There will be a Public Hearing on a  Zoning Ordinance change before Christiansburg Town Council at their next meeting. The Planning Commission has already had a Public Hearing and last night (1/30/12) they voted on their recommendation to Town Council on that change in zoning ordinance. The vote was a tied: 4 members voted against and 4 voted for the Zoning Change. The proposed change will go to Council with no recommendation by the Planning Commission. On the other hand, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to endorse a CUP contingent upon that Zoning change for a large apartment complex in one specific area. I personally believe that the application is correct for the land it is proposed for, but I have some problems with the changing of a Town Zoning Code in order to allow it to happen.

So, what was the change? Well, I’ve included a copy of the proposed change, 2012 District B3 Zoning Change to allow high density residential and it pertains to Article XII. General Business District B-3, Section 30-100. Permitted uses of the Christiansburg Town Code.

The long and short of it is that the proposed code amendment would add this statement: “and for multi-family dwellings, the density of development shall not exceed the ratio of twenty dwelling units per gross acre.”

How does that affect citizens? To really see the potential impact of such a zoning change you need to take a look at the current zoning map. (Since I had some difficulties getting the Town’s page for this to load on my computer, I’ve provided an extra copy here of that document: 2011 Christiansburg, VA Zoning Map.

You really have to look at the map in order to see what properties are potentially affected by this change, which properties will have the door opened for high density residential development. On the map, it is all of those areas designated in “Red” color which includes a large volume of land.

Then, take a look at all of the land currently zoned as R3 (Multi-Family Residential which is “Yellow” on the map). These sections provide for a maximum density of multi-family dwellings of 10 dwelling units per gross acre (per Christiansburg Town Article VI. Multiple-Family Residential District R-3, Section 30-48).

Next note that there are 2 other designations on the Zoning Map: MU-1 (see Article VIII. Mixed Use: Residential-Limited Business District MU-1, Section 30-69 which allows up to 10 dwelling units per gross acre) and MU-2 (see Article IX. Mixed Use: Residential-Limited Business-Limited Industrial District MU-2, Sec. 30-80, which, again, has a maximum of 10 dwelling units per gross acre). What is most important is to look at exactly how much acreage is actually committed to these Zoning types. You’ll be hard pressed to even find them on the map!!! And yet, these two designations were implemented as a means of providing a location for high-density development!!!

These other areas share the common “10 dwelling units per gross acre” and one other feature. They are limited to a maximum of 2 unrelated individuals sharing a residence.

Now, looking at the Town Code (Article XII. General Business District B-3), Sec. 30-99 Statement of intent. provides this:

This district covers that portion of the community intended for the conduct of general business to which the public requires direct and frequent access, but which is not characterized either by constant heavy trucking other than stocking and delivery of light retail goods or by any nuisance factors other than occasioned by incidental light and noise of congregation of people and passenger vehicles. This district shall include such uses as retail stores, banks, theaters, business offices, newspaper offices, printing presses, restaurants and taverns and garages and service stations. In view of the extensive application of the district and the variety of conditions which may be anticipated, residential uses are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. (Code 1972, § 30-77; Ord. 2004-4 of 9-7-04, § 30-77)

As noted previously, the proposed change in the Zoning Ordinance pertains to Article XII. General Business District B-3 Sec. 30-111 would take the existing Code (Section 30-100. Permitted uses. (a) and change it from the original text:

(a) Any principal use permitted in the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District, with a Conditional Use Permit, except that  uses permitted as conditional uses in the R-3 District but permitted as of right in the B-3 District shall not require a
Conditional Use Permit. Dwellings are subject to the same requirements as in the R-3 District except that a single-family dwelling in association with a permitted office, business or commercial use, in the same building or on the same premises for use by the proprietor or an employee of said business shall be permitted but not subject to said requirements, including one unrelated individual per unit.

to allow for “multi-family dwellings, the density of development shall not exceed the ratio of the twenty dwelling units per gross acre”.

