• These are hard economic times and to raise the costs to developers (which would be passed on to the consumer) were not needed and would, in effect, be a ‘tax’.

Sidewalks, the absence of and the degradation of existing ones have long been topics with citizens and government. What started as a general discussion on a possible ordinance change requiring sidewalks in residential areas went through a series of transmutations that have let us with what will be presented to the public at this meeting. Although not available on the town’s website for quick and easy citizen access, I have been getting copies at each step along the way, and I am providing what I believe to be the most recent copy of the proposed amendment here. Note: this addresses Chapter 26 Subdivisions and Chapter 30 Zoning.

Within Chapter 26 Subdivisions, you will find proposed changes in bold print:

• Sec. 26-7. Generally (d), (1) Dedications: added the phrase: Subdividers choosing the compact development option as detailed in Chapter 30 “Zoning” shall not be compensated for dedications exceeding ten percent.

Within Chapter 30 Zoning, you will find proposed changes in bold print:

• Sec. 20-1. Definitions: Open space. Any space reserved for common use (as among a homeowners association or as common space in apartment complexes) as to provide for outdoor living, patios, pools, lawns, play areas, walks, wooded areas and the like, but not including driveways and parking areas with the exception of driveways and parking areas strictly for community buildings, picnic shelters, ball fields, trails, pools, and similar common use amenities located within the open space.
• Article VII. Residential Manufactured Home Subdivision District R-MS, Sec. 30-63 Yards.: Sidewalks shall be required for all new development. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may waive this requirement in circumstances that sidewalks do not provide desired connectivity and/or are not physically practical due to site limitations provided the owner/developer makes a contribution in an amount approximate to the sidewalk installation cost to the Town of Christiansburg to be utilized for sidewalk improvements and/or repairs in other locations. The Zoning Administrator/Town Manager may refer the decision regarding the connectivity and/or practicality to the Planning Commission should there be any doubts. The Town Manager/Town Engineer shall make the determination of the approximate sidewalk installation cost. (Code 1972, § 30-63; Ord. of 6-20-89; Ord. 2007-1 of 4-3-07)
• Article XXII. Miscellaneous Provisions. Sec. 30-200. Compact development option. (This whole section was added. Use the link to go to the document to see it in detail. Essentially, it is a voluntary option that allows developers to obtain higher density in exchange for providing sidewalks/trails in R-1A, R-1, R-2 and R-3 Residential Districts and MU-1 and MU-2 Mixed Use Districts. It specifically excludes any single-family residential and two-family residential development on existing public streets..)

You will note that rather than a Town-wide approach to requiring sidewalks in residential areas, it has become an isolated optional application for certain Zoning designations.

From the Feb. 2, 2010 Town Council Minutes Item 3 in Discussions (http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_02_02TC/2010_02_2TC4.html):

• SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.  Councilman Showalter encouraged fellow Councilmembers to support adopting an ordinance that would require developers to place sidewalks in medium to high density subdivisions.  Councilman Stipes said he supports this as a requirement for all three residential zoning districts.  Councilman Barber commented that lack of sidewalks in Town is a common complaint of citizens and he would like to see this action taken immediately.  Councilman Vanhoozier suggested forming a committee to review the matter since it will require a change to Town ordinance.  Mayor Ballengee turned this matter over to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to Council within three months.

From the March 2, 2010 Town Council Minutes:http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_03_02TC/2010_03_2TC2.html

• Mr. Craig Moore, Planning Commission Chairman, to address Council regarding open space and sidewalk requirements.  Mr. Craig Moore asked Town Council to clarify its direction that the Planning Commission review open space and sidewalk requirements (see Town Council Minutes of 2/16/10).  Per Mr. Moore, the Planning Commission is unclear as to whether the Town Council wants the Commission to study if open space and sidewalk requirements should be modified; or does Town Council want the open space and sidewalk requirements modified and it want the Planning Commission to focus on design standards.  If the direction was for the Planning Commission to focus on design standards, then the time involvement will be greater than three months.  Some of the areas that would need to be studied for a design plan for sidewalks are:  Cost, drainage, curb/gutter, maintenance, ditches, environmental impact, connectivity, and safety.  Minimum requirement threshold and usage would need to be studied for open space modification.  Mayor Ballengee, noting that Town Council needs to give the Planning Commission perimeters for review, turned to Councilman Showalter for comment.  Councilman Showalter suggested Town Council have a work session to review VDOT’s minimum standards on these issues as a starting point.  The Planning Commission would be involved with this work session.  A work session date of March 23, 2010 was determined by Council, with a time to be announced at a later date.

