I was reading this morning in Joshua 22 and came across the verse talking about future generations rejecting the Lord where there was the phrase: "Ye have no part in the Lord". This immediately brought to mind President Obama's recent statement that "America is no longer a Christian Nation".
Back in Old Testament times, the enemies were "killed by the sword". But when Jesus came that first Christmas, he changed all that. The new command was and is "Peace on Earth" and "Good will toward men".
This is different from the Moslem Nations where fear rules and violence is the method. Heads are cut off and all manner of intimidation is used to keep even the newspapers in line. Remember the slain cartoonist. Even our media won't publish anything that is anti Moslem.
But the Righteous are different! We are as bold as lions! Just as early Christians willingly went into the arena to absolute death, they would NOT back down from their Christian principles.
In fact, John the Baptist told the king that it was not right for him to take his brother's wife. That standing up for principle, even to the King, cost him his life. But talk about eternal benefits. His story is in all four Gospels and you can find the details yourself.
But go to the bottom line. We ARE a Christian Nation. Our Founding Fathers made sure we had checks and balances. They made sure that power changed peacefully through the ballot box.
George Washington rejected the concept of being King. Direct election of our President was forbidden. There is no authorization for "Executive Orders" having the force of law. There were no laws hundreds of pages long.
We are now facing a "Power Grab" by our Moslem loving "False Christian" President who wants to be "Dictator".
But we Christians need to rise up and take our nation back. But we will do it at the ballot box. It may not be a landslide for Christians this year, but our voice will be heard.
Churches need to start preaching on our Country's Founding Fathers and our Christian Heritage. We Christians need to regain our posture as "Bold as lions but harmless as doves".
We shall overcome. We shall NOT allow any President to usurp authority. Color means nothing. Only action counts!
by Douglas R. Johnson
June 16, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Fluvanna Resident Files with VA Supreme Court
An appeal has been filed with the VA Supreme Court in opposition to the Final Order of January 22, 2010.
This filing can be found at: FluvannaBlog.com
This filing can be found at: FluvannaBlog.com
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Fluvanna Schools Considering Teacher RIF's
Fluvanna Schools are facing substantial reductions in funding which will require drastic reductions in expenditures. Reduction in Force (RIF) for teaching positions is "on the table". Some have suggested simple "across the board" cuts to balance the budget but "targeted" cuts also need to be considered as an alternative.
The following comments are by School Board Member Douglas R. Johnson and do not necessarily represent any positions of the Board nor any other Board Member.
INTRODUCTION
Before recommending any specific cuts, it would be wise to see just what requirements are mandated by both the state and the federal government. Whatever teaching staff level we have above those requirements need to be prioritized. The following deals with the procedure and some further suggestions.
STAFF LEVELS
There seems to be confusion as to where our teaching staff levels are with respect to state mandates and federal incentive programs. We need to clearly define just where we are with respect to both before we make any recommendations for change.
I believe we need to deal with the state requirements first. We have made a policy to have a ratio of 22 to 1 when the state says 25 to 1. We therefore need to specify both in our analysis.
But we seem to have other categories that are not considered in the ratio calculations, namely, resource teachers, special education teachers, teacher aides, librarians, and perhaps others.
And the breakdowns need to be done by school. For each school, list first the teachers who count in the ratio. A suggested example is as follows:
School Total Students Total Teachers Actual Ratio
example 250 students 10 teachers 25 stud/teach
Then make the analysis of how many teachers need to be added or subtracted to achieve each of the two ratios, the existing policy ratio and the state mandate ratio.
Then for each school list the state requirement for each other teaching category. A suggested example is as follows:
School Category State Requirement Actual Number
example Special Ed 10 teachers 12 teachers
Resource 5 teachers 3 teachers
Teacher Aides 5 aides 6 aides
When we have these numbers, we can then evaluate what can be done with teacher staffing.
Then we can evaluate any federal programs that require additional staff positions. These programs need to be evaluated with respect to both economics and effectiveness.
After we determine the legal minimums, we then can consider recommendations of our administration for keeping additional positions. Each such position would need to be justified as to the education of the students would improve.
POTENTIAL BUDGET CUTS
For a generalization as to the percentage cuts to various categories, let us look at the most dollar areas first:
This analysis is being done to demonstrate how we do not need to make the cuts "across the board" but to target the cuts based on reasonable factors.
The Instruction cuts of 5% are based on the concept that we probably have more staff positions than are mandated by the state. Such staffing cuts would probably be greater than 5% but the salary scale based on years of experience is an implied contract with the teachers and needs to be reinstated. The combined cuts along with the steps should generate the net of about 5%.
Operations need to be cut 10%. There are no salary contracts and no ratios to maintain.
Transportation is mandated for getting the children to and from school. The 5% cut is arbitrary but relatively modest.
Administration needs a very large cut. Twenty percent is possible and should be attempted. This can be accomplished by a combination of cutting positions and actual wages.
Technology is very important but it also must "bite the bullet". The 5% is very reasonable.
Each of these cuts are not limited by state mandates and thus become strict business decisions. Salary levels need to be judged by "replacement cost" rather than employee needs.
TEACHER COMPENSATION
When a teacher is hired, he/she is shown and given the then current salary scale which shows the salary based on years of experience. This constitutes an implied contract with the teacher. While such a "contract" would probably not hold up in court, the teacher certainly believes it should.
Last year the decision was made to skip the salary steps that are based on years of experience. I believe this was a mistake. I believe we should restore these steps both retroactive to last year and maintain the steps this next year.
I further believe we should make the steps be something each year rather than bigger steps less often. The difficulty comes in the transition from one system to the other. For this reason I do not suggest making this change this year.
If the board chooses to keep more teachers by freezing the steps, I believe a Public Hearing should be held first. This could also be done by having such an item placed as an "Information Item" on the agenda to let the public comment on the issue.
It also has been suggested to give a percentage raise in place of the steps. This makes no sense as we eventually need to go back to the steps.
CONCLUSION
The cuts of staff across the board would be a blind and thus unreasonable generalization. We must first find the baseline as defined by the state mandates and federal requirements. That is truly the first step.
The following comments are by School Board Member Douglas R. Johnson and do not necessarily represent any positions of the Board nor any other Board Member.
INTRODUCTION
Before recommending any specific cuts, it would be wise to see just what requirements are mandated by both the state and the federal government. Whatever teaching staff level we have above those requirements need to be prioritized. The following deals with the procedure and some further suggestions.
STAFF LEVELS
There seems to be confusion as to where our teaching staff levels are with respect to state mandates and federal incentive programs. We need to clearly define just where we are with respect to both before we make any recommendations for change.
I believe we need to deal with the state requirements first. We have made a policy to have a ratio of 22 to 1 when the state says 25 to 1. We therefore need to specify both in our analysis.
But we seem to have other categories that are not considered in the ratio calculations, namely, resource teachers, special education teachers, teacher aides, librarians, and perhaps others.
And the breakdowns need to be done by school. For each school, list first the teachers who count in the ratio. A suggested example is as follows:
School Total Students Total Teachers Actual Ratio
example 250 students 10 teachers 25 stud/teach
Then make the analysis of how many teachers need to be added or subtracted to achieve each of the two ratios, the existing policy ratio and the state mandate ratio.
Then for each school list the state requirement for each other teaching category. A suggested example is as follows:
School Category State Requirement Actual Number
example Special Ed 10 teachers 12 teachers
Resource 5 teachers 3 teachers
Teacher Aides 5 aides 6 aides
When we have these numbers, we can then evaluate what can be done with teacher staffing.
Then we can evaluate any federal programs that require additional staff positions. These programs need to be evaluated with respect to both economics and effectiveness.
After we determine the legal minimums, we then can consider recommendations of our administration for keeping additional positions. Each such position would need to be justified as to the education of the students would improve.
POTENTIAL BUDGET CUTS
For a generalization as to the percentage cuts to various categories, let us look at the most dollar areas first:
| BUDGET CATEGORY | CURRENT IN MILLIONS | ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE | POTENTIAL CUT AMOUNT |
| Instruction | $30.6 | 5.0% | $1.58 |
| Operations | 3.5 | 10.0% | 0.35 |
| Transportation | 2.5 | 5.0% | 0.13 |
| Administration | 1.3 | 20.0% | 0.26 |
| Technology | 1.2 | 5.0% | 0.06 |
| Total | 39.1 | n/a | 2.44 |
This analysis is being done to demonstrate how we do not need to make the cuts "across the board" but to target the cuts based on reasonable factors.
The Instruction cuts of 5% are based on the concept that we probably have more staff positions than are mandated by the state. Such staffing cuts would probably be greater than 5% but the salary scale based on years of experience is an implied contract with the teachers and needs to be reinstated. The combined cuts along with the steps should generate the net of about 5%.
Operations need to be cut 10%. There are no salary contracts and no ratios to maintain.
Transportation is mandated for getting the children to and from school. The 5% cut is arbitrary but relatively modest.
Administration needs a very large cut. Twenty percent is possible and should be attempted. This can be accomplished by a combination of cutting positions and actual wages.
Technology is very important but it also must "bite the bullet". The 5% is very reasonable.
