571 Long Acre Road
Palmyra, VA 22963
March 18, 2009
Board of Supervisors
County of Fluvanna
P.O. Box 540
Palmyra, VA 22963
RE: Petition concerning Joint Water Authority
Dear Supervisors:
It has come to my attention that there may be an effort to ignore the Petition being submitted to you this evening based on the requirements of Virginia Code § 24.2-684.1. Requirements for voter petitions to call for referendum elections.
This is a different kind of petition. This is a petition to a governing body. It is not a direct petition for a referendum. The petition is to the Governing body to petition the court for the referendum.
The enabling state legislation for the Joint Water Authority has provision for two types of this kind of petition with each for a specific purpose.
The first type is set up for the case that the local governing body, in our case the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors, do not want to establish any Authority. The petition then is an effort to force the BOS to take action. This is clearly not our case.
The second type is where the local governing body is attempting to form and Authority and the petition is to block that action. In that case the petition is petitioning the court indirectly. These petitions do not go to the court but directly to the governing body. The only requirement is the number of qualified voters must be ten percent number. There is no requirement to have the signatures verified in any way.
Once the quantity test is met, the governing body has no choice in the matter. They must petition the court for a referendum. There is no intervening step. There is no detail analysis of the signatures.
In this case, however, the citizens collecting the signatures did in fact, follow the stricter requirements of other kinds of petitions.
The official petition form was used.
The question was the simplest it could be utilizing the exact language of the code and the proposed BOS Resolution.
Individuals who circulated the petitions were all Fluvanna County voters.
The circulators did not sign their own petition but signed another circulator's petition.
Each petition was officially notarized.
These efforts were not required by statue but done to "go the extra mile" so these petitions will not be disputed for any technicality.
The exact Virginia Code related to this type of petition is:
§ 15.2-5105. Hearing; referendum.
If at the hearing, in the judgment of the governing body of the participating locality, substantial opposition is heard, the governing body may at its discretion petition the circuit court to order a referendum on the question of adopting or approving the ordinance, agreement or resolution. The provisions of § 24.2-684 shall govern the order for a referendum. When two or more localities are participating in the formation of such authority, the referendum, if ordered, shall be held on the same date in all participating localities. If ten percent of the qualified voters in a locality file a petition with the governing body at the hearing calling for a referendum, such governing body shall petition the circuit court to order a referendum in that locality as provided in this section.
(Code 1950, § 15-764.6; 1950, p. 1315; 1962, c. 623, § 15.1-1244; 1970, c. 617; 1972, c. 370; 1973, c. 478; 1975, c. 517; 1997, c. 587.)
Notice that the voter petition the governing body, the Board of Supervisors, not the court directly. The Board of Supervisors then petition the court for the referendum.
If you still have doubts, look at the time line. For this kind of petition we only had 30 days notice of the hearing and the law states that the petition must be delivered at that hearing. § 24.2-684.1. specifies a time from of nine months to complete the petition with the first 10 days spent with paperwork at the clerk of the court. It further specifies the completed petitions be delivered to the court rather that the governing body. Clearly § 24.2-684.1. does not apply to this petition being given to the governing body according to § 15.2-5105.
Very truly yours,
Douglas R. Johnson
434 286-6982 home
206 600-6984 fax
doug@descriptive.com
cc.
Marvin F. Moss, Chairman
Charles W. Allbaugh, Vice-Chairman
Gene F. Ott
Donald W. Weaver
Mozell H. Booker
John Y. Gooch
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Alternate to Proposed Fluvanna Joint Water Authority with Louisa
by Douglas R. Johnson
March 16, 2009
All though the years of discussions, up until April of 2008, the concept of sharing the cost of a water pipe to Zion Crossroads never included any Joint Water Authority. This was a totally new idea which was sprung on the community as a "done deal" at the January 26, 2009 meeting at the Best Western Inn at Zion Crossroads. This meeting was suppose to be an "exploratory" meeting between the two BOS's, Fluvanna BOS and Louisa BOS. All of a sudden, this was the one and only way for the project to go forward.
