Depot Dazed

On June 2, 2009, at the Christiansburg Town Council Meeting, a presentation was done by the Christiansburg High School Photography Club. This group had volunteered to generate photographs of Christiansburg for use on the new town website. Unfortunately, these photos have not been displayed on the Town’s website as promised. (more…)

Wow…all that wonderful stuff in the Vision 2020…all those great projects happening in some areas of town…All Town Council’s visions (see: ThinkChristiansburg.com). Then, on the other handthere are issues like: (more…)

I kept waiting for someone to bring up a couple of issues about this, but they never did during the Joint Public Hearing held on January 6, 2010. The discussion was concerning the application of fees for those people who wish to pay their town bills using a credit card. (more…)

According to the State Code: found on LIS (see below) terms of existing Town Council Members or Mayor are not to be shortened except as noted in Section D below which states:

This shortening of some people’s terms (those who were elected in May of 2008) will mean that those people will need to run again and be elected in the November election.
There is one apparent hitch in this ‘get-along’ in that the shortening is restricted to 6 months. Given that the Town of Christiansburg elected officials don’t take office until September (rather than in July as other jurisdictions do) it appears there will need to be some overlap.

Is it possible that for a 2 month period we could have more than 6 Town Council Members? Suppose the 3 incumbents ran in November and were defeated, could we possibly have a situation where for 2 months we would have 9 Town Council Members?

What a mess? Well, the Town of Christiansburg set their starting dates in September while State Code says they state in July (§ 24.2-222. Election and terms of mayor and council for cities and towns. Apparently, this date was established in the 1954 Charter for the Town of Christiansburg. Since one of those council members affected has put forth that he will be seeking legal recourse to the shortening of his term, it may be that things will get interesting…again.

(Town Council Videos of this meeting should be available later today at myvaresouces.com.)
_________________________________________________

§ 24.2-222.1. Alternative election of mayor and council at November general election in cities and towns.

A. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 24.2-222, the council of a city or town may provide by ordinance that the mayor, if an elected mayor is provided for by charter, and council shall be elected at the November general election date of any cycle as designated in the ordinance, for terms to commence January 1. No such ordinance shall be adopted between January 1 and the May general election date of the year in which city or town elections regularly are scheduled to be held therein.

B. Alternatively, the registered voters of a city or town may file a petition with the circuit court of the city or of the county within which the town is located asking that a referendum be held on the question of whether the city or town should elect the mayor, if an elected mayor is provided for by charter, and council members at the November general election date of any cycle as designated in the petition. The petition shall be signed by registered voters equal in number to at least ten percent of the number registered in the city or town on the January 1 preceding the filing.

The court, pursuant to § 24.2-684, shall order the election officials on a day fixed in the order to conduct a referendum on the question, provided that no such referendum shall be scheduled between January 1 and the May general election date of the year in which city or town elections regularly are scheduled to be held therein. The clerk of the court shall publish notice of the referendum once a week for the three consecutive weeks prior to the referendum in a newspaper having general circulation in the city or town, and shall post a copy of the notice at the door of the courthouse of the city or county within which the town is located. The question on the ballot shall be:

“Shall the (city or town) change the election date of the mayor (if so provided by charter) and members of council from the May general election to the November general election (in even-numbered or odd-numbered years or as otherwise designated in the petition)?”

If members of the school board in the city or town are elected by the voters, the ballot question also shall state that the change in election date applies to the election of school board members.

The referendum shall be held and the results certified as provided in § 24.2-684. If a majority of the voters voting in the referendum vote in favor of the change, the mayor and council thereafter shall be elected at the November general election date for terms to commence January 1.

C. Except as provided in subsection D, no term of a mayor or member of council shall be shortened in implementing the change to the November election date. Mayors and members of council who were elected at a May general election and whose terms are to expire as of June 30 shall continue in office until their successors have been elected at the November general election and have been qualified to serve.

D. In any city or town that elects its council biennially or quadrennially and that changes to the November general election date in odd-numbered years from the May general election date in even-numbered years, mayors and members of council who were elected at a May general election shall have their term of office shortened by six months but shall continue in office until their successors have been elected at the November general election and have been qualified to serve.

(2000, c. 1045; 2002, c. 30.)

Well, the controversy really doesn’t seem to be about cell towers so much as what to do when it doesn’t come out until the Public Hearing that…oops…by the way, where the party wanting to put the cell tower doesn’t have enough space to make it consistent with the Town Code.

Maybe I’m weird (yeah…yeah..yeah…some of you are already convinced of that), but I would have thought that would have been at least vaguely mentioned during the Planning Commission meeting on this, or perhaps even at the time the Conditional Use Permit was applied for? Videos of these meetings are available at myvaresources.com.

At the next Planning Commission Meeting, this should be addressed again (unless the applicant pulls it) and then it would go before the Town Council at their next meeting.

Since the issue in question has to do with the setback requirements needing to be at least the height of the tower according to the Town Code when discussion had indicated that 30′ from street and 45′ from other buildings was adequate for a 150′ tower. (Maybe not when the Code specifies a setback that is at least the height of the tower.)