Each of these cuts are not limited by state mandates and thus become strict business decisions. Salary levels need to be judged by "replacement cost" rather than employee needs.
TEACHER COMPENSATION
When a teacher is hired, he/she is shown and given the then current salary scale which shows the salary based on years of experience. This constitutes an implied contract with the teacher. While such a "contract" would probably not hold up in court, the teacher certainly believes it should.
Last year the decision was made to skip the salary steps that are based on years of experience. I believe this was a mistake. I believe we should restore these steps both retroactive to last year and maintain the steps this next year.
I further believe we should make the steps be something each year rather than bigger steps less often. The difficulty comes in the transition from one system to the other. For this reason I do not suggest making this change this year.
If the board chooses to keep more teachers by freezing the steps, I believe a Public Hearing should be held first. This could also be done by having such an item placed as an "Information Item" on the agenda to let the public comment on the issue.
It also has been suggested to give a percentage raise in place of the steps. This makes no sense as we eventually need to go back to the steps.
CONCLUSION
The cuts of staff across the board would be a blind and thus unreasonable generalization. We must first find the baseline as defined by the state mandates and federal requirements. That is truly the first step.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Sex Survey Brings Apology
An apology has been issued by the Fluvanna Public Schools for allowing a sex survey to be given to 7th and 8th grade students contrary to School Policy. Unfortunately there does not seem to be any written apology online.
The survey was given in conjunction with the Family Life Program. There were no complaints against the Program, only with the survey.
The Board voted to proceed with the Program without the survey.
The following comments are by elected School Board Member Doug Johnson writing for himself rather than for the Board:
The survey was given in conjunction with the Family Life Program. There were no complaints against the Program, only with the survey.
The Board voted to proceed with the Program without the survey.
The following comments are by elected School Board Member Doug Johnson writing for himself rather than for the Board:
Comments on Sex Survey
by Douglas R. Johnson
January 12, 2010
It appears that a survey to determine the effectiveness of various teaching methods and or full curricula is fully allowed by law, especially where informed consent is given.
Parents are given the right to review all materials used in the classes where sex, euphemistically called "family life", is discussed.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Notwithstanding the legality of the concept of a survey, the actual survey itself must not have unintended consequences that are potentially harmful to the students.
It is a well known fact that tests are instructional also and not just measurements. That means that when you test, you also reinforce. That reinforcement is a positive phenomena of a well designed test.
We are all well familiar with the objectionable question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" This example demonstrates how a question can be slanted on purpose. What we are dealing with here is an objection on a basis of the consequence of the questions without dealing with the motive in the formation of the question.
To take the above example a little further, consider the theoretical survey questions:
1. Did you ever beat your wife?
2. How often do you beat your wife?
3. When was the last time you beat your wife?
What you are saying in such a survey is that wife beating is quite common. Some beat their wives regularly. If you beat your wife occasionally, you are probably better than those that beat their wives more often.
Now to have a wife, one needs to be an adult and would take such a survey with a grain of salt. It would not cause any real harm to a person with a normal state of mind.
But we are talking about sex with very impressionable children. Extra care needs to be given. If you ask how often one participates in truly despicable act, it implies some level of acceptance of the act, especially to the mind of a child.
The effect of a child opting out from the survey does not limit the negative consequences to the school population as a whole. The confidential treatment of the survey ends with each and every child that does take that survey. By that I mean that each child will talk about the survey and its questions with all the children in the total school population whether those other children want to hear about the survey or not.
"Why not try it? The school even admits that lots of people do it all the time!" Perhaps mature adults can cope with such an argument. But how do you think teenagers will respond when their hormones are flowing?
You may note that I specifically refer to "children" rather than "students". I do that to emphasize that the student population we are dealing with are all children. Referring to then as students tends to downplay the significance of them being impressionable children.
SURVEY PURPOSE
The specific regulation, 45 CFR 46.101(b), concerning sex surveys relates to "Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (a) research on regular and special education instructional strategies or (b) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula or classroom management methods."
While some questions in this survey do measure the effectiveness of the program itself, the good part of the survey is a blatant attempt to just gather data about Fluvanna children. These questions clearly do NOT deal with "education instructional strategies" nor with "the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula or classroom management methods".
NEW QUESTIONS
The biggest objections raised are with the questions involving "oral sex". Quoting from the December 15, 2009 letter sent home with the children:
"Our evaluation firm, The Institute for Research and Evaluation, was incorporated in 1986 and has never connected individual survey results with individual names. Over the past 20 years they have collected data from more than 500,000 teens, and currently collect over 100,000 surveys a year."
This statement indicates 20 years of doing surveys on "more than 500,000 teens". Let's compare that with the Evaluation Report provided by "our evaluation firm". Page 3 indicates that this firm only started with Worth Your Wait in about 2007. Furthermore it also states that they "developed a stronger survey" for the 2008-2009 school year. Skipping to page 10 we see that Fluvanna was the "first program ... that asked about oral sex".
Dr. Evans, who prepared this report stated: "I was surprised to see...." and then on page 11: "Interestingly, 83% of youth of that age...." I give these quotes to indicate just what the real purpose of this survey is general sexual knowledge about Fluvanna children.
All of the detail analysis is summarized on page 11 where Dr. Evans states: "The first thing to recognize is that you [Worth Your Wait program] are having an impact on program youth, but the effect is small." All of the "agree/disagree" questions are listed in various categories to demonstrate the simple conclusion of a "small impact".
But the questions on oral sex and actual intercourse are definitely NOT used in judging "the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula or classroom management methods". Dr. Evans states on page 10: "I wanted to know if these were the same kids who were having intercourse, so I crossed the two groups and found a higher-than-expected overlap." Apparently Dr. Evans has other uses for the data than the stated purpose for these new questions.
Certainly science will be advanced by the gathering of this data on the sexual activity of Fluvanna children. But the Fluvanna Public Schools are not the place to gather such data.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We have the right to move a survey from an "opt-out" to an "opt-in". The lowest form of permission is opt-out. Certain activities require the higher opt-in by law. But there is no prohibition for the Board on its own initiative to require opt-in when the law says opt-out is enough.
I believe that any survey dealing with sexual information be first presented to the Board for review. The Board will then decide whether or not the opt-in be required.
Furthermore I was not pleased to find that the December 15, 2009 letter was sent home with my grandson in Middle School as a simple sheet, not even in an envelope.
Any communication concerning anything of a sexual nature needs to be communicated directly to the parents without going through the hands of the children, not even in a sealed envelope. Otherwise, how could a parent "opt-out" if the child fails to deliver the document. I would consider this a "necessary cost of doing business".
Just because the law requires a survey, it does not relieve the Board of its responsibility of evaluating the survey itself. The survey must deal exclusively with the requirements of the survey and not be objectionable on its face.
In this particular survey, the survey goes far beyond the requirements in evaluating the program and, on that basis alone, should be rejected in its entirety.
This survey is also objectionable on its face because of asking sexually explicit question of the child's actual sexual behavior.
The child's actual sexual behavior is not relevant to the effectiveness of the program.
The survey asks unrelated race questions and family questions which give basis of "data mining" where sexual activities can be correlated with race and family structure. I find this not only objectionable but also racist and also very troubling.
I believe the program itself is good and should be continued with the opt-out permission requirement.
I believe further that any survey concerning sexual subjects be dealt with as a separate issue requiring a separate opt-in permission requirement.
I further believe that this survey, being recently changed, should be rejected completely and should a new survey be proposed in the future, we should evaluate that on its own terms.
For this situation this semester, we should proceed with the program without the survey.
END
It appears that a survey to determine the effectiveness of various teaching methods and or full curricula is fully allowed by law, especially where informed consent is given.
Parents are given the right to review all materials used in the classes where sex, euphemistically called "family life", is discussed.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Notwithstanding the legality of the concept of a survey, the actual survey itself must not have unintended consequences that are potentially harmful to the students.
It is a well known fact that tests are instructional also and not just measurements. That means that when you test, you also reinforce. That reinforcement is a positive phenomena of a well designed test.
We are all well familiar with the objectionable question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" This example demonstrates how a question can be slanted on purpose. What we are dealing with here is an objection on a basis of the consequence of the questions without dealing with the motive in the formation of the question.
To take the above example a little further, consider the theoretical survey questions:
1. Did you ever beat your wife?
2. How often do you beat your wife?
3. When was the last time you beat your wife?
What you are saying in such a survey is that wife beating is quite common. Some beat their wives regularly. If you beat your wife occasionally, you are probably better than those that beat their wives more often.
Now to have a wife, one needs to be an adult and would take such a survey with a grain of salt. It would not cause any real harm to a person with a normal state of mind.
But we are talking about sex with very impressionable children. Extra care needs to be given. If you ask how often one participates in truly despicable act, it implies some level of acceptance of the act, especially to the mind of a child.
The effect of a child opting out from the survey does not limit the negative consequences to the school population as a whole. The confidential treatment of the survey ends with each and every child that does take that survey. By that I mean that each child will talk about the survey and its questions with all the children in the total school population whether those other children want to hear about the survey or not.
