• 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.



The Planning Commission Meeting begins at 3pm rather than the normal 4pm giving an indication that there will be a lot to discuss:

1. The Sage Lane issue is up for a vote by the Planning Commission so that they can present their recommendations to the Town Council at the following Town Council Meeting
2. Main St. Baptist Church comes back for a repeat performance of the Conditional Use Permit that they are requesting be renewed. This is for the industrialized building units they have been using for offices and classrooms at 106 W. Main St. for several years now. There will be a vote to determine a recommendation to present to Town Council.
3. Another Conditional Use Permit concerns a request for a game room to be added to the businesses at 1225 Roanoke Street. There will be a vote to determine a recommendation to present to Town Council.
4. A rezoning request will be discussed for property on the southern side of Radford St. west of Melody Drive where it is requested that the zoning be changed from Agricultural to Single-Family Residential. This is a 8.25 acre plot and the public hearing on this matter will be held on the same night at the Town Council meeting.
5. A Conditional Use Permit for a commercial garage at 1020 Radford St. will be discussed with a public hearing to be held at the following Town Council Meeting.
6. A review of a Conditional use Permit at 155 Howery St. for a major home occupation will be done to insure compliance with the conditions.

A few hours later, at 7:30pm, Christiansburg Town Council will meet.

There are 2 Joint Public Hearings: 1) the Rezoning request noted in #4 above, and 2) the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) noted in #5 above. Joint Public Hearings are the time where citizens have the opportunity to address issues and bring forth information that the Town Council may find useful in making decisions on the issues.

There is a PUBLIC HEARING concerning the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. This involves federal grant money that can be used for specific types of projects. The intended projects are required to address the issues and needs most relevant to low and moderate income citizens. The proposals found in the links I have provided show the intention of adding additional sidewalks in some areas of town. You might want to set aside some time to at least scan these documents to see what is being discussed.

Then we get to the Regular Meeting where the Planning Commission will provide their recommendations to Town Council on a) the CUP for Main St. Baptist Church (see above #2), b) the CUP for the game room at 1225 Roanoke ST (see above #3), and last but certainly not least — c) the rezoning of the Albert Land, LP property that includes the Sage Lane issues.

Following that will be a presentation from Ms. Rebecca Martin concerning the Christiansburg Bus System. This is where citizens may get an idea of any changes to bus routes that are being considered, or even if the bus service might be discontinued.

Next on the agenda is a open forum where any citizen may address Council on any issue, concern, kudos, etc.

Once all of that is out of the way, we move into part III of the agenda. This is the section where the public is silent and the Council makes their decisions known. They will be voting on: a) the CUP for Main St. Baptist Church (see above #2), b) the CUP for the game room at 1225 Roanoke ST (see above #3), and last but certainly not least — c) the rezoning of the Albert Land, LP property that includes the Sage Lane issues.

Potential budget cuts are again on the agenda for discussion. This is followed by a “Memorandum of Understanding — Sustainable Communities Consortium.” (The link is to a Roanoke Times article discussing this project. I was unable to find any information on the Town’s website.)

Next to last for the evening is the report of the Street Committee. Although the Town has many different committees, this is the only one that routinely provides reports to the Town Council. On this evening, they will primarily work on subdivision plat changes and lot line adjustments.

Finally, the last item of the agenda is the Town Manager’s Report where the Town Manager will provide the monthly bills to be paid and progress reports on various projects in the works.

Now, if you didn’t get much of a chance to grab a bite between the two meetings, after adjournment, you might want to wander over to Macados’ or over to Sonic for a bit of a snack or hmm…maybe an ice cream sundae.

Please try to come. Every decision made by Town Council has the potential of having a positive or negative impact upon every citizen. Just because it is not happening in ‘your backyard’ doesn’t mean that it will not affect you in the long run. Listening, asking questions, and talking with other citizens is the best way to keep yourself informed. Who knows, you may have the perfect answer to some problem that arises. Hope to see you there.