We were told the Fluvanna was going to pay more than half because of the convoluted path of the pipeline. For strictly political reasons, the most direct route is not taken for the pipeline. Supervisor Moss not only wants to dictate where growth should occur, we wants to dictate where it should not occur.
We will be tapping the water line of Tenaska which runs from the James to the Tenaska plant near Lake Monticello. That existing line of unprocessed water virtually runs through Fork Union. The simple logical plan would be to tap into that line in Fork Union district and build a small processing plant there. There is virtually no pipeline needed to then hook into to the existing waterline servicing the entire Fork Union Sanitary District. That puts clean water on Rt 15 at the Middle School.
That location is the current location of the factory that recently closed down. Having unlimited water makes that location a prime location for industry. In fact the entire Fork Union area would then be "open for business". There is a ready work force that does not need to be imported.
Let's look at other benefits for that solution. The Fork Union Sanitary District already has brand new water towers and fully functioning wells. When we add purified James River water, we then move the wells to be back-up for when the river water is down. The water towers also then give storage capacity. That makes Water coming through Fork Union the most reliable system we could have.
Furthermore, I have stated here that the water purifying plant should be a minimum size but built with expansion in mind. So when businesses actually do hook in, we can then reasonably use revenue bonds to expand capacity.
So just what would the cost be to do this Fork Union solution? If we only considered Fluvanna's actual "needs", the cost would be substantially less than half of the Zions Crossroads "wants". But then business development would center around Fork Union rather than around Zion Crossroads.
The closest Timmons Plan to what is proposed here is what Timmons calls the "Rte 649 WTP & Rte 15 Pipeline". Suppose we broke this down to phases. We could then have:
Phase 1 - Fork Union hookup including bare bones Water Treatment Plant. This can be financed by general obligation bonds of Fluvanna as an investment into the infrastructure of the county. This is where help from the Federal Government should be sought. If in fact Mr. Moss did get a promise of 10 million, this is where it should be applied. That would then give Fluvanna a net risk of less than 10 million.
Phase 2 - Pipeline straight up 15 to Zions Crossroads. This would fulfil the obligation to Louisa. This cost should be entirely born by Louisa or it should not be done. That straight run should cost less than the 20 million Louisa currently expects to pay. Here is where we can be a little creative. We can sell Revenue Bonds for this phase based on a full term commitment by Louisa to purchase water at a wholesale level.
Phase 3 - Extend pipeline from Zions Crossroads to Prison. This cost should be born entirely by the prison or it should not be done. This expansion then must be done with Revenue Bonds based on a strict Return on Investment Analysis. Again a full term commitment to purchase water by the prison would justify those Revenue Bonds.
Phase 4 - Expand capacity of Water Treatment Plant. This should only be done when capacity is actually needed. Then this expansion must be done with Revenue Bonds based on a strict Return on Investment Analysis.
Phase 5 - Extend pipeline up Rt 53 from Rt 15. While it would be nice to do this, it should only be done with Revenue Bonds based on a strict Return on Investment Analysis. If the sole purpose of this extension is for the High School, then a Cost Benefit Analysis needs to be done comparing the cost of well water for the new High School vs extending the water pipe to the new High School.
While this may cost more money eventually, it would be a pay as you go plan with very little exposure to the Fluvanna taxpayer.
March 16, 2009
All though the years of discussions, up until April of 2008, the concept of sharing the cost of a water pipe to Zion Crossroads never included any Joint Water Authority. This was a totally new idea which was sprung on the community as a "done deal" at the January 26, 2009 meeting at the Best Western Inn at Zion Crossroads. This meeting was suppose to be an "exploratory" meeting between the two BOS's, Fluvanna BOS and Louisa BOS. All of a sudden, this was the one and only way for the project to go forward.
We were told the Fluvanna was going to pay more than half because of the convoluted path of the pipeline. For strictly political reasons, the most direct route is not taken for the pipeline. Supervisor Moss not only wants to dictate where growth should occur, we wants to dictate where it should not occur.
