RSS

Monthly Archives: July 2009

Why not have a public OPTION when it comes to health care?

29 Jul

It isn’t just those people who do not have health care who might choose a public option and that makes big insurance companies nervous. That’s about the only reason I can think of for so much money being funneled into trying to block this.

Why would people choose a public option?

More and more ‘big businesses’ are hiring a large percentage of ‘part-time employees. These part-time people are not eligible for benefits such as health care with many of these companies. So, we end up with people having to work 2 or 3 part-time jobs because full-time jobs aren’t available and they can’t afford insurance without working multiple jobs. In many of those part-time positions, a person would be luck to be able to make insurance payments with the payment from one part-time job while the other one or two would provide the income necessary to survive on a daily basis.

People who have health care but can’t afford the co-pays were a substantial percentage of those I transported to the Emergency Room via ambulance when I worked as a paramedic. Why? Simple. The co-pay for doctor’s visits and the problems of having to take time off of work to get into the office when the doctor was there created financial stress. If the person could hold off until it was serious enough to warrant going to the ER, it was likely to be a lower copay (many insurance companies require no co-pay for ‘emergencies’) and the ER is open during hours the doctor’s office isn’t. If you are a working parent and trying to juggle what ‘sick time’ you have between your needs and those of your children, you can quickly get to the point where you are losing income.

Sure, there are walk-in clinics available….in some areas….at some times. If you happen to have transportation to get to one located in other areas and if you happen to be able to get there at the time that the clinic is open, you can go there but, that doesn’t fit for everyone.

What about those people who don’t have any insurance? They don’t go in to the doctor because they can’t afford it. Once they are sick enough they make it to the ER. All of these result in driving ER costs up. Those costs are spread out over all of those people with insurance premiums. If everyone had insurance, there could actually be a reduction in insurance premiums, if CEO’s are willing to let that money go back to consumers, you would see the savings.

There are some additional ‘hidden’ cost to either having insurance that is not affordable to use except in emergencies or not having insurance at all. As a child abuse investigator, I can tell you that over 50% of the cases I worked on involved situation where stress resulted in abuse, or the absence of affordable health care resulted in parents being accused of being abusive or neglectful. Stress is one of the primary contributing factors to abuse of children and adults. it is associated with alcohol and drug abuse. One of the most common sources of stress in our County is due to finances. Medical care/insurance is a primary source of financial stress.

All of the abuse/neglect cases cost taxpayers in employees, services (psychological, social, medical, and judicial). Simply removing or reducing one stressor could make a huge difference.

The Health Care issue is not just about Health Care! There are a lot of other factors that come into play. We desperately need health care reform. I, for one, also think that citizens deserve the right to choose if they wish to participate in a public option. That does not mean that everyone should be forced to join, simply that people should have the right to make that choice for themselves. For politicians to prevent people from making that choice for themselves is not fair. It is not right.

You may or may not agree with me. However you feel about this let your elected officials know. Take the time to make a call or send an email. This should be the people’s choice not the choice of whoever has the most money to spend on advertising. (It is ironic that the very companies you pay When your insurance company pays the bills are the ones paying for those ads?)

You may also want to take a few minutes to look at a website called Opensecrets.org. This site shows you where the political contribution elected officials receive come from. There are some interesting relationships between the positions elected officials are taking on this and where their funding comes from. And, yes…all of that contribution stuff is made available by FOIA.

By the way, all this talk about a ‘rush’? We could wait forever for insurance companies to ‘police themselves’. If they were going to do it, they would have done it by now.

I’ll be interested in hearing what you have to say.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 29, 2009 in Health Care

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Cambria Toy Station – a Phoenix from the muck rather than ashes…

28 Jul

The Cambria Toy Station has reopened.

I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused customers, but the Historic Structure has to have priority. The floors are American Chestnut which as most of you know is extinct, so there is NO replacing it. Drying out those floors has been a very slow process to insure there was no warping or other damage. Except for a bit more painting that needs to be done, the store is about ready. Our inventory is a bit low because we were unable to verify that there were no hazardous chemical or sewage in the stormwater so anything that got possibly damp… got gone! The safety, health, and well being of you and your families is and always will be our primary goal within the store.  We hope to start with hours from 10:00AM to 5:00PM Wednesday through Saturday and 1:00PM to 5:00PM on Sundays starting July 29th, Wednesday.

After being closed for over two months trying to repair damage to the Depot from the stormwater flooding that occurred (by the way, the stormwater drain by the other train station is still funneling a ton of water directly into the floodplain. (A short video is available but it may be a bit slow to load right now.) That water comes off of all the area above the Main Street intersection. During a good rain, it creates a kinda kewl waterfall, unless, of course, you have to be out in that rain trying to keep more flooding from happening. That should be a heads up to all of you who live in that area. Whatever you put in your yard or in the ditch ends up coming through that pipe under the road and dumping on to the ground then goes directly into the Creek. That means, what you dump you (or someone else) drinks. What you dump affects aquatic life and the nearby plants and animals relying on that Creek to stay alive.