From: Randy Wingfield
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:44 PM
To: Ann Carter; Bradford Stipes; Earnest Wade;
Henry Showalter; Jim VanHoozier; Mike Barber;
Richard Ballengee; Lance Terpenny; Barry Helms
Cc: Ann Carter; Craig Moore; Kevin Conner;
Mike Byrd; Steve Huppert; wbooth; Nichole Hair
Subject: Ivy Ridge Connectivity Index/Sage Lane Connection

VDOT uses a connectivity index for approval of
subdivision with new streets as part of their
secondary street acceptance requirements.
This index uses street segments divided by
intersections (cul-de-sacs are included as intersections)
to come up with the index number.  Christiansburg is
classified by VDOT as a Compact area which would require
a connectivity index of at least 1.6, however this
requirement does not apply within Christiansburg as we
maintain our own streets, I am just providing this for
your reference.  To simplify it, the higher the
connectivity index, the better.  The connectivity
index cannot mathematically be lower than 1.

 I ran the same connectivity index for Ivy Ridge
and came up with the following numbers:

For the development as shown on the Ivy Ridge
Conceptual Plan dated 5-10-10 with a connection made
to Sage Lane = 13 segments / 7 intersections
(including cul-de-sacs) = 1.86 connectivity index

For the development as shown on the Ivy Ridge Conceptual
Plan dated 5-10-10 with no connection made to
Sage Lane = 10 segments / 6 intersections
 (including cul-de-sacs) = 1.67 connectivity index

The Town Administration, Planning, and Engineering
staff feel as though the connection to Sage Lane
should be made because of general connectivity and
for emergency access reasons.  Police Chief Mark Sisson,
Fire Chief Billy Hanks, and Rescue Squad Captain
Kelly Walters concur that the connections to Sage Lane
is desirable for these reasons.

There is an existing stub out at the end of
New Village Drive which could be utilized for access
through the Shaffer land via the stub out of Albert Lane
shown on the concept drawing.  This connection would
provide an additional connection through New River Village
 to the proposed development if it were constructed.

Town staff will require the connection if Town Council
desires it, but will not require the connection if that
is the desire of Town Council.

Randy Wingfield
Planning Director/Zoning Administrator
Town of Christiansburg
100 E. Main Street
Christiansburg, VA 24073
phone: (540) 382-6120 x 119
fax: (540) 381-7238

Since Mr. Wingfield has provided his phone number, feel free to let him know how you feel about this. Feel free to call all of those members of Council and ask who authorized this.

The Mayor and Town Council are ultimately responsible. Simply replacing the Town Manager will not accomplish anything unless you are very fortunate in finding a replacement willing to stand up to Town Council if they are wrong about something. “Simply Following Orders” should be the flag Mr. Terpenny is carrying around.

It is the role of the Mayor and Town Council to put someone in as Town Manager. Then, it is their role to monitor performance, give direction, and make changes as necessary. This requires that Mayor and Town Council learn a little bit about the processes involved.

If any Town Council hires someone to do a job and doesn’t know enough about the job itself to monitor job performance, then they have failed the public.

Personally, I imagine that Mr. Terpenny will do quite well in Floyd where you have a very different sort of base of elected officials. I just don’t see Floyd doing the hands off approach that the Town of Christiansburg government has done. Floyd officials are more likely to ask questions and expect answers.  They may not try to ‘run the show’, but they will be asking questions and expecting answers.

The elected officials of the Town of Christiansburg seldom ask questions, and when they do, are far to quick to take answers such as “I think” or “I believe”. Is it Mr. Terpenny’s fault that this is not done? Absolutely not! With such vague responses, the Mayor should have followed up with asking for more details.

There are a few of the council members who do try to ask questions and push to get answers, if you watch the video recordings you will see a pattern of the majority of them simply ignoring the issues presented by the few.