"Why not try it? The school even admits that lots of people do it all the time!" Perhaps mature adults can cope with such an argument. But how do you think teenagers will respond when their hormones are flowing?
You may note that I specifically refer to "children" rather than "students". I do that to emphasize that the student population we are dealing with are all children. Referring to then as students tends to downplay the significance of them being impressionable children.
SURVEY PURPOSE
The specific regulation, 45 CFR 46.101(b), concerning sex surveys relates to "Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (a) research on regular and special education instructional strategies or (b) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula or classroom management methods."
While some questions in this survey do measure the effectiveness of the program itself, the good part of the survey is a blatant attempt to just gather data about Fluvanna children. These questions clearly do NOT deal with "education instructional strategies" nor with "the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula or classroom management methods".
NEW QUESTIONS
The biggest objections raised are with the questions involving "oral sex". Quoting from the December 15, 2009 letter sent home with the children:
"Our evaluation firm, The Institute for Research and Evaluation, was incorporated in 1986 and has never connected individual survey results with individual names. Over the past 20 years they have collected data from more than 500,000 teens, and currently collect over 100,000 surveys a year."
This statement indicates 20 years of doing surveys on "more than 500,000 teens". Let's compare that with the Evaluation Report provided by "our evaluation firm". Page 3 indicates that this firm only started with Worth Your Wait in about 2007. Furthermore it also states that they "developed a stronger survey" for the 2008-2009 school year. Skipping to page 10 we see that Fluvanna was the "first program ... that asked about oral sex".
Dr. Evans, who prepared this report stated: "I was surprised to see...." and then on page 11: "Interestingly, 83% of youth of that age...." I give these quotes to indicate just what the real purpose of this survey is general sexual knowledge about Fluvanna children.
All of the detail analysis is summarized on page 11 where Dr. Evans states: "The first thing to recognize is that you [Worth Your Wait program] are having an impact on program youth, but the effect is small." All of the "agree/disagree" questions are listed in various categories to demonstrate the simple conclusion of a "small impact".
But the questions on oral sex and actual intercourse are definitely NOT used in judging "the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula or classroom management methods". Dr. Evans states on page 10: "I wanted to know if these were the same kids who were having intercourse, so I crossed the two groups and found a higher-than-expected overlap." Apparently Dr. Evans has other uses for the data than the stated purpose for these new questions.
Certainly science will be advanced by the gathering of this data on the sexual activity of Fluvanna children. But the Fluvanna Public Schools are not the place to gather such data.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We have the right to move a survey from an "opt-out" to an "opt-in". The lowest form of permission is opt-out. Certain activities require the higher opt-in by law. But there is no prohibition for the Board on its own initiative to require opt-in when the law says opt-out is enough.
I believe that any survey dealing with sexual information be first presented to the Board for review. The Board will then decide whether or not the opt-in be required.
Furthermore I was not pleased to find that the December 15, 2009 letter was sent home with my grandson in Middle School as a simple sheet, not even in an envelope.
Any communication concerning anything of a sexual nature needs to be communicated directly to the parents without going through the hands of the children, not even in a sealed envelope. Otherwise, how could a parent "opt-out" if the child fails to deliver the document. I would consider this a "necessary cost of doing business".
Just because the law requires a survey, it does not relieve the Board of its responsibility of evaluating the survey itself. The survey must deal exclusively with the requirements of the survey and not be objectionable on its face.
In this particular survey, the survey goes far beyond the requirements in evaluating the program and, on that basis alone, should be rejected in its entirety.
This survey is also objectionable on its face because of asking sexually explicit question of the child's actual sexual behavior.
The child's actual sexual behavior is not relevant to the effectiveness of the program.
The survey asks unrelated race questions and family questions which give basis of "data mining" where sexual activities can be correlated with race and family structure. I find this not only objectionable but also racist and also very troubling.
I believe the program itself is good and should be continued with the opt-out permission requirement.
I believe further that any survey concerning sexual subjects be dealt with as a separate issue requiring a separate opt-in permission requirement.
I further believe that this survey, being recently changed, should be rejected completely and should a new survey be proposed in the future, we should evaluate that on its own terms.
For this situation this semester, we should proceed with the program without the survey.
END
Friday, October 16, 2009
Appeal Awarded by Virginia Supreme Court on Formation of Fluvanna Joint Water Authority with Louisa County
"Upon the petition of Douglas Robert Johnson, an appeal is awarded him from an order entered by the State Corporation Commission" which formed the James River Water Authority.
This simply means that the Virginia Supreme Court has decided that they will hear the case. The base question is whether or not Fluvanna County will have the referendum demanded by the petitions signed by over 2000 Fluvanna residents,
There is assumed a general agreement that water from the James River should be piped up to Zion Crossroads. But there are many questions including who will pay for the project. Those who already have water, wonder why they should pay for the water line.
And there are those feel that they were deprived of a referendum on the one hundred million dollar Domino Plan school construction project. These do not want to be deprived on a referendum on the water authority
The law clearly states that if ten percent of the voters sign a petition that is delivered to the Board of Supervisors, then there will be a referendum.
Well the required signatures were submitted at the specified time but the Board of Supervisors, with a four to two vote, ignored the petitions claiming some minor irregularity. The citizens responded by re-circulating the petitions and, for a second time, achieved the ten percent requirement.
When the Board then ignored the second petition also, the whole situation moved to the courts. After two months of legal maneuvering, Johnson appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.
On October 13, 2009, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The next step is Briefs from both sides and then Oral Arguments. After that the Court will issue its ruling. The earliest this can happen is January of 2010.
This could all end now with the Board of Supervisors simply agreeing to the referendum the people clearly want.
This simply means that the Virginia Supreme Court has decided that they will hear the case. The base question is whether or not Fluvanna County will have the referendum demanded by the petitions signed by over 2000 Fluvanna residents,
There is assumed a general agreement that water from the James River should be piped up to Zion Crossroads. But there are many questions including who will pay for the project. Those who already have water, wonder why they should pay for the water line.
And there are those feel that they were deprived of a referendum on the one hundred million dollar Domino Plan school construction project. These do not want to be deprived on a referendum on the water authority
The law clearly states that if ten percent of the voters sign a petition that is delivered to the Board of Supervisors, then there will be a referendum.
Well the required signatures were submitted at the specified time but the Board of Supervisors, with a four to two vote, ignored the petitions claiming some minor irregularity. The citizens responded by re-circulating the petitions and, for a second time, achieved the ten percent requirement.
When the Board then ignored the second petition also, the whole situation moved to the courts. After two months of legal maneuvering, Johnson appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.
On October 13, 2009, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The next step is Briefs from both sides and then Oral Arguments. After that the Court will issue its ruling. The earliest this can happen is January of 2010.
This could all end now with the Board of Supervisors simply agreeing to the referendum the people clearly want.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Fluvanna Boards Do Not Listen to Public
Our Board of Supervisors wants to improve communications and are looking for ideas as how to do so.
Well I am answering in spades.
It seems the communication they want is the Board tells the public and the public learns.
But that is not what they are saying with their words. Their words are: "Please tell us your input and we will listen."
Their plan is that they will make early presentations to the public and the public will make suggestions. The Board will then "tweak" the proposal based on the suggestions.
But that is a bunch of xxxx. When the public speaks, the Board ignores them.
I give three major examples:
1. Tanasco - There was a very strong opposition to the building of the power plant. At least one key politically connected community leader was hired as a consultant and it no longer mattered what the public said, the deal was done.
Whether or not the power plant was a good idea or not, is not the issue. The issue is how the Board dealt with the controversy.
What could have been done was what they did when they built the new Courthouse. The public was divided as to whether to build it at Pleasant Grove or in the center of Palmyra. That time, no one had any secret agenda. So what did they do? The put it to a referendum. Palmyra was chosen and all controversy was ended.
2. Domino Plan - The public was convinced that a new school was needed and a "blue ribbon" committee was formed and an outside consultant was hired. The committee agreed on what was called the "Flex Plan". All was going fine but the School Board had a secret agenda and deals were made and presto, we got the one hundred million dollar Domino Plan.
The controversy of that deal is on-going. We are not going to solve that fiasco tonight.
But that also could have been conclusively resolved by the School Board having a referendum.
3. Joint Water Authority - Everyone was expecting a plan to take water to Zion Crossroad. But at the last minute, January 26, 2009 to be specific, the Board springs the concept of a Joint Water Authority.
Whether or not water for Zion Crossroads is a good idea or not is not the controversy. The main concern was the doing of the project with a joint water authority.
Again this could have all been resolved with a simple referendum.
But these three examples show clearly that our Boards, both the Supervisors and School Boards, do not want to hear from the public. They just want to put on a show that they want to hear.
They want a three step deal:
1. Decide in advance what is to be done. Have the resolutions all typed up ready to pass.
2. Have the public speak like trained parrots. They can say anything they want.
3. Ignore the public and vote the motion.
But the Joint Water Authority is not a done deal. You may push through financing but this deal is still in the Court.