It also means that a lot more sedimentation is going into the Creek. When that settles out, you will find the water level slowly increasing and more flooding is likely. If you can remember a time when the water didn’t come over the bank nearly as much, this process is a likely culprit. Try filling a glass of water to the brim, then toss in a couple of tablespoons of dirt and what happens. Be sure you have a towel handy or do it on a surface that you don’t mind getting wet though!

Then you really, really have to wonder about the number of sewage issues and how much of that ended up going into the stormwater. That adds the potential for a lot of nasty bacteria and such ending up in the water supply. Thus far, we are still fighting against future flooding in Cambria.

Before you start saying, well it’s in a floodplain so it is suppose to flood, remember that it has been in that floodplain for decades without any flooding. The problems did not start until the town raised the road level again (now a total of 18″ in 20 years), installed that crazy concrete ‘dam’ in the middle of the road, installed a drainage – sidewalk system that looks nice but is totally dysfunctional, and started allowing a lot of development in the surround area without enforcing the town’s codes (and state laws) concerning stormwater and erosion/sediment control.

Remember that glass of water experiment I spoke of earlier? In the real world that dirt is picked up and carried by water going to stormdrains. Some of that sediment settles out in those basis designed to collect and channel stormwater flow. As time goes by, layers of sediment build up and the result is that the catch basins cannot hold as much water. That is why people saw the Town’s trucks out in Cambria at 6AM on the morning of the 15th. They were trying to pump out the sediment that had built up, preventing the system from draining effectively. The fact that that is a fairly new system shows that there is a significant problem with either the amount of sediment going into the drains or that town staff have not been given the latitude to do the type of monitoring and maintenance required to make sure these types of situations do not occur. Preventative maintenance is much less expensive than dealing with the affects of doing nothing.

By the way, there are those who are reporting that they have been assured by one council member that their problems will be taken care of by the Town. Cambria Emporium and Cambria Depot, two of the buildings in Town listed in the Federal Registry of Historic Places have not been provided such assurances from anyone in the Town. We do however, have new painting for parking and crosswalk which is appreciated as it adds to customer and tourist safety. I just hope the paint surface used can be seen from several inches under muddy water.

By the way, in any situation where you have reported these types of erosion and sediment control issues, notify the Town first. You do not have to accept being ignored as many have complained to me has been done to them. If the Town does not deal with the problem, your next course of action is to contact the Department of Conservation and Recreation for help.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 28, 2009 in Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Financial Reports made EASY!! Well, the expenses are easy, the product — not so much!

24 Jul

On October 4, 2005, the Town Council of Christiansburg, VA, heard a tear jerker of an appeal from Town Manager Lance Terpenny. The Town Manager put forth a request for a budget amendment for New and Improved fancy Finance Software. According to the report, over the course of 3 years, 3 different RFP’s for Utility/Financial/Information Management Software were posted. It was not until the 3rd attempt (3 years of waiting?) before some responses came in that qualified for review. A committee of selected Town Staff and the Town’s computer consultants reviewed the applicants and recommended Cogsdale Corporation provide the Town with the needed software. The software was to allow for communication between departments, helping with delinquent tax payments and greatly increasing the efficiency of each department. UNFORTUNATELY, the $200,000 set aside in the Budget for this acquisition fell short of the mark. Manager Terpenny requested an additional $160,090.00 for a full negotiated price of $360,090. The negotiated cost included the software, installation, training, and support. Administration Officer, Scot Shippee, commented that this is a leased software program and updates and maintenance will cost approximately $30,000 per year. It was noted by the Town Manager that this does not require a Public Hearing, but does require two readings.

On October 18, 2005, the Town Council revisited this matter:

COUNCIL ACTION ON BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FINANCE SOFTWARE. Town Manager Terpenny briefed Council on this matter discussed at the October 4, 2005 meeting. He added that this software would also allow the Town to accept credit card payments, and make electronic direct deposits for employees. Councilman Ashworth made a motion to approve tlie budget amendment to allow the purchase of the finance software. Councilman Barber seconded the motion and Council voted as follows: AYES: Ashworth. Ballengee, Barber, Carter, Huppert, and Wade. NAYS: None.

Okay…so the Town has this super duper software package that it has leased for $360,090 that is suppose to make like wonderful, yet I hear the Mayor say it is too complex to give a report that is any more complex than this amount went to this person/company (without any explanation of what it is for????). What in the heck????

And just exactly how much of that total cost and the ongoing annual fees of $30,000 per year were wasted on a system to accept credit card payments that almost 4 years later has not been implemented?

