Entry 609 of 1039
By Think! Christiansburg On September 7, 2009 at 6:10 AM
The Christiansburg Town Code has a lot in it.  The last thorough update was in 1992, becoming effective January 15, 1993.  Technically, the Town Charter is Part One and the Town Code is Part Two of a single document. 

It has been reported that due to the many, many ordinance changes council has approved since then -- plus a multitude of changes to the underlying and superior State and/or Federal laws -- another update is overdue. 

During Finance Committee meetings to prepare for fiscal year 2009-2010, an anticipated expense of $50,000 was again included in the budget to address this delinquency. Whether this will occur in order to simply correct the indexing and cross referencing or if it will be a complete recodification are two distinct issues. Whether the time will be taken to get it done is another.   

The Town Charter is referenced as the source of authority to create new or revise existing ordinances, specifically Chapter 2, Section 2.25 to 2.27 (General powers).  Once again, this links back to authority granted to towns as defined within the Virginia Constitution and relevant State Code. 

Article I, Section 2-1 of the Town Code states "all proposed ordinances or resolutions are to be made in writing."

Meanwhile, Christiansburg's charter says "no ordinance or resolution appropriating more than $500 or imposing taxes and borrowing money" is allowed without a recorded majority affirmative vote.  These types of actions also require two readings, as they cannot be voted upon the first time the matter comes before council. 

The charter also indicates "No [such] ordinance shall be passed by the council on the same day on which it is introduced, nor shall any such ordinance or resolution be valid until at least three days intervene between its introduction and the date of passage" (Chapter 2, Section 2.18). 

Back to the Town Code, Sec. 2-63 indicates "It shall always be in order to amend an ordinance," while Sec. 2-58. provides a sequence for procedural matters.  Further, in the absence of definitive rules of its own, Sec. 2-68 directs Council to apply the "approved practice [of] the Virginia House of Delegates."

The Planning Commission may have wrestled with an item several times, with some cloudy legal interpretations passed along outside of any public meetings.  And a Joint Public Hearing with this group and Town Council, providing an opportunity for citizen comment, may have been legally required.  But if Council hadn't seen the specific details before a meeting, wouldn't you expect  they should take time to review and absorb information before voting? 

This happened recently for yet another change relative to Chapter 30-Zoning.   The Planning Commission seemed eager to rubber stamp an issue as regards establishing Floodplain Districts.  When the matter came back before Council, a motion and a second to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation as presented was immediately made. 

During the subsequent discussion on the motion Councilman Brad Stipes suggested a single change, deleting the same few words found in three places of the proposed ordinance change. 

It appears the motion could have been amended (as has happened in the past), or the matter could be tabled until the next meeting.  Or, it could be referred back to committee -- as was done in this case. 

Since this proposed change to an existing ordinance was introduced as being  something minor and therefore presumably inconsequential, the Mayor becoming flustered and suddenly concerned about an impending deadline was incongruent with established precedent, protocols and processes.   

Especially since this ordinance is inextricably tied to Town Charter Chapter Six (Health & Sanitation) and Town Code (Chapters 29-Water & Sewer and Chapter 10-Erosion & Sediment Control and Stormwater Management), as well as being embedded in and part of Chapter 30-Zoning. 

Even though council members were aware this matter would be coming before them -- until changes were finalized and formally made in writing to Council, it wasn't actionable.  Councilman Stipes spoke up at the only appropriate time provided to him.  Never did the fact this decision could have direct impact on higher insurance costs for residents come up.

Given the resulting property damage from this past Spring's urban flooding and the infrequency of updating FEMA regulations and maps, Council should be held accountable for fully understanding the implications of the ordinances it is empowered to put into place.  This includes understanding legal minimums and what latitude they have to require higher standards. 

Given that all sitting council members except Henry Showalter have experience serving as a member of the Planning Commission, the fact that only one of them had any (public) comment when accepting this "recommendation" is not encouraging.