Granted, it will require a Conditional Use Permit which means that depending upon who is in office and how they feel about a particular proposal may be the determining factor in what happens in a neighborhood near you, or in YOUR neighborhood. It also means that citizens will be dependent upon the Town for monitoring and enforcement of the Conditions. (yeah, right, like if a condition gets violated the Town will make someone tear down a bunch of apartment buildings and restore the land). In fact, what would happen if there were violations such as 5 unrelated people sharing the same dwelling? Are there fines? Or, are they just unenforceable words stuck on paper to look good?

Go ahead and take a look at the map. See what areas of Town could be affected by a change in the Zoning Ordinance. Stop and think about traffic problems, the overcrowding of schools, the lack of pedestrian access, limited bus service, impact on existing infrastructure such as water and sewer, and general quality of life related to growth. Of course, given the current economy, it could be that people move out of their homes and into apartments, leaving a lot of empty houses.

At the public hearing, to be held on 2/7/12, Town Council will allow citizens to speak up on the proposed Code change and on the Conditional Use Permit. The packet for that meeting is not available online yet, but it will be there soon. You may want to check the Town’s website often so that you can see what documents Town Council will have before them, or browse through the documents that have been included as part of the Planning Commission Packets for the Jan 30th, and Jan. 23th meetings when these were discussed.

You can also look at the videos of those Planning Commission meetings (http://myvaresources.com/Town%20of%20Cburg/NEWAudioVideo.htm), or Jan. 23rd Planning Commission Videos,  and, Jan. 30th Planning Commission Videos are right here:

Following the last Planning Commission Meeting, where a change in Zoning Ordinance and a CUP for a large apartment complex, I wrote this article:

333 Apartment Complex Coming to the Mall Area in Christiansburg?

At the 1/23/12 Planning Commission Meeting, this came up again. I had reviewed the documents in the packet and saw that there was still no report on how this could affect our schools. “Our schools” does not mean schools that are owned and operated by the Town of Christiansburg. Only Cities and Counties “own” schools, so it is all taxpayers of Montgomery County who foot that bill. However, at the time of the meeting, apparently a statement from MCPS had arrived and been delivered to the Planning Commission.

Unfortunately, I’d already used a couple of minutes of citizen comment time asking that the Planning Commission please address this in their deliberations. There had also been some other issues raised that resulted in a request by the developer’s representative to ask for a delay in the process to deal with those issues. I did not get to see or hear the contents of the MCPS statement so I requested a copy. I just received that copy about an hour ago and I am sharing it here with you:

MCPS Response to CUP for Major Apt. Complex in Cburg

Every change in population density of an area has an impact on public schools. Much of the current overcrowding of the schools has been due to rapid growth. Sooner or later, someone is going to have to pay for the impact on schools. Whether that is a function of “impact fees/cash proffers” to help offset those costs or through increased taxes, or cutting funding to other services. It simply must be done. Here, that means it is up to Montgomery County to establish such a program. Both Towns would have to agree to it though (I believe that is why we don’t already have such as system … only 2 of the 3 jurisdictions supported this issue when it arose several years ago.) § 15.2-2329. Imposition of impact fees.

The object of the fees is to provide a fair distribution of costs of services. Will those costs actually be born by the property owner? Sure, anyone selling homes is going to pass such costs off to buyers. Those are the people who will ultimately be using the facilities. They will be using what other taxpayers have been paying for over the years.

At some point, someone needs to look at the costs of growth. Montgomery County School Board is already having to look at redistricting in order to deal with growth. Some people will find that their children will not be able to graduate from the same schools, have the same teachers/principals as their other children had through school. It could mean that there would need to be a change as to which high school football team their child plays on next year.

Anyway, this is but one of several issues that have been discussed at the last two Planning Commission meeting. The videos for this most recent meeting will be coming soon. Ooops…there they are now:)

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on these a while back, the next regular Town Council meeting will include another public hearing. What is being proposed is a change in the zoning code and a CUP to allow for a 3 story apartment complex with 333 apartments on the land behind Lowe’s. The only point of access is from Farmland off of Franklin, the same access road used by Wheatland (across the street from Sheetz). The apartments would be up to 3 bedroom in size and allow up to 3 unrelated people in each apartment.