There, Mr., Mrs, or Ms. taxpayer you now have a prime example of your tax money at work. As you’re thinking about that remember that it was the Town Council’s role to approve or disapprove based upon the recommendations of the Town Manager. It was the Town Manager’s role to see that the entire system was implemented. Heck! Maybe the Town Manager will get another raise this year because he is so efficient and necessary. Guess we’ll find out when his contract come up for renewal in September.

I don’t doubt the vendor’s product was well worth the price. But, why in the heck use other people’s money to by a Mercedes when a Ford (or a bus token!!!) would work as well??? I sure hope to goodness this new finance officer can get the most back for taxpayer buck out of the program. Of course, I’ve heard a rumor that she is quite adept at establishing her own programs at…duh…no extra cost to taxpayers!!!!

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 24, 2009 in Citizen Participation, FOIA, Your Tax Money

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Another piece of the Town Council meeting held July 21, 2009.

22 Jul

Staff Analysis is a written document prepared by members of a Planning Dept. to help Planning Commissioners and Town Council members understand all of the issues related to any change in zoning status of a parcel of land (zoning, rezoning, conditional use permit, etc.) These are documents routinely provided to the Planning Commission in every jurisdiction that I have been able to contact within the State of Virginia, except the Town of Christiansburg. (Let it be know that these documents were, in the past, prepared by the Planning Dept. of the Town of Christiansburg but staff was told to stop producing them.

Please note that this document is part of the official record and as such should be included in any minutes of the Town Council where decisions were made. Hmmmm….I’ve got about $1,200.00 worth of documents from the Town thus far. Guess what I don’t have? You got it. There is not one copy of a Staff Analysis in all of those Meeting Minutes, Ordinances, etc.

So, my questions now become: (1) “If those documents were prepared, who were they provided to? (2) If they were provided to anyone, did they ever get into the hands of the decision-makers (Town Council)? (3) If  they were provided to those decision-makers, why were they NOT included in the official documents? (4) Did Town Council make the decision to stop having those documents provided? (5) If the answer to (4) is no, then WHO did? (5) Why was the practice discontinued?

At the July 21 Town Council Meeting, the topic of staff analysis reports was brought up yet again. Henry Showalter, supported by Ann Carter, Michael Barber, and Jim Vanhoozier, noted that such a report would be very helpful in enabling them to make the best possible decisions for citizens.

While it may be brought up again, the door was all but slammed in their faces when the Mayor essentially turned the matter of deciding over to the Town Manager based upon whether the Town has enough staff to do the job!

Hello! If the Town does not have enough staff to do the jobs they should be doing, then just what the heck is going on???? AND, what is being done about it!!!! Trying to save people a few bucks of tax money when you are costing them a heck of a lot more in decreased property values, decreased quality of life, and increased insurance (just to name a few)…..we should thank you for this?????? Do you really think citizens are that stupid???? Well guess what, we’re not. We can see the $$$$ on the wall!!!!

We apparently do not have enough staff to do inspections concerning erosion and sediment control (even at our own Aquatic Center). We don’t have enough staff for the Planning Department to do what they use to do but stopped doing? We do not have enough staff to insure that elected and appointed officials are provided with all appropriate information necessary to make important decisions?

Mr. Mayor, perhaps in education you found it appropriate to just stop having math or science taught because you didn’t have enough staff? I’ll just bet the parents and School Board would love that approach! Or maybe you’d decide not to send an ambulance out to a vehicle accident because there might be too much work to do? Or, perhaps you would tell the Police Chief not to send an officer out to work an intersection where a traffic light was out because there just aren’t enough officers?????

I doubt it! I think you would take those things pretty seriously and deal with the issues as needed. Well, the issue of landuse is pretty darned serious. The issue of stormwater is pretty darned serious. There issue of codes enforcement is pretty darned serious.

Mr. Mayor, I think it is time to get serious about your responsibilities to the Town. It is not the Town Manager people are coming to with issues. It is not the Town Manager that people elected to represent them. It is not the Town Manager who decides the menu at those Town Council meetings. Let’s start dealing with issues rather than ducking them.

Is it time to change or is it time for change? Guess you are the decider on that part of the equation. Of course, you can sit back, do nothing, be non-commital, pass the buck, and wait for election time to come around. Maybe citizens are already looking around for your replacement since rumor has it you won’t run again. Is that why you don’t seem to care any more?

For more reading on the staff analysis debate:

Christiansburg, VA Comprehensive Plan and Stormwater/Flooding….Interesting Reading

Why is a Staff Analaysis a good thing for Planning Commission and Town Council to have?

Town of Christiansburg Finance Committee Meeting: 1st Budget Discussion.

Christiansburg VA Town Council Meeting Full of Surprises

INFORMATION NEEDED! Where are the staff reports for land use issues?

