RSS

Tag Archives: code

“So sue the Town”….Christiansburg Town Council

Ever wonder why the some Town Council members are so quick to say “so sue the town”?

How about because they know it won’t hurt them. It puts the responsibility of citizens to sue ‘the town’ which means the taxpayers of the town. There have been many such suits filed against the Town of Christiansburg and they are normally settled ‘out of court’. Even members of the Town Council have been unable to find out exactly what these cost the town as the Town Manager reports he is unable to discuss due to court order (these cases did go to court, the town lost and financial rewards were negotiated).

As to the Town Council members immunity to being held responsible for arrogance and ignorance while in office:

§ 15.2-1405. Immunity of members of local governmental entities; exception.

The members of the governing bodies of any locality or political subdivision and the members of boards, commissions, agencies and authorities thereof and other governing bodies of any local governmental entity, whether compensated or not, shall be immune from suit arising from the exercise or failure to exercise their discretionary or governmental authority as members of the governing body, board, commission, agency or authority which does not involve the unauthorized appropriation or misappropriation of funds. However, the immunity granted by this section shall not apply to conduct constituting intentional or willful misconduct or gross negligence.

(1987, cc. 261, 290, § 15.1-7.01; 1997, c. 587.)

That last line pretty much says it all. Is it malfeasance for the Town Council to continue making bad decisions when citizens have notified them of issues. Does this not constitute intentional or willful misconduct or gross negligence? Does the same not apply when the Town Council refuses to do those things that are common with other jurisdictions in order to obtain information? Does pure out laziness and incompetence meet the legal criteria? Guess we’ll have to ‘wait and see’.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on May 22, 2009 in Citizen Participation

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

A Little Used Source of Revenue for the Town & Controlling Storm Water, Pollution Issues

(This is a duplicate of http://depotdazed.com – it you’re looking for additional comments, look there.)

Section 10 of the Town Code, even the shortened version on the Town’s website has some interesting information on how the Town could raise revenue without raising taxes.

It is something called Codes Enforcement. From Sec.10-11 (e) of the Town Code:

(e) In addition to any criminal penalties provided under this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter may be liable to the Town in a civil action for damages. The civil penalty for one such violation shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00) except that the civil penalty for commencement of a land disturbing activity without an approved plan shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Each day during which the violation is found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense. In no event shall a series of specified violations arising out of the same operative set of facts result in civil penalties which  exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00), except that a series of violations arising from the commencement of landdisturbing activities without an approved plan for any site may result in a civil penalty of not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Pursuit of a civil penalty may be in lieu of criminal prosecution. The following schedule, which is nonexclusive, of specific additional violations, with the prescribed civil penalty, shall also be in force:

  • Failure to properly install and maintain perimeter controls . . . $100.00 per violation per day
  • Failure to properly install and maintain temporary stone construction entrance . .$100.00 per violation per day
  • Sediment or debris transported onto paved public road by vehicular traffic or runoff . . .$100.00 per violation per day
  • Failure to install and maintain storm drain inlet protection . . . $100.00 per violation per day
  • Failure to install and maintain storm drain outlet protection . . . $100.00 per violation per day
  • Failure to install and maintain vegetative, structural, or any other measure as specified in the minimum standards . . . $100.00 per violation per day
  • Failure to seed and mulch disturbed areas within fourteen (14) days of notice to comply .. . $100.00 per violation per day

When I first saw this, my immediate response was “Good grief, we could pay for the Aquatic Center in less than 2 years if all of this was enforced (given the number of observed and reported violations I’m aware of and how long they have been going on). But, you have take into account cost of staff to handle this. So, okay, 5 years to pay off the Aquatic Center.

There are areas where they have gone to the General Assembly to create ways to utilize volunteers to help make this type of enforcement occur:

§ 15.2-1132. Volunteer property maintenance and zoning inspectors in certain cities.

The Cities of Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Richmond and Virginia Beach may provide that the agency charged with the enforcement of local ordinances adopted pursuant to §§ 15.2-901, 15.2-903, 15.2-904, 15.2-905 and 15.2-908 or city charter relating to the external maintenance of property or local zoning ordinances relating to motor vehicles or trailers as defined in § 46.2-100 may utilize supervised, trained and qualified volunteers to issue notices of noncompliance with such ordinances. Such volunteers shall have any and all immunity provided to an employee of the locality doing an identical job.