March 16 Town Council Minutes Town Manager Report: (http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_03_16TC/2010_03_16TC3.html)

• TOWN MANAGER TERPENNY reported that a joint work session with the Planning Commission has been scheduled for March 23, 2010 from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M., to review and discuss VDOT standards, sidewalks, and green/open space.

March 23, 2010 Town Council – Planning Commission Work Session on Sidewalk Ordinance, no citizen comments allowed. Includes Power Point Presentation.) (http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_03_23TCWS/2010_03_23TCWS1.html) (3 parts). This set of videos holds the most information on what citizens have said and what has been seen in the neighborhoods. Even the Mayor indicated that he had clearly seen the need for sidewalks in his own neighborhood. And, the discussion was clearly concerning ALL residential developments. It was also pointed out that this ordinance could remove the ‘case-by-case’ application and create and even ‘playing field’. Currently a total of 4 miles of sidewalks exist with the boundaries of the town of 136 miles of roadway. This 4 miles includes those ‘crumbling sections of sidewalks in older areas of Town per the Town Manager. This was also the first time that ‘citizens might like this but developers not like it’ came up in any discussions and it was brought up by the Mayor. Additional discussion on green space indicated that some Council and Commission members felt that useable green space was key to any ordinance changes. The Town Manager advised that there are differences between green space, open space, and recreation space (either passive or active), but he did not provide definitions those terms. (Definitions found in Town Code follow) The discussion indicated some confusion as to what the State Code actually allowed and it was requested that more information be provided Council.

From the Christiansburg Town Code:

• Open space. Any space reserved for common use (as among a homeowners association or as common space in apartment complexes) as to provide for outdoor living, patios, pools, lawns, play areas, walks, wooded areas and the like, but not including driveways and parking areas.
• Required open space. Any space required in any front, side or rear yard or as delineated on an approved site plan or otherwise specified in this chapter.
• Greenspace. Area of non-impervious surfaces. Landscaping/landscaped areas may be counted toward greenspace.
• Recreation space (active or passive) not found.

That is all of the Town Council input that has occurred in the public eye, PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, on this matter and expresses the intent of Council in referring this to the Planning Commission for review.

Unfortunately, there are no minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting so the agendas will have to suffice (augmented, of course by those videos which are available):

• Feb. 22, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda: 3) Consideration of amendment to the Christiansburg Town Code in regards to sidewalk requirements and open space requirements in Residential Districts. (No video available of this meeting.)

• March 29, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda: 5) Consideration of amendment to Chapter 30 “Zoning” of the Christiansburg Town Code in regards to sidewalk requirements and open space requirements in Residential Districts. Parts 2 and 3 of the Meeting Video Files (http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_03_29PC/2010_03_29PC2.html)
• April 5, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda: 1 ) Consideration of amendment to Chapter 30 “Zoning” of the Christiansburg Town Code in regards to sidewalk requirements and open space requirements in Residential Districts. http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_04_05PCHistDist/2010_04_05PCHistDist1.html
• April 12, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda: 4 ) Consideration of amendment to Chapter 30 “Zoning” of the Christiansburg Town Code in regards to sidewalk requirements and open space requirements in Residential Districts. http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_04_05PCsidewalks/2010_04_05PCSidewalks1.html
• April 19, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda: 4 ) Consideration of amendment to Chapter 30 “Zoning” of the Christiansburg Town Code in regards to sidewalk requirements and open space requirements in Residential Districts. http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_04_19PC/2010_04_19PC2.html
• May 24, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda: 4 ) Consideration of amendment to Chapter 30 “Zoning” of the Christiansburg Town Code in regards to sidewalk requirements and open space requirements in Residential Districts. http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_05_24PC/2010_05_24PC2.html
• June 14, 2010 Planning Commission Agenda: 2) Consideration of amendment to Chapter 26 “Subdivisions” and Chapter 30 “Zoning” of the Christiansburg Town Code in regards to sidewalk requirements and open space requirements in Residential Districts. http://myvaresources.com/VideoFiles2010/2010_06_14PC/2010_06_14PC1.html
• August 16 Planning Commission Agenda: 1) Public hearing for Council’s intention to adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 26 “Subdivisions” and Chapter 30 “Zoning” of the Christiansburg Town Code in regards to provisions for a compact development option and sidewalk requirements and open space requirements in Residential Districts. (Sorry, I’m not that good:), have to wait for the meeting to occur.)

