Referendum Not Dead - Fluvanna Petition Drive Still Alive and Well

by Douglas R. Johnson

April 23, 2009

It has been stated that the Petition for Referendum on the Fluvanna Joint Water Authority with Louisa County is a dead issue since the issuance of a charter for the James River Water Authority.

But a 1993 Virginia Supreme Court Decision stated that if the forming of an Authority by the State Corporation Commission is challenged, the action can be reversed. This is really a very simple procedure equivalent to filing a Motion with the local court.

The only complication is that we will be arguing our case in the local court and simultaneous (but not on the same day) arguing virtually the same thing to the State Corporation Commission in Richmond.

The facts are on our side. The law plainly states that if ten percent of the voters sign the
petition, we get a referendum. No if's and's or but's - the legal term is "shall". That means the arrogant actions of the four Fluvanna Supervisors in disenfranchising us citizens, will be reversed.

Everyone who has been attending these BOS meetings know how whatever is said by the public is totally ignored by these four supervisors who regularly vote as one. They all seem to be following the Chairman. Whatever he says goes.

But on the April 15th meeting their action was even worse. When Leroy McCampbell delivered copies of the second petition that was filed that day with the court, two of these Supervisors were not even in the room. When it came time to take action on our petitions, those two still voted. It is one thing to not heed the public when voting but not even being in the room is the height of arrogance.

Now the Chairman read a letter at the March 18th meeting stating that he would vote for the authority even though the law says a referendum must be held first. 2,100 citizens was far over the 1,684 needed so even before checking, the minimum was obviously met.

Now the Fluvanna Review published the entire letter in the immediately proceeding issue. But that was not enough for the Chairman. He put the letter as a full page ad not just in the next issue but in two consecutive issues.

Two of that four won their seats by only a handful of votes. But now they act as if they were given a mandate to over extend their authority.

Our elected representative are suppose to represent us all not just special interests. The ten percent requirement for getting a referendum was put into law and these four are not above the law. We need to remind them of our founding father's comment, "Here, sir, the people govern."

Court Date Set for Referendum on Fluvanna Joint Water Authority with Louisa

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 19, 2009, Palmyra VA. -- The citizens of Fluvanna County will get their day in court on the Fluvanna/Louisa Joint Water Authority. The Circuit Court of Fluvanna County has ordered a hearing for May 15 to determine whether a referendum regarding the proposed water authority may proceed.

The following court order was issued on April 16:

"It is accordingly ORDERED that a hearing shall be conducted on May 15,
2009, at 9:30 a.m. concerning the Petitioner's motion to enter the attached
order."

Fluvanna and Louisa supervisors agreed on January 26 to create a joint authority charged with managing construction and operation of a water pipeline to serve Zion Crossroads and other key population centers. The counties agreed to split roughly $52 million in construction costs, with Fluvanna chipping in an additional $3.8 for lateral lines to serve the Fork Union community. Organized for a 50-year term, the authority would have the right to condemn land for pipes and facilities and could charge the two counties for capital and operating expenses.

Since March, scores of Fluvanna citizens have urged their supervisors to put the joint water authority on the ballot for voters to decide. They have mounted two separate petition drives in an effort to satisfy apparently incompatible requirements of two Virginia Code sections. At the March 18 public hearing on the water authority, citizens presented the Board of Supervisors with petitions containing more than 2100 signatures. However, County Attorney Fred Payne argued that, to force a referendum, petitioners must satisfy conditions of both code sections. The second petition, which led to the judge's ruling Thursday, contained more than 2,200 signatures.
At both meetings, Supervisors Gene Ott and Donald Weaver entered motions to put the water authority on the ballot. Each time, they were outvoted 2-4 by a majority led by Board Chairman Marvin Moss.

"Although 1822 signatures (on the original petition) were validated by the County -- a sufficient number to gain a referendum -- the County attorney interpreted the law in a way that disenfranchises the petition signers," said Johnson, one of the petition drive leaders. "The County attorney maintained that the second alternative should have been followed for the petitions."

Leaders of the petition drive disagreed. But instead of throwing in the towel, citizens jumped to the challenge and undertook a whole new petition drive conforming to the second legal alternative and the County attorney's criteria. In just over a week, dedicated citizens gathered more than 2200 signatures on the new petition. Those signatures were presented to the Circuit Court on April 15 prior to a Board of Supervisors vote that evening on the joint water authority.