(Acts 2000, c. 673; 2002, cc. 31, 451; 2005, cc. 265, 318.)

What a great way to make sure that all of the area is covered! Oh, and that reduces expesnses so now we could pay for the Aquatic Center is maybe 3 years. Remember though that this is only one small section where such violations exist.

(To the person who suggested I be a write in candidate for Mayor: You wouldn’t want that to happen unless you wanted to see stuff like this developed with the Town of Christiansburg.)

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on May 20, 2009 in Environment, Land Use, Your Tax Money

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Stormwater Management Ordinances for Town of Christiansburg are MIA

I have dropped a lot of hints to see if people would look but nobody has mentioned anything yet. The Town of Christiansburg has posted the Town’s Code on its new and improved website.

At the webpage you will find options to be able to see or download individual chapter or the overall ordinance. Funny thing is that (I haven’t finished the line-by line analysis yet) in the individual Chapters there is a Chapter 10 Erosion and Sediment Control. It is a 14 page .pdf document.

Now, if you go to the full copy of the Code, Chapter 10 is titled: Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management. It is 47 pages long and broken down into 3 sections. These sections are: Article I. Erosion and Sediment Control, Article II. Stormwater Management, Article III. Illicit Discharge.

Maybe that is what was meant by the State of Virginia directive that the Town must update it’s Storm Water Management section of the Town Code. Maybe it was to remove it from visibility in order to be able to ignore it more effectively. Maybe the Town is actually working on the updates, but such a note should be found. Where is this update that was ordered? If the codes were out of complaince was that a significant part of why all of the flooding occurred.

What happened here was what is known as Urban Flooding, Flooding due to increases in impervious surfaces and sections of disturbed land surface. T he same amount of water fall would NOT have had the same impact 5 or 10 years ago.

I can just see the new real estate ads now: Free Personal Flotation Devices with Every Home Purchase!

New photos on myvaresources.com. Check ‘em out!

This omission in the Codes would be funny if the very thing that got me started on this whole process had not been the fact that I raised an issue on parking and was told I had no standing. To prove the point, I was provided a copy of the relevant State Code that did show that I had no standing. Unfortunately, the copy I was given was not complete. I went to the actual State Code and found that the lines that were omitted clearly stated that I did have standing and my request was valid. Once someone lies to me I never believe that person again without checking out what that person said. In this case the person was the Town of Christiansburg. Over time, they have proven that my beliefs were well founded.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on May 19, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Land Use

 

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

Storm water Management? Duh! Christiansburg VA gets an “F”

Okay, so you make estimates on stormwater based upon recent years flow. You don’t take into consideration that recent years are essentially drought years. Then the rain comes and what happens. We currently have flooding all over the Town of Christiansburg.

Despite the fact that the Town was out fighting stormwater problems during a fairly light rain a few days ago (I’ll get those pics up when I can), a bigger rain comes and low and behold, the Cambria Emporium has a new mud floor, the Historic Cambria Depot has a watermark about 16″ up from ground level on the side of the building.

Some of this can be attributed, I’m sure, to the fact that a local business’s dumpster turned over and blocked the one extra drain in the area that diverts stormwater under the railroad and into the Creek. (By the way, the Creek level is fine, it never flooded.)

Some of this, particularly given how extensive this flood damage has been throughout the town, is more likely due to poor planning for stormwater management.

By the way, did you know that per the Town Code any work done on streets/sidewalks, etc. that raises the level of that entity requires that the Town Manager provide written notices to adjacent property owners and that waivers are obtained before the work begins? (Just a quick aside.)

Please let me know what you are hearing as to the flooding in Christiansburg. I want to know where it occurred and, if possible, the types of damage done. Thus far, I have heard that a tremendous amount of it has been in the Mall area. (Let’s see….massive, expansive development, poor stormwater management, and flooding? Is there a relationship?)

So I guess the goal of saving taxpayer money by taking shortcuts only works if you live on the higest property in Town.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 

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

Capital Improvement Plan? Christiansburg? Will it comply with State Law?