We will be tapping the water line of Tenaska which runs from the James to the Tenaska plant near Lake Monticello. That existing line of unprocessed water virtually runs through Fork Union. The simple logical plan would be to tap into that line in Fork Union district and build a small processing plant there. There is virtually no pipeline needed to then hook into to the existing waterline servicing the entire Fork Union Sanitary District. That puts clean water on Rt 15 at the Middle School.
That location is the current location of the factory that recently closed down. Having unlimited water makes that location a prime location for industry. In fact the entire Fork Union area would then be "open for business". There is a ready work force that does not need to be imported.
Let's look at other benefits for that solution. The Fork Union Sanitary District already has brand new water towers and fully functioning wells. When we add purified James River water, we then move the wells to be back-up for when the river water is down. The water towers also then give storage capacity. That makes Water coming through Fork Union the most reliable system we could have.
Furthermore, I have stated here that the water purifying plant should be a minimum size but built with expansion in mind. So when businesses actually do hook in, we can then reasonably use revenue bonds to expand capacity.
So just what would the cost be to do this Fork Union solution? If we only considered Fluvanna's actual "needs", the cost would be substantially less than half of the Zions Crossroads "wants". But then business development would center around Fork Union rather than around Zion Crossroads.
The closest Timmons Plan to what is proposed here is what Timmons calls the "Rte 649 WTP & Rte 15 Pipeline". Suppose we broke this down to phases. We could then have:
Phase 1 - Fork Union hookup including bare bones Water Treatment Plant. This can be financed by general obligation bonds of Fluvanna as an investment into the infrastructure of the county. This is where help from the Federal Government should be sought. If in fact Mr. Moss did get a promise of 10 million, this is where it should be applied. That would then give Fluvanna a net risk of less than 10 million.
Phase 2 - Pipeline straight up 15 to Zions Crossroads. This would fulfil the obligation to Louisa. This cost should be entirely born by Louisa or it should not be done. That straight run should cost less than the 20 million Louisa currently expects to pay. Here is where we can be a little creative. We can sell Revenue Bonds for this phase based on a full term commitment by Louisa to purchase water at a wholesale level.
Phase 3 - Extend pipeline from Zions Crossroads to Prison. This cost should be born entirely by the prison or it should not be done. This expansion then must be done with Revenue Bonds based on a strict Return on Investment Analysis. Again a full term commitment to purchase water by the prison would justify those Revenue Bonds.
Phase 4 - Expand capacity of Water Treatment Plant. This should only be done when capacity is actually needed. Then this expansion must be done with Revenue Bonds based on a strict Return on Investment Analysis.
Phase 5 - Extend pipeline up Rt 53 from Rt 15. While it would be nice to do this, it should only be done with Revenue Bonds based on a strict Return on Investment Analysis. If the sole purpose of this extension is for the High School, then a Cost Benefit Analysis needs to be done comparing the cost of well water for the new High School vs extending the water pipe to the new High School.
While this may cost more money eventually, it would be a pay as you go plan with very little exposure to the Fluvanna taxpayer.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Answering Supervisor Booker's comment to WCAV-TV concering Fluvanna Joint Water Authority with Louisa
by Douglas R. Johnson
March 14, 2009
Supervisor Mozel Booker is quoted as saying: "Louisa is growing, and we know that we need water in our growth area which is at Zion's Crossroads according to our new comprehensive plan,"
I am surprised Ms Booker, who represents Fork Union, would push for development at Zions Crossroads mostly for the benefit of new residents when the district she represents actually needs business development for her existing constituents.
Fork Union had a water treatment plant which was wiped out by a flood on the James before they started using well water. They could very easily put in a small treatment facility out of the flood plain and have all the water Fork Union could ever use for development.
This would cost less than half the cost of the Zion Crossroads water line.
This would put to work all of the low income community in the Fork Union District and actually pay for itself with new businesses in the center of Fluvanna County.
Louisa could then just pay for a pipe going from Fork Union straight up Rt 15 to Zion Crossroad.
There is no need for any Joint Water Authority.
But this may be too simple and practical a solution for some of our Superisors to grasp.
