If a regional jail agreement doesn't match the statute's minimum board membership, which controls?

Plain-English summary

Buena Vista Sheriff Randy Hamilton described a 1986 inter-local agreement creating a regional jail among Rockbridge County, the Cities of Lexington and Buena Vista, and the Towns of Glasgow and Goshen. The agreement specified the board of directors: five members total, with Rockbridge appointing two directors, Lexington and Buena Vista appointing one each, and Rockbridge appointing a final member who must be a resident of Goshen or Glasgow (alternating between the two towns, with non-binding recommendations from those town councils).

The problem: Virginia Code § 53.1-106(A) sets a statutory minimum membership for regional jail boards. The board "shall consist of at least the sheriff from each participating political subdivision, and one representative from each political subdivision participating therein." The 1986 agreement does not match that statutory floor.

The AG resolved the conflict in favor of the statute. Section 53.1-106 controls; contrary provisions in the agreement must yield. At a minimum, the board must consist of:

• The Sheriffs of Rockbridge County, Lexington, and Buena Vista (Goshen and Glasgow have no sheriff, so none from those towns).
• One representative from each participating political subdivision, appointed by that subdivision's governing body.

But the statute uses the words "at least." That word is important. It means a participating locality can appoint more than the minimum one representative. So Rockbridge County's existing practice of appointing two representatives to the board (in addition to the Sheriff) is permitted by the statute.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Title 53.1 of the Code has been amended over time. Anyone reconstituting or restructuring a regional jail board today should consult the current text of § 53.1-106 and any agreement or legislation specific to the relevant facility.

Common questions

Can localities just write their own composition rules in an inter-local agreement?
Not below the statutory floor. The General Assembly set a minimum in § 53.1-106(A) and locality-to-locality agreements cannot drop below it. They can, however, exceed it.

What if a participating town doesn't have a sheriff?
The statute requires a sheriff "from each participating political subdivision," but the AG noted that towns without sheriffs (Goshen and Glasgow here) need not appoint one. The sheriff requirement only kicks in for political subdivisions that have a sheriff.

Can the agreement still allocate the additional representatives to specific localities?
Yes. The statutory floor sets the minimum; what happens above that floor is governed by the inter-local agreement. So the Rockbridge agreement's specific allocations (two for Rockbridge, one each for the cities, plus the Goshen/Glasgow rotation) can continue, but only on top of the statute's minimum structure.

Does this mean the existing 1986 agreement is invalid?
The opinion says contrary provisions of the agreement "must yield" to the statute. The agreement isn't void wholesale, but its terms that conflict with § 53.1-106(A) cannot stand against the statutory minimum.

Background and statutory framework

The statutory floor:

• § 53.1-105. Authorizes any two or more political subdivisions to establish, maintain, and operate a regional jail facility.
• § 53.1-106(A). Vests supervision and management of regional jails in a board or authority. The board or authority "shall consist of at least the sheriff from each participating political subdivision, and one representative from each political subdivision participating therein."

The "at least" language:

• Allows a locality to appoint more than one representative.
• Does not allow a locality to appoint fewer than one representative.
• Does not allow exclusion of a sheriff who would otherwise be mandatory.

A previous AG opinion (which the body cites without a reporter) likewise concluded that a jail board's membership includes, at a minimum, the sheriff of each participating political subdivision and one member selected by each subdivision's local governing body.

The practical takeaway: the statute draws the floor. Inter-local agreements can decorate above the floor but cannot tunnel below it.

Citations

• Va. Code § 2.2-505
• Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-105
• Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-106
• Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-106(A)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2010/10-100-Hamilton.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General

October 22, 2010

The Honorable W.R. "Randy" Hamilton
Sheriff, City of Buena Vista
2039 Sycamore Avenue
Buena Vista, Virginia 24416

Dear Sheriff Hamilton:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issues Presented

You inquire concerning the composition of a board for a regional jail, noting that an agreement between several localities specifies the membership of this board, and you ask how the agreement can be reconciled with § 53.1-106, which mandates a minimum membership for such a board. You further ask, if § 53.1-106 requires the sheriff and at least one representative from each political subdivision to serve on the board of the regional jail, whether Rockbridge County can continue to appoint, in addition to the Sheriff, two members to serve on the Board.

Response

It is my opinion that the board membership specified in § 53.1-106 controls over the agreement and that Rockbridge County can continue to appoint two members to serve on the Board.

Background

On March 1, 1986, Rockbridge County, the Cities of Lexington and Buena Vista, and the towns of Glasgow and Goshen reached an agreement to establish a regional jail. The agreement ("Agreement") establishes a Board of Directors ("the Board") and specifies the composition of the Board. The Board comprises five members, appointed as follows: Rockbridge appoints two directors, Lexington and Buena Vista each appoints one, and Rockbridge appoints the final member of the Board, who must be a resident of Goshen or Glasgow. This final appointment alternates between residents of the two towns, and the town council of Goshen or Glasgow can make a nonbinding recommendation to Rockbridge County concerning this Board member.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Section 53.1-105 of the Code of Virginia authorizes any two or more political subdivisions to establish, maintain and operate a regional jail facility. Section 53.1-106(A) vests supervision and management of regional jails in a board or authority composed of representatives from each political subdivision. The board or authority must "consist of at least the sheriff from each participating political subdivision, and one representative from each political subdivision participating therein." The language of § 53.1-106(A) plainly requires that both a sheriff and one representative serve on the Board. A previous opinion from this office concludes that "the membership of a jail board or authority includes, at a minimum, the sheriff of each participating political subdivision and one member selected by the local governing body of each subdivision." Contrary provisions under the Agreement must yield. Therefore, at a minimum, the Board must consist of the Sheriffs of Rockbridge County, Lexington and Buena Vista, and one representative from each political subdivision appointed by the governing body of that subdivision.

Section 53.1-106(A) further provides that the membership of the Board must consist of "at least" the Sheriff and one member selected by the local governing body of each political subdivision that is a participating jurisdiction. Therefore, Rockbridge County can continue to appoint more than the minimum two representatives to the Board called for by § 53.1-106(A).

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that § 53.1-106 controls over the agreement, and that Rockbridge County can continue to appoint two members to serve on the Board.

With kindest regards, I am

Very truly yours,

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General