Video of Planning Commission Meeting (6 Parts – also available on myvaresources.com video page):

At the Planning Commission meeting, I asked for and received clarification on the 3 unrelated people thingie. That means that only 3 people who are not related to each other could be residing in the apartment at any given time. However, the following scenario could also apply: There could be a family of 5 who shared an apartment with 2 other non-related persons for a total of 7 people (get the picture?).

Traffic studies that were done several years ago were used to indicate that there would be almost no impact on traffic at the street for access. Note that there was no mention of the impact of that many vehicles on other roads and intersections in the area. Let’s see, just off the top of my head, for a worst case scenario (if there are only 3 unrelated people in the household and if there are “related members” in the household they only have 1 car) 3 vehicles per apartment and there are 333 apartments … that comes out to about 999 vehicles to park and to be coming in and out of the complex. I’m thinking that there could we be an impact on local traffic, particularly on Game Days!

Add to that, the issue that Christiansburg uses a “complaint driven” codes enforcement policy adds to the mix by making it the responsibility of citizens to report any apparent violations of the “3 unrelated persons” promise. That means that there could be 20 people living there and unless it is reported by some citizen (usually one willing to suffer retribution for making a complaint) the situation will continue. If a report is made, Christiansburg Police Dept./Codes Enforcement will need to spend time and taxpayer money following up on the complaint. Of course, given the increased traffic and increased likelihood of vehicle accidents, there may be more Police officers in the vicinity anyway and they can save a few minutes there. ( It might be a good idea to check into exactly how difficult these types of complaints are to enforce to begin with!)

If you’ve taken the time to look at the package of materials provided to the Planning Commission, you can see some of the specifics of the complex and it looks very nice on paper. I’m just not sure that given the traffic problems we already have in that area, that now is the time to add this sort of  traffic increase. And, heck, while we’re at it, why not make it so that the owner of the rentals is responsible for costs of any law enforcement costs required to “police” the 3 unrelated persons complaints so that taxpayers don’t have to absorb that costs. If modifications are required to existing water and sewer system in order to maintain quality of service to existing residents, or if additional traffic lights or alterations in roads are required, then the developer should pick up the costs for that as well, not taxpayers.

I hope Council takes a close look at other land adjacent to this which could also be affected by the change in the zoning ordinance proposed in order to allow this development (as well as other areas of town which could also be affected) and thinks about the potential for growth and future traffic increases that could apply.

Why 2 hearing? Well, the job of the planning commission is significantly different from that of council, and they are suppose to make a recommendation to council about the proposal based on the comprehensive plan and existing land use codes. At the core of the problem, in my opinion, is the fact that once something is presented at a public hearing before council (including the joint public hearing) there is little opportunity to really work with citizens and developers/property owners to come up with a solution that works best for all involved.

The planning commission public hearings are the perfect time for citizens and developers/property owners to express concerns and SOLUTIONS. Some have argued that this will make the process longer (by about 2 weeks) and that this works against developers/property owners who may be under time constraints. I propose that an additional 2 weeks that allow for citizen participation and input, as well as an opportunity for the developer/property owner to identify issues that were not noted in the original proposal and work with their “neighbors” to come up with modifications that work, is not a bad thing. In fact, it creates a situation where the project has the greatest degree of success and citizens are happier with the results.  Of course, it does require some investment on the part of citizens and the developer/landowner who must be willing to work together to come up with the best solution.

Another important issue related to this process is the proposed change in the fees required. Example: Previoiusly, one fee was applied to all rezoning requests, regardless of the size of the property. Whether the person owned 1 acre or 40 acres made no difference. If it would ultimately lead to 4 homes on the property or 100, made no difference. If it affected 5 neighbors or 75 neighbors made no difference.

