Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Complaint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Henrico to revise "tag and tow" criteria, offers to help draft standards
Summary
A Henrico resident called for the county to broaden its vehicle removal criteria used by the Community Maintenance Division, proposing a citizen-staff committee and a matrix of inspection factors to avoid removing stationary but potentially operable vehicles.
At the Sept. 23 meeting of the Henrico County Board of Supervisors, resident Jay West urged the board to revise the county’s "tag and tow" procedures for removing vehicles from public rights-of-way, arguing that the current practice—based primarily on a state statutory definition tied to license, inspection decal and operability—fails to identify clearly inoperable vehicles in some neighborhoods.
West described a nearby incident in which a badly damaged vehicle with deployed airbags, a collapsed front suspension and a shattered windshield remained on the street for weeks but was not cited during routine inspections because it displayed a valid inspection decal and current registration. At the same time, West said his own vehicle received a towing notice because it lacked a front license plate, a criterion used by the county’s inspection process.
He recommended that the county expand its inspection criteria beyond the state-level indicators and consider factors such as flat tires, missing major components, broken steering or suspension parts, deployed airbags, and other observable conditions. West suggested a matrix that combined statutory definitions with inspection observations to determine whether a vehicle should be removed. He also requested that the board form a temporary citizens’ committee to work with the Department of Community Revitalization; he volunteered to serve on it. West said he had discussed the issue with Eric Lebo, director of the department, and described Lebo as patient and open-minded about exploring improvements.
Board members thanked West for the presentation; staff and the director were not asked to respond during the public comment period. West cited Henrico code section 22-252 and Virginia Code §46.2-100 when describing the current legal standard for vehicle operability.