And the Board is clearly losing. The case is at the Virginia Supreme Court and the best defense the Board has is the two items filed this week by the Boards' attorneys:
1. I do not have standing. I am just a mere citizen and thus do not have the right to bring suit.
2. Now that the charter was issued, it cannot be undone.
This is their only argument. If I can overcome these two specific points, the public win and we get our referendum.
So the first point is quite simple. If I do not have standing, nobody does. I not only signed both petitions, but I designed the form and then filed it with the Court. It was my name on the Court Order that was issued on April 16, 2009.
As for the second point, the law clearly says that the Virginia Supreme Court does have the authority to undo the issuance of the charter. The 1993 VA Supreme Court case gives specific directions as to the timing and the procedure. That procedure was followed and thus the Court has no choice but to void the charter.
Well I am answering in spades.
It seems the communication they want is the Board tells the public and the public learns.
But that is not what they are saying with their words. Their words are: "Please tell us your input and we will listen."
Their plan is that they will make early presentations to the public and the public will make suggestions. The Board will then "tweak" the proposal based on the suggestions.
But that is a bunch of xxxx. When the public speaks, the Board ignores them.
I give three major examples:
1. Tanasco - There was a very strong opposition to the building of the power plant. At least one key politically connected community leader was hired as a consultant and it no longer mattered what the public said, the deal was done.
Whether or not the power plant was a good idea or not, is not the issue. The issue is how the Board dealt with the controversy.
What could have been done was what they did when they built the new Courthouse. The public was divided as to whether to build it at Pleasant Grove or in the center of Palmyra. That time, no one had any secret agenda. So what did they do? The put it to a referendum. Palmyra was chosen and all controversy was ended.
2. Domino Plan - The public was convinced that a new school was needed and a "blue ribbon" committee was formed and an outside consultant was hired. The committee agreed on what was called the "Flex Plan". All was going fine but the School Board had a secret agenda and deals were made and presto, we got the one hundred million dollar Domino Plan.
The controversy of that deal is on-going. We are not going to solve that fiasco tonight.
But that also could have been conclusively resolved by the School Board having a referendum.
3. Joint Water Authority - Everyone was expecting a plan to take water to Zion Crossroad. But at the last minute, January 26, 2009 to be specific, the Board springs the concept of a Joint Water Authority.
Whether or not water for Zion Crossroads is a good idea or not is not the controversy. The main concern was the doing of the project with a joint water authority.
Again this could have all been resolved with a simple referendum.
But these three examples show clearly that our Boards, both the Supervisors and School Boards, do not want to hear from the public. They just want to put on a show that they want to hear.
They want a three step deal:
1. Decide in advance what is to be done. Have the resolutions all typed up ready to pass.
2. Have the public speak like trained parrots. They can say anything they want.
3. Ignore the public and vote the motion.
But the Joint Water Authority is not a done deal. You may push through financing but this deal is still in the Court.
And the Board is clearly losing. The case is at the Virginia Supreme Court and the best defense the Board has is the two items filed this week by the Boards' attorneys:
1. I do not have standing. I am just a mere citizen and thus do not have the right to bring suit.
2. Now that the charter was issued, it cannot be undone.
This is their only argument. If I can overcome these two specific points, the public win and we get our referendum.
So the first point is quite simple. If I do not have standing, nobody does. I not only signed both petitions, but I designed the form and then filed it with the Court. It was my name on the Court Order that was issued on April 16, 2009.
As for the second point, the law clearly says that the Virginia Supreme Court does have the authority to undo the issuance of the charter. The 1993 VA Supreme Court case gives specific directions as to the timing and the procedure. That procedure was followed and thus the Court has no choice but to void the charter.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Petition Law Suit Now in Supreme Court
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PALMYRA VA August 24, 2009, The Virginia Supreme Court received the official Appeal of the April 21 Order of the State Corporation Commission which established the James River Water Authority. This Appeal was due by law within four months of the Order date and was filed on Friday, August 21, 2009 by Douglas Johnson.
Mr. Sherman L. McLaughlin, Jr., Senior Bailiff of the State Corporation Commission, stated on August 20, 2009 that: "The record on appeal from the State Corporation Commission's Order issuing a Certificate of Incorporation to James River Water Authority will be forwarded to the Supreme Court of Virginia Today or Tomorrow."
This Appeal to the Supreme Court is in addition to the action still ongoing with the State Corporation Commission. The Hearing Examiner has recommended that the case be dismissed. Johnson filed an Objection to that recommendation on Saturday, August 22, 2009. That Objection includes copies of the Appeal to the Supreme Court and the
Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgement and is available on line at
FluvannaBlog.com along with all of the filings with the State Corporation Commission.
The Fluvanna Circuit Court had a Hearing on Friday, July 31, 2009 on Declaratory Judgement action to determine the validity of the Citizen Petitions. The Court ruled that the documentation was not sufficiently detailed to be acted on and gave 21 days for it to be amended. The Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgement was filed by Johnson on Friday, August 21, 2009 with the Fluvanna Circuit Court.
All three legal actions started with a simple filing by Johnson, with the Fluvanna Circuit Court, of the Petitions circulated between March 24, 2009 and April 15, 2009.
This was actually the second batch of Petitions circulated in the county requesting a referendum asking: "Shall Fluvanna County join Louisa County in the formation of a Joint Water Authority".
The first batch was submitted to the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors at the March 18, 2009 Public Hearing by Leroy McCampbell. The Board adjourned the action part of the Public Hearing until April 15, 2009, pending a review of the petitions, after County Attorney Fred Payne had advised the Board that the Petition form should have first been approved by the Fluvanna Circuit Court.
The following day, March 19, 2009, Mr. Johnson filed the petition form with the Court as per Mr. Payne's comment to the board. The Court officially accepted the petition form on March 24, 2009.
While Mr. Johnson considered that approval of the Court to be correcting Mr. Payne's perceived problem with that first batch of petitions, others, acting on legal advise, took the opportunity of the adjournment to April 15, 2009 to circulate a second batch of petitions.
On April 15, 2009, Douglas Johnson hand delivered a full copy of the "second petition" to the Fluvanna Circuit Court in the afternoon and Leroy McCampbell hand delivered a full copy of that same "second petition" to the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors at the beginning of its meeting that same evening.
At that April 15, 2009 meeting, the Board voted four to two to reject the petitions and then voted four to two to form the James River Water Authority.
Leroy McCampbell and a group of citizens engaged counsel to challenge the Board's action in Court. The Board refused to agree to let the Court decide and ran to the State Corporation Commission in an effort to flee the jurisdiction of the Court.
With about $30,000.00 in legal costs to the citizens, the funds ran out and the lawyers were put on "hold". Doug Johnson is the sole citizen now pursuing the matter in court and is acting without an attorney.
Mr. Johnson is not an attorney and therefore, by law, he can only represent himself. He still is, however, representative of the 2,200 signers of the petitions.
The law requires ten percent of Fluvanna's 16,860 voters to put the issue on the ballot. The Fluvanna County Administrator Delivered a written report to the Board at that April 15, 2009 meeting that the first petition had 1,822 valid signatures. The County Registrar Certified that the second petition met the ten percent requirement.
Virginia law is quite clear that official documents cannot be rejected for mere technicalities. It seems obvious that the Board knows that it cannot win in Court on the merits of the case as it is concentrating on procedural and technical defenses.
PALMYRA VA August 24, 2009, The Virginia Supreme Court received the official Appeal of the April 21 Order of the State Corporation Commission which established the James River Water Authority. This Appeal was due by law within four months of the Order date and was filed on Friday, August 21, 2009 by Douglas Johnson.
Mr. Sherman L. McLaughlin, Jr., Senior Bailiff of the State Corporation Commission, stated on August 20, 2009 that: "The record on appeal from the State Corporation Commission's Order issuing a Certificate of Incorporation to James River Water Authority will be forwarded to the Supreme Court of Virginia Today or Tomorrow."
This Appeal to the Supreme Court is in addition to the action still ongoing with the State Corporation Commission. The Hearing Examiner has recommended that the case be dismissed. Johnson filed an Objection to that recommendation on Saturday, August 22, 2009. That Objection includes copies of the Appeal to the Supreme Court and the
Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgement and is available on line at
FluvannaBlog.com along with all of the filings with the State Corporation Commission.
The Fluvanna Circuit Court had a Hearing on Friday, July 31, 2009 on Declaratory Judgement action to determine the validity of the Citizen Petitions. The Court ruled that the documentation was not sufficiently detailed to be acted on and gave 21 days for it to be amended. The Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgement was filed by Johnson on Friday, August 21, 2009 with the Fluvanna Circuit Court.
All three legal actions started with a simple filing by Johnson, with the Fluvanna Circuit Court, of the Petitions circulated between March 24, 2009 and April 15, 2009.
This was actually the second batch of Petitions circulated in the county requesting a referendum asking: "Shall Fluvanna County join Louisa County in the formation of a Joint Water Authority".
The first batch was submitted to the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors at the March 18, 2009 Public Hearing by Leroy McCampbell. The Board adjourned the action part of the Public Hearing until April 15, 2009, pending a review of the petitions, after County Attorney Fred Payne had advised the Board that the Petition form should have first been approved by the Fluvanna Circuit Court.