Town Council is be addressing this proposed fee change at their next meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2011. At that meeting a Public Hearing will be held to discuss the new fee structure. You’ll have to check the town’s website for the agenda for that council meeting for the specifics, but what it does is base fees on the size of the property involved. In essence, those proposals involving larger parcels and affecting more people will be covering their fair share of the costs of advertising and notifications rather than letting it fall upon taxpayers to ‘foot-the-bill’ for the difference. (A change well over due!)

While your waiting for the official council agenda version to appear, you can check out what was presented and voted on at the last planning commission meeting at: http://christiansburg.org/archives/66/12-12-2011%20PC%20Package.pdf

For properties less than 5 acres – $500

For properties of 5 -20 acres – $750

For properties greater than 20 acres – $1,000

It remains to be seen if the large property developers/landowners will show up in force to try to get council to vote this proposed change down or not, or if existing citizens and homeowners will show up to support this proposal. If you have an opinion on the matter, consider coming to the public hearing or writing/calling council members to express your opinion.

Overall, it would seem that a more fair and equitable distribution of the costs to the town for having the public hearings would be a welcome change (and a savings for tax dollars, perhaps even enough of a savings to make sure that there is money for the Fall and Spring cleanups!). The separate public hearings will allow for more citizen input and more opportunities would exist for the developer/landowner to work with citizens and the town to increase the likelihood that they can get approval of a project. To me, that looks like a clear win-win situation.

VPAP.org – The Virginia Public Access Project is the source for finding out who is funding each candidate. (My thanks to Mr. Langhrer for this one!)

For instance: Click on the Candidates and Elections link at the top of the page and then go to “House” in the drop down menu. Now, scroll down to  “District 12″ (green in color and underlined) and click on this link.

You will see that Don Langrehr raised $44,191 and Joseph Yost raised $162,570. That’s quite a difference. It makes me wonder why that difference exists. So…. click on “Don Langrehr” and you will go to a page that gives basic information on the number of contributions broken down into various amount groups and types. They are exhibited as Count, Receipt, & Type of Receipt. There are links in some of the Receipt column entries and you can click on those to get information on specific donations.

$0 Starting Balance on July 1, 2011

Count	Receipt	Type of Receipt
90	$26,486	Cash Contributions More than $100
178	$10,614	Cash Contributions of $100 or Less
3	$1,615	In-Kind Contributions More than $100
0	$0	In-Kind Contributions of $100 or Less
	$5,476	Loans Received
	$0	Miscellaneous Receipts
	$44,191	Receipts (07/01/2011-09/30/2011)

Expense	Type of Expense
$9,862	Itemized Expenses
$1,615	In-Kind Expenses
$3,000	Loans Repaid
$0	Surplus Funds
$14,477	Expenses (07/01/2011-09/30/2011)

$29,714 Ending Balance on September 30, 2011

Now follow the same process for Mr. Yost and you see some significant differences.

$0 Starting Balance on April 1, 2011

Count	Receipt	Type of Receipt
46	$124,792	Cash Contributions More than $100
143	$4,893	Cash Contributions of $100 or Less
13	$31,754	In-Kind Contributions More than $100
3	$131	In-Kind Contributions of $100 or Less
	$1,000	Loans Received
	$0	Miscellaneous Receipts
	$162,570	Receipts (04/01/2011-09/30/2011)

Expense	Type of Expense
$30,193	Itemized Expenses
$31,885	In-Kind Expenses
$1,000	Loans Repaid
$0	Surplus Funds
$63,078	Expenses (04/01/2011-09/30/2011)

$99,492 Ending Balance on September 30, 2011

Mr. Langhrer’s largest single contribution was for $1,425 and came from an individual.

Mr. Yost’s funding high came from Dominion Leadership Trust and was for $100,000.