Arguments against requiring sidewalks in all new residential developments have included:

1. Almost all land is already developed. There are few places where such an ordinance would apply. (No discussion of how this would also affect future lands annexed by the Town.)
2. It would be a hardship on developers because it would cost more.
3. It would be a hardship on home buyers because the cost would increase. (That pretty much gets rid of the argument of costing developers more because the cost would be passed on to consumers. And, is recouped by the property owner through increased home value upon resale.)
4. Since there are few sidewalks in existing areas, there is no need to provide ‘connections’ with new developments.
5. Who would be responsible for upkeep and maintenance of the sidewalks? Home owners or the Town?
6. People do not use sidewalks now. (Yeah, it is a fairly common phenomenon that people do not use what does not exist.)
7. Previously, the requirement in Commercial areas for sidewalks have not been fairly applied to all developers. Some did not have to do it and others did.
8. Sidewalks being required for all is not appropriate where there are only one or a few lots in an area where there are no sidewalks. (This seems to have created the shift to new developments only.)
9. VDOT does not hold jurisdiction over Christiansburg roadways and therefore VDOT criteria does not apply.
10. Sidewalks could have a negative impact on on-street parking (which is allowed and encouraged throughout town – on-street parking is necessary where variances on setbacks provide for increased density of developments and more usable land for development).

At one point, it was mentioned that connectivity to existing sidewalks should be considered and a study to see exactly what sidewalks existed and where people are likely to go was suggested. Planning Director Wingfield noted that a document existed for this (developed YEARS ago) that already filled this purpose. (The concept of doing a current evaluation, including recent growth, died on the vine.) Very little of the discussion by the Planning Commission addresses the safety and well-being of citizens. Mostly, an audience driven discussion, the bulk of the focus was on the negative impact to developers.

This may or may not be an important issue to you. Regardless of your personal level of interest, this is certainly something that has a ‘community’ interest. Safe routes to school, the ability to be able to safely walk or ride a bike to key points within the community, saving a bit of gas money, exercising for your health (car dodging does NOT count as exercise), home values, the overall appearance of the town, impact on developers, and other issues abound. Why not take some time to look at one or more of these videos to see what is being discussed. Then come on out to the public meeting and express your views. In a community, every voice is important.



I try to focus on key issues, particularly those relating to the statutes and codes because I find them so fascinating. I learn something new about them every single day. In the first psychology course that I took I learned one key lesson about being human. ‘ There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion’. Every piece of information presented to you through someone else is either intentionally or unintentionally screened through the values and beliefs of the person giving that information. Being unbiased is a goal to work towards but is never achievable. Some people come closer to that goal than others.

Enough of that, now on to my ‘not totally unbiased, but striving’ report of today’s activities:)

The Planning Commission met at 3pm today but did not have the quorum necessary to take any action such a voting on a recommendation to the Town Council. After some discussion on other items not requiring a vote, the meeting was continued to 6:30pm. At 6:30pm there was still no quorum but shortly after 7pm a 4th member appeared and the 3 items to be voted on were addressed. PC voted to recommend approval of the Main Street Baptist Church and the 1225-C Roanoke St game room Conditional Use Permits.

A major ‘hitch in the get along’ occurred when a motion to approve the rezoning of the Albert Land, LP property (Ivy Ridge/Sage Lane) died on the table without a 2nd to the motion.

At the Town Council meeting the 2 items with PC recommendation to approve passed handily with only a little bit of discussion. A second ‘hitch in the get along’ involving the Albert Land property came up the motion was made to approve but after a lengthy discussion, the motion was pulled from the table and, instead, it was decided that the issue should be returned to the PC for another assessment and possible recommendation in 2 weeks. It was verified that there was ample time for this to occur without TC losing control of the situation and having it default in favor of the developer due to in action.

Unfortunately, sending this back to PC only means that the PC will need to vote or possibly end up with another ‘no vote’ or tie situation. The public hearing has already occurred so no modifications to proffers can be made without starting the process over and holding another public meeting with any new proffers included.

