Jay Naduvilekunnel

November 20, 2015

ENGR 498: Systems Design
Public Meetings Reflection
One of the great privileges of living in a democratic society is the right to participate in town
forums. In the City of Harrisonburg, there lie several opportunities for citizens to make their
voices heard in public settings, including city council meetings, planning commission
discussions, school board meetings, and subcommittee assemblies. Over the last two months, I
was able to attend three of these meetings two city council meetings and one subcommittee
hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
The first meeting I attended was a city council meeting, held on October 13 at the new city
council chambers on South Main Street. The format was not immediately unfamiliar to me, as I
had attended and watched similar meetings back home in Northern Virginia as part of my high
school government class. Unlike the hearings in Fairfax and Alexandria, however, the number of
elected council members was much smaller; three serve on Harrisonburgs council (Ted Byrd,
Kai Degner, and Abe Shearer) in addition to the mayor (Christopher Jones) and city manager
(Kurt Hodgen). In Harrisonburg, city council meets every two weeks in sessions that revolve
around both public inquiries and local legislation. This contrasts from other meetings Ive
watched, in which separate hearings exist for public discussion, lawmaking, and private work
sessions.
As expected, the meeting followed a strict agenda written and released the week prior. Meetings
began with roll call, a short prayer (which was foreign to me in the context of government), and
the pledge of allegiance. Immediately after followed an open forum, in which city residents
could address the council on personal matters unrelated to the content of the regular agenda. In
this meeting, one citizen shared his plans for a food drive competition between two city high
schools. He also stated that he and his son would hold a competition to see who could collect the
most money by ringing the Salvation Army bell.
Public comments were followed by the consent agenda, in which supplemental minutes and
appropriations for economic development and school board funds were approved. Immediately
after, three public hearings took place. All three hearings had to do with rezoning requests for
commercial, public, and residential parcels within the city. The third, which considered the
closing of an undeveloped public alleyway, was the most controversial and time-consuming;
proponents of the measure felt that it was unsafe for children due to incoming cut-through traffic,
while opponents felt that its closing would affect surrounding property values. Once the regular
session was closed, residents living on either side of the alley represented both stances. After
intense discussion, the motion was made to approve the closure of the alley under a unanimous
decision.
The next part of the agenda (Regular Items) had to do with amendments to the city code of
Harrisonburg for four separate matters: (1) the development and financing of the upcoming Hotel

and Conference Center, (2) clarifications for snow removal from city sidewalks, (3) the approval
of a day-reporting center pilot project, and (4) job duties of the city manager. Brief discussions
were held for items (2), (3), and (4), with the first item taking the most time due to disagreements
with the managing of construction costs. This was also the only motion in this portion of the
meeting to not have a unanimous decision.
Six special event application requests were made for Halloween events, a Veterans Day Parade, a
Thanksgiving Turkey Trot event, a holiday parade in December, a 5k race benefitting the
Generations Crossing daycare, and a fireworks event for New Years Eve. All items were
approved by unanimous vote. Afterwards, three supplemental appropriations for the local police
department were unanimously approved. In the Other Matters portion of the meeting, sitting
members on the council were able to speak any topic of their choice. Then, issues regarding the
appointments of individuals to the Tree Advisory Board and planning district commissions were
discussed. The meeting was closed following the adjournment around 9:45 PM.
The meeting minutes for this session may be found here.

One month later, I attended another city council meeting, held in the same space on November
10. Just as in the last meeting, this session began with roll call, a short invocation, and the pledge
of allegiance. Following the pledge of allegiance was a brief acknowledgment of the participants
of Harrisonburgs citizen academy, a program designated to teach its students about the city and
the services it provides.
During the public comments portion, the gentleman who spoke during the public hearing in
Octobers meeting updated the council of his plans to help feed the homeless using organic foods
farmed by out-of-state farmers. Another man also spoke regarding his efforts to house dozens of
homeless veterans in Harrisonburg. The council, and especially Mayor Jones, responded with
appreciation for the hard work set forth by these individuals.
With the conclusion of the public comments, the minutes were approved, and the three public
hearings on the agenda were deliberated. These included a request to amend the zoning
ordinance for parking regulations outside a business in the B1 area, a request to expand an
existing daycare facility, and a request to allow off-premises signage for a towing business and
body shop on South Main Street. Unlike the last session I attended, this section was relatively
short and the council decided all items unanimously.
In this meeting, there were three regular items discussed: (1) a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the state Department of Emergency Management and the City of Harrisonburg,
(2) an amendment to the city code allowing individuals to receive guest permits, and (3) a
proposal for the addition of a $5 fee to speeding tickets as a fundraising effort for the
implementation of an electronic system of driver information retrieval. All three matters were
passed by unanimous vote. The two supplemental items had to do with the appropriation of funds
for two separate entities: the economic development department and the local police department.

Unlike the last meeting I attended, there were no special event application requests, and the
council was able to discuss other matters relatively early. In this section, there were
disagreements regarding the expansion of Harrisonburg High School, particularly between
Councilman Degner and Councilman Byrd. After a lengthy discussion, the council decided to
push back a vote so that each member would have adequate time to fully analyze the situation.
Just before adjournment, the council discussed plans regarding the Harrisonburg Redevelopment
and Housing Authority and the local Community Policy and Management Team. This meeting
ended approximately an hour before the one held on October 13.
The meeting minutes have not been uploaded yet (as of November 19), but will be located here
once they are finalized.