Okay….quick break…google search “virginia pac”. I found this: http://www.vapolitics.net/newpacs.htm. Now a find on that page using the word “Dominion” and the 2nd one found is the Dominion Leadership Trust PAC, Inc. There is a number to the right (VA-02-040) that is underlined meaning that there is a pdf document that contains more information. On page 2 of that document, you’ll find that the sole purpose of the PAC is the “election of republican state legislators”. Number 5 on page 1 shows that the committee is a Political Action Committee for In state use only and has a filing year of 2002 (when it was first organized).

On page 4 of the pdf is a list of Principal Officers:

• William J. Howell, Chairman
• H. Morgan Griffith, Director
• Leo C. Wardrup, Director
• Jeannemarie A. Devolites, Director

Now, back on topic: You can do the same thing for any other candidates in House or Senate. You won’t find the information on our local elections because VPAP’s Local Election Initiative only covers 34 cities and counties and Montgomery County is not one of those. Maybe next year:) Actually, it is a very small portion of the state where there is coverage at the County/City level and virtually none of those are in this end of the state.

I’m always looking for sources of information on elected officials and government. This site has a lot of good information. You should check it out when you can.

What can I say, it takes a long time to load these video files from the LWV candidate forums in Montgomery County, I gotta do something with my time and I really love doing this kind of research. (Now if I could just find a job to pay me to do this:)

On Wednesday October 26 Candidate Forums are being held for:

• Town of Blacksburg, Town council: 7-9pm in Blacksburg Town Council Chambers
• General Assembly Forum is being held at 7pm in the City of Radford at the Radford High School Auditorium

On Thursday Oct 27, General Assembly Forum: 7pm-9pm at the Montgomery County Government Center in Christiansburg.

Voter Guides are now available for all of the forums except City of Radford.

Videos of the three (3) forums already held (Town of Christiansburg, Montgomery County Board of Supervisors & School Board, and Montgomery County Constitutional Officers) are available on the League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, VA 2011 Election webpage (http://lwvmcva.org/LWV-2011Version/2011Elections/MainPage.html) and have been distributed to local libraries as DVDs.

Videos of the Blacksburg and Montgomery County General Assembly forums will be posted as soon as they are available. If a video of the Radford forum becomes available, it will be posted on the LWVMCVA.org website as well.  In the meantime, the Voter Guides give some good information for voters.

• October 13: Christiansburg Town Council: Moderator Mary Housak: 7pm – 9pm, Christiansburg Town Council Chambers (Completed)
• October 17: Montgomery County Board of Supervisors and School Board: Moderator TBA: 7pm – 9pm, Blacksburg Town Council Chambers (Completed)
• October 20: Montgomery County Constitutional Officers: Moderator TBA: 7pm – 9pm, Montgomery County Government Center
• October 26: Blacksburg Town Council: Moderator Chris Trejbal: 7pm – 9pm, Blacksburg Town Council Chambers
• October 26: City of Radford General Assembly: Moderator Clay Waite: 7pm, Radford High School Auditorium
• October 27: Virginia General Assembly: Moderator Chris Trejbal: 7pm – 9pm, Montgomery County Government Center

As these programs are completed, videos of the forums are being posted on the lwvmcva.org website along with Voter Guides. The videos are unedited and don’t require much explanation. However, the Voter Guide is not always clear to everyone.

Part of the process used by the LWV’s for these forums is to send a questionnaire out to all candidates. Each candidate is asked to complete a biography and to give short responses (100 words) to some questions that have been picked by members of the LWV’s. (Hey! You wanna get your questions in on the written form rather than during the videos, you have to join the League:) These documents are given out to the public at the forums and are available on the lwvmcva.org website so that citizens who cannot attend the forums will have access to those as well as the videos posted there.

A link to sample copy of this questionnaire is provided on the Voter Guides section of the first forum listed on the 2011 Election page on the lwvmcva.org website. You will also find links to the video files for each forum on that page:  http://lwvmcva.org/LWV-2011Version/2011Elections/MainPage.html

So, if you have missed either the Christiansburg Town Council Forum or the one for the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors & School Board, you can still watch the candidates and hear their responses to questions generated by the audience.