March 14, 2009
Supervisor Mozel Booker is quoted as saying: "Louisa is growing, and we know that we need water in our growth area which is at Zion's Crossroads according to our new comprehensive plan,"
I am surprised Ms Booker, who represents Fork Union, would push for development at Zions Crossroads mostly for the benefit of new residents when the district she represents actually needs business development for her existing constituents.
Fork Union had a water treatment plant which was wiped out by a flood on the James before they started using well water. They could very easily put in a small treatment facility out of the flood plain and have all the water Fork Union could ever use for development.
This would cost less than half the cost of the Zion Crossroads water line.
This would put to work all of the low income community in the Fork Union District and actually pay for itself with new businesses in the center of Fluvanna County.
Louisa could then just pay for a pipe going from Fork Union straight up Rt 15 to Zion Crossroad.
There is no need for any Joint Water Authority.
But this may be too simple and practical a solution for some of our Superisors to grasp.
Answering the Gooch Letter Concerning the Referendum Petition on Fluvanna Joint Water Authority with Louisa
by Douglas R. Johnson
March 14, 2009
Supervisor John W. Gooch, who did recently recuse himself from a vote on a high density housing proposal which included hooking up to this pending water line because of his business relationship with the development, has now written a letter published in the Fluvanna Review promoting that very water line.
It is odd that the first proposal for the use of the water line was not for any of the "industries and businesses that could help broaden our tax base and reduce the burden on Fluvanna taxpayers", but for a high density housing project that would have actually INCREASED the burden on Fluvanna taxpayers. Fortunately, the other five Supervisors turned down that project.
There are many concerned citizens who honestly believe that the water line going to Zion Crossroads would attract "industries and businesses that could help broaden our tax base and reduce the burden on Fluvanna taxpayers". But few realize that the accompanying Comprehensive Plan also being voted on March 18, 2009 designates Zion Crossroads for high density housing with from four to ten units per acre.
So how do we protect ourselves from the unintended consequences of high density housing projects in our quest for "industries and businesses that could help broaden our tax base and reduce the burden on Fluvanna taxpayers"?
First, let's "Fact Check" Supervisor Gooch's assertions.
Virginia code § 15.2-5114, Powers of authority, clearly contradict Mr. Gooch's contention concerning eminent domain and the hooking up to the pipeline. The limitations Mr. Gooch claims are not in either the enabling statute to be voted on at the March 18th BOS meeting nor in the Virginia code.
Yes we have gone slowly and methodically for 20 years. But that does not mean we should now legislate out all safeguards we need to protect our county from unscrupulous developers who only look at the immediate profits to them and not the long cost burden on the County.
The details MUST restrict high density housing at least until the phantom "industries and businesses that could help broaden our tax base and reduce the burden on Fluvanna taxpayers" reveal themselves.
If we have worked 20 years to get it right, why not go a few months more to sell us the details and let us vote by referendum on the fully specified proposal?
March 14, 2009
Supervisor John W. Gooch, who did recently recuse himself from a vote on a high density housing proposal which included hooking up to this pending water line because of his business relationship with the development, has now written a letter published in the Fluvanna Review promoting that very water line.
It is odd that the first proposal for the use of the water line was not for any of the "industries and businesses that could help broaden our tax base and reduce the burden on Fluvanna taxpayers", but for a high density housing project that would have actually INCREASED the burden on Fluvanna taxpayers. Fortunately, the other five Supervisors turned down that project.
There are many concerned citizens who honestly believe that the water line going to Zion Crossroads would attract "industries and businesses that could help broaden our tax base and reduce the burden on Fluvanna taxpayers". But few realize that the accompanying Comprehensive Plan also being voted on March 18, 2009 designates Zion Crossroads for high density housing with from four to ten units per acre.
So how do we protect ourselves from the unintended consequences of high density housing projects in our quest for "industries and businesses that could help broaden our tax base and reduce the burden on Fluvanna taxpayers"?
First, let's "Fact Check" Supervisor Gooch's assertions.