Part of the discussion centered around the issues that all of those nice drawings are pretty worthless if there are not things in the proffers that insure that the concepts such as greenspace, trails, etc. would be followed. (If you want to see the particular issues that Mr. Barber and Mr. Stipes pointed out, you’ll have to watch the videos which I am working on while I write this – hopefully, they will be available early tomorrow.) Once the property is rezoned, the developer can do any by-right development desired. There is no guarantee that there would be any sort of special development requiring a CUP with TC could have some control over. The 4 per acre proffered in the rezoning request, is the same that is required in the requested rezoning. Where the drawings display extensive green space and open space (20-30%) it was not proffered as such so when the subdivision ordinance is applied, it could actually be developed with a minimum of 10% green space. This is a perfect example of how it is that people believe one thing is going to happen but something else is the reality. And, it is all perfectly legal.

I’ll let you know when the videos are ready, in the meantime, suffice it to say that the Albert Land deal is doing a great imitation of a Carousel, going round and round without making any forward or backwards progress. (This soap opera may ultimately top the Edge of Night for run time.)

I,  (enter name here ) do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (elected/appointed position).  According to the best of my ability. So help me God.

The words of this, alone, mean little. True value comes from reading the Constitutions. In particular, I took time to look at the Virginia Constitution to see some of what our elected and appointed officials were taking upon their shoulders.

Some of the most interesting items were found in Article I of the Virginia Constitution, The Bill of Rights:

Intro.:

“A Declaration of Rights made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign powers, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.”

Section 2. People the source of power.

That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

Section 3. Government instituted for common benefit.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 7. Laws should not be suspended.

That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

Section 12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition.

That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

Although only 1 small portion of a fairly large document (See Article 7 if you are looking for specific information pertaining to local jurisdictions.) These sections contain some pretty important information.

The introductory statement clearly shows the intent of the Virginia Constitution is to function as a guide for governance that is strongly rooted in the rights of the people. (Note the word people, not person, not group, not voters, not political party, not any other subset of the ‘people’. Section 2 further denotes that it is the ‘people’ who represent the power of government. It is government that serves the people, not vice versa.

Section 3 discusses the responsibility of government to provide from the ‘common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community”. Furthermore, it is noted that the best form of government is that “which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety …”. This section also provides guidance for what the people can do if government is “found inadequate or contrary to theses purposes”.

I found Section 7 particularly thought provoking as I pondered whether selective suspension or execution of laws would be acceptable so long as the ‘representatives of the people’ approved. Does this imply that so long as elected/appointed officials approve of something, it is right and proper? If so, then Section 3 and Section 7 would be in direct conflict with each other. It you take Sections 3 and 7 together, you see that it would be through the fair and equal application of codes that things would be okay. For instance, selectively apply certain Town Codes to one party and not another would not be acceptable.

Lastly, and most importantly in my mind, is Section 12 that covers Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition. All of the other sections mentioned above would be pretty useless if individuals/groups did not have the right to speak or write of those things which they believe to be incompatible to their basic rights.

Keeping people uninformed and misdirected has become common practice in government and in business. Through the decades, people have been taught to trust where perhaps trust has not been earned. Being a good citizen means taking responsibility for your actions/inactions and accepting your role in monitoring the government that represents you. It is not about political parties, it is about generations of habits that need to be changed and taking an active interest.

More on the topic of the Virginia Constitution will be forthcoming so keep checking back.

Smoke and mirrors. That is how magicians encourage your eyes to be deceived and convince your brain that what you imagine is reality.

Smoke and mirrors 1: Town Council goes through the motions of producing a budget and passing tax increases. OOPS! The eye was not deceived on this one. The vote to increase taxes did not meet the legal criteria for a vote. A state code required a 2/3 majority, but what the town had was had was a tie broken by the Mayor. Back to the wood pile.

Smoke and mirrors 2: Town Council goes through the motion of dealing with budget cuts. Yada-yada-yada…all talk and no action. Ideas were put forward, shot down, revitalized, and then left laying on the table to die of neglect. Oh, wait, there was something about revisiting them in the future. That came about the same time that the Mayor acknowledged that a 5% increase in real estate tax would be needed next year to deal with the rapidly dwindling ‘reserves’ that are being used to offset the deficit. Hold your breath until you see those budget cuts on the table again before the next budget meetings in say…June of next year.

Smoke and mirrors 3: Town Manager wants a 3 plus year contract and the Mayor calls for action on it. Outraged citizens and a little thing called State Law put a crimp in that siphon hose.

