An Act to amend and reenact §§ 3 through 6, as severally amended, of Chapter 480 of the Acts of Assembly of 1942, which provided a charter for the Town of Chatham in Pittsylvania County, and to amend Chapter 480 of the Acts of Assembly of 1942 by adding a section numbered 15.1, relating to town powers and town council.
HB1050 is a local charter amendment for the Town of Chatham in Pittsylvania County. The bill updates and reenacts several sections of Chatham’s 1942 charter and adds a new section, § 15.1, to revise the town’s powers and the structure or authority of the town council. The text shown primarily restates and expands the town’s corporate powers, including authority to raise revenue, levy special assessments, borrow money, acquire and dispose of property, operate markets, and manage waterworks and related infrastructure.
The bill also preserves and elaborates on Chatham’s authority over utilities, public works, and land use for municipal purposes. It specifically addresses water supply protection, eminent domain, quarry and gravel extraction for town needs, and cemetery/burial ground operations, including perpetual care arrangements and the ability to accept gifts or bequests for that purpose. Because this is a charter revision, its effect is to modernize and clarify the town’s legal powers under state law rather than create a statewide policy change.
HB1050 amends a special act charter in the Virginia Acts of Assembly, so its legal impact is limited to the Town of Chatham and its governing authorities. It updates the town’s enumerated powers under Chapter 480 of the Acts of 1942, which means Chatham’s council gains or retains express statutory authority to act in the areas described in the charter, including finance, property acquisition, utilities, public improvements, and cemetery administration. The bill does not broadly change general Virginia municipal law, but it does alter the local legal framework governing Chatham’s operations and powers.
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or other debate excerpts, so there is no documented controversy or opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s final status as an enacted chapter suggests it moved successfully through the legislative process and was approved. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to have been treated as a routine local charter update rather than a contentious policy bill.
No specific points of contention are evident in the provided materials because there are no committee discussions or vote records. If any concerns existed, they would most likely have centered on the scope of municipal authority—particularly eminent domain, utility regulation, water-supply policing powers, and cemetery/perpetual-care provisions—but the record supplied here does not show any formal opposition or disputed amendments.