From Virginia State Codes:

§ 15.2-2239. Local planning commissions to prepare and submit annually capital improvement programs to governing body or official charged with preparation of budget.

A local planning commission may, and at the direction of the governing body shall, prepare and revise annually a capital improvement program based on the comprehensive plan of the locality for a period not to exceed the ensuing five years. The commission shall submit the program annually to the governing body, or to the chief administrative officer or other official charged with preparation of the budget for the locality, at such time as it or he shall direct. The capital improvement program shall include the commission’s recommendations, and estimates of cost of the facilities, including any road improvement and any transportation improvement the locality chooses to include in its capital improvement plan and as provided for in the comprehensive plan, and the means of financing them, to be undertaken in the ensuing fiscal year and in a period not to exceed the next four years, as the basis of the capital budget for the locality. In the preparation of its capital budget recommendations, the commission shall consult with the chief administrative officer or other executive head of the government of the locality, the heads of departments and interested citizens and organizations and shall hold such public hearings as it deems necessary.

Localities may use value engineering for any capital project. For purposes of this section, “value engineering” has the same meaning as that in § 2.2-1133.

(Code 1950, § 15-966; 1962, c. 407, § 15.1-464; 1975, c. 641; 1976, c. 650; 1996, c. 553; 1997, c. 587; 2006, c. 565.)

Once again, if you head back to the minutes and documents of the past, this is something that has been only partially done (at best) or all but ignored (at worst). Many of the items included in the Town’s alleged Capital Improvement Plan are not even Capital Improvements! Capital Improvements do not include money to non-profit agencies and the Planning Commission has no business offering decisions/suggestions to the Town Council on that. Heck! It’s not a land use issue.

This is one of the reasons why we desperately need to get Planning Commissioners to complete the certification program. They have little knowledge of what their role is and boundaries are crossed on a routine and regular basis.

Since this is where most of of Town Council members come from, it creates an even worse issue when the people they are reporting to have the same lack of training as the people doing the reporting. This lack of knowledge serves to encourage BAD decisions. This tool, if it were provided as it is intended, would help the Town Council make fact-based decisions that are in the benefit of the public while maintaining a high level of accountability to the taxpayers for use of tax funds.

Although the Town Manager has informed me that the Town does a Capital Improvement Plan instead of a Capital Improvement Program, there is no separate distinction with the State Codes. Why even Wikipedia shows the terms are interchangeable. In fact, Wikipedia does a superb job of clarifying the purpose and components that comprise a Capital Improvement Program/Plan. You really should take a few minutes to read this. Then you’ll know more than the Planning Commission and Town Council members about the topic:)

After having raised this issue several times over the last year, I had hoped to see some positive movement on this front. Alas, I am again disappointed. Maybe next year….may the next NEW TOWN COUNCIL!

Come watch the festivities on Monday afternoon, maybe…just maybe, they will prove me wrong. (I keep hoping.)

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

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

 

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

Low Impact Development Part 2: What is this new stuff?

Low Impact Development (LID) in not exactly new. It is a concept that has been around for a while. There is a website that contains some great graphics that show what this is all about at Implementing Low Impact Development in Virginia: A Presentation to the City of Virginia Beach Watershed – Friendly Landscape Workshop at the TCC – ATC on Low Impact Development (LID): March 4 & 5, 2009, By Charlies H. Heffington, Jr., NSPE. Nobody can look at these photographs and fail to see how this type of development would increase property values. Hidden within the overall design is the fact that these same designs have the added benefit of helping the environment. That means a positive affect on the air we breathe, the water we drink, our food supply, and our recreational needs. The simple process of mimicing what nature has done for centuries can serve to improve quality of life for people with such developments and for anyone downstream from where that stormwater would normally flow.