Comprehensive Plan vs Comprehensive Plan Map, Reading Between the Lines

Planning Commission Recording

A good use of property but a very bad way to allow it to happen. Rezoning from R-2 to B-3

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 22, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Watch a Town Council or Planning Commission Meeting in the comfort of your home.

22 Jul

For almost a year now, I have been recording (audio or video) of the Town of Christiansburg Town Council and Planning Commission meetings and posting them online for people to see. I just updated the website http://www.myvaresources.com with the newest. They include the July 6 Planning Commission Meeting and the July 7 & 21 Town Council Meetings. (Sorry, I missed the July 20 Planning Commission Meeting due to illness.) These are not professional recordings by any means. They are, however, an open and honest attempt to provide the citizens of the Town of Christiansburg with information about what their government does and why things happen the way that they do.

The link above takes you to the entrance of the full website (which contains a lot of other information) and there are links across the top to click on to go to specific areas. The link labeled **Video of Meetings” will take you to a page with all of the recordings that are currently available. (Some of the older ones have been removed to save space on the server but are available, just let me know what you need).

One of the patterns you will notice can be found in the responses of the Mayor: “Let’s wait and see.” Last night he provided a new variation on that theme: “Let’s wait and monitor” or “Let’s wait and watch”. (Based upon a review of the historical minutes, this translates into Let’s do anything we can to pretend we’re doing something until the issue goes away!)

I am starting a list of such statements that appear to be designed to take action by not taking action. This type of attitude has cost the Town a lot…and I am sure will cost the Town a great deal more as times progresses. This is an awful lot like putting a band-aid on a cut without cleaning it and applying antibiotic first. It looks good on the surface, but it can lead to some serious problems later. You can’t hide issues forever. At some point, you have to take charge, show some leadership and start dealing with the issue. (Since this specific issue realted to stormwater, erosion & sediment control, it is nteresting that the Town of Christiansburg is under a Corrective Action by DCR for failure to document inspections related to erosion/sediment control and stormwater.)

Watch the video and you will see some good examples of where those leadership qualities were exhibited by Michael Barber, Ann Carter, Henry Showalter, and Jim VanHoozier. Leadership means being outfront, making decisions, and getting things done. IT DOES NOT MEAN LET’S WAIT AND SEE! Rather than Waiting to See, why not come up with a solution. If a solution is not currently present, then set up some specific critera where followup reviews are done on a regular basis until such time as the issue is resolved. Mr. Mayor, it is time to take some positive action rather than negative inaction!

It is a crying shame that one of our older citizens cannot enjoy her property in her retirement years. People build homes with yards with a reasonable expectation that the property can be used as they wish. Who knows maybe you or one of your family members will be the next person to have such a problem.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 22, 2009 in Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Christiansburg’s Most Wanted: Is a Planning Commissioner out there?

20 Jul

The July 15, 2009 issue of the Roanoke Times Current sports this ad:

Christiansburg Planning Commission

The Town of Christiansburg, Virginia is now accepting applications for candidates for the Christiansburg Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the Town Council and makes recommendations on items such as rezoning requests, Conditional Use Permit requests, and amendments to Town Code. Planning Commission members are qualified by knowledge and experience to make decisions on questions of community growth and development, are required to be Town residents, serve four year terms, and are compensated $25.00 per meeting attended. Planning Commission appointments are made by Town Council and will become effective immediately for the remainder of the vacant term.

The Town will accept cover letters, resumes, and applications until Friday July 31, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. at the Town Manager’s Office, Town Hall, 100 E. Main Street, Christiansburg, VA 24073. A Town of Christiansburg job application is required and may be obtained at the Town Municipal Building during normal office hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. EOE.

Okay now folks, here is an opportunity for you to have some say as to how things are going and growing in Christiansburg. Along with the recommendations mentioned above, there is one VERY IMPORTANT role that the Planning Commission members have … the Development and Review of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.

Anyone have any idea why you have to go to Town Hall to pick up the application instead of applying on the website as for other positions? Seems like just another hurdle to reduce the number of applicants to me.

I will also note that minority groups are severely under represented on this Commission. Hopefully, this will be the opportunity for that to change. If there is anyone interested in applying and would like any assistance in getting their paperwork done or would like to know what the State Codes say about the job of Planning Commissioner, I will be happy to assist. Use the contact author link on this page, email me at calindstrom@verizon.net, or call 540-382-6431.

***and no, I can’t apply. If I did who would handle the camera and audio recorder for the meetings?:)***

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 20, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Environment, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Town of Christiansburg has finally put all of Town Code Chapter 10 on Town website!

15 Jul

A few weeks ago, I noted that the Town of Christiansburg had finally posted all of Chapter 10 of the Town Code on the Town’s website. That was the only chapter of the code that I had found that was not posted in its entirety. I figured that maybe it was because things were being updated.

