Could a Virginia board of supervisors give its members the same family health insurance benefit provided to the county administrator and attorney?

Plain-English summary

Virginia Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell concluded in 2008 that a board of supervisors using the alternative compensation method in § 15.2-1414.3 could adopt a resolution granting its members family health insurance coverage matching the benefit given to the county administrator and county attorney.

The key statutory words allowed a board to grant fringe benefits "as such benefits are provided for county employees or any of them." The AG read "or any of them" as an independent alternative. A board therefore was not limited to benefits shared by every county employee; it could match a benefit received by a smaller group of employees.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. 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.

Background and statutory framework

Accomack County had adopted § 15.2-1414.3's alternative method for setting supervisors' salaries. The board then granted its members paid family health coverage. The county administrator and county attorney received that family benefit, while other county employees received fully paid individual coverage but not paid family coverage.

Section 15.2-1414.3(4) allowed a board, by resolution and apart from salary limits, to grant members fringe benefits in the manner and form provided to county employees "or any of them." Because local governing bodies needed statutory authority for their actions, the opinion focused on the plain text of that express grant.

What the AG concluded

The board could grant family health coverage by resolution. The benefit could match the coverage provided to the county administrator and attorney.

The comparison group did not have to include every county employee. The phrase "or any of them" let the board use fringe benefits provided to a smaller employee group.

The benefit was separate from statutory salary limits. The quoted subsection applied "in addition to and without regard for" those limits.

Common questions

Why did the fact that most employees lacked paid family coverage not control?
The AG read "county employees or any of them" to create alternatives. A fringe benefit supplied to selected county employees could serve as the model for supervisors' benefits.

How did the board have to approve the benefit?
The statute and opinion specified adoption by board resolution.

Was family health coverage treated as salary?
The opinion treated it as a fringe benefit authorized in addition to the salary limits in § 15.2-1414.3.

Did the opinion address other objections to the board's resolution?
No. It noted that other correspondence had raised additional issues, but the opinion answered only the legal question in the county attorney's request and memorandum.

Citations

• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1414.3(4) (fringe benefits for supervisors)
• Nat'l Realty Corp. v. Va. Beach, 209 Va. 172, 163 S.E.2d 154 (1968)
• Bd. of Supvrs. v. Horne, 216 Va. 113, 215 S.E.2d 453 (1975)
• Last v. Va. State Bd. of Med., 14 Va. App. 906, 421 S.E.2d 201 (1992)
• Lampkins v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 709, 607 S.E.2d 722 (2005)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2008/08-049-Taylor.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Robert F. McDonnell

900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1120
7-1-1

Attorney General

August 5, 2008

Mark B. Taylor, Esq.
Accomack County Attorney
23296 Courthouse Avenue, Suite 103
Accomac, Virginia 23301
Dear Mr. Taylor:
I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of
the Code of Virginia.
Issue Presented
When a board of supervisors has established compensation for its members pursuant to
§ 15.2-1414.3, you ask whether the board also may grant to such members, as a fringe benefit, family
health insurance coverage that is the same as provided to the county’s administrator and attorney.
Response
It is my opinion that § 15.2-1414.3(4) authorizes the board of supervisors to adopt a resolution
granting its members, as a fringe benefit, family health insurance coverage that is the same as provided to
the county’s administrator and attorney.
Background
You advise that the Accomack County Board of Supervisors has adopted the alternative method
1
for establishing the salaries of the Board as authorized by § 15.2-1414.3. Furthermore, you advise that
the Board has adopted a resolution granting its members a fringe benefit consisting of paid family health
insurance coverage. You state that the County’s administrator and attorney currently receive the same
family health insurance coverage as a fringe benefit. You note that all other Accomack County employees
receive fully paid health coverage for themselves, but not for family members. Finally, you state that all
County health insurance coverage is provided under the same plan with the difference being the portion of
2
the premium the County pays as a fringe benefit.