These forums are but one piece of the whole when it comes to choosing who to vote for in the upcoming elections. Some additional things you might want to consider are:

• If the candidate is an incumbent (currently in office):
• How well have they performed in that capacity?
• How long have they served?
• Did they stand by previous campaign promises?
• If the candidate is not an incumbent:
• Do they have any work related or volunteer experience relative to the position for which they are applying?
• If they do have experience, how much and how does it compare to the duties to which they may be elected to perform?
• These two also apply to “incumbents” as it may be that one person can be an incumbent with extensive experience because of work, while another is an incumbent and experience in office but none otherwise.
• For all candidates:
• Are they making campaign promises that they may not be able to meet?
• This requires a bit of thinking because if they are a member of a group of elected officials, they are but one person and one vote. They cannot precipitate changes by themselves. This requires that they be willing to negotiate and compromise in order to get the best possible option for those they are elected to serve. For those in a singular office (i.e., constitutional officers, it is far more important to know what it is that they are suppose to do in the performance of their jobs and then look at whether or not what they are promising is even possible.
• What is the individual actually campaigning on? What changes do they propose to make?
• If the candidate is running under one or two major issues and does not or cannot articulate how those issues impact other areas, then it could be that the person really does not understand how changes in one area can affect another.

But enough of the general stuff. There are also a few things that I tend to look at, but they may not be of interest to you.

• Does the person follow the rules and regulations? It is fine to disagree with and strive to change rules and regulations, but making conscious attempts to violate the rules and regulation under which they must operate may not be the best thing. It could lead to costly legal action for taxpayers. (i.e., as much as I support the Freedom of Information Act, I know that there are some limits/exceptions which I do not agree with and I will work to change the laws on those. I would not, nor would I ever vote for anyone who violated those laws.)
• Does the person listen to all sides of a story before making a decision, or do they let one person’s wishes dictate their position? (This is easily seen in those who are incumbents. However, if you know the person running, the odds are good that you will see some of those same traits in how the handle things in the rest of their lives (home, work, church, etc.)
• Does the person show a willingness to work with others? Regardless of their position, every elected official has to work with others (employees, supervisors, peers, citizens, etc.) I don’t know about you but I’ve seen more than enough stone-walling in Congress of late to last me for a lifetime. Negotiation and compromise are crucial to effective leadership. A failure to do this results in a “winner” and a “looser”. Compromise makes sure that the best possible option for all is the outcome and while both sides of the argument may have to give a bit, they all end up winning to some degree.

I could go on for quite a bit on these, and I may well do that later. Right now work calls so I’ve got to attend.

Remember the lwvmcva.org website has candidate forums and each of the jurisdictions has videos of the main elected groups (Town Council, Board of Supervisors) offer online videos of their “performance”. The General Assembly only has live video of the current session, so that is not a great resource. However, there are other checks on the General Assembly that you won’t find for local officials. Sites like www.govtrack.us will allow you to check on the voting history and what bills those officials have proposed. Additionally, the Virginia General Assembly website provides access to information on incumbents listed by name. You can quickly see what committees the person is assigned and the Legislation for which they have been Chief Patron or Co-Patron. This gives you a good idea of what areas of interest the elected person has supported.

Is it worth all this work just to vote for someone? Well, I guess it depends on you. You are choosing who will make the decisions that will affect your daily lives and your community. Your vote could be the determining factor. It only take 1 vote to win.

I was well worth my efforts to attend. Although people were listening to speakers, carrying signs, and marching, something else was happening that I feel might be of even greater importance. People were talking to each other. They weren’t just talking to their friends and acquaintances, they were talking with total strangers. (I mean, ya can’t get much stranger than me and I heard a lot!) Walking around the crowd, people were talking about being dissatisfied with government. People were angry about corporate money buying government. They were angry that their needs were coming in 2nd to the needs of big business.