While the full document has been available at MyVAResources.com for over a year (including all 3 Articles), the Town had only posted Article I (Erosion and Sediment Control. Article II (Stormwater Management) and Article II (Illicit Discharge) were omitted from the Town’s website.

Once the Town loaded the missing sections, I decided to compare it to what I had received to see what changes had been made. There were absolutely NO changes to Articles II and III. Those had just been omitted from the website for months with no apparent reason.

There were, however, a few changes found in Article I which had been previously posted but has now been reposted with those changes included. It appears that some of those changes may have been related to the DCR report I have been writing about. In summary, here are the changes that I found:

Article I. Erosion and Sediment Control

Sec. 10-1 Definitions

Added:

Department means the Department of Conservation and Recreation

Development means a tract of land developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three or more residential dwelling units.

Natural channel design concepts means the utilization of engineering analysis and fluvial geomorphic processes to create, rehabilitate, restore, or stabilize an open conveyance system for the purpose of creating or recreating a stream that conveys its bankfull storm event within its banks and allows larger flows to access its bankfull bench and its floodplain.

Peakflow rate means the maximum instantaneous flow from a given storm condition at a particular location.

Permittee means the person to whom the permit authorizing land-disturbing activities is issued or the person who certifies that the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed.

Person means any individual, partnership, form, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town, or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth, any interstate body, or any other legal entity.

Program Authority means the Town of Christiansburg which has adopted a soil erosion and sediment control program that has been approved by the Board.

Runoff volume means the volume of water that runs off the land development project from a prescribed storm event.

Single-family residence means a noncommercial dwelling that is occupied exclusively by one family.

Water quality volume means the volume equal to the first one-half inch of runoff multiplied by the impervious surface of the land development project.

Sec. 10-4. Local program; adoption of state standards and regulations.

Added:

(f) In accordance with, §10.1-561 of the Code of Virginia, stream restoration and relocation projects that incorporate natural channel design concepts are not man-made channels and shall be exempted from any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or man-made channels.

(g) In accordance with §10.1-561 of the Code of Virginia, any land-disturbing activity that provides for stormwater management intended to address any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or manmade channels if the practices are designed to (I) detain the water quality volume and to release it over 48 hours; (ii) detain and release over a 24-hour period the expected rainfall resulting from the one year, 24-hour storm; and (iii) reduce the allowable peak flow rate resulting from the 1.5, 2, and 10-year, 24-hour storms to a level that is less than or equal to the peak flow rate from the site assuming it was in good forested condition, achieved through multiplication of the forested peak flow rate by a reduction factor that is equal to the runoff volume from the site when it was in a good forested condition divided by the runoff volume from the site in its proposed condition, and shall be exempt from any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or manmade channels.

Sec. 10-5. Erosion and sediment control plan—When required; exceptions.

Added:

(h) Variances: The plan-approving authority may waive or modify any of the standards that are deemed to be too restrictive for site conditions, by granting a variance. A variance may be granted under these conditions:

  1. At the time of plan submission, an applicant may request a variance to become part of the approved erosion and sediment control plan. The applicant shall explain the reasons for requesting variances in writing. Specific variances which are allowed by the plan-approving authority shall be documented in the plan.

  2. During construction, the person responsible for implementing the approved plan may request a variance in writing from the plan-approving authority. The plan-approving authority shall respond in writing either approving or disapproving such a request. If the plan-approving authority does not approve a variance within 10 days of receipt of the request, the request shall be considered to be disapproved. Following disapproval, the applicant may resubmit a variance request with additional documentation.

      (I) In accordance with the procedure set forth by §10.1-563 (E) of the Code of Virginia, any person engaging in the creation and operation of wetland mitigation banks in multiple jurisdictions, which have been approved and are operated in accordance with applicable federal and state guidance, laws, or regulations for the establishment, use, and operation of mitigation banks, pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Quality, the Marine Resources Commission, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, may, at the option of that person, file general erosion and sediment control specifications for wetland mitigation banks annually with the Board for review and approval consistent with guidelines established by the Board.

Sec. 10-9. Monitoring, reports and inspections.

Added:

(f) Inspection frequency shall be in accordance with 4VAC 50-30-60.

——————————————————-

Those are all of the changes that were made when Article I was updated, but as you will note, they were some fairly important issues. I have added links to the specific codes referenced so that you can look further into the issues if you wish.

The most significant issue all of this (DCR Corrective Action, updating of codes only when forced to) brings to me is one question. How common is this type of issue throughout the Town Code? What other areas are audited and by whom? If these types of changes were initiated by the State years ago and only now being applied (by force) to the Town of Christiansburg, what other issues have been treated the same way?