I figured I would just do a bit of research on the issue. Rather than go into all of the details here, I set up a .pdf file as a primer for anyone interested in learning more. There is a brief introduction, then a history that includes a review of Planning Commission and Town Council Meeting Minutes concerning all discussions involving cell towers. Then, I went into the Comprehensive Plan and the Town Code for specifics. This primer is available at the Special Sudies Page of myvaresources.com just click on the link “Citizen’s Cell Tower Primer”. (Look for more such documents in the future.)

The Town Code section gives all the information needed to devise a checklist to see if all of the necessary steps have been followed.

One solution that was presented by Planning Director, Randy Wingfield, was that the Town could simply change the Code. Huh? Say, do what?

Well, let’s think about that possibility for a moment. What if the Town changed the Code so that a 35′ setback was adequate. How many places are there in Christiansburg where someone owns property that they would like to make some money from. The companies who rent space for those towers pay pretty darned well. Of course, unless they change some other parts of the Code, only Agricultural and Industrial I & II properties would be possible locations. Since most of the Agricultural land has been scarfed up for developments, what little there is left is often surrounded by rather high density housing. As to the Industrial I & II locations, well gosh, they’re surrounded by residential areas too.

How many of you want to have a view that includes a closeup and personal perspective of a cell tower? Right now, they are talking about one property. Any discussion of changing the Town Codes could affect a lot of other properties. What happens to property values around such facilities? What about research concerning health and safety hazards? How will the required safety lighting affect you?

There are a lot of issues to be addressed that are mentioned in the .pdf file I setup. Not the least of these is a commitment to work on a regional approach to the installation of these structures so that there is a minimal negative impact. (A copy of this regional agreement is included in the text.)

Times are hard. People need money, the Town needs money. But we MUST think about the long term impacts of such decision on everyone, not just a few. The potential impact on property values, insurance, health, safety, and well being of citizens must be acknowledged during any decision-making process.

What would you want to see done differently?

What are the primary issues that you see as needing to be addressed?

These could be important questions. Maybe some of those who will be running for Town Council positions will read and head. Remember we have one more May election before the move to November. That could mean one last big push to create change or, one final push to maintain the status quo for a few more years before the November elections have an impact.

What do you want to see happen in your town? I’ll be adding a few ideas of my own over the next few months. AT the same time, I’ll be looking hard at your suggestions, at the town code, the comprehensive plan, meeting minutes since 2001, audio and video recordings (which by the way are finishing loading and should be all up to date by noon today), and all the emails I’ve received from you.

I think it is a good idea to begin discussing issues now to give a better idea of what citizens identify as issues to those who may be running for election.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/breaking/228948.html

Maybe they should have gone with a smaller pool and more infrastructure upgrades and repair for the $18+ million.

Are all Montgomery County residents citizens of Christiansburg or Blacksburg? NO!

Are all Christiansburg or Blacksburg residents citizens of Montgomery County? Yes!

The tax revenue to the County go to provide services to ALL citizens of the County whether they live in the County proper, the Town of Christiansburg or the Town of Blacksburg. The taxes revenue to the Town of Blacksburg and/or Christiansburg go to provide services that the Towns provide above and beyond those provided by the County.

A bit simplistic I know, but I hope this gets the idea across.  (Following population estimates provided by Google Public Data and Wikipedia)All of the 89,967residents of Montgomery County est. from 2008 , even if they live in Christiansburg or Blacksburg contribute to the tax base of the County through real estate tax or sales tax. This money is used to pay for maintenance of County roads, Schools, General Fire Rescue, Sheriff’s Office, Court, Jail, Garbage, Libraries, Salaries to employees, and a lot of other aspects of just living in the County.

Blacksburg (41,796 **remember there is a large portion of that number who are students as VT has the largest full-time student population in Virginia with over 30,000 full-time students) and Christiansburg (2008 est. of 19,477). The population of the towns provide revenue to cover the cost of such issues as storm water management, water, sewer, garbage, economic development, tourism, town planning, town codes enforcement, salaries to employees, etc.

In order to be fair, you need to remove the 30,000 in student population from the County population and Blacksburg. So population estimates would be something like: County 60,000, Blacksburg 12,000, Christianburg 19,000. Unfortunately, the old census data is way out of date. With the new census data, it will be easier to come up with some more accurate guess-timates of those numbers (if everyone fills out the census forms!). Anybody out there want to challenge the numbers here, feel free just please remember to cite your source. I need to be able to go get those numbers from someone!

Where is all of this going? Well, how about we look at the Old Blacksburg Middle School that is being discussed right now. What are they going to do with the building? This topic has been tossed around long enough it has turned green and upchucked!

For the last 10 years, the Town of Blacksburg has been pushing to have the County give them the property so they can use it as they wish. According to the Roanoke Times Article “Future unclear for old Blacksburg Middle School” people in Blacksburg think it is entirely appropriate for the County to give them property worth $4,400,000.00. Now, this is for property that the taxpayers all over the County paid for so that people in Riner, Elliston, and Shawsville, Christiansburg, Blacksburg (and throughout the County) can say that they paid for part of the building and land.