Virginia code § 15.2-5114, Powers of authority, clearly contradict Mr. Gooch's contention concerning eminent domain and the hooking up to the pipeline. The limitations Mr. Gooch claims are not in either the enabling statute to be voted on at the March 18th BOS meeting nor in the Virginia code.
Yes we have gone slowly and methodically for 20 years. But that does not mean we should now legislate out all safeguards we need to protect our county from unscrupulous developers who only look at the immediate profits to them and not the long cost burden on the County.
The details MUST restrict high density housing at least until the phantom "industries and businesses that could help broaden our tax base and reduce the burden on Fluvanna taxpayers" reveal themselves.
If we have worked 20 years to get it right, why not go a few months more to sell us the details and let us vote by referendum on the fully specified proposal?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Fluvanna Citizens Launch Petition Drive to Place Water Authority on Ballot
March 4, 2009 – Equipped with petitions and clipboards, Fluvanna citizens are canvassing the County to collect 1800 signatures ahead of a March 18 Board of Supervisors public hearing. At the hearing, supervisors are expected to approve creation of a James River joint water authority with Louisa County.
The petition asks that the following question be placed on the ballot: "Shall Fluvanna County join Louisa County in the formation of a joint Water Authority?" Citizens backing the petition hope to present enough signatures from Fluvanna voters to halt the Board's decision and put the water authority before voters.
"We're not taking a stand on the water authority one way or the other," says Doug Johnson, who is spokesperson for the petition drive. "We just want an open airing of the issues. County officials have not given citizens sufficient time and facts to understand all the pros and cons or to provide informed feedback at the public hearing."
The petition drive was launched when a few concerned citizens met together. "The subject of the meeting was the pipeline, and as we all discussed the issues and realized how overpowering the questions were, we decided we had to do something before it was too late," says Johnson.
Both Fluvanna and Louisa officials want the joint water authority to promote economic development at Zion Crossroads. Fluvanna also hopes to ease water supply problems in Fork Union and at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women. "It may be good for Louisa. It may be good for businesses and the prison. But are the joint authority and the pipeline really good for the majority of Fluvanna taxpayers who will never directly benefit and probably won't ever get paid back for subsidizing this venture? That's our question," says Johnson.
Leroy McCampbell (589-1599), who is distributing blank petitions and collecting the signed petitions, says there are too many unknowns about the joint water authority. "March 18 will be citizens' only opportunity to speak out on this issue, yet there are so many critical, unanswered questions. It was just a month ago that the counties formally agreed to this and only a week ago that we learned the date of the public hearing. This whole thing is being rushed to the detriment of citizen information and input."
Johnson says the community information meetings last spring focused on the nuts and bolts of the pipeline, not the joint authority. "Since then, Fluvanna citizens have been given little or no information about the authority and its powers, no cost/benefit analysis, no update on pipeline costs. The County expects us, the taxpayers, to blindly foot the bill for this without having sufficient facts."
What many residents don't realize, says Johnson, is that, once created, the joint authority will endure for many years and set in motion events that will affect people's pocketbooks, property and their ability to influence pipeline decisions in the future. "Think about it. Louisa officials are unaccountable to Fluvanna citizens, yet they'll get equal say over a pipeline that cuts entirely through Fluvanna lands," he states. "On the six-member joint authority board, Fluvanna voters will have only one elected official whom they can try to influence and hold accountable on pipeline issues. There's a big sovereignty question here."
Other issues that concern the petition drive group include:
· Louisa County will pay half on the pipeline, but is 50/50 adequate compensation for the use of Fluvanna's land and access to the James River?
· Virginia statutes give the joint authority eminent domain powers and the pipeline will cut through some 200 Fluvanna properties, according to some supervisors. Should the joint water authority – half of whose voting members are from Louisa – have eminent domain authority over Fluvanna lands?
· Is Fluvanna striking the best deal with Louisa given the disproportionate impact on Fluvanna citizens and natural resources?
· If the pipeline is such a great business proposition, why don't plans call for it to be supported by revenue bonds instead of general obligation bonds? (With revenue bonds, the system finances itself; with general obligation bonds, taxpayers underwrite the cost.)