This disregard for keeping codes current that are so closely related to health, welfare, safety, property values, insurance rates, etc. is unacceptable. Reading the full document, it shows clearly exactly how impotent the Town Council is once a property has been rezoned. Virtually nothing can be done by way of enforcement of these ordinances without the willingness and action taken by the Town Manager. The Town Council has no control except to control the behavior or OR the identity of the Town Manager.

These changes are a least part of the ones that were voted on back in December as updating the ordinance following a DCR audit. It is nice to see that something has finally arrived to show what Town Council voted on at that meeting. But, I can’t help but wonder, given the pattern of behavior here, if there are not possibly other changes the Council voted on at that time that still haven’t seen the light of day.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 15, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Environment, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Erosion & Sediment Control Corrective Action Required in Christiansburg Part 6

14 Jul
RELATED ARTICLES:

Despite the issues noted, page 31 of the pdf document (DCR report./Corrective Action) gives a Local ESC Program Rating that reports the following. While not a perfect score, it clearly shows those areas where opportunities exist for the Town of Christiansburg to improve its performance when it comes to the management of Erosion & Sediment and Stormwater.

CERTIFIED PERSONNEL (Scored 45 of 45 possible points):

  1. Locality has a Certified Program Administrator
  2. Plans are reviewed by a Certified Plan Reviewer
  3. Inspections are conducted by a Certified Inspector

ESC Ordinance (Scored 45 of 45 possible points):

  1. All required items are present and correct and all optional items are included.

General Program Administration (Scored 8 out of 10 possible points)

  1. 2 points for Locality charges plan review/land disturbance permit fees.
  2. 2 points for Locality requires pre-construction conference.
  3. 0 points for Locality has developed an ESC application package, including standard forms and instructions
  4. 2 points for Locality uses a database or attaches a standard tracking/summary sheet to the project folder
  5. 2 points for Locality organizes ESC documents by project.

Plan Reviews (Scored 85 out of 100 possible points)

  1. 20 of 20 points: Prior to commencement of land disturbing activity, an approved plan or agreement-in-lieu-of-plan is required for all projects.
  2. 5 of 5 points: Where there is a plan or agreement in lieu of plan, designation of a Responsible land Disturber or individual holding a certificate of competence is required prior to commencement of land distrubing activity (UNLESS APPROPRIATELY WAIVED)
  3. 5 of 5 points: Plans are reviewed within 45 days of receipt.
  4. 5 of 5 points: The plan reviewer states in writing the reasons for disapproval and specifies the needed modifications for approval.
  5. 20 of 30 points: 70% of reviewed plans meet the applicable Minimum Standards (should have been 100%)
  6. 10 of 15 points: 70% of reviewed plans comply with VESCH guidelines (should have been 100%)
  7. 5 of 5 points: Maintenance responsibilities for ESC measures are included in the approved plan
  8. 5 of 5 points: Locality maintains a copy of approved plan or agreement in lieu of plan and associated documentation until final stabilization
  9. 5 of 5: Variances are requested and responded to in writing
  10. 5 of 5: Other considerations: Locality implements two of the items listed below:
    1. No. maintenance agreements for permanent facilities are required for plan approval.
    2. No. Plan preparers and plan reviewers use the minimum standard and plan review checklists and the checklists are maintained in the project file.
    3. YES. Opportunity for inspector review and recommendation is incorporated into the plan review process.
    4. No. When plan review is provided by a SWCD or other outside source, the plan reviewer meets with the inspector(s) prior to commencement of land disturbing activity.
    5. No. Lot by lot grading plans are required for plan approval of subdivision projects.
    6. Yes. All plans are stamped and dated upon approval

Inspections (55 of 100 possible points earned)

  1. 5 of 15 poinst for: inspections are conducted during or immediately following initial installation of erosion and sediment controls. Based upon: For at least 50% (but no more than 69%) of reviewed projects, inspections occurred during or immediately following installation
  2. 0 of 20 points: Inspection frequency satisfies the requirement of 4VAC50-30-60. Based upon: Inspection frequency averages greater than once in every four week period or the locality has not fully implemented it’s Board approved Alternative Inspection Program.
  3. 15 of 20 points: Inspection documentation meets program requirements. Based upon: documentation includes project name, inspection date, violations, changes that are required, and notes on verbal or written communications with responsible party. (Note: the missing component that would have given them all 20 points was – deadlines for correcting violations.)
  4. 20 of 30 points: Visited sites meet the VESCR Minimum Standards. Based upon: Each visited site meets all but two of the applicable Minimum Standards (Note: If this had been three instead of two, the score earned would have been zero.)
  5. 10 of 10 points: Inspections were conducted at the completion of a project and prior to release of any performance bond. Based upon: At least 70% of the sites were inspected at project completion.
  6. 5 of 5 points: Inspection Management. Based upon: Locality implements two or more of the items listed below:
    1. Yes: Procedure in place to coordinate plan changes resulting from inspection activities with the plan approval authority.
    2. NO: The responsible party is required to submit monitoring reports to the plan-approving or permit-issuing authority.
    3. Yes: When variances are requested during land disturbance they are responded to in writing.
    4. Yes: A pre-construction meeting is held on all sites requiring a plan.
    5. Yes. Duplicated copies of inspection reports are left on-site with the responsible party.
    6. NO: As-built documentation is required for all permanent SWM facilities installed to meet Minimum Standard 19.