While sitting in Council chambers on Tuesday evenings, I frequently get this vision of ostrich butts sticking straight up in the air. It is easy to get the feeling that many of those elected officials have an attitude of “just do what needs to be done and don’t bother me with details”.

Being a competent elected officials is not about delegating all authority to someone else. It is not about dressing up to look good and simply voting based upon recommendations or the voices of a few residents. I certainly do not expect them to make decisions based upon what I write here or what I say in Council Meetings. I just want them to do the job of leadership. Listen, learn, ask questions, and make the best possible decision that they can while asking for all of the information that they can get.

The Council should not sit back and make decisions based upon what developers, citizens, business owners, or anyone else say. They should be using the resources of the Town such as:

• the Planning Department (of course, that would require that the Council knows what questions to ask of the Planning Dept. or to have people in Planning who will voluntarily provide all relevant information),
• the Town Attorney (in my opinion, the Town Attorney should be an active participant in discussion, providing Council with information that is needed to make decisions including relative State and Town Codes),
• the Finance Officer as to the current financial status of the town and projected revenues before investing money in a project)
• the Police Chief for current traffic and crime stats and projections based upon proposed projects
• The Fire and Rescue Chiefs for information concerning access to areas where development is to occur and response times.

It is likely that some of the Council members may have information from those individuals but does it ever get to the rest of the Council or become accessible to the public? No.

For example, much of this type of information would be useful at the Planning Commission stage of things. Recent discussions concerned sidewalks and walking trails in developments. Where is the input concerning crime rates? I did a bit of looking around and it appears that sidewalks tend to decrease crime while trails going through people’s backyards tend to increase crime. Although I did not look around long enough to come up with anything definitive, isn’t it worth the time to look? Was there ever any consideration given to those features? What about emergency access to someone should an accident occur on a trail?

Listen to some of the Planning Commission Meetings and you will hear a lot of phrases that indicate that a particular Planning Commission member does not like something, but they are not appointed to represent their values and beliefs. They are appointed to look at the impact of decisions on the whole of the Town. The Planning Commission should be comprised of a variety of people, representing the variety of citizens. Adding more members would allow for younger voices to be heard, to include more variety in race, sex, education, and socio-economic status.

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.

This rather makes it appear that the Town Charter and/or Code would have had to have been changed before said 3 year contract could have gone into effect. The other localities that I found to have gone with a longer contract for Town Manager, have specifically generated ordinances/charter changes in order to support those. My guess is that the reason for that was this state code.

So, should the town council have been looking at such a contract without having first established that there was such a need as to warrant Charter and/or Code changes. I never heard of any discussions concerning those changes except for some mumblings on how they could enter into the contract first, then change the  Charter/Code afterwards. Maybe there are some lawyers out there who have a better understand of the intent of this State Code and would care to comment.

Is it possible that the 3 year contract was merely a ‘smoke screen’ simply to get people riled up so that they wouldn’t see what was really going on. If so, then you have to wonder who the ‘they’ is in this situation. Certainly with Showalter and Carter being the last to find out anything, they are ruled out.

Of course, the town attorney was in the meetings so if this was actually an issue, one would expect it to have been raised.

Fortunately, the State Code also makes sure that the public will know the full extent of the severance packages of any individuals to which they have or shall be awarded. If it is consistent with the document read by Mr. Barber, there are some pretty vague places that I hope will be clarified before the deal is finalized.

§ 15.2-1510.1. Public announcement of severance packages for certain officials.

Severance benefits provided to any departing official appointed by a local governing body or school board shall be publicly announced by the local governing body or school board, respectively, prior to such departure.

(2006, c. 254; 2007, c. 257.)

It sounds like the details should be pretty specific to me, but I am sure that someone can argue that the Letter of the Law was met in Mr. Barbers statement. However, I wonder if it will truly meet the Spirit of the Law. After all, it is the citizen’s money being used for any such severance benefits.

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