· Does it make good fiscal sense to saddle Fluvanna taxpayers with a 6.1 percent initial pipeline tax increase on top of a projected 41 percent increase in real estate taxes for phase one of the Domino Plan?
For more information about the petition, call Doug Johnson at 286-6982, Leroy McCampbell at 589-1599, or go to www.FluvannaBlog.com. The joint authority public hearing will be at 7 p.m., March 18, at the Fluvanna circuit courtroom in Palmyra.
The petition asks that the following question be placed on the ballot: "Shall Fluvanna County join Louisa County in the formation of a joint Water Authority?" Citizens backing the petition hope to present enough signatures from Fluvanna voters to halt the Board's decision and put the water authority before voters.
"We're not taking a stand on the water authority one way or the other," says Doug Johnson, who is spokesperson for the petition drive. "We just want an open airing of the issues. County officials have not given citizens sufficient time and facts to understand all the pros and cons or to provide informed feedback at the public hearing."
The petition drive was launched when a few concerned citizens met together. "The subject of the meeting was the pipeline, and as we all discussed the issues and realized how overpowering the questions were, we decided we had to do something before it was too late," says Johnson.
Both Fluvanna and Louisa officials want the joint water authority to promote economic development at Zion Crossroads. Fluvanna also hopes to ease water supply problems in Fork Union and at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women. "It may be good for Louisa. It may be good for businesses and the prison. But are the joint authority and the pipeline really good for the majority of Fluvanna taxpayers who will never directly benefit and probably won't ever get paid back for subsidizing this venture? That's our question," says Johnson.
Leroy McCampbell (589-1599), who is distributing blank petitions and collecting the signed petitions, says there are too many unknowns about the joint water authority. "March 18 will be citizens' only opportunity to speak out on this issue, yet there are so many critical, unanswered questions. It was just a month ago that the counties formally agreed to this and only a week ago that we learned the date of the public hearing. This whole thing is being rushed to the detriment of citizen information and input."
Johnson says the community information meetings last spring focused on the nuts and bolts of the pipeline, not the joint authority. "Since then, Fluvanna citizens have been given little or no information about the authority and its powers, no cost/benefit analysis, no update on pipeline costs. The County expects us, the taxpayers, to blindly foot the bill for this without having sufficient facts."
What many residents don't realize, says Johnson, is that, once created, the joint authority will endure for many years and set in motion events that will affect people's pocketbooks, property and their ability to influence pipeline decisions in the future. "Think about it. Louisa officials are unaccountable to Fluvanna citizens, yet they'll get equal say over a pipeline that cuts entirely through Fluvanna lands," he states. "On the six-member joint authority board, Fluvanna voters will have only one elected official whom they can try to influence and hold accountable on pipeline issues. There's a big sovereignty question here."
Other issues that concern the petition drive group include:
· Louisa County will pay half on the pipeline, but is 50/50 adequate compensation for the use of Fluvanna's land and access to the James River?
· Virginia statutes give the joint authority eminent domain powers and the pipeline will cut through some 200 Fluvanna properties, according to some supervisors. Should the joint water authority – half of whose voting members are from Louisa – have eminent domain authority over Fluvanna lands?
· Is Fluvanna striking the best deal with Louisa given the disproportionate impact on Fluvanna citizens and natural resources?
· If the pipeline is such a great business proposition, why don't plans call for it to be supported by revenue bonds instead of general obligation bonds? (With revenue bonds, the system finances itself; with general obligation bonds, taxpayers underwrite the cost.)
· Does it make good fiscal sense to saddle Fluvanna taxpayers with a 6.1 percent initial pipeline tax increase on top of a projected 41 percent increase in real estate taxes for phase one of the Domino Plan?