Smoke and mirrors 4: Town Manager is asked to resign because they have no faith in his continuing in the position. Okay, that’s kinda hinky wording and sounds a lot like legalese for you want to resign but if you do, you will not get the benefits you want, so we’ll give the appearance of ‘terminating’ you without really ‘terminating’ you so that you get all of your benefits. Actually, it sounds a lot more like there was concern on someone’s part that something was going to happen that would mean the Town Manager’s contract might not be renewed … something like new members of council or possible investigations from outside sources? Maybe a few new lawsuits? I’d bet the Town Council Members who think that they know what has been going on really don’t know more than about 10% of the real facts.

Smoke and mirrors 5: Sage Lane revisited. If it isn’t bad enough to have elected officials paying with fire to create all that smoke. We have to have developers, planning department staff, and planning commissioners contributing some diesel fuel so that the smoke is particularly dense. (By the way you can see the videos of this discussion, copies of documents — including the deed discussed for the right-of-way on Albert Lane at: 07_12_2010 Planning Commission Meeting

At the beginning we get a bunch of rhetoric about VDoT critera (with a mention or two, very causually, of how VDoT criteria is not applicable to Town Roads). Suddenly, Planning Commissioners are focused on VDoT standards. Fortunately, a Sage Lane resident caught the drift and asked for clarification which ultimately indicated that the Sage Lane Road would not be needed in order to meet even VDoT standards (which are not required). Then we get all of this focus on the Sage Lane Rd. being necessary for emergencies. Nothing is said to indicate that the developer simply wants a road there. No…it’s all about safety and emergency access, until someone in the audience pointed out that it is not necessary to have a road in order to have access. Then, the topic shifts to the necessity of the agreements and proffers being vague because of an ordinance change concerning sidewalks. Duh…..this application must be based on current ordinances, you do not base plans on ordinances that might be enacted at some time in the future! What is submitted and approved now would be binding and future changes would not have an affect. Furthermore, the proposed changes would only affect certain types of developments (which currently do not exist in the Town) and would be optional. (This is a whole different smoke and mirrors scam where the Town pretends to be addressing citizen issues while writing ordinances in such as way as to be useless unless the developer wants to do things a certain way.)

Whenever you go to any of these meetings, listen well to what is actually being said. All too often, in the rush of things, the human ear hears what it wants to hear, not what is actually being said. Carefully choosing words can result in statements that appear to say one thing while in actuality say something entirely different. Thank goodness I can watch these videos over and over again to see the gaps.

Yep! The EPA might have to come visit Christiansburg because of all that smoke in the air. On the other hand, if the smoke continues to billow, there is a growing number of citizens with damp pieces of fabric (aka wet blankets) who will find the smoke useful in sending messages to other areas of the State.

Here are a few observations/questions about why this and many other development issues have come up.

1. Poor to non-existent planning.
2. Council not being fully informed before making decisions.
3. Planning Commission not being fully informed before making recommendations.
4. Planning Dept. staff not knowing what information the Planning Commission and/or Town Council need to know in order to make informed decisions.
5. Planning Commission and/or Town Council not wanting to know the information required to make informed decisions.
6. Someone dictating what the Planning Dept. staff is allowed to present to the Town Council and/or Planning Commission, created a very skewed view of things.

At the July 12th Planning Commission Meeting, I reviewed what the Town is calling Staff Analysis packages. These are the packets of information that are provided to Planning Commission and then to Town Council in order for those elected and appointed officials to know the impact on rezoning/development on the Town as a whole and on neighborhoods specifically. It was all I could do to keep from laughing hysterically.

Take a look for yourself. Then take a look at samples I got from other jurisdictions for a comparison.

1. Christiansburg Staff Analysis
2. Examples from other jurisdictions:  Sample 1 Sample 2

You will quickly note that the information that is provided to Commissioners and Council is far more extensive in other jurisdictions.

When I asked Planning Director Wingfield why there was so little information, he responded that he had been told by the Town Manager what was to be given in the report and that the Town Council has said what it is that they wanted.

This sets up two distinctive scenarios: 1) the Town Manager has been controlling what the appointed and elected officials see in relation to any proposed development or rezoning, and 2) the Council members are expected to know what it is that is available for them to ask for and that they have the knowledge/training to know what is important.