But, they were also talking very positively about change, the importance of voting (regardless of party) for those who will look out for the interest of the people rather than the interest of big business. Effective change begins by seeing a need, discussing the possible alternatives, and then taking action that has as little negative effect as possible. It requires some things that are seriously lacking in government these days, the ability to reason, cooperate, and compromise. To get the ball rolling will likely take removing some of the blockades preventing reason, cooperation, and compromise. Now, how do we accomplish that? Become an educated voter and VOTE! All the marching in the world will not do much good if “we the people” don’t put a stamp on the demand for change in the form of the vote. Furthermore, talk to others, get dialogs going that allow for free and open discussion of what problems exist and how to fix them. Fixing blame and pointing fingers will only generate anger. Forget that and focus on ways to fix the problems that exist.

I heard a lot of people talking about closing existing bank accounts and shifting to smaller local banks. Since this is my blog, and I can write anything I want, let me add that I came from a family where a number of family members worked for smaller local banks. Those banks were taken over by larger banks and guess what, service didn’t get any better, local bank employees lost their jobs, and it became much harder for local small businesses to get help in the form of loans. Some of my relatives argued that the further away from the local people the money got, the less the big banks cared about he impact of their practices on local businesses and customers. After all, it is more cost effective to handle the accounts of big businesses than it is for small ones.

We still have small local banks in our area. Some of the banks have been “taken over” by larger groups but established contracts with the larger banks that kept their control at the local level. Some did not. Maybe some of those people I heard talking will take the time to check on their banks to find out what what level of local control they maintain. Maybe those people will move to banks which have a stronger focus on local customers. Maybe that will speak more loudly to Wall Street and the Big Banking Industry than anything else. Maybe such moves with help to strengthen our local economy and encourage more local businesses. Only time will tell.

Is it true? Well, one place to start looking is the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts (APA). A lot of information can be found there if one but takes the time to look. However, I will note that you have to do a bit of reading as well just to understand what things mean. I figured it was about time for someone to take a look at the revenues and expenditures at different government levels to see if there really  is an argument for double taxation.

The APA does an annual report that includes data on revenue and expenses for all of the Counties, Cities, and Towns in Virginia. What I did was to cut and paste the information from Montgomery County, City of Radford, and the Towns of Christiansburg and Blacksburg so that if there is a difference between how tax revenues (and expenditures) are different, it can easily be seen. This file (pdf) is available here: LocalCompare2010. Although it is 30 pages total, use “bookmarks” to go to a specific section. Each section starts with a list of terms used and their definitions. All of the definitions used in Exhibit C including Exhibits C1-C8 can be found in the Exhibit C section. Section D did not provide any definitions in the APA report. For instance:

In Exhibit A – General Government Revenue and Expenditures, you will find that the Per Capita amount of local revenue for Christiansburg is more than twice that of Blacksburg. It is less than the City of Radford, but more than Montgomery County.

Before anyone shouts about VT skewing the numbers, yes it is true that the on-campus students at Virginia Tech do skew the numbers for Blacksburg. I believe that accounts for about 8,000 in population. If you could remove those from the Population you would see a difference in per capita. Some would argue that you have to compare Christianburg only to another town without a University. That is not quite accurate. You would actually have to compare Christiansburg to another jurisdiction within roughly the same proximity of a University the size of VT and of RU, having a similar population, having similar land features and similar weather. In other words, you can’t really do a direct comparison between Christiansburg and/or Blacksburg with anywhere else in the State of Virginia. You can make some assumptions, but nothing is going to be a close enough match. Soil types and slopes have a direct impact on the cost of roads, sidewalks, paths, etc. and on the upkeep of those things. Being more prone to snow and ice because of difference in elevation requires that extra steps be taken to handle those issues. The number of university students and traffic generated by the university’s events and visitors, increase wear and tear on roads, increase rescue calls, increase demands on police departments, etc.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s look a bit at how what you pay in County taxes may just provide for different things than how your local tax money is used. This information can be found in the sections for Exhibit C & subsections of C1 thru C8.