The following day, March 19, 2009, Mr. Johnson filed the petition form with the Court as per Mr. Payne's comment to the board. The Court officially accepted the petition form on March 24, 2009.
While Mr. Johnson considered that approval of the Court to be correcting Mr. Payne's perceived problem with that first batch of petitions, others, acting on legal advise, took the opportunity of the adjournment to April 15, 2009 to circulate a second batch of petitions.
On April 15, 2009, Douglas Johnson hand delivered a full copy of the "second petition" to the Fluvanna Circuit Court in the afternoon and Leroy McCampbell hand delivered a full copy of that same "second petition" to the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors at the beginning of its meeting that same evening.
At that April 15, 2009 meeting, the Board voted four to two to reject the petitions and then voted four to two to form the James River Water Authority.
Leroy McCampbell and a group of citizens engaged counsel to challenge the Board's action in Court. The Board refused to agree to let the Court decide and ran to the State Corporation Commission in an effort to flee the jurisdiction of the Court.
With about $30,000.00 in legal costs to the citizens, the funds ran out and the lawyers were put on "hold". Doug Johnson is the sole citizen now pursuing the matter in court and is acting without an attorney.
Mr. Johnson is not an attorney and therefore, by law, he can only represent himself. He still is, however, representative of the 2,200 signers of the petitions.
The law requires ten percent of Fluvanna's 16,860 voters to put the issue on the ballot. The Fluvanna County Administrator Delivered a written report to the Board at that April 15, 2009 meeting that the first petition had 1,822 valid signatures. The County Registrar Certified that the second petition met the ten percent requirement.
Virginia law is quite clear that official documents cannot be rejected for mere technicalities. It seems obvious that the Board knows that it cannot win in Court on the merits of the case as it is concentrating on procedural and technical defenses.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Doug Johnson supports Feda Kidd Morton for VA 5th District Congressional Seat
Doug Johnson from Fluvanna County is pleased to support Feda Kidd Morton for Congress in Virginia's Fifth District.
"I have know Feda for ten years now and am fully confident in her integrity and ability" Doug said.
Feda Kidd Morton, a career educator and long-time grassroots activist in the Republican Party of Virginia, announced Friday that she is entering the race for the 5th District seat currently held by Democrat Tom Perriello.
“Since Virgil Goode announced that he would not seek the Republican nomination in 2010, I have been overwhelmed with calls and e-mails encouraging me to consider this race,” said Morton. “I have therefore decided that I will be a candidate for the Republican nomination for the 5th District, and I will file the necessary paperwork to begin a campaign for Congress with the Federal Election Commission.”
Morton said her decision to run was based on “my fear that our great nation is dangerously off on the wrong track. Government is growing — and personal liberty is shrinking — at an alarming rate under the Democrats in Washington. We must rein in government power and government spending, or else the great America of our parents’ and grandparents’ day will be gone before our children and grandchildren can inherit it.”
Morton said her campaign for Congress against Democrat Perriello would be “...a respectful campaign that will focus on the honest differences regarding issues, our values and our beliefs.
“I respect the fact that Tom Perriello is willing to stand up for what he believes in,” said Morton, “but his votes simply aren’t in line with the values of the 5th District. The 5th is one of the most conservative districts in the commonwealth, if not the entire country. A true representative of our values simply would not be supporting the Obama/Pelosi agenda as strongly and as often as does Tom Perriello.”
Morton also said she hoped her candidacy might help the Republican Party return to its conservative vision.
“As Republicans, we must return to a message of limited government. We need to be the party of both lower taxes and less spending. We need to be the party of more individual liberty while encouraging more personal responsibility. We need to be the party that proudly proclaims the words of our Virginia Republican Creed: ‘We believe ... that faith in God, as recognized by our founding fathers, is essential to the moral fiber of the nation’.”
Morton said she is excited by the leadership team her campaign is currently building, and she will announce that team at a formal campaign kickoff shortly after Labor Day.
Morton grew up in Buckingham County, where she graduated with honors from Buckingham County High School and was MVP on her high school basketball team. She received her bachelor’s degree in biology from Longwood College in 1975, graduating cum laude while playing four years of college basketball.
She continued her education at the University of Virginia, earning her master of education degree in motor learning and sports medicine. She recently earned her administrative and supervision endorsement PreK-12.
She is employed by the Fluvanna County School System where she teaches regular biology, honors biology and advanced placement biology.
Morton coached Fluvanna County High School to back-to-back state championships in 1981 and 1982 in girls’ basketball and a state title in track and field in 1981.
Morton has a unique perspective on education and school choice issues. In addition to teaching in public schools for almost 20 years, she taught and coached at Open Door Christian School for eight years and home schooled her children for almost nine years.
In 1989 Morton was the co-founder and partner of a successful construction company. She kept the books and paid the bills.
“I understand fiscal responsibility and understand that budgets have to be balanced at all levels from home to Washington,” said Morton.
In 1991 Morton was appointed to the Fluvanna County School Board and served four years, where she earned a Certificate of Excellence from the Virginia School Boards Association for her active involvement and participation. She later ran for school board in 2002, beating a strong incumbent.
As a member of Virginia School Board Association, she was elected to serve as secretary of the VSBS Central Region. Morton was re-elected in 2005 but resigned in 2006 to return to teaching at Fluvanna County High School.
She has been very active in her community, serving as a member of the Fluvanna County Health Advisory Committee (1992-95), Fluvanna Arts Council Advisory Board (1993-95), Local Health Benefits Advisory Board (appointed by Gov. Gov. George Allen, 1994-97), vice-regent, Daughters of the American Revolution, Point of Fork Chapter (1998-2009), and the Fluvanna County Advisory Board for Parks and Recreation (2001-2005).
Morton has served as chairman of the Fluvanna Republican Committee (1995-2005) and is a past 5th District representative on the Republican Party of Virginia’s State Central Committee. She is known throughout the 5th District as a leader in grassroots conservative activism.
Morton has five children and two grandchildren. Her daughter, Erin Johnson, lives in Louisa County with her husband, Phillip, and sons Wesley and Wyatt.
Her three oldest sons Timothy, Daniel and David Kidd are attending Virginia Tech in the fall as a senior, sophomore and freshman, respectively. All three have Army ROTC scholarships and are members of the Corps of Cadets.
Morton’s youngest son, Joseph Kidd, is a rising sophomore at Fork Union Military Academy.
She is married to Don T. Morton, who is a retired fire chief from the Virginia Department of Forestry and a life member of the Virginia Fire Chiefs Association.
"I have know Feda for ten years now and am fully confident in her integrity and ability" Doug said.
Feda Kidd Morton, a career educator and long-time grassroots activist in the Republican Party of Virginia, announced Friday that she is entering the race for the 5th District seat currently held by Democrat Tom Perriello.
“Since Virgil Goode announced that he would not seek the Republican nomination in 2010, I have been overwhelmed with calls and e-mails encouraging me to consider this race,” said Morton. “I have therefore decided that I will be a candidate for the Republican nomination for the 5th District, and I will file the necessary paperwork to begin a campaign for Congress with the Federal Election Commission.”
Morton said her decision to run was based on “my fear that our great nation is dangerously off on the wrong track. Government is growing — and personal liberty is shrinking — at an alarming rate under the Democrats in Washington. We must rein in government power and government spending, or else the great America of our parents’ and grandparents’ day will be gone before our children and grandchildren can inherit it.”
Morton said her campaign for Congress against Democrat Perriello would be “...a respectful campaign that will focus on the honest differences regarding issues, our values and our beliefs.
“I respect the fact that Tom Perriello is willing to stand up for what he believes in,” said Morton, “but his votes simply aren’t in line with the values of the 5th District. The 5th is one of the most conservative districts in the commonwealth, if not the entire country. A true representative of our values simply would not be supporting the Obama/Pelosi agenda as strongly and as often as does Tom Perriello.”
Morton also said she hoped her candidacy might help the Republican Party return to its conservative vision.
“As Republicans, we must return to a message of limited government. We need to be the party of both lower taxes and less spending. We need to be the party of more individual liberty while encouraging more personal responsibility. We need to be the party that proudly proclaims the words of our Virginia Republican Creed: ‘We believe ... that faith in God, as recognized by our founding fathers, is essential to the moral fiber of the nation’.”
Morton said she is excited by the leadership team her campaign is currently building, and she will announce that team at a formal campaign kickoff shortly after Labor Day.
Morton grew up in Buckingham County, where she graduated with honors from Buckingham County High School and was MVP on her high school basketball team. She received her bachelor’s degree in biology from Longwood College in 1975, graduating cum laude while playing four years of college basketball.
She continued her education at the University of Virginia, earning her master of education degree in motor learning and sports medicine. She recently earned her administrative and supervision endorsement PreK-12.
She is employed by the Fluvanna County School System where she teaches regular biology, honors biology and advanced placement biology.
Morton coached Fluvanna County High School to back-to-back state championships in 1981 and 1982 in girls’ basketball and a state title in track and field in 1981.
Morton has a unique perspective on education and school choice issues. In addition to teaching in public schools for almost 20 years, she taught and coached at Open Door Christian School for eight years and home schooled her children for almost nine years.