Enforcement (80 of 100 possible points)

  1. 20 of 30 points: When violations noted on written inspection reports remain during subsequent inspection(s), Notices to Comply (or equivalent action) are issued. Based upon: Where violations remained, NTC were issued 70% of the time.
  2. 10 of 10 points: Notices to Comply (or equivalent action) contain specific measures that need to be taken and specify deadlines for completion. Based upon: Yes or inspection documents and site visits indicate enforcement was not necessary.
  3. 10 of 10 points: Advanced enforcement such as Stop Work Orders (or equivalent action) contain specific measures that need to be taken and specify deadlines for completion. Based upon: Yes or inspection documentation and site visits indicate enforcement was not necessary.
  4. 30 of 30 points: Advanced enforcement such as Stop Work orders (or equivalent action) were issued when appropriate. Based upon: Advanced enforcement was issued 100% of the time or inspection documentation and site visits indicate advanced enforcement was not necessary.
  5. (4 individual components worth 5 points each for a total of 20 points: 10 of 20 points earned.)
    1. 5 of 5 points: Locality has developed or utilized standard enforcement documents
    2. 0 of 5 points: Locality has disseminated an enforcement policy to the development community.
    3. 0 of 5 points: Locality has developed a schedule of civil charges/administrative fines.
    4. 5 of 5 points: Bond revocation, civil penalties, criminal penalties, etc. are used to secure compliance.

Well, that’s it for my review of the DCR Audit and Corrective Action. Hope you have learned as much as I have. It will be interesting to see what actions the Town has taken to correct these issues. Come to Town Council meetings and bring your questions with you. It is your property, your town, and your government.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 14, 2009 in Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Erosion & Sediment Control Corrective Action Required in Christiansburg Part 5

13 Jul

RELATED ARTICLES:
Part I of series
Part II of series
Part III of series
Part IV of series

I really don’t mean to ‘beat a dead horse’ here, but there is just such a wealth of information in this DCR report. Beginning on page 24 is a series of pages that provide an evaluation of the Inspection/Enforcement Documentation. Granted, this would only mean the documents were or were not available, but based upon my history testifying in Court, I can pretty well assure you that if the paper doesn’t exist, then you have no proof it was ever done!

Unlike the other sections, this is not score on yes/no. Instead the presence and frequency of required documents is noted:

  • AEP Tech Drive Station
    • Inspections documented every 2 weeks
    • No discrepencies found on the report.
  • Christiansburg Aquatic Center
    • While inspections were done in a timely manner (every 2 weeks) and contained appropriate information,there was this comment found:
    • Comments: Repeat violations for slope erosion should necessitate Notice to Comply issuance.
  • Harley Davidson Commercial Site
    • Inspections occurred at least every 3 weeks
  • Kensington Phase I Residential Subdivision
    • Average inspection frequency = at least every three weeks
    • Comments: Notice to Comply issued for ESC violations. Delivered via Certified USPS Mail.
  • AGILOP Lot 108 Wind Mill Hills Subdivision
    • Average inspection frequency = greater than every 4 weeks
    • Inspection document includes: NOTHING!
    • Enforcement was NOT pursued when needed.
    • No enforcement documentation was found.
    • Little or no inspection documentation was found.
    • Comments: No inspection records found in any Agreement in Lieu of a Plan single family residences reviewed
  • AGILOP Lot 2A Ashton Court Subdivision
    • Average inspection frequency = greater than once every 4 weeks.
    • Little or no inspection documentation was found.
    • Comments: No inspection records found in any Agreement in Lieu of a Plan single family residences reviewed
  • AGILOP Lot 34 Falling Branch subdivision
    • Average inspection frequency = greater than once every 4 weeks.
    • Little or no inspection documentation was found.
    • Comments: No inspection records found in any Agreement in Lieu of a Plan single family residences reviewed

Again, the absence of documentation does not mean the necessary actions were not taken. It does mean that there is no proof that they occurred or that they were followed up in the manner and style required, or that they were managed in a timely fashion. Good record keeping is essential to any type of business (and you have to admit, government is a type of business). In particular, good record keeping is essential to open government because these are all documents that belong to the PUBLIC! These are the very types of things that we are paying government (through taxes) to do…to say nothing of the fact that it is a legal requirement to keep such records.