The last event I attended was the local Bicycle and Pedestrian subcommittee, which meets every
few months in the city council chambers. This specific meeting was held on November 16.
Unlike the city council, in which all council members must be present, only the subcommittee
members (including Dr. Barrella, the chair) were required to attend, with the event moderated by
Ms. Thanh Dang, the transportation and environmental planning manager in the city. According
to the citys website, subcommittee meetings were established to formally add [specific] matters
as an additional area of responsibility of the commission. The same source lists the mission of
the group:

To advise city staff and Transportation Safety and Advisory Commission on bicycle and
pedestrian related matters
To assist in implementation and achieving the goals of the City Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan
To work with the City to achieve safe bicycle and pedestrian connectivity for all
citizens
To solicit input and feedback from community members and local advocates on
bicycling and pedestrian matters
To serve as the body through which the update of the City Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
takes place (approximately every five years as the Comprehensive Plan is updated)

This meeting took place in the same space as the city council meetings, albeit with a much
smaller public audience primarily students in this class, with few residents and possibly
students in other civics classes. It began with the moderator opening the floor for public
comments, and then introducing new subcommittee applicants for consideration.
The first order of business dealt with the update on a pedestrian-cyclist collision that occurred
earlier in the year. Since there were no recent reports surrounding the situation and no
constructive response offered, it was difficult for the subcommittee to completely analyze the
situation. However, the group, as a collective body, recommended drafting a letter to the campus
police department to better understand the incident, how to deal with it, and how to handle
similar cases in the future.

Ms. Dang then introduced Mr. Tom Hartman, the assistant director of public works, to review
different revenue sharing grants to be presented to the state. Each resolution included a request
for a specific amount of funding, with half paid for in grant money, and the other half paid using
local match dollars. Five grants were presented as follows:
(1)

Reservoir Street Reconstruction Project

a. Extending from the city limits to Stonewall Drive
b. Resolution requests $2 million

(2)

South Main & MLK Jr. Way Improvements

a. Proposal for one continuous shared use path to campus
b. No refuge island planned
c. Resolution requests $2.7 million

(3)

Grace Street Extension on the JMU Campus

a. 20-foot roadway, 10-foot wide shared use paths on either side
b. Benefits traffic flow for both incoming automobiles and buses
c. Resolution requests $2.5 million

(4)

Supplement to Annual Paving Program

a. Supplement to maintenance funds (not meant to replace those dollars)
b. Resolution requests $1.9 million

(5)

Garbers Church Rd. Shared Use Paths

a. Near Harrisonburg High School, Hillandale Park, and Heritage Oaks Golf
Course
b. Different options to increase pedestrian traffic to/from the schools
c. Resolution requests $3 million

After Mr. Hartman and the subcommittee wrapped up their discussions, Ms. Dang provided an
update on different focus groups, which met earlier in the last month to discuss the effectiveness
and improvements to various topics involving transportation and urban planning. Each group
contained at least ten participants from different demographics with a range of geographic
priorities. Overall, based on the discussion that took place, these meetings seemed to be
successful and productive, providing valuable information to the subcommittee about learning
how infrastructure may better serve the community.
Next, a barebones schedule for the subcommittee was shared with the group, followed by an
update on this years bike-walk summit (a program that aims to develop partnerships and to
increase coordination between the City, County, and other stakeholders to make [the] region a
great biking and walking community). Prior to adjournment, Ms. Dang presented brief updates
regarding projects currently being designed and/or under construction.
This assembly was relatively short compared to the city council meetings, lasting approximately
75 minutes altogether.

Though not yet ready, a meeting summary for this session may be found here.

As in my high school government class, I was reminded about how city politics plays a key role
in the development of local roads, buildings, and other infrastructure. The project proposal
process is a very time-consuming one; projects have to be suggested to different boards and
commissions and the city staff before they are even decided upon by the city council. Once they
reach the city council, they takes even longer to deliberate (especially when large budgets are
involved) and to get approved. That being said, successful proposals are worth this trouble if they
are mutually agreed to promote positive changes in the community. Contrasting from Northern
Virginia council meetings, it was surprising to see that many motions were unanimously passed
regardless of partisan politics (at least in the meetings the I attended over the last month). It was
also fascinating to see how the dynamic of a smaller city played a role in advancing proposals in
a fairly simple and organized manner.
While I do not have any intentions of entering politics myself, I try to stay engaged by reading
the news, keeping a close eye on the actions of different governments, and using this knowledge
to exercise my right to vote. I hope that I can use this experience to better understand the aspects
of engineering directly related to the political process, starting from the local level. Besides this,
I hope to apply this knowledge to understand who to contact to propose a developed plan, how to
advance it through the system, and to make sure it not only satisfies but exceeds the
expectations of a community. As it pertains to the group project, for the same reasons mentioned
earlier, this assignment was thought provoking and valuable.