In 1989 Morton was the co-founder and partner of a successful construction company. She kept the books and paid the bills.
“I understand fiscal responsibility and understand that budgets have to be balanced at all levels from home to Washington,” said Morton.
In 1991 Morton was appointed to the Fluvanna County School Board and served four years, where she earned a Certificate of Excellence from the Virginia School Boards Association for her active involvement and participation. She later ran for school board in 2002, beating a strong incumbent.
As a member of Virginia School Board Association, she was elected to serve as secretary of the VSBS Central Region. Morton was re-elected in 2005 but resigned in 2006 to return to teaching at Fluvanna County High School.
She has been very active in her community, serving as a member of the Fluvanna County Health Advisory Committee (1992-95), Fluvanna Arts Council Advisory Board (1993-95), Local Health Benefits Advisory Board (appointed by Gov. Gov. George Allen, 1994-97), vice-regent, Daughters of the American Revolution, Point of Fork Chapter (1998-2009), and the Fluvanna County Advisory Board for Parks and Recreation (2001-2005).
Morton has served as chairman of the Fluvanna Republican Committee (1995-2005) and is a past 5th District representative on the Republican Party of Virginia’s State Central Committee. She is known throughout the 5th District as a leader in grassroots conservative activism.
Morton has five children and two grandchildren. Her daughter, Erin Johnson, lives in Louisa County with her husband, Phillip, and sons Wesley and Wyatt.
Her three oldest sons Timothy, Daniel and David Kidd are attending Virginia Tech in the fall as a senior, sophomore and freshman, respectively. All three have Army ROTC scholarships and are members of the Corps of Cadets.
Morton’s youngest son, Joseph Kidd, is a rising sophomore at Fork Union Military Academy.
She is married to Don T. Morton, who is a retired fire chief from the Virginia Department of Forestry and a life member of the Virginia Fire Chiefs Association.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Fluvanna Referendum Petition Valid
by Douglas R. Johnson
July 20, 2009
The validity of the Citizen Petition for Referendum on Fluvanna Joint Water Authority is the subject of today's filing with the State Corporation Commission by Petitioner Douglas Johnson. Up until now, the whole thrust of the legal action was strictly on procedural matters.
Fluvanna County Attorney, Fred Payne, made two points which may very well bring this matter to a quick end with the citizen finally getting the right to vote on the formation of the Joint Water Authority.
The first point Mr. Payne made is that the same action cannot be in two different Courts with the same parties. Mr. Johnson has used that point to demonstrate that the fact that the State Corporation Commission is a Court of Record on relatively equal footing with the Fluvanna Circuit Court make the filing with the Commission could not be valid with the action already started in the Fluvanna Circuit Court.
The second point Mr. Payne made is that the James River Water Authority was formed under the Virginia Water and Waste Authority Act and not under the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act. This is very significant because the result is that the opinion of the Clerk of the Commission published June 30, 2009 was erroneous in that it relied on the wrong law.
This basically puts the procedural behind us. We now need to move to the actual merits of the case, namely, were the petitions valid or not. No one disputes the fact that if the petitions were valid, then the filing with the Commission "did not conform to law".
The details of the case for the validity of the petitions can be seen on www.FluvannaBlog.com where all the filings made with the State Corporation Commission are posted.
July 20, 2009
The validity of the Citizen Petition for Referendum on Fluvanna Joint Water Authority is the subject of today's filing with the State Corporation Commission by Petitioner Douglas Johnson. Up until now, the whole thrust of the legal action was strictly on procedural matters.
Fluvanna County Attorney, Fred Payne, made two points which may very well bring this matter to a quick end with the citizen finally getting the right to vote on the formation of the Joint Water Authority.
The first point Mr. Payne made is that the same action cannot be in two different Courts with the same parties. Mr. Johnson has used that point to demonstrate that the fact that the State Corporation Commission is a Court of Record on relatively equal footing with the Fluvanna Circuit Court make the filing with the Commission could not be valid with the action already started in the Fluvanna Circuit Court.
The second point Mr. Payne made is that the James River Water Authority was formed under the Virginia Water and Waste Authority Act and not under the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act. This is very significant because the result is that the opinion of the Clerk of the Commission published June 30, 2009 was erroneous in that it relied on the wrong law.
This basically puts the procedural behind us. We now need to move to the actual merits of the case, namely, were the petitions valid or not. No one disputes the fact that if the petitions were valid, then the filing with the Commission "did not conform to law".
The details of the case for the validity of the petitions can be seen on www.FluvannaBlog.com where all the filings made with the State Corporation Commission are posted.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
All SCC Filings Completed for James River Water Authority
The following is right off of the State Corporation Commission website:
What this means is that the James River Water Autority (JRWA) will be disolved to a point that as if it never existed.
Of course, none of the respondnts want that and they have been fighting tooth and nail since the case was established on May 1, 2009.
The most significant challenge was made by the Clerk of the Commission who bought into the idea that the JRWA was formed under the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act.
But that challenge seems to have been overcome as it is an accepted fact that the JRWA was formed under the Virginia Water and Waste Water Act.
So what is still standing is my Motion for Summary Judgement that is based on the concept that the underlining issue of the citizen petition for a referendum was already pending in the Fluvanna Circuit Court.
If my motion is granted, the issue will be decided in Fluvanna Circuit Court. If not, then everything will play out in Richmond.
See the final filing, as of noon on July 15, 2009 at:
Case Summary For Case Number : CLK-2009-00012
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:31:14 PM
Case Name: Douglas R Johnson, Petitioner
Caption: Douglas R. Johnson, Petitioner v. Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, Louisa County Board of Supervisors, and James River Water Authority - For authority to deem Certificate of Authority void ab initio and for Injunctive Relief
What this means is that the James River Water Autority (JRWA) will be disolved to a point that as if it never existed.
Of course, none of the respondnts want that and they have been fighting tooth and nail since the case was established on May 1, 2009.
The most significant challenge was made by the Clerk of the Commission who bought into the idea that the JRWA was formed under the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act.
But that challenge seems to have been overcome as it is an accepted fact that the JRWA was formed under the Virginia Water and Waste Water Act.
So what is still standing is my Motion for Summary Judgement that is based on the concept that the underlining issue of the citizen petition for a referendum was already pending in the Fluvanna Circuit Court.
If my motion is granted, the issue will be decided in Fluvanna Circuit Court. If not, then everything will play out in Richmond.
See the final filing, as of noon on July 15, 2009 at:
www.FluvannaBlog.com
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Fluvanna Joint Water Authority Challenge Heating Up
Today all three Respondents to Doug Johnson's Challenge have submitted their Responses to Johnson's Motion for Summary Judgement.
All filings are easily found at FluvannaBlog.com with the most recent at the top.
It is particularly interesting to note that the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors agrees that the law relied on by the Clerk of the Commission's Motion to Dismiss does not apply. That stunning admission is on page 6 of its filing of July 13, 2009.
Johnson anticipates filing a response shortly.
All filings are easily found at FluvannaBlog.com with the most recent at the top.
It is particularly interesting to note that the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors agrees that the law relied on by the Clerk of the Commission's Motion to Dismiss does not apply. That stunning admission is on page 6 of its filing of July 13, 2009.
Johnson anticipates filing a response shortly.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
SCC Considering Fluvanna Referendum Petition
The State Corporation Commission is considering the voiding of the charter of the James River Water Authority. Douglas Johnson started the action on April 24, 2009 as a pro se litigant, acting without an attorney.
The full history of all filings is on the website, FluvannaBlog.com.
The full history of all filings is on the website, FluvannaBlog.com.
Friday, June 19, 2009
James River Water Authority Referendum Pending Court Action
Fluvanna Joint Water Authority Waits Judicial Ruling
By Douglas R. Johnson
June 19, 2009
The fate of the James River Water Authority now is in the hands of two separate Courts of Record, The Fluvanna Circuit Court and the State Corporation Commission. Some time has transpired from all of the headlines and broadcast media attention. This is an update and review to explain the history and the legal arguments at issue.
History of Joint Water Authority
Many years of discussion over providing drinking water for Zions Crossroads took a sudden change of direction with the supposed consensus to form a Joint Water Authority with Louisa County for a pipeline wholly within the borders of Fluvanna County.
This was first revealed at the January 26, 2009 joint meeting of the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors and the Louisa Board of Supervisors held at the Best Western meeting room at Zions Crossroads. That meeting was advertised as a discussion but the meeting confirmed it had already been decided. It was claimed that there was a consensus but the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors was divided by the same 4 to 2 that exists to this date.
It is clearly apparent that there were secret or semi-secret meetings planning that approach going on outside the public view. Perhaps they were at perfectly legal work sessions but clearly "below the radar".
The plan revealed at that meeting was that each county would advertise the required 30 day notice, hold a public hearing, vote authorizing the plan, and finally have the Joint Water Authority chartered by the State Corporation Commission.
While there were multiple discussions held in various parts of the community on the water pipeline, all such discussions were about the pipeline; its route and cost. There was no discussion concerning any Joint Water Authority with Louisa County.