Williamsburg Environmental Group, Inc provides basic information on LID’s in it’s October 2003 Tecnical Update. The discussion on “What is LID?” covers what and LID is supposed to accomplish as an alternative to conventional methods of stormwater management. They go further in their discussion to note that while it may not be practical in all situations, even partial application of LID can have positive overall results. Although the specific State Code referred to at the end of the article causing the creation of a Low Impact Development Assessment Task Force has expired, language is now included in Virginia State Code Section 10.1-603.4 (Development regulation.) Subsection 8: “Encourage low impact development designs, regional and watershed approaches, and nonstructural means for controlling stormwater;” (This section of the State Code also gives some other useful information, so if you take the time to look up the section I’ve quoted here, please take a few extra minutes to read the rest.)

The Norfolk District Regulatory Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a site that provides information that may be important for those jurisdiction that may want to look grant money as possible sources for revitalization of neighborhoods. (See some of what has already happened concerning some of these Water Quality Improvements by way of Virginia grants on this press release from Governor Tim Kaine.What elected officials may find helpful is the “Report on December 2003 Low Impact Development Workshops…” as it identifies some of the issues that would need to be addressed in order to implement LID’s locally such as ordinances and enforcement issues.

Brining the issues involved in effective stormwater management is the “2007 Virginia/West Virginia Water Research Symposium: The Inn at Virginia Tech and Skelton Conference Center, Blacksburg, VA; November 26-30, 2007“. This document simply contains an overview of some of the presentations but there are links to authors and department listings that could prove useful in tracking down more information. On page 2, There is an overview (actually, all of these are abstracts of papers presented at the conference that I have not found yet) on “The Adoption of Low Impact Development in Virginia Local Governments”, by Moonsun Jeong of the Environmenta Design and Planning Department at Virginia Tech. All of hte information here constitute good places to begin the process of understanding the importance of effective stormwater practices and how this issues is not simply about one person’s yard. It is a process with far reaching implications from headwaters to the Ocean and returning in the form of rain.

The Valley Concervation Council has a website with a lot of great links to Low Impact Development information sources. One such document is the final report from the Low Impact Development Assessment Task Force noted above. Another one is from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: The Parctice of Low Impact Development. (Note, this is a bit slow to download but is well organized and very informative.)

Why heck, there is even a Low Impact Development Center, Inc. These folks cover the issues, the newest products, and provide a great resource for any developers brave enough to use this approach. (Unfortunately, there have been some attempts in other jurisdictions that have been shut down because of their elected officials!) Lack of information provided to public officials is just as dangerous as having information given to those officials who ignore it!! Some of the featured topics I found include Green Highways & Green Infrastructure and Rain Garden Templates. The even have a link to resources for people who are trying to plan LID’s complete with examples and designs in AutoCAD and JPEG formats as well as information as to construction, cost, maintenance, specifications, and watershed benefits.

Chesterfield County, Virginia, Fairfax County, Virginia and Stafford, Virginia are both taking Low Impact Development seriously. The DCR (Department of Conservation and Recreation) Erosion and Sediment Control 2009 LID Product Order Form allows individuals, companies, and even elected officials the opportunity to order products in DVD and/or CD format that provides and introduction to Low-Impact Development, brochures, manuals, worksheets and sample codes. Strategies for implementation can be found at the RiverFriends.org site’s report: Low Impact Development Strategies for Rural Communities,by John Tippett, Executive Director, Friends of the Rappahannick, Inc. Fredericksburg, Virginia and Neil Weinstein, Executive Director, Low Impact Development Center, Beltsville, Maryland . This contains a good discussion on how the Town Manager of Warsaw, Virginia found that conventional methods of stormwater management would not be as cost effective as using the TID approach.

It is clear there is no lack of information on how effective and efficient Low Impact Development is in the area of stormwater management. If you take the time to read some of the articles noted here, you will see there are a lot of opportunities for local government, civic groups, home owner groups, and individuals. An investment made today, can have a long lasting impact on reducing the cost to taxpayers for conventional storm water management and mitigation of streams/streambanks, providing grant money for rennovating older communities, increasing property values (and, of course, taxes), helping to protect our food supplies (as both land and aquatic organism require clean water, preventing pollutants from entering our drinking water, and perhaps, restoring some of our waterways into features that can be fully utilized by future generations. We have the opportunity to prevent further damage to our waterways and even undo some of the destruction that has already occurred. With all of this information available, it looks like the only thing missing is the will to do it.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 28, 2009 in Environment, Land Use

 

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

Christiansburg’s Tax Base Claim to Fame?