For more information about the petition, call Doug Johnson at 286-6982, Leroy McCampbell at 589-1599, or go to www.FluvannaBlog.com. The joint authority public hearing will be at 7 p.m., March 18, at the Fluvanna circuit courtroom in Palmyra.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
How the Petition for a Referendum on the Joint Water Authority Got Started
by Douglas R. Johnson
March 1, 2009
The purpose of the Fluvanna Taxpayers Association (FTA) is "about informing and educating the citizens on what is happening at County meetings". That organization has and will continue to "promote communication, involvement in County government, and the lowest taxes that cover what we need and sustain our quality of life". That vision was instituted by FTA's late founder, Lee True, and is maintained by FTA's courageous current chairman, Faith Stuart.
What happened on Thursday evening, February 19, 2009, was that the FTA had an open meeting to discuss the proposed Joint Water Authority. The presentation was fair giving both the pros and the cons. The difficulty came with the discovered unanswered questions. It seemed that the project could be good or bad depending on the answers to these questions.
But documented evidence was presented that emphasized that no one knew the answers, not even the Supervisors who were about to "cast in stone" this Joint Authority. We all who were in that room knew the history of Fluvanna County Board of Supervisor (BOS) Public Hearings. Typically the BOS would listen to the public then act on a pre written resolution totally ignoring what was said.
We attendees did not trust the process for such an important issue. We did not even discuss whether a water pipeline to Zion Crossroad was a good idea or not. The real question was as to doing it as a Joint Authority between Fluvanna County and Louisa County.
It was brought up at the meeting that the law provided this question could be put to a referendum and virtually everyone there called for such a referendum.
Chairman Faith Stuart expressed her unwillingness to alienate the BOS by having said petition be a FTA petition. Therefore, I and certain others who attended that FTA meeting took it upon ourselves to act as individual citizens rather than representatives of any organization.
What this has turned out to be then is a true grassroots effort that has "legs of its own". The support for this petition has crossed party lines. It is being circulated by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. It is bringing our County together more than any other way that I have even heard of. Truly this has wakened the sleeping lion.
March 1, 2009
The purpose of the Fluvanna Taxpayers Association (FTA) is "about informing and educating the citizens on what is happening at County meetings". That organization has and will continue to "promote communication, involvement in County government, and the lowest taxes that cover what we need and sustain our quality of life". That vision was instituted by FTA's late founder, Lee True, and is maintained by FTA's courageous current chairman, Faith Stuart.
What happened on Thursday evening, February 19, 2009, was that the FTA had an open meeting to discuss the proposed Joint Water Authority. The presentation was fair giving both the pros and the cons. The difficulty came with the discovered unanswered questions. It seemed that the project could be good or bad depending on the answers to these questions.
But documented evidence was presented that emphasized that no one knew the answers, not even the Supervisors who were about to "cast in stone" this Joint Authority. We all who were in that room knew the history of Fluvanna County Board of Supervisor (BOS) Public Hearings. Typically the BOS would listen to the public then act on a pre written resolution totally ignoring what was said.
We attendees did not trust the process for such an important issue. We did not even discuss whether a water pipeline to Zion Crossroad was a good idea or not. The real question was as to doing it as a Joint Authority between Fluvanna County and Louisa County.
It was brought up at the meeting that the law provided this question could be put to a referendum and virtually everyone there called for such a referendum.
Chairman Faith Stuart expressed her unwillingness to alienate the BOS by having said petition be a FTA petition. Therefore, I and certain others who attended that FTA meeting took it upon ourselves to act as individual citizens rather than representatives of any organization.
What this has turned out to be then is a true grassroots effort that has "legs of its own". The support for this petition has crossed party lines. It is being circulated by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. It is bringing our County together more than any other way that I have even heard of. Truly this has wakened the sleeping lion.
Fight or Flee, That Is the Question for Fluvanna Taxpayers
by Douglas R. Johnson
February 23, 2009
Moses was 80 years old when he started to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. When are you too old to start something new. We all have history of what we have done over our lifetimes. When do we say that it is time to die; time to sit around and wait for the Grim Reaper?
I thought coming to Fluvanna was my getting ready for days of retirement, rest and relaxation. But the conditions changed. Some few thought they knew best for the rest of us. They wanted to "plan".
