Government, 39-0 on final Senate passage, 21-0 in House Counties, Cities and Towns, and 97-0 in the House. The voting record suggests a consensus view that the charter revisions were routine and acceptable.
No major points of contention are reflected in the available record, and there are no committee transcript snippets indicating debate. The only provisions that could potentially draw attention are the detailed limits on council interference with the town manager’s administrative functions, the residency requirement for the town manager after appointment, and the rules governing emergency ordinances and tax increases. However, the unanimous votes indicate that any such issues were not politically divisive in this bill’s consideration.