Some may argue that “it has always been done this way”, but that does not make it right. Doing something wrong for 30 plus years does NOT make it right! I think that the Town Council needs to do a better job of oversight. Heck! Since it involves public documents, get a committee together, of citizens and have them review documents for their presence. It doesn’t require a lot of knowledge about the subject to simply determine if required documents are on hand. It does require that one or more people know what is required to be filed. Hmmm…I wonder if DCR would put together a citizen training package to enable citizens to be more proactive.

I am also sure that there will be a thousand and one excuses provided for why the documents were not there….however, the fact remains that the audit by DCR shows that the necessary documentation was not found via their audit. The DCR is mandated to perform functions that affect a lot more people and jurisdictions than just Christiansburg. Their finding should be of note to everyone down stream of Christiansburg. After all, the effects of erosion & sediment, stormwater control do NOT stop at the boundary of Christiansburg. It is in your backyard, Montgomery County and beyond.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 13, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Land Use

 

Erosion & Sediment Control Corrective Action Required in Christiansburg Part 4

11 Jul

All of the previous information has given some insight into the degree of importance the Town of Christiansburg attributes to stormwater issues and erosion & sediment control. This section is based on the actual observations made by DCR professionally trained staff when the project sites were visited.

I feel this shows that NOT ALL SITES ARE TREATED EQUALLY! Pay close attention to the Aquatic Center where some of our own town staff are helping with the work. I hope that better care of that facility is taken in the future than it is during these phases. And, to be so very, very close to a creek that runs into Crab Creek where there are already problems with sedimentation….good grief. Guess my mom was right again: “Judge a peson by what he does, not by what he says he will do.”

Now…to the site visit reports:

  • AEP Tech Drive Station
    • Perfect score!
    • Comments: Road cut to be seeded 10/23/08. Road has good CRS application
  • Christiansburg Aquatic Center (A few NO’s here)
    • Sec. 1: Have all denuded areas requiring temporary or permanent stabilization been stabilized?
    • Sec. 1: Seeded?
    • Sec. 1: Mulched?
    • Sec. 6: Are sediment traps or basins installed where indicated on the plans?
    • Sec. 7: Are finished cut and fill slopes adequately stabilized?
    • Sec. 10: Do all operational storm sewer inlets have adequate inlet protection?
    • Sec. 11: Are stormwater conveyance channels adequately stabilized with channel lining and/or outlet protection?
    • Comments: Drainage channel lacking geotextile lining at arch culvert. Numerous slopes eroding due to inadequate vegetative stabilization. Silt fence & inlet protection failing in numerous areas. No sediment traps present.
  • Harley Davidson Commercial Site Development NO’s:
    • Sec 3: Does permanent vegetation provide adequate stabilization?
    • Sec. 11: Are stormwater conveyance channels adequately stabilized with channel lining and/or outlet protection?
    • Sec. 18: Have all temporary control structures that are no longer needed been removed?
    • Comments: SWM Basin missing outlet protection to receiving channel. Outlet protection into basin not sized properly. Basin requires additional seeding for adequate vegetative cover. Old silt fence has not been removed.
  • Kensington Phase I Residential Subdivision NO’s:
    • Sec. 1: Have all denuded areas requiring temporary or permanent stabilization been stabilized?
    • Sec. 1: Seeded?
    • Sec. 1: Mulched?
    • Sec. 7: Are finished cut and fill slopes adequately stabilized?
    • Sec. 10: Do all operational storm sewer inlets have adequate inlet protection?
    • Sec. 11: Are stormwater conveyance channels adequately stabilized with channel lining and/or outlet protection?
    • Comment: Basin Outfall receiving channel not propertly shaped. Outlet protection of sediment basin undersized. Roadway requires CRS application. Inlet protection failing on some inlets.
  • AGILOP Lot 108 Wind Mill Hills Subdivision NO’s:
    • Sec. 4: Have sediment trapping facilities been constructed and made functional as a first step in land disturbing activity?
    • Comment: Silt fence not entrenched.
  • AGILOP Lot 2A Ashton Court Subdivision NO’s:
    • Perfect score!
    • Comments: No problems observed.
  • AGILOP Lot 34 Falling Branch Subdivision No’s:
    • Sec. 2: Are soil stockpiles and borrow areas adequately stabilized or protected with seeding and/or sediment trapping measures?
    • Sec. 4: Have sediment trapping facilities been constructed and made functional as a first step in land disturbing activity?
    • Comments: Silt fence not entrenched. Stakes on wrong side of silt fence. Stockpile silt fence not entrenched.

This series will conclude tomorrow with the Inspection/Enforcement discussion.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 11, 2009 in Environment, FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts