Okay, a poet, I am not.

More reading on the Audit (including Audits from 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 as well as the federal and state document for how these are to be done) is available on the citizen's web page as well as updated reports on building permits. There was so much good information available, I had to create a whole new webpage to hold it all. Hope you find the documents and links helpful.

I've been reading the documents provided to me by the Town of Christiansburg concerning the 2008 document. In this audit report, I found pages 40 and 41 most interesting.

These pages point out some concerns about the Towns finances that Town Council members should begin addressing NOW...before it is too late.

Additionally, note that the auditor's report, although a public document, contains the following disclaimer: This report is intended solely for the information and use of Town Council, management, and state and federal awarding agencies and pass through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. I'm not sure why that is appearing on a document that is public access, but it could certainly raise some confusion in some situations.

I have added a new webpage to the citizen's webpage I maintain for citizens interested in learning more about government and 'Town Business'. This page: Audit and Finance Information contains a copy of the 2008 audit (the other 4 will be added as soon as I can get them done) and multiple links to documents concerning what is legally required to be reported, updates to that criteria. There is also a copy of the proposed contract with Virginia Tech on the Aquatic Center although that is missing the attachments noted in the agreement (still waiting on those). *** Just in: Per Randy Wingfield (planning dept.) Mr. Terpenny (town manager) advised there are no attachments, that phrase was simply added in case there were any.****

These should provide some handy resources for anyone interested in finances and possibly some of the town staff who currently don't know why it is necessary to do some of the things that they do. Happy reading.

Don't forget the Aquatic Center Agreement with Tech is on the same agenda on Jan. 6, 2009.

Now, were was I in that historic district overlay report? hmmm...back to work.

My questions about the aquatic center agreement:

1. Why is the document dated 2007? If attorneys have been working on this you would think the date would be accurate.

2. Who picked out the 25 year time frame? The average life of one of these pools before major renovations and repair need to be done is 20 to 25 years.

3. Why is Tech being given 5 free years? Will citizens get the same consideration?

4. Who will be handling concessions at the Aquatic Center? If Tech does, then there will be no tax revenue generated for the town.

5. Who will handle parking at the events? Will the parking lot be exclusive to Tech as well, meaning that citizens will not have access to the skateboard park during competitions? If fees are charged for parking at these events, who gets the money?

6. If Tech has exclusive rights to the two largest dressing rooms, where will their competitors dress and store equipment during competition? Does this mean the citizens will lose the two smaller dressing rooms at meets?

7. Who will have to clean up the building and grounds after these meets? Per #7 of the agreement, it looks like no matter how big the mess, it will be taxpayer money that has to foot the bill for cleaning up after all events.

8. If Tech has exclusive rights to the dressing rooms and the Town hosts meets for high school teams, etc., what dressing rooms will they be given, the citizens?

9. Will the town get a percentage of the ticket sales to these events?

10. Why is there such a focus on saying that the $250,000 per year will be used towards payment of the facility when in actuality, that will cover less than 1/4 of the projected operating cost of the facility? (Is that 1/4 of the cost equal to the current percentage of time Tech will be using the facility? Is there something in there to compensate the town when 10 years from now, the cost of operation has gone up 20, 30, 40%?)

11. Part of the grand plan for paying for the facility, is to host a string of other meets at the facility. That takes pre-planning and advertising. If Tech doesn't have to give a list of dates it will need the center for practices until: "By July 1 of every year, VT will advise the Town of its training schedule for the period September 1 through April 30. By March 1 of every year, VT will advise the Town of its training schedule for May 1 through August 31."

This means that the Town can't plan and advertise/recruit participants for events from Sept. 1 thru April 30 until July 1. and for the May 1 thru August 31 period until March 1. This will leave a very narrow window for the Town to make plans and find participants for such groups. How can that compete with areas where plans for such events are made a year or more ahead of time?

12. Tech will have the exclusive use of the pool for 10 weekends and the town will be notified of those by August 1 of every year. What lead time does that leave the town for organizing it's own activities? The agreement give no idea of any proposed dates for those events so, in theory, they could begin August 15th and be scattered through the year.

13. Where does it cover any damage done to the facility by Tech?

It is unfortunate that the copy of the agreement I received did not include the attachments of exhibits noted in #13. Perhaps whatever those attachments are would have answered some of my questions. Or, perhaps they would have generated more. I do believe those should have been provided along with the agreement itself, since legally those attachments should have been provided to the Town Council as well. Hopefully, those will be available to the public before the Public Meeting....or will be available at the Jan. 6th meeting  with plenty of time to be read or the public meeting will be delayed until the Town Council and CITIZENS have a chance to review them. This is exactly the type of behavior that can lead people to believe that something is going on behind the backs of Council and Citizens.

I gotta go back and review the State Codes concerning leasing of public property and franchises (rfp required?). It's a good thing that I love doing research:)

Before I forget: HAPPY NEW YEAR! I hope that each of you has a safe, healthy, happy year, with a lot of time for family and friends (and, if your like me, multiple opportunities to read some really good books).

My previous blog has been sitting around for several weeks, waiting to see what would happen. Had I but waited a few more hours, I could have saved myself a few minutes work. Oh, well. The bottom-line is that the Accountant will appear on Jan. 6, 2009, at the Town Council Meeting, to present an accounting of finances to the Town Council in Public Meeting.  I rushed around like crazy (I think they enjoy seeing me acting like an ant on a hot griddle) to scan the audit report for 2008 (the other 4 years will have to wait a bit...it is New Years Eve....ooops...Day now. My how time flies. Anyway, you can find the .pdf file of the 2008 audit on the citizen's webpage. Just click the link (2nd one down) to go to the file and view it for yourself.

I'm not saying there are any deep, dark secrets hidden anywhere in this document. I am simply saying that citizens have a right to have this information and to ask questions, if they so desire. That is the whole purpose of open government and is the cornerstone of good government. Keeping this kind of information visible to the public prevents misconceptions and the perception of 'shaky deals happening in the dark'.

It would be wonderful if I simply got the lights turned on and there was absolutely NO wrong-doing to be found. The more information is kept from the public, the more it appears that something is hidden. Putting the information out there, for citizens to see, shows that there is nothing to hide.

Now, back to sign ordinance research. (Hey! It's a day off, I can spend it anyway I want:)

As Near as I can tell, I never saw an Accountant at any of the Town Council Meetings, and I haven't missed a one. The rationale behind the Accountant presenting the written document is so that the professional can respond to any questions the Town Council may have. Of course, in an environment where the document is handed out by the Town Manager, this opportunity to ask a professional opinion is denied Town Council. I wonder if the absence of the Accountant means that the law has not been met. Copies of the 5 most recent audits will be coming online on the citizen webpage soon. (Hey! It takes a little time to get all this stuff, scan it, and load it online. What do you expect for free:)

§ 15.2-2511. Audit of local government records, etc.; Auditor of Public Accounts; audit of shortages.

A. Localities shall have all their accounts and records, including all accounts and records of their constitutional officers, audited annually as of June 30 by an independent certified public accountant in accordance with the specifications furnished by the Auditor of Public Accounts. The certified public accountant shall present a detailed written report to the local governing body at a public session by the following December 31. Every locality shall contract for the performance of the annual audit not later than April 1 of each fiscal year and such contract shall incorporate the provisions of this section relating to audit specifications and report date. The report shall be preserved by the clerk of the local governing body, and shall be open to public inspection at all times by any qualified voter.

The accounts and records of any county or city officer listed in Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "constitutional officers," shall be subject to the provisions of this section.

In the event a locality fails to obtain the annual audit prescribed by this subsection, the Auditor of Public Accounts may undertake the audit or may employ the services of certified public accountants and charge the full cost of such services to the locality. However, no part of the cost and expense of such audit shall be paid by any locality whose governing body has its accounts audited for the fiscal years in question as prescribed above and furnishes the Auditor of Public Accounts with a copy of such audit.

B. The Auditor of Public Accounts shall audit the accounts of local governments and constitutional officers only when (i) special circumstances require an audit, or (ii) there is suspected fraud or inappropriate handling of funds which may affect the financial interests of the Commonwealth. In all instances, such audits shall be carried out with the approval of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission.

Any shortage existing in the accounts of the locality or constitutional officer, as ascertained by the audit, shall be made public within thirty days after the shortage is discovered, and a brief statement thereof shall be sent by the Auditor of Public Accounts to the members and clerk of the local governing body and to the circuit court for the locality, and shall be filed in the clerk's office of such court.

C. The provisions of this section shall apply to all counties and cities, to all towns having a population of 3,500 or over, and to all towns constituting a separate school division regardless of their population.

(Code 1950, § 15-583; 1958, c. 615; 1962, c. 623, § 15.1-167; 1978, c. 725; 1981, c. 139; 1985, c. 315; 1993, c. 681; 1997, c. 587.)

On to the Town Information page on my website and click on the first link to pull up a copy of the same Aquatic Center Lease agreement that was provided to the Town Council Members. Read it and think about it. Get your questions ready for the Jan. 6, 2009 Town Council Meeting where there will be a public hearing about this agreement.

The issue of parking facilities is still on the table with a public hearing scheduled for Jan. 6, 2009 (the first Town Council Meeting of the new year ... which will also host the first Public Hearing on the Aquatic Center agreement with Virginia Tech where one of the hottest issues will be how much time will citizens actually have available for swimming in this new community facility).

I've posted the audio online for you to listen to the discussion. The only thing I really came away with is that it looks like is that there is no real estimate of the parking places that will be needed when the project is completed. It sounded like the estimates for parking places needed were based upon the Courthouse only and not including predictive traffic/parking patterns as the County continues to build new and renovate old structures which may expand the parking needs.

I'll bet you can count on one thing. If the estimates are low, downtown parking will become nonexistent. Due to the distance from the parking facility, I'm betting that the Town parking lot is quickly taken over by court house parking anyway.

In reference to the digital sign issues, the use of CUP's again came up but it was acknowledged by Mr.Terpenny that they would not work because the sign ordinance is separate from the zoning ordinance. (The Town Attorney noted at the last Town Council meeting that this was true and could be problematic. He also noted that most jurisdictions have these two combined.)

Each of the town officials I have asked about the combining of the zoning and sign ordinances have reported that it wasn't done because it would result in variances going to the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) and they would overrule the Town 99% of the time. (A quick scan of the Montgomery County records pertaining to BZA and signs shows this is not something that should occur. In fact, the research I've done shows that having the two incorporated reduced the number of issues as compared to where they are separate.)

Combining the two would mean the Town Manager would not be the sole determining factor pertaining to any variances. For those who would argue that it would require more people to enforce, nope....sign ordinances aren't that well enforced now. Most of the people I've talked to report that illegal signs are not dealt with unless some citizen complains. In those cases, there is some concern that if the signs are already up, the only thing that happens is that the violator is required to get a sign permit and it is passed regardless of citizen concerns.

There was some discussion of research that the Planning Dept. was to do concerning two other jurisdictions and how they deal with digital signs, Salem and Charlottesville. Well, it took me all of five minutes to find those in Municode (I'm looking at them now.) Salem only addresses illuminated signs which are not the same thing as digital signs. In the Charlottesville code  Illumination of signs is discussed (Sec.34-1034) but applies to the illumination of signs not digital signs. In another section it is noted the following signs are prohibited: (Sec. 34-1029 Prohibited Signs) "(4) Any sign that moves or contains or consists of a searchlight, beacon, strobe light, flashing lights or similar form(s) of illumination; provided that this provision will not affect traffic, parking or informational signs placed by a public authority."

For those signs that are illuminated, simply signs that have lights shining on them, the restrictions/criteria can be found to include electrical permits and a minimum insurance of $300,000.00. They must be so constructed with gooseneck reflectors or other devices to prevent glare and attention is to be paid to illumination  avoiding glare on adjoining residential properties. The lighting of these signs must comply with the outdoor lighting ordinance.

The removal of any signs in violation of the ordinances and enforcement of maintenance of those signs falls under the authority of the zoning administrator.

(There may be a surprise coming in the next few days so watch for special notices:)