Minutes 02/26/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

392 February 26, 1980 The issue raised by Officer D~vis involves the payment of benefits under the retirement code as it existed on March 5, 1963, when Officer Vernon L. Davis died of a heart attack. At that time S~ction 26-83 of the City Code provided that a lump sum Fayment of $1,000 would be paid to the ~r~i~in~ spouse. This payment was made to the widow of Vernon L. Davis from the retir'~ment fund. Subsequently, on November 26, 1963, Ordinance #1963-91 was adopted which amended this section of the Ci~ty Code by providing £or a payment of $1,200 annually ($100 per month) to the surviving widow. A review of the Council minutes in the City Clerk's office does not reveal that any discussion took place relative to making this amendment retroactive, nor is there any indication that discussion took place concerning benefits for ~he surviving widow of Officer Vernon L. Davis. The ordinance as adopted by Council does not contain any provi- sion for making payments retroactive ro any date prmor to the date of adoption. Therefore, in order to provide for the payments to Mrs, Davis, Council would have to adopt legislation amending the current code to make it retroactive to March l, 1963. The question then arises why would March 5 or March 1, 1963 be singled out as the date for making the ordinance retroactive, when there e×ists the possibility of others having died leaving widows prior to that date. It was reouested that the benefits officer for the City research the files to determine whether there were any dearths prior to March 1963. Based on limited research to date, I have been advised that there was one ordinary death in 1962 and another ordinary death in 1961. In both cases there was a surviving widow. The files in the City Attorney's office indicate that the previous legal suits for this claim have been dismissed on the grounds that the Retirement Board was within its~rights in denying this request based on the City ordinance. Legally there was no authority fo~ the Board to authorize payments since the Code did not provide for such payments ro the spouse at the time of death. If consideration were g~ven to mak~ the law retroactive for Mrs.. Davis then the questi.on ~e~om~s wh.~s-houldn't it be made retroactive for ~lLsurviving widows. Based on this and the fact that the number of eligible recipients is undertermined at this time, I do not recommend that the retirement code be amended for this reouest." Ronnie Davis, 3820 H~gh Street, spoke re~.~r~i~g the request of F~bruary 12, 1980 that the code be made retroactive ~o March, 1963 to ~yovide benefits for the ~dow of V~rnon L. Davis. Motion of Mr. Early and seconded by Mr. Oast, to concur in the recommendation of the City Manager, and was adopted by u~imous vote. The reports from the City M~nager were presented: 80-80 - "Consideration of an ordinance on first reading to appropriate $90,$90 from the General Fund for the Hospitalization of Indigents (SLH) Program. This appropriation will authorize additional expenditures for SLH payments for the hospitalization of indigents for an additional $90,590. Revenues and reimbursements have provided sufficient funds for the 50% matching share with the State. The current appropria~ tion has been expended as of January 1, 1980 and this will provide an additional appropri- ation for expenditures for indigent care for the balance of the Fiscal Year. The City Manager recommends adoption on first reading." On motion of Mr. Barnes and seconded by Mr. Oast, the following ordinance was approved on first reading, and by unanimous vote: "AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $90,590 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR HOSPITALIZATION FOR INDIGENTS [SLH) PROGRAMS." 80-81 "Consideration of an ordinance to amend the Portsmouth City Code, Section 11-12(~ relative to procurement of public works and ~mprovements contracts. This amendment to the City Code parallels the Code of Virginia, Section 11-17, providing that public contracts (construction) of up to $2,500 may be accomplished without public advertisement and bid. The current code sets a limit for public works and improvements contracts at $1,000. Also included in this section of the Code ~s an amendment providing that the figure above which award must be made on the basis of public advertisement is $25,000 for highway construction. This parallels the Code of Virginia, Section 33.1-185. The City manager recommends adoption." On motion of Mr. Gray and seconded by Mr. Barnes, the following ordinance was adopted on first and final reading, and by the following vote: "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SgCTION ll-12(b) OF THE CODE OF THB CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1973, AS AMENDED, FERTAINING TO PROCUREMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND IMPROVEMEN~ CONTRACTS." Ayes: Barnes, Beamer, Early, Gray, Holley, Oast, Davis Nays: None 80-82 "Consideration of an ordinance to amend the City Code by adding Article XIV to Chapter 23 thereof pertaining to vehicles of excessive size and weight.