I’ve previously used information from the Auditor of Public Accounts website for various reasons. Today, I wanted to know more about the sources of revenue of the Town of Christiansburg. I got caught up in the data on the percentage of tax revenue coming from different sources. Unfortunately, it does take some time to work with the data and get it into a reasonable form. In order to have some comparison data, I started with the 2007 data.

Here is some of the information I found in a comparison of Christiansburg data with that of 34 other large towns For the 2007 fiscal year (n=35 towns) based on highest to lowest:

  • # 26 in real property as a source of revenue
  • # 29 in Public Service Corp. Property as a source of revenue
  • # 27 in Personal Property tax as a source of revenue
  • # 8 in Machinery & Tools tax as a source of revenue
  • # 11 in Local Sales & Use tax as a source of revenue
  • # 16 in Consumer Utility tax as a source of revenue
  • # 24 in Business Licenses as a source of revenue
  • # 14 in Franchise tax as a source of revenue
  • # 23 in Vehicle License tax as a source of revenue
  • # 29 in Bank Franchise tax as a source of revenue
  • # 5 in Cigarette & Tobacco tax as a source of revenue
  • # 8 in Lodging tax as a source of revenue
  • # 5 in Meals tax as a source of revenue
  • #7 in Emergency Telephone tax as a source of revenue
  • # 21 in Other (whatever that means) as a source of revenue

Remember that these are sorted from HIGHEST to LOWEST.

The Auditor of Public Accounts has in dept information that shows you where money goes and where it comes from. It takes a bit of time to get use to the format used, but then, it is piece of cake to just download the whole files, cut and paste the areas of interest into a spreadsheet and  run all kinds of tests on the numbers.

I haven’t finished the 2008 data yet, but I look forward to a comparison of the results since there were some significant slow downs in a lot of the major areas.

Considering the loss of businesses due to the economy, one would expect to see some decreases in some of these. However, the town did raise taxes last year in some of these areas so maybe there will not be that much of a drop. Guess I’ll have to wait and see what the data shows:)

By Carol Lindstrom On April 9 at 1:00 AM

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on April 17, 2009 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

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

On Tuesday, March 24th, 2009 the Finance Committe for the Town of Christiansburg held its first meeting on the new budget. The Town Manager and Assistant Manager had prepared a document (I assume based upon the request of department heads) containing a list of proposed budgetary expenses categorized by department and providing a general description of each expense. (This is precisely the type of information I had expected to find on the “Pay the Bills” sheets presented to the Town Council each month.

VIDEO OF FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

It was noted that Mr. Terpenny (Town Manager) and Mr. Helms (Assn’t Town Manger) had worked to compile a list of only the most necessary of items and that had been trimmed down even further, as noted by several items being lined out. You can see this document on my website. KEEP IN MIND THIS IS A WORKING DOCUMENT, THIS IS NOT THE FINAL OR PROPOSED BUDGET!!!

Each and every item was discussed with Council Members Ann Carter and Michael Barber asking questions. The Mayor was also at the table and gave some input. Mr. Helms brought with him a large packet of files and referred to them in answering the questions that warranted more details. Questions focused on the necessity of expenses and I find the answers provided to be complete and phrased in terms that were easy to understand.

Although only a first meeting, the materials that I saw did not contain much fat. A position for an IT Technician is well warranted if you look through the Pay the Bills Summary report and find the companies that have been providing IT support to the town. It is likely that having a person in that position will likely save the Town money in the first year!

The position for another Planner is necessary as Mr. Terpenny (Town Manager) reported he would be turning over all duties as Zoning, Subdivision , and Sign Ordinance Administrators are being turned over to the current Director of Planning,  Randy Wingfield. It was noted by Mr. Helms that the Town of Christiansburg’s Planning Department has from 1/5 to 1/2 the number of staff that similar sized jurisdictions have. (Perhaps this will mean that Staff Analysis Reports are on the horizon? That would be a tremendous asset to the Planning Commission and the Town Council for future land use decisions.)