Plans are nice but plan for yourself and not for me. Whether they want to plan a crosswalk to nowhere or something grand. Dreamers dream and that is good when they dream for themselves. But when they dream ideas for me, they need to sell me on that dream not force it on me.
We in Fluvanna County are victims of planners who have their own ideas as what is best for the County and are pushing it on the rest of us. I came from an area of high services and high taxes. I came to Fluvanna because it had low taxes and low services. We have no sidewalks, no sewers, and no public water. We had two acre minimum zoning and you had to have a good well and good drainage to support your septic.
Now don't get me wrong. I lived in the city and I liked getting water from a faucet and when I flushed, I liked how it all left my property. I certainly liked walking on sidewalks. But I did not like paying over $600 per month in property taxes. Property taxes need to be paid whether you have income or not.
I am not trying to change anything. It is the "planners" who are changing things. They win an election by very few votes and they act as if they got a mandate. They just squeaked by and here we are thinking that they have this huge power base.
These planners have tried there grandiose plans in the past and were beaten back. We need to beat them back again. They should be the ones fleeing. We need to fight to preserve our county.
We simply need to wake up our long time residence and show them what is happening. Trust me, they do not want to leave. They have roots here that go back to colonial times. They just don't believe what the planners have in store for them.
And those of us who are new to the county, we came with eyes open to the way it was here and frankly, we have a moral responsibility to keep the county the way we found it. If we want any change whatsoever, we need to be very careful not to put our plans for change on those who have lived here for many years if not decades.
The deceit of two years of no payment on the school bonds shows how the planners are afraid to let residence know what is happening until it is too late for us to do anything. This joint Water Authority with Louisa is now being pushed through with many unanswered questions.
I would rather take a cruise in the Carribean than fight these planners. But I need to fight for myself and my children and my grand children. We all need to put our self interest aside and rise to the occasion and fight one more time. We need to stop the madness now.
February 23, 2009
Moses was 80 years old when he started to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. When are you too old to start something new. We all have history of what we have done over our lifetimes. When do we say that it is time to die; time to sit around and wait for the Grim Reaper?
I thought coming to Fluvanna was my getting ready for days of retirement, rest and relaxation. But the conditions changed. Some few thought they knew best for the rest of us. They wanted to "plan".
Plans are nice but plan for yourself and not for me. Whether they want to plan a crosswalk to nowhere or something grand. Dreamers dream and that is good when they dream for themselves. But when they dream ideas for me, they need to sell me on that dream not force it on me.
We in Fluvanna County are victims of planners who have their own ideas as what is best for the County and are pushing it on the rest of us. I came from an area of high services and high taxes. I came to Fluvanna because it had low taxes and low services. We have no sidewalks, no sewers, and no public water. We had two acre minimum zoning and you had to have a good well and good drainage to support your septic.
Now don't get me wrong. I lived in the city and I liked getting water from a faucet and when I flushed, I liked how it all left my property. I certainly liked walking on sidewalks. But I did not like paying over $600 per month in property taxes. Property taxes need to be paid whether you have income or not.
I am not trying to change anything. It is the "planners" who are changing things. They win an election by very few votes and they act as if they got a mandate. They just squeaked by and here we are thinking that they have this huge power base.
These planners have tried there grandiose plans in the past and were beaten back. We need to beat them back again. They should be the ones fleeing. We need to fight to preserve our county.
We simply need to wake up our long time residence and show them what is happening. Trust me, they do not want to leave. They have roots here that go back to colonial times. They just don't believe what the planners have in store for them.
And those of us who are new to the county, we came with eyes open to the way it was here and frankly, we have a moral responsibility to keep the county the way we found it. If we want any change whatsoever, we need to be very careful not to put our plans for change on those who have lived here for many years if not decades.
The deceit of two years of no payment on the school bonds shows how the planners are afraid to let residence know what is happening until it is too late for us to do anything. This joint Water Authority with Louisa is now being pushed through with many unanswered questions.
I would rather take a cruise in the Carribean than fight these planners. But I need to fight for myself and my children and my grand children. We all need to put our self interest aside and rise to the occasion and fight one more time. We need to stop the madness now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