1

See infra “Applicable Law and Discussion.”
Section 2.2-505(B) requires that an opinion request from a county attorney “shall itself be in the form of an
opinion embodying a precise statement of all facts together with such attorney’s legal conclusions.” I note that
correspondence raising other issues in connection with this opinion request was received by this Office. As
indicated, § 2.2-505(B) requires a county attorney to provide a memorandum of law in connection with his opinion
request. This opinion addresses the legal question set forth in your request letter and accompanying memorandum.
2

Mark B. Taylor, Esq.
August 5, 2008
Page 2
Applicable Law and Discussion
Section 15.2-1414.3(4) provides that:
In addition to and without regard for the salary limits herein set out, any board of
supervisors by resolution may grant to its members any or all of the fringe benefits in the
manner and form as such benefits are provided for county employees or any of them.
The power of a local governing body, unlike that of the General Assembly, “must be exercised
3
pursuant to an express grant” because “the powers of boards of supervisors are fixed by statute and are
4
limited to those conferred expressly or by necessary implication.” This rule is corollary to the Dillon
5
Rule that municipal corporations are similarly limited in their powers. “Where a statute is unambiguous,
6
the plain meaning is to be accepted without resort to the rules of statutory interpretation.” “‘The
7
manifest intention of the legislature, clearly disclosed by its language, must be applied.’” “‘“[T]ake the
8
words as written”’ … and give them their plain meaning.”
The operative language in § 15.2-1414.3(4) is the use of the word “or” in the phrase “as such
benefits are provided for county employee or any of them.” “Generally, phrases separated by a comma
9
and the disjunctive ‘or’ are independent.” The use of the disjunctive results in alternatives that must be
treated separately. Thus, the word “or” in § 15.2-1414.3(4) is evidence of the intent that what follows the
“or” is meant to be separate and independent from what preceded the “or.” Consequently, the General
Assembly clearly and unambiguously has authorized a board of supervisors to adopt a resolution granting
to its members the same fringe benefits provided to all county employees. Furthermore, a board of
supervisors may adopt a resolution granting its members the same fringe benefits provided to a lesser
number of county employees in instances where different fringe benefits are provided to the different
groups of county employees.

3

Nat’l Realty Corp. v. Va. Beach, 209 Va. 172, 175, 163 S.E.2d 154, 156 (1968).
Bd. of Supvrs. v. Horne, 216 Va. 113, 117, 215 S.E.2d 453, 455 (1975).
5
Id.
6
Last v. Va. State Bd. of Med., 14 Va. App. 906, 910, 421 S.E.2d 201, 205 (1992).
7
Barr v. Town & Country Props., Inc., 240 Va. 292, 295, 396 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1990) (quoting Anderson v.
Commonwealth, 182 Va. 560, 566, 29 S.E.2d 838, 841 (1944).
8
Adkins v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 166, 169, 497 S.E.2d 896, 897 (1998) (quoting Birdsong Peanut Co. v.
Cowling, 8 Va. App. 274, 277, 381 S.E.2d 24, 26 (1989) (quoting Brown v. Lukhard, 229 Va. 316, 321, 330 S.E.2d
84, 87 (1985))).
9
Lampkins v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 709, 717, 607 S.E.2d 722, 726 (2005) (refusing to find that, where
two phrases were separated by “or,” first phrase modified second phrase); see also Smoot v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.
App. 495, 501, 559 S.E.2d 409, 412 (2002) (noting that word “or” connects parts of sentence, but disconnects their
meaning; disjunctive results in alternatives, which must be treated separately).
4

Mark B. Taylor, Esq.
August 5, 2008
Page 3

Conclusion
Accordingly, it is my opinion that § 15.2-1414.3(4) authorizes the board of supervisors to adopt a
resolution granting its members, as a fringe benefit, family health insurance coverage that is the same as
provided to the county’s administrator and attorney.
Thank you for letting me be of service to you.
Sincerely,

Robert F. McDonnell
1:213; 1:941/08-049