Now, if the County gives the land and building away, it is a net loss to the County. If the County sells the property, all proceeds are required to go back into the fund for Capital Improvement – stuff like repairing other schools and covering the cost of new schools having to be built as population increases. If you are a taxpayer, you are invested in this process. How do you want your investment returns used? Should they be given away to Blacksburg or should they be sold for the most amount of money? Something in between only makes sense to me if the property becomes commercial and there is a agreement with the Town and County to share the revenues. However, Blacksburg is having a hard time filling spaces these days and that could mean the County would get a portion of nothing equal to nothing!

I think the safest bet is to sell to the highest bidder, then step out of the way and let Blacksburg deal with the purchaser. Of course, that means that Blacksburg can keep the property value dropped as low as possible by not allowing re-zoning.

Maybe you don’t have an opinion right now, but I bet you will have one when property taxes in the County have to go up in order to offset lost revenue from other sources. Who knows, maybe there are a lot of Blacksburg residents who would rather see the property sold with proceeds going back to the County rather than have property taxes at the County level go up.

Guess we’ll have to wait and see. Maybe I need to start attending those Board of Supervisor meetings to see if members are responding to needs of the County or to needs of Blacksburg.

Heck, if Blacksburg wants playing fields, etc. they can pay for them. If Christiansburg can manage to build an Aquatic Center, I’ll bet Blacksburg can manage to maintain a green field for rugby, soccer, dog walking, etc.

One key point I’m hoping to make here is that the population numbers don’t really tell the whole picture. If you’re listening to arguments from either side or somewhere in the middle of all this discussion, be careful to pay attention to which numbers are used. More specifically, the Towns do not ‘own’ the schools. The schools are County property. If the Towns want the benefits of owning such properties, they will have to become Cities and pick up all the costs related to having a school system of their own. EVERY school in Montgomery County is equally important! Every child in Montgomery County is equally important! The decisions made concerning this property will have a long-term impact on the school system and on the children. Hopefully, the right decision will be made.

As many of you know, I keep a running lists of questions that people have contacted me about. One of the most common one’s I hear is “How can the Town of Christiansburg get sued so much and then even the Town Council Members cannot find out what the settlement price was?”

That is a very good question and one that has been answered quite well by the Virginia Coalition for Open Government on a Blog article by Megan Rhyne “Secret lawsuit settlement amounts“. This same blog article was edited and appeared on the May 31, 2009 edition of the Roanoke Times “The public doesn’t know the price it paid“.

What does this mean for citizens? Ultimately, it means that your tax money is used to pay for the insurance that pays settlements in legal cases. Will you know how much or to whom the amount goes to? Not very likley. Will you receive a report of the affect these lawsuits will have on the insurance premiums in the future? What will be the long term financial affect to the taxpayer? There have been multiple instances where law suits have been applied against the Town of Christiansburg. These are almost always settled and with that settlement the records are sealed meaning that you, the taxpayer, have no access to that information.

Now, legal records do not seal themselves. Only a Judge can order the sealing of such records and the Judge has to be asked to do so. That means either the individual/group suing the Town or the Town’s representative MUST ask that those records be sealed.

In other jurisdictions, the facts are known by the elected officials. Christiansburg, however, seems to handle this a bit differently. Only the Town Manager is allowed to know. Town Council Members that were asked advised that they did not know and had been told they could not be given that information.

Some have suggested that it is the Town Attorney that is adding the factor of ’silence’ to the equation. However, an attorney can advise a client, but it is ultimately the client (in Christiansburg’s case the Town Manager) who prompts the attorney to make a request to the Judge to seal the records. Somehow or other, the wording must be getting included in those orders that either none or only some of the Town Council members are being informed.

Our government has a responsibility to manage the town’s money. We as citizens have the right to see how well they perform that function. As the article referenced above notes, there are certainly some things within a law suit that should be kept confidential, but the amount of settlement hardly seems to be one of them. And, if Town Council members are kept out of the ‘knowledge loop’, how can they be expected to evaluate the situation and make sure it doesn’t happen again. In the recent past, one Town Council member responded to an issue by simply saying…”so sue us”. That’s easy to say when it is not your money or reputation that is one the line but rather the town’s. Just how many law suits have been filed against the Town of Christiansburg in the last 20 years. How many of those cases were settled and an order to seal the records issued by the Court? No. I don’t have the full answer to those questions. Yet:)

If you think taxpayers and Town Council members should be aware of the amount of settlements paid and how it can, will, or has affected insurance rates, please take the time to contact you Delegates and State Senators and let them know. You can find contact information at the Virginia General Assembly homepage.

On the Aquatic Center page of myvaresouces.com, {click here} there is a link – NOV. 2, 2009: FEES AND SCHEDULES FROM TOWN COUNCIL MEETING that will take you to a pdf file of all materials presented to Town Council on Nov. 2, 2009. Schedules and fees are there as well as some idea of the special projects that Manager Terry Caldwell will be bringing to the center. Great job Ms. Caldwell and the Aquatic Center Committee.

Open date? Still not sure about that one!