I could go on at some length concerning my observations and opinions about this meeting. Perhaps the best thing would be if you look and form your own opinions. I think you will be impressed with some of the tough issues that were addressed and how elected and appointed officials dealt with them.

Having been one of the few citizens to attend the one meeting on the budget last year, I must say I think this meeting was great! There was a concentrated effort to make sure that needs were met and systems were adequately maintained to allow for future growth, while striving diligently to make sure that taxes did not need to be increased.

However, I’m not an expert in finance by any means. In fact, I only have that one previous meeting with which to compare anything. The Town Charter and Code specify that department heads report to Town Manager and the Town Manager then presents a budget to the Town Council. So, a lot of the detailed work, the sorting and sifting out of ‘earmarks’ and ‘pork barrel projects’ was done by the Town Manager and Assn’t. Town Manager before the Committee ever saw the draft budget paper. I am sure there are people out there who think that some of the stuff that was cut out during that process should still be in there, but that’s the way things work. Request for items have to be prioritized. That process is all the more important in the current economic climate when it will be MUCH harder to project revenues with less revenue coming in from sales, lodging, and meals.

I feel that I learned a lot today. I hope you get a chance to watch the video and give me your opinions.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on April 17, 2009 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Christiansburg Town Charter on the topic of erection of public buildings

Town Charter:
5 7.01. All contracts for the erection of public improvements and buildings
within the jurisdiction of the town where the estimated cost thereof exceeds three thousand dollars, and in all cases where practicable, shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder, all things considered, and the party to whom any contract is let shall give bond as the council may require, but in no event shall any contract be let to any member of the town council, nor shall any member have any interest in such contract. (1 954, c. 240; 1968, c. 173)

The most recent application of this section of the Town Charter would have been the Aquatic Center. However, I am sure there are other projects that meet the above criteria.

The purpose of the criteria is to prohibit any misuse of taxpayer funds by way of deals arranged by the Council Members where a perceived conflict of interest would exist.

Just something to be thinking about. Sorry, but I’m still tied up on some big projects and don’t have much time to offer more. Here’s hoping some of you pick up the ball and run with it:)

By Carol Lindstrom On March 12 at 12:00 PM

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on April 17, 2009 in Citizen Participation

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Bicycle Patrols and Hand-held radar guns! YES!!! GO CPD!

I’ll probably be one of those who end up with a ticket as I’m driving one day and distracted by thoughts of something like an issue I want to blog about or something that needs to be updated on the webpage, BUT, I loved spotting the Christiansburg Police Officer on foot with a hand-held radar gun out on Depot Street near Kroger today. His bicycle and helmet were a short distance away.

This is such a wonderful contribution to safety and well-being of our citizens. (I’ll probably grumble on the day when I am the one caught exceeding one of those speed limits, but it will be grumbling at my own stupidity. After all, if I am so distracted that I don’t notice a speed limit sign, isn’t it possible that I could be distracted enough to miss seeing another vehicle, a child on a bike, or someone’s beloved pet that slipped away when the door opened?

I think this program clearly shows that Christiansburg Police Department takes citizen concerns very seriously, and takes citizen safety even more seriously. Great job Christiansburg Police Department.

Don’t forget that you can register your bicycle with the police department, thus making it more likely that your bicycle can be returned to you if it is stolen. You can pick up the form and stickers at the Police Department, attach the sticker, fill in the form, and return the form to the police department. You can also pickup and drop off these forms at the old Depot in Cambria, just check with me at the Cambria Toy Station.

A word of note: stickers are being used instead of engraving because if engraving/etching is used and a theft occurs, it is likely that a grinder will be applied to remove the registration information. This causes a place for rust to grow and a potential weak spot in the metal. The sticker helps but what really makes identification possible is your accurate description of the bicycle. Unless someone is out there taking the time to specifically identify and take only 24″ boys bikes, that are blue in color with black trim, a ding mark on the right pedal…etc….etc. The descriptions provided by you, combined with your reports of loss of the bicycle, and the description of the property recovered, will increase the odds of your bicycle being returned greatly. This is a free service provided by our Police Department, and I hope that all of you bicycle riders will participate.

By Carol Lindstrom On March 9 at 9:01 PM

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on April 17, 2009 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,