I believe that it is part of most programs offering Planning Degrees for students to learn what should be included in such documents. Also, I do not believe that we have any elected or appointed personnel who have degrees in planning. This makes it a lot like going to a proctologist for a toothache! Hello….get a clue…people who are trained to do something, have been examined for their knowledge on that something, might…just might have a tad bit more knowledge than those who do not. In fact, if I am not mistaken, isn’t that why the Town of Christiansburg pays the money that they do for Planners, because of their knowledge.

Talk about waste of taxpayer money. If you are not going to let someone do what they are trained to do then why have people with the training?

If you don’t have people trained making assessments and giving advice, then don’t be surprised when you have problems with whatever area they are working in….i.e., traffic, stormwater, legal issues, etc. You can expect to see problems and LAWSUITS when professional staff members are restricted or incapable of doing the very jobs that they were hired to do.

More on Sage Lane to come, particularly how easily the ‘emergency access’ can be dealt with WITHOUT having to have a ‘road’ there to create traffic issues.

As a side note, Mr. Huppert noted that he was now seeing people out working on sidewalks and that maybe the focus of the Planning Commission on sidewalks contributed to that behavior. Personally, I doubt it. I think it is far more likely that increased activities on sidewalks, groundskeeping, road repair,  landscaping, street cleaning, and other such area, is more likely a function of the fact that with the Aquatic Center finally ‘finished’, all of those town workers were were diverted from their normal jobs to work on the Aquatic Center suddenly find themselves being allowed to work on the routine daily issues of a town.

The Aquatic Center cost town taxpayers a lot more than just the money for the building. Diverting Town staff from their regular duties to work on the Aquatic Center meant that things did not get done! Even the Town Manager has acknowledged that to cut any personnel would mean having to cut services. It should come as no surprise to citizens that basic services were dropped in order to have people work on the Aquatic Center. Town Council has asked for an accounting of the number of town staff hours involved in the development of the Aquatic Center several times in the past and only vague responses have been received.

Maybe the only way that Council could find out the answer to that question would be to ask the workers themselves. Cutting services to taxpayers is not the right way to get the work done at the Aquatic Center. Reportedly, town staff was used to save money. Perhaps this also contributed to the multiple DCR violations on the site for erosion and sediment control as well.

Here’s what the Town Charter says:

1) He has 10 days in which to deliver all property, books and papers:

§ 2.1 2. Surrender of Papers and Property.–If any person, having been an officer of said town, shall not within ten days after he shall have vacated or been removed from office, and upon notification of request of the council within such time as it may allow, deliver to his successor in office all property, books and papers belonging to the town or appertaining to such office, in possession or under his control, he shall forfeit and pay to the town a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, to be sued for and recovered with costs; and all books, records and documents used in any office by virtue of any provision of this act, or of any ordinances or order of the town council, or any superior officer of said town, shall be deemed the property of said town and appertaining to said office, and the chief officer thereof shall be held responsible therefor. (1954, c. 240)
2) This raises the big question of who his ‘successor’ is going to be if the job has not been advertised and the position filled by that time. The Town Charter again comes to the rescue:

§ 2.14. Duties of Mayor.–The mayor shall preside at the meetings of the council, voting only in case of a tie, and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this charter and by general law and such as may be imposed by the council consistent with his office. He shall perform the duties of the town manager during the absence of the town manager or while the office of town manager is vacant. He shall have power to investigate the acts of the various town officers, members of the police, fire and public works departments and all other departments of the town government, whether elected or appointed. The mayor shall have and exercise all power and authority conferred by general law on mayors of towns and not inconsistent with this charter; and shall, from time to time, recommend to the council such measures which he may deem needful for the welfare of the town. (1 954, c. 240; 1968, c. 173)
Clearly, it will be Mayor Ballengee who is taking over the Town Manager’s roles until such time as the position is filled. Christiansburg is lucky to have an Assistant Town Manager, Barry Helms, who is very experienced to be the ‘right-hand’ of the Mayor.

This should make for a fairly smooth transition period, providing ample time for the Town Council to begin development of a job description, job advertising, and the interviews required to find the ‘right person’.

Perhaps the Council will even choose to add some citizens to the review committee as they did with the position of Police Chief. Or, if they choose to handle it like the Rescue Squad, let the members (citizens) elect the person they want to fill the position:) (Wouldn’t that be a hoot!)

Time will tell, and I’ll be watching to see what is done. I am sure it will be an interesting process however it is done.