Many of us who were associated with Lee True and his Fluvanna Taxpayers Association were not opposed to the pipeline itself but were withholding judgement on the project depending how the project would be funded. Our consensus was that we would not oppose a plan that would fund the project with revenue bonds that would be repaid by those who actually used the water. But we would oppose if those not needing the water would be forced to pay for other's use of that water.
In February of 2009, we had a presentation made to the Fluvanna Taxpayers Association that simply listed all of the unanswered questions concerning the project. These question were not only not answered but not known by anyone, not even those advocating the formation of the Joint Water Authority. It was clear to all who heard the presentation that this was all going too fast as once the Authority was created, it would live on for some 50 years.
What we came up with as a way to slow down long enough to fully explore the implications of a Joint Water Authority was the provision for a referendum that was included in the very law that authorized its creation, namely the "Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act" (Chapter 51) and the specific section, "Hearing; referendum" (§ 15.2-5105), which says in part: "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...."
A petition was subsequently circulated and filed with the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors at their March 18, 2009 Public Hearing on the Joint Water Authority. The Board voted at that Hearing to review the petitions and not act until April 15, 2009 when it voted to reject the petition and form the Joint Water Authority.
Legal Basis for Petition for Referendum
Our Founding Fathers established this government we all live under based on their personal experience and their broad knowledge of history. Early English law was actually not written down. It was a big step to have any laws in written form. What they came up with what we think has always been, "the rule of law". That means that both the government and people are under this rule of law. The concept that "no one is above the law" is vital and absolute. No governing official nor governing body can ignore the law but must abide by it.
Furthermore, laws must be in plain language and easily understood by people of average intelligence. Otherwise, how can anyone be held accountable for violating said laws?
Some laws are narrowly construed while others are liberally construed. That means that some laws must be adhered to the very letter of the law and some must just have the basic intent followed.
Here in Virginia we have a specific law that states that as long as the basic concept of various legal papers are clear, one cannot throw out a case for a mere technicality. That law is titled "When action or suit not to abate for want of form; what defects not to be regarded" (§ 8.01-275):
Here we read "abate" as "to be thrown out". The petition filed with the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors is a "pleading" and the "essential" part of that pleading is whether it was filed at the specified time and place and whether it contained the required number of signatures.
But the "Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act" is even stronger it its specific language. Section 15.2-5100 states:
The two purposes of the Act which are of interest here are the formation of an Authority and the requirement for a referendum before the formation of an Authority. Of these two issues, only the requirement for a referendum is at issue. The procedure of the formation part is not disputed. Of course, the procedure would be illegal until the referendum is passed should the requirement for the referendum been met.
There is no dispute of the fact that the petition was filed with the Board at the appropriate time. There is further no dispute of the fact that the number of qualified signatures did exceed the ten percent required.
So according to a plain reading of the "Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act", the referendum should have been held prior to the formation of the James River Water Authority. But the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors, by that same 4 to 2 vote, failed to follow the law with respect to that Act.
By Douglas R. Johnson
June 19, 2009
The fate of the James River Water Authority now is in the hands of two separate Courts of Record, The Fluvanna Circuit Court and the State Corporation Commission. Some time has transpired from all of the headlines and broadcast media attention. This is an update and review to explain the history and the legal arguments at issue.
History of Joint Water Authority
Many years of discussion over providing drinking water for Zions Crossroads took a sudden change of direction with the supposed consensus to form a Joint Water Authority with Louisa County for a pipeline wholly within the borders of Fluvanna County.
This was first revealed at the January 26, 2009 joint meeting of the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors and the Louisa Board of Supervisors held at the Best Western meeting room at Zions Crossroads. That meeting was advertised as a discussion but the meeting confirmed it had already been decided. It was claimed that there was a consensus but the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors was divided by the same 4 to 2 that exists to this date.
It is clearly apparent that there were secret or semi-secret meetings planning that approach going on outside the public view. Perhaps they were at perfectly legal work sessions but clearly "below the radar".
The plan revealed at that meeting was that each county would advertise the required 30 day notice, hold a public hearing, vote authorizing the plan, and finally have the Joint Water Authority chartered by the State Corporation Commission.
While there were multiple discussions held in various parts of the community on the water pipeline, all such discussions were about the pipeline; its route and cost. There was no discussion concerning any Joint Water Authority with Louisa County.
Many of us who were associated with Lee True and his Fluvanna Taxpayers Association were not opposed to the pipeline itself but were withholding judgement on the project depending how the project would be funded. Our consensus was that we would not oppose a plan that would fund the project with revenue bonds that would be repaid by those who actually used the water. But we would oppose if those not needing the water would be forced to pay for other's use of that water.
In February of 2009, we had a presentation made to the Fluvanna Taxpayers Association that simply listed all of the unanswered questions concerning the project. These question were not only not answered but not known by anyone, not even those advocating the formation of the Joint Water Authority. It was clear to all who heard the presentation that this was all going too fast as once the Authority was created, it would live on for some 50 years.
What we came up with as a way to slow down long enough to fully explore the implications of a Joint Water Authority was the provision for a referendum that was included in the very law that authorized its creation, namely the "Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act" (Chapter 51) and the specific section, "Hearing; referendum" (§ 15.2-5105), which says in part: "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...."
A petition was subsequently circulated and filed with the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors at their March 18, 2009 Public Hearing on the Joint Water Authority. The Board voted at that Hearing to review the petitions and not act until April 15, 2009 when it voted to reject the petition and form the Joint Water Authority.
Legal Basis for Petition for Referendum
Our Founding Fathers established this government we all live under based on their personal experience and their broad knowledge of history. Early English law was actually not written down. It was a big step to have any laws in written form. What they came up with what we think has always been, "the rule of law". That means that both the government and people are under this rule of law. The concept that "no one is above the law" is vital and absolute. No governing official nor governing body can ignore the law but must abide by it.
Furthermore, laws must be in plain language and easily understood by people of average intelligence. Otherwise, how can anyone be held accountable for violating said laws?
Some laws are narrowly construed while others are liberally construed. That means that some laws must be adhered to the very letter of the law and some must just have the basic intent followed.
Here in Virginia we have a specific law that states that as long as the basic concept of various legal papers are clear, one cannot throw out a case for a mere technicality. That law is titled "When action or suit not to abate for want of form; what defects not to be regarded" (§ 8.01-275):
No action or suit shall abate for want of form where the motion for judgment or bill of complaint sets forth sufficient matter of substance for the court to proceed upon the merits of the cause. The court shall not regard any defect or imperfection in the pleading, whether it has been heretofore deemed mispleading or insufficient pleading or not, unless there be omitted something so essential to the action or defense that judgment, according to law and the very right of the cause, cannot be given.
(Code 1950, §§ 8-102, 8-109; 1954, c. 333; 1977, c. 617.)
Here we read "abate" as "to be thrown out". The petition filed with the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors is a "pleading" and the "essential" part of that pleading is whether it was filed at the specified time and place and whether it contained the required number of signatures.
But the "Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act" is even stronger it its specific language. Section 15.2-5100 states:
§ 15.2-5100. Title of chapter.Note that there are no other laws needed to interpret or modify the purposes of this Act. The phrase, "without regard to the provisions of any other law for the doing of the acts herein authorized", prohibits the argument that says the petition failed to meet some other law. The phrase, "shall be liberally construed to effect the purposes of the chapter", prohibits the use of technicalities to void the petition.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act." This chapter shall constitute full and complete authority, without regard to the provisions of any other law for the doing of the acts herein authorized, and shall be liberally construed to effect the purposes of the chapter.
(Code 1950, § 15-764.1; 1950, p. 1312; 1962, c. 623, § 15.1-1239; 1997, c. 587.)
The two purposes of the Act which are of interest here are the formation of an Authority and the requirement for a referendum before the formation of an Authority. Of these two issues, only the requirement for a referendum is at issue. The procedure of the formation part is not disputed. Of course, the procedure would be illegal until the referendum is passed should the requirement for the referendum been met.
There is no dispute of the fact that the petition was filed with the Board at the appropriate time. There is further no dispute of the fact that the number of qualified signatures did exceed the ten percent required.
So according to a plain reading of the "Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act", the referendum should have been held prior to the formation of the James River Water Authority. But the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors, by that same 4 to 2 vote, failed to follow the law with respect to that Act.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Fluvanna Petition Moves to Supreme Court
PALMYRA VA May 7, Notice has been officially served on the State Corporation Commission (SCC) that their action in issuing a Certificate of Incorporation to the James River Water Authority (JRWA) is being appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.Doug Johnson explains "While it is a little complicated, there are just two simple parts. If the petitions were valid, the formation of the James River Authority is not. The Circuit Court is deciding whether the petitions are proper or not. Once the Circuit Court decides, then the Supreme Court voids the Certificate the James River Water Authority."
This all started with simple filing by Doug Johnson, with the Fluvanna Circuit Court, of the Petitions circulated between March 24, 2009 and April 15, 2009.
This was actually the second batch of Petitions circulated in the county requesting a referendum asking: "Shall Fluvanna County join Louisa County in the formation of a Joint Water Authority".