"This new set of petitions was a truly amazing feat -- more than 2200 signatures gathered in just over a week by tireless and committed volunteers who went out into the community and did all over again what they'd done before in the first petition drive," said Leroy McCampbell, chief organizer of the petition drive. "We actually wound up with more signatures than the first batch."

At the Fluvanna supervisors' April 15 board meeting, McCampbell presented the Board with a courtesy copy of the new set of petitions accepted by the Circuit Court earlier that day. Despite such overwhelming support for a referendum and the fact that citizens had gathered the second petitions under the statute deemed pertinent by the County, the Board approved creating a joint water authority with Louisa County in a 4-2 vote.

During the two petition drives, citizens raised sovereignty, eminent domain and taxpayer issues. Many objected to Louisa authority board members having equal say-so over a utility running exclusively through Fluvanna County. Others didn't think Louisa officials should have eminent domain authority over Fluvanna lands; the County estimates some 200-300 Fluvanna properties will be affected. Still other citizens expressed concerns about water authority spending decisions that could force Fluvanna taxes to go up to meet funding. Yet other citizens were concerned that the 50-50 Louisa/Fluvanna makeup of the water authority board would dilute Fluvanna residents' influence over a pipeline running through their county.

The referendum, if ordered by the Court, will put this question to voters: "Shall Fluvanna County join Louisa County in the formation of a joint water authority."

New Petition Submitted to Fluvanna Court for Referendum on Joint Water Authority

PALMYRA, VA April 15, 2009 Citizens Doug Johnson and Leroy McCampbell delivered 2200 signatures on 116 petition forms to the Fluvanna County Circuit Court just 5 hours before the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors is scheduled to form the Authority having disregarded the 2100 signatures previously submitted to them on March 18, 2009. This is a different filing than the one to the Board of Supervisors - it is in fact an entirely new petition.

Marvin Moss Open Letter for Fluvanna Joint Water Authority with Louisa

An Open Letter to the people of Fluvanna County
From Fluvanna Board of Supervisors Chairman Marvin F. Moss
Published in Fluvanna Review April 2, 2009 as a full page political advertisement paid for and authorized by Moss for Supervisor and read by him in his official capacity at the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing of March 18, 2009.

Dear Fluvanna Citizen:

The James Water Line Project is one of the most complex and important ever undertaken by Fluvanna County; therefore, I believe it merits some detailed discussion. Before I begin, I want to thank those citizens who have come before us tonight to express their views. That is what democracy is all about. I may disagree with you but I will forever defend your right to express your views both publicly and privately.

The chronology you just heard from John Robins on this project was prepared at my request. It explodes several myths which the opponents of this project insist on disseminating. First, that the public has been excluded from this process. Nothing could be further from the truth. I got involved in Fluvanna County as soon as I moved here in 1995 and served in 1999 as Chair of the Environmental Task Force preparing the 2001 Comprehensive Plan. I attended at least half of the Board of Supervisor meetings long before I was ever elected to public office in 2004. I knew what was going on with the water line because I chose to be informed, and believe me the information was available to the public. Second, it explodes the myth that mysterious forces in Fluvanna County have held Aqua Source and Aqua Virginia at arms length throughout this process. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have consistently included Aqua Virginia as a potential partner and asked them to prepare proposals for our consideration. The fact that both proposals they submitted to us called for taking water from the Rivanna River ensured that they would not be given serious consideration. That is the reality.

And finally, the chronology indicates clearly that the opponents of this project have been opponents since the outset. The Board of Supervisors voted on April 23, 2003 on endorsing a draft memo of understanding with our partner, Louisa County. Opposing it were two supervisors - Norma Hutner, from whom we heard this evening, and Don Weaver. They never supported the partnership and never wanted it to happen. I suppose one could conclude from this that they either did not want the water line built or wanted Fluvanna to pay one hundred percent of the cost.

Why do we need the water line? You just witnessed the approval of the latest comprehensive plan by this board. I urge you to look at it. The Planning Commission with strong support from the Economic Development Commission and the BOS included a special zone for commercial mixed use development in and around Fluvanna's area of Zion Crossroads. What does the plan say? It says we are complying with the state's requirements to put dense development where it belongs - where infrastructure is available including transportation and utilities. It is real simple, folks, -- no water, no development, no broadening of the tax base. We are not pursuing this project to please our neighbors in Louisa County. We are pursuing it because it benefits us.