An additional side note to this is also found in the Town Charter:

§ 2.06. Compensation.–The council shall by ordinance or resolution fix the salaries of all officers and employees of the town elected or appointed by it, or appointed by its authority and may so far as is not inconsistent with the provisions of the charter, define the powers and prescribe the duties of all such officers and employees. To effectuate the powers conferred by general laws as well as the powers herein specifically granted, the council may employ all such persons as may be necessary. (1 954, c. 240)
and in the Town Code:

Sec. 2-3. Record book for ordinances and resolutions–To be kept by Clerk of Council.

The Clerk of the Council shall enter in a well-bound book copies of all ordinances and resolutions passed by the Council. The book in which such ordinances and resolutions are thus entered shall be known as the “Ordinances and Resolutions of the Town of Christiansburg.” The Clerk of the Council shall index such book. (Code 1972, § 2-3)

• Revenue from local taxes and fees increased by 120.06%
• Expenditures increased by 120.32%

Expenses:

• Government Admin Expenses increased by 156.35%
• Public Safety Expenses increased by 234.30%
• Public Works Expenses increased by 128.30%
• Parks & Recreation Expenses increased by 315.24%

Revenue:

• Real Property Revenue increased by 156.20%
• Public Service Corporation Revenue increased by 34.39%
• Machinery and Tools Revenue increased by 178.34%
• Penalties decreased by 36.53%
• Interest increased by 0.79%
• Other Local Taxes increased by 173.44%
• Permits, Fees, & Licenses increased by 241.76%
• Charges for Services increased by 374.55%
• Miscellaneous Revenue increased by 1,499.73%

Specific to Local Revenue:

• Local Sales and Use Tax increased by 87.14%
• Business License Taxes increased by 264.35%
• Franchise License Tax dropped by 18.69%
• Hotel and Motel Taxes increased by 359.70%
• Restaurant and Food Taxes increased by 192.83%

Safety Expenses:

• Law Enforcement and Traffic Control expenses increased by 223.16%
• Fire and Rescue Services expenses increased by 322.66%
• Inspections expenses increased by 176.02%
• Overall increase for services 234.30%

Services:

• Maintenance of Highways, etc. expenses increased by 111.23%
• Sanitation and Waste Removal expenses increased by 200.67%
• Maintenance, Bldgs. and Grounds expenses increased by 42.08%
• Total Increase in expenses of 128.30
• Revenue from Local Charges for these services increased by 395.33%

Parks and Recreation:

• Expenses increased by 319.59%
• Revenues from local charges for services increased by 206.04%

Government Operation:

• Personal Services expenses increased by 202.32%
• Fringe Benefits expenses increased by 332.50%
• Contractural Services expenses increased by 287.43%

Gross Debt:

• Total Gross Debt of the town increased by 205.02%
• Other General Government debt increased by 221.49%
• Enterprise Activities debt increased by 181.36%
• Unfunded Debt has increased by 205.47%

Well, there are the numbers. Feel free to go to the APA site and check for yourselves. Do remember however, that these numbers do not include any of the 2010 fiscal year information where a more than $2 million deficit is hanging. Maybe there is something to be said for Mr. Lemley’s ‘pay as you go’ philosophy that didn’t stay around after he left.

The simple fact is that if the ‘goes out’ is higher than the ‘comes in’ things have to change. Keeping this 14 year pattern going in the same direction is only going to worsen the problem. Town Council needs to get involved in decisions involving expenditures and more aggressively monitor what is spent and where. The Town Council get routing reports from the Town Manager and absolutely nothing in this article should come as a surprise to any of them. After all, it only took me a couple of hours to get all the reports and set up multiple spreadsheets for analysis and I am not a high paid professional. In fact, I did it for free. Now, what will the Town Council do about the budget, expenses, and revenue?

Over the years, the Town Council has slowly (sometimes not so slowly) diverted almost all of its duties over to the Town Manager. We essentially have a ‘show’ council with the Town Manager making virtually all decisions, establishing contracts (i.e. the Aquatic Center), and choosing which laws and ordinance to enforce and when to enforce them (i.e., multiple violations of Erosion and Sediment Control on Town owned property as well as privately owned). The contract is established to maintain it this way, prohibiting the Council from taking back any of that responsibility. Nuff said by me. Please take the survey. It is short, quick and easy. Your input matters.

Town Manager Contract Survey

Christiansburg council discusses contract for manager – Roanoke.com

Why rush a contract? – Roanoke.com

It appears that someone outside of town government has received a copy of that document. Since it wasn’t me, I had to resort to a more inquisitive approach to try to determine what might be up.