The photo shown is petition circulator, Adrian Miller, holding copies of both batches of petitions. Each hand holds over 2,100 signatures on over 100 pages.
The Following day, March 19, 2009, Mr. Johnson filed the petition form with the Court as per Mr. Payne's comment to the board. The Court officially accepted the petition form on March 24, 2009.
While Mr. Johnson considered that approval of the Court to be correcting Mr. Payne's perceived problem with that first batch of petitions, others, acting on legal advise, took the opportunity of the adjournment to April 15, 2009 to circulate a second batch of petitions.
So at the April 15, 2009 Board of Supervisors evening meeting, two separate batches of petitions were submitted where each separately fulfilled the legal requirements to force the referendum.
"Many of the petition signers gave one reason for signing as really being annoyed about not having any say in the one hundred million dollar Domino school construction plan", said Johnson. Adding: "Our citizens want a vote before we spend another cent of our children's and grandchildren's income."
All this legal action became necessary when the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors, in a 4 to 2 decision, tried to circumvent the upcoming May 15, 2009 hearing by filing with the SCC.
But SCC actions are not final unless the time for appeal expires without a challenge. That challenge has now been made. So the formation of the JRWA is not the done deal we have been led to believe.
If either of the two Petitions are accepted at the May 15, 2009 Fluvanna Circuit Court Hearing, that will make the filing with SCC unlawful. That then becomes clear evidence to justify the Supreme Court voiding the charter of the JRWA.
While Mr. Johnson started his activities pro se, he will be accepting legal help as funds become available. Leroy McCampbell, treasure of the Fluvanna Taxpayers Association, is accepting donations intended for legal activities related to getting the referendum. Mr. McCampbell can be contacted at 589-1599. Mr. Johnson can be reached at 286-6982.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
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."
Sunday, April 19, 2009
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:
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."
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,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.
2009, at 9:30 a.m. concerning the Petitioner's motion to enter the attached
order."
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."
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
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.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Open Letter to Fluvanna BOS about Joint Water Authority with Louisa
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
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
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.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Fluvanna Growth and Use of Public Funds
by Douglas R. Johnson
February 23, 2009
Fluvanna grew because of the 4,601 unit development of Lake Monticello. That has been completed and county growth has stopped. This is hard to accept but by every way you measure, indisputable.
But the mentality of looking at past growth to predict future growth is about to take the county off of a cliff. This is being done by “government planning”. This where you take a pipe dream, put it in a document called a “comprehensive plan”, and then make the plan law by changing the zoning.
But then you add the real teeth by building infrastructure to “make the plan work”. The pipe dream says we want more population in a specific area. So we “plan” high density housing in that area. We then change the zoning to allow it. But high density housing requires water and sewers. So, in anticipation of the pipe dream, we start building infrastructure.
So what has Fluvanna done so far? We started with a one hundred million dollar school construction project to house enough students for the pipe dream. But to fill the school we need more population. That is, we need high rise apartment buildings and row houses. That means we need a 50 million dollar water project to bring water in. That means we need another multi million dollar project to take sewerage out; then more police; then more fire houses; then paid firemen; then more county government workers.
But who are we going to put in the high density housing? Certainly not workers for Fluvanna industry. We will bring in the welfare recipients from the big cities. We will advertise: “Come to Fluvanna and live free”.
Of course we will also advertise for business with such clever ads as: “Come to Fluvanna to pay taxes” or “Come provide jobs so we can put our welfare recipients to work”.
But this is not denied by the proponents of the growth pipe dream. They are of the firm conviction that: “If you build it, they will come.” They think the Hollywood movie, “Field of Dreams” was a documentary based and actual event probably in Missouri.
I relate this more to the old movies where the mine gave out and bustling metropolises became ghost towns. Does it take an advanced college degree that growth is driven by industry and not the other way around?
The industry that drove Fluvanna’s growth is the “retirement” industry. The biggest and most well known is The Villages in Florida. Retirees from all over the country settle there with unlimited golf and fantastic community activities. Lake Monticello catered to that industry and flourished.
But county government is not industry. Industry is industry. If you want industry, you need to target a specific industry. But that happens first. You don’t build infrastructure for industry that is not here yet. That is called “speculation”. Government has no authority to speculate with taxpayer money.
Our great planning department and various planning committees have yet to come up with any proposals to any businesses to come to Fluvanna. Perhaps we could build a headquarters and warehouse for Circuit City. But surprise surprise, they are shutting down. Maybe we could rescue them with one of Fluvanna’s “stimulus bond sale”.
When will the people of Fluvanna rise up and stop the madness?
February 23, 2009
Fluvanna grew because of the 4,601 unit development of Lake Monticello. That has been completed and county growth has stopped. This is hard to accept but by every way you measure, indisputable.
But the mentality of looking at past growth to predict future growth is about to take the county off of a cliff. This is being done by “government planning”. This where you take a pipe dream, put it in a document called a “comprehensive plan”, and then make the plan law by changing the zoning.
But then you add the real teeth by building infrastructure to “make the plan work”. The pipe dream says we want more population in a specific area. So we “plan” high density housing in that area. We then change the zoning to allow it. But high density housing requires water and sewers. So, in anticipation of the pipe dream, we start building infrastructure.
So what has Fluvanna done so far? We started with a one hundred million dollar school construction project to house enough students for the pipe dream. But to fill the school we need more population. That is, we need high rise apartment buildings and row houses. That means we need a 50 million dollar water project to bring water in. That means we need another multi million dollar project to take sewerage out; then more police; then more fire houses; then paid firemen; then more county government workers.
But who are we going to put in the high density housing? Certainly not workers for Fluvanna industry. We will bring in the welfare recipients from the big cities. We will advertise: “Come to Fluvanna and live free”.
Of course we will also advertise for business with such clever ads as: “Come to Fluvanna to pay taxes” or “Come provide jobs so we can put our welfare recipients to work”.
But this is not denied by the proponents of the growth pipe dream. They are of the firm conviction that: “If you build it, they will come.” They think the Hollywood movie, “Field of Dreams” was a documentary based and actual event probably in Missouri.
I relate this more to the old movies where the mine gave out and bustling metropolises became ghost towns. Does it take an advanced college degree that growth is driven by industry and not the other way around?
The industry that drove Fluvanna’s growth is the “retirement” industry. The biggest and most well known is The Villages in Florida. Retirees from all over the country settle there with unlimited golf and fantastic community activities. Lake Monticello catered to that industry and flourished.
But county government is not industry. Industry is industry. If you want industry, you need to target a specific industry. But that happens first. You don’t build infrastructure for industry that is not here yet. That is called “speculation”. Government has no authority to speculate with taxpayer money.
Our great planning department and various planning committees have yet to come up with any proposals to any businesses to come to Fluvanna. Perhaps we could build a headquarters and warehouse for Circuit City. But surprise surprise, they are shutting down. Maybe we could rescue them with one of Fluvanna’s “stimulus bond sale”.
When will the people of Fluvanna rise up and stop the madness?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Referendum Petition for Fluvanna County Water Pipe Line for Louisa County
The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors is creating a Joint Water Authority with Louisa County with a potential debt of about Fifty Million Dollars on top of the One Hundred Million Dollars of debt they allowed without a referendum for the Domino Plan School Construction Project. But the citizens of Fluvanna County can have a referendum by simply circulating the Official Petition on the simple question: "Shall Fluvanna County join Louisa County in the formation of a joint Water Authority?"
Time is of the essence here because the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors is holding the hearing on this issue on March 18, 2009 and will make the final decision then and there. That means the petitions must be turned in to the Board of Supervisors that day at the start of the hearing.
This petition will go then to the board of elections to verify each signature against the official list of registered voters. I expect we will need approximately 2,000 signatures to get our referendum.
Official PetitionSome very important instructions:
- The petition MUST be printed front and back on legal size paper.
- You must be a voter in Fluvanna County to circulate the Petition.
- You, as the one who circulates the petition, must witness every signature.
- Only Fluvanna County Registered voters can sign the Petition.
- You must sign the back in front of a notary public who must notarize the completed form. Every bank will do this at no charge.
- You may not sign the petition you circulate. You must sign one circulated by someone else.
Water Authority Petition - Supporting Document
Comment from the Fluvanna Taxpayers Association:
The Fluvanna Taxpayers Association voted at its February 19 membership meeting to support a petition drive for a referendum on a proposed joint water authority involving Fluvanna and Louisa counties. This petition drive is not designed to stop the pipeline or to oppose a public water system in Fluvanna. The reason for the petition drive is strictly to ensure adequate time for citizen education on the important factors bearing on this issue. Creation of the authority has significant implications for taxpayers. Numerous citizens feel they have not received sufficient information to know whether the joint authority is a good idea or not and to be able to comment knowledgeably on it at the March 18 public hearing. A petition drive/referendum is a tool of democracy that we have chosen to use in this instance to assure that citizens are fully informed about the pros and cons of the joint authority and its impact on Fluvanna taxpayers. We invite you to join us in circulating this petition -- please read rules above -- and in supporting these goals.There are currently no comments from the two political parties on this petition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