Let's look at Fluvanna County in comparison to our neighbors and our relative tax burdens. Fluvanna has the unique distinction of having the lowest commercial tax base of any jurisdiction in this region. Commercial real estate constitutes a meager 11% of our tax base. In other words, we homeowners are paying 89% of our real estate taxes. How does that compare with other counties? The average is 30% commercial and 70% individual in our region. That is why I have been a strong advocate for economic development at Zion Crossroads from the moment I moved here. We must broaden and deepen our tax base and get the burden off our citizens.

And having said that, what has happened in Fluvanna since I've been here? The county and its leadership have simply been spinning their wheels dithering over the high school, this water line and other capital projects. Meanwhile, until recently the cost has been escalating exponentially. It is time we get off our butts and do what we should have been doing years ago and what both our old comprehensive plan and the one we just adopted told us to do.

I think it important to discuss referenda from a Virginia perspective. Virginia has deliberately made holding referenda difficult. Even in ratifying the constitution of the united states, Virginia did not hold a referendum. It held an election to select delegates and gave them the power to make the decision. A constitutional amendment going to referendum in Virginia must pass the General Assembly in two consecutive sessions of the assembly before it is brought before the people.

A referendum is serious business and is not cheap. It will take 6-9 months for a referendum to be organized. It will cost Fluvanna County taxpayers anywhere from $25,000-$50,000 to print ballots, staff seven polling places from 6am to 7pm, transport voting machines, verify their accuracy, etc. I will also point out that the joint authority law requires that Louisa hold a referendum simultaneously as well. That requirement alone is likely to end the partnership that has been so enduring since 2003 and I believe ultimately beneficial to the taxpayers of Fluvanna County.

I have publicly stated and will do so again here that a referendum will kill any chances we have of receiving meaningful federal funding for this project. That statement of mine has been characterized as “hyperbole.” Well, it is reality whether you like it or not. This is what I spent my professional life doing, and I do know something about this subject since I have already brought millions of dollars of grant money to Fluvanna County and its non-profit organizations.

What has the county done in its aggressive attempts to receive appropriations and stimulus money for the water line? We have done the following. We requested a one time appropriation from our congressional delegation of $10 million for the project. We made quite clear in the application that this $10 million was for Fluvanna and not to be shared with our partner. I made sure our friends in Louisa were aware of this. They have put in their own funding requests.

Second, we then turned around and asked for the entire cost of the project from the stimulus funding. We have therefore followed a very structured two-pronged and thoroughly professional approach to seeking most of the funding for this water line. What makes this particular project attractive to the federal folks making the decision on stimulus allocations? It is the very thing many of you oppose and urge we end - the mutual cooperation between two jurisdictions for the common good. This makes it much more likely that we would receive funding. Are we likely to get it? I do believe we will succeed with constant intervention and coordination with our elected officials in Washington.

How will the referendum end our ability to get federal funding. First, no federal agency is going to give a project pending a referendum any funding - period. Second, with a referendum taking anywhere from 6-9 months, this is precisely the period when the water system appropriations and stimulus allocations will be made. We will be dithering once again and foregoing the opportunity to have a major federal component in this project. I am fully prepared to lay the blame for that outcome at the feet of those who organized this referendum initiative.

I would like to end by talking about something that is dear to my heart. I was born in 1937 and attended high school and college in the 1950's. I would characterize this period of my life and this nation as the “can do” generation. Most of those who spoke tonight in opposition to the joint water authority are near to my age and in the same generation. I don't know what happened to you, but you have become the “can't do generation.” Some citizens in this county have become wholesale advocates of the “can't do” attitude. This is largely based on fear of higher taxes and big government.

Let me tell you what we are facing in this country. Our infrastructure is falling apart largely due to the attitudes I just enumerated. Government at every level will have to join in a mutual effort to solve that problem, and only government can do it.

The folks who are constantly saying to me, “don't spend money investing in the future” are the same ones who would have opposed the purchase of Pleasant Grove, the Louisiana Purchase, the Erie Canal, land grant colleges, the GI Bill and the Eisenhower Interstate Highway program. Did anyone know what the return would be on these public investments in physical and human infrastructure? Of course not. But the return was astronomical.

I am confident that the joint water authority is a prudent and sustainable investment for the benefit of all the citizens of Fluvanna County. I strongly oppose a referendum on this issue, and I will proudly vote for the establishment of the James River Water Authority.