Starting with the assumption that the Town Manager is not an Attorney as well as an Engineer, I went back through the data on the ‘pay the bills’ sheets looking for any organizations that the Town might be paying membership fees to that would offer this type of document.

My first look was to the VML site where I found nothing. After a few more trial and error episodes, I finally landed at the ICMA site online where they have a sample government document “Model Employment Agreement that is a downloadable pdf format. Since I did a fairly extensive search and this is the only model I have found, I feel it is safe to assume that this model document is likely to have formed the basis for the Town Manager’s contract. You can view the document as a pdf here or simply click on the link on the ICMA page above. (Please note that this particular document was generated in 2003 and there is no evidence to indicate updates have occurred. This could mean that parts of the document are no longer consistent with State Codes.)

You will find a lot of blank spots on this document which would be where the specifics of a given contract were denoted such as the length of time that the document is in effect. That could be 3 months, 1 year, 3 years, 10 years, etc.

Page 1 of the document (page 3 of the pdf), under Section 3: Compensation subsection C provides information on an annual basis to increase compensation with 4 options available. All of the options address pay increases or bonuses (read the document for more details).

Oops! Sorry got ahead of myself. Start with the Table of Contents. Here is where you can get an overview of everything covered in the document. For example:

• Section 6 Automobile

• Section 7 Retirement

• Section 8 General Business Expenses

• Section 9 Termination

• Section 10 Severance

• Section 11 Resignation

• Section 12 Performance Evaluation

• Section 13 Hours of Work

• Section 14 Outside Activities

• Section 15 Moving and Relocation Expenses

• Section 16 Home Sale and Purchase Expenses

I included those examples because if a precedent is set whereby such a contract is used in the future for the hiring of any new Town Manager, Section 15 and 16 could be particularly important.

Section 9 includes a lot of Termination related details such as #2:

2. If the Employer, citizens or legislature acts to amend any provisions of the [charter, code, enabling legislation] pertaining to the role, powers, duties, authority, responsibilities of the Employee’s position that substantially changes the form of government, the Employee shall have the right to declare that such amendments constitute termination.

So, not only the Town, but the citizens and EVEN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA are limited in making any legitimate changes to the Town Managers functions without the Town Manager being able to decide he has thus been terminated and is entitled to all benefits under the terms of termination.

No reduction in pay can occur unless it is applied equally to all department heads. (How does that encourage good performance?) There are several options listed there which all have the Town as the short end of the financial stick. However, Section 11 gives the Town Manager the right to resign any time he wants without having the town for any inconvenience or extra expense the town incurs due to his actions.

Section 10: Severance, recommends a minimum of one years salary at current pay to be paid in a lump sum. (Glance back at termination section to see that virtually any reason for the Town Manager leaving his position, including breach of contract by either party, warrants this severance pay.)

Section 17: Indemnification, even requires that the Town go beyond the applicable Federal, State, and Local Law to provide legal coverage for the Town manager “against any tort, professional liability claim or demand or other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring the the performance of Employee’s duties”… This even includes independent legal council for the Town Manager at the Town’s expense.

Please read this document. If you have any information as to how accurately this reflects the contract that the Town Council is currently working on, I would love to hear about it.

I cannot believe that this sort of manipulation is under consideration by our Council. At first, I was irate about the timing. Now, I am just disgusted in general.

I want to know what Town Council members knew about this before it was presented by the Mayor in those nice little manilla envelopes. I want to know what Council members may have even provided feedback in setting up the final copy that includes all of the dates and rates.

If Town Council and the Town Manager had any hopes of restoring trust with citizens, this should just about ‘sink that ship’. But, obviously, it is business as usual with no respect for citizens.

This just totally STINKS!!! Read it and form your own opinion.

CMA site online where they have a sample government document “Model Employment Agreement

As to a roughly 3 year contract, there are citizens who have complained to the Town Manager about problems for years without the problem ever being addressed. Maybe that contract should include something whereby he is responsible for paying for the damages to property from sewer and stormwater, for devaluation of homes because of that and because of poor decisions made (i.e., Aquatic Center expansion). Maybe he needs to cover the costs for every time DCR has had to come in and enforce the very laws that the Town is suppose to be enforcing concerning Erosion and Sediment Control.

Maybe, just maybe, if the Council and Town Manager had paid a bit more attention to what citizens wanted instead of what they wanted, citizens would be a bit more agreeable to this contract.