• Judicial Administration: Although Blacksburg had to pay for some Judicial Administration last year, typically Towns do not pay into those funds. That is a service provided only at the County and City level, and all citizens, whether County or Town pay for and utilize those services. The per capita costs of those for Montgomery County were $28.02, for the City of Radford it was $74.35 (see Exhibit C2 for details)
• Education: Again, this is a financial burden upon the Counties and Cities, not upon Towns. The Towns have no costs for education. In Radford the 2010 data shows $6,229,026 in expenses and Montgomery County had $98,824,370. The Towns have no money invested in the schools and they also have virtually no control over the schools. Each Town however can have a tremendous impact on school by the way in which development occurs. Large growth in specific areas can cause overcrowding of schools, require that more schools be built, require that more mobile buildings are required to provide spaces for students, can result in needing more buses or changes in bus routes which increase costs to the County. Cities are self sustaining and their growth decisions are met by their own taxpayers. (see Exhibit C6 for details)
• Treasurer & Commissioner of Revenue: These are positions which Counties and Cities are required to have, not Towns.  The Treasurer’s Office for the City of Radford had expenses of $307,556 while Montgomery County’s expenses were $1,057,518. The City of Radford’s cost for Commission of Revenue was $158,333 while Montgomery Counties was $1,585,966. (see Exhibit C1 for details)
• Exhibit C3 focuses on Public Safety Expenditures and you will see that Correction and Detention (the jail system) falls again upon City and County expenses but are not a function of Town governments.
• Exhibit C3 also gives details showing that the per capita expenses for Christiansburg are far higher than any of the neighboring jurisdictions but runs only slightly above average. Blacksburg, again we can see the skew generated by VT students being counted in the census shows about half of Christiansburg’s. The costs to taxpayer for inspections is also far higher in Christiansburg than in the other jurisdictions. And, the County and City are required to provide “Other Protection” which the Towns do not.
• Exhibit C5 shows that Health and Mental Health & Retardation services are only provided by City and County governments. If either of the two Towns invest anything at all in those areas, it is actually a donation. Yet, by and far, with the population densities of the two Towns, it could well be that the vast majority of people receiving those services live with the boundaries of the Towns.
• In Exhibit C7, note that Christiansburg has expenses for Parks and Recreation that are more than twice the per capita of any of the other jurisdictions and yet only Christiansburg shows no investment in Cultural Enrichment.
• Exhibit E shows that while all jurisdictions are eligible for state and federal grants only Radford and Blacksburg have any showing as sources of funds.

I haven’t covered all of the areas here, but I hope that you will take the time to look at the full comparison report I set up, and perhaps wander over to the APA website to look at the full reports where you can see what other Cities, Towns, and Counties are doing.

Perhaps though, I have included enough information to help people see that County and Town taxes actually cover different things. Most of what town taxes are used for go to provide town residents with services that county residents do not have or to have elective services. After all, a town police department is not a requirement, the Sheriff’s department could handle all law enforcement (and just who would pick up the tab for the extra officers and equipment?). Fire and Rescue do not have to be supported by the Town, but isn’t it nice to have them close and to have the equipment that exceeds minimal standards?

Perhaps there is enough information here to help people see what a move from Town to City status is likely to cost Town taxpayers in the long run. A lot of people want to see things done differently with the schools. Ranting at Town officials about school problems will not help to accomplish that. Take those issues to the County and the County School Board.

Lastly, perhaps it is a bit more clear that there really are no duplicate taxes for Town dwellers. I suppose you could always try to get the Town to give up Town status and just become a part of the County in order to have only 1 tax ticket, but you’d have to be willing to give up a bit of the “comforts” associated with living in a Town.

So now, it’s off to work on other projects for me. It appears that there is a huge issue with poverty in this end of the state that gets overlooked by some of our state and federal lawmakers. Poverty affects all of us because of the impact it has on education, jobs, economic development, tax revenues, etc…etc…etc.