Showing posts with label Gloucester County. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gloucester County. Show all posts

Friday, January 29, 2021

Gloucester County, Virginia's Real Estate Tax Deception


In January 2020, the latest of Gloucester’s real estate reassessments became effective. The overall value of Gloucester real estate changed from $4,391,807,486.00 to $4,659,865,396.00, resulting in an increase of $268,057,910.00 in overall value. At the current tax rate with the new assessment, the County gets an increase in real estate tax revenue (Money going into the County’s coffers) of approximately $2 Million.  
Shortly after this reassessment, the County and Board of Supervisors began budget deliberation for the FY 2021 budget, which covers the period of July 1, 2020 thru June 30, 2021. The County built this budget based on the increase in overall real estate tax revenue even though they did not hold a Public Hearing or vote on it until December 1, 2020, over seven months after the budget was approved.

During the budget deliberations and after, there was a big push to increase the local retail sales tax to provide money for various School System Capital projects. (Building new buildings parking lots, ball fields, renovating, replacement, repair, and such type projects.) The pushed narrative that increasing the retail sales tax would prevent real estate taxes from going up and would spread some of the Capital expense burden to people outside Gloucester who use Gloucester businesses and services sounded like a pretty darn good idea but for one thing, real estate taxes did increase, and they knew it the whole time they were spreading the deception. The biggest factor that allowed them to get away with this was the lack of Conservative Gloucester citizens who follow and engage in what is going on with our local government.

The County had the option of lowering the real estate tax rate to set it in line with the Real estate tax revenue it took in the year before. If they had, it would have resulted in the real estate tax rate being lowered from $0.695 per $100 in value to $0.659 per $100 in value. A $0.36 per $100 of value decrease in the rate. On December 1, 2020, five of our illustrious Supervisors voted to keep the $2 Million instead of lowering the rate. The two Supervisors who voted against this deception were Mike Winebarger of the Petsworth District and Phillip Bazzani of the York District.

On top of the real estate tax deception, five Supervisors voted to allow the School System to borrow nearly $6 Million to fund some of its Capital projects they were also claiming, at the same time, would be funded by the retail sales tax increase. Again, Winebarger and Bazzani voted against borrowing the money. The retail sales tax increase was passed by the voters in the November 3, 2020 election. This will give the School System another $5 Million, plus or minus, annually. The increase goes into effect July 1, 2021.

Below are links to where you can see and hear this information for yourself. I encourage everyone to visit these links.

Kenny Hogge, Sr. 

December 1, 2020 Public Hearing on the real estate tax Deception: https://gloucester.granicus.com/player/clip/2344

$6 Million Dollar loan public hearing: https://gloucester.granicus.com/player/clip/2300?meta_id=133252

2019 Land Book: https://www.gloucesterva.info/DocumentCenter/View/7695/2019-GLOUCESTER-LAND-BOOK-PDF

2020 Land Book: https://www.gloucesterva.info/DocumentCenter/View/9084/2020-GLOUCESTER-LAND-BOOK-05-11-20

Tuesday, December 15, 2020

Conversation Between Gloucester Supervisor and Superintendent of Schools


On October 20
th the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and School Board had a joint meeting. Near the end of the meeting, Supervisor Winebarger said the following:

“Dr. Clemons, glad you’re here. I’ve gotten multiple phone calls from parents saying that they’ve heard; and I want you to either tell me yes, or no or maybe so; that Gloucester is going to start requiring a class in black history in order to graduate and that they are going to start to teach history based on 1619 instead of 1609. Tell me it ain’t so.”

See the SlideShare presentation below to see the email conversation that followed and other emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) After that you will find a link to hear the Supervisor's question. After that you will find a link to a Board of Supervisor "Public Comment" section where certain people spoke about the Supervisor and his question to the Superintendent. 

Written By: Kenny Hogge, Sr.

SlideShare presentation of documents obtained under FOIA



Monday, December 14, 2020

Superintendent of Gloucester County Public Schools Plays Race Card


On October 20th the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and School Board had a joint meeting. Near the end of the meeting, Supervisor Winebarger said the following:

“Dr. Clemons, glad you’re here. I’ve gotten multiple phone calls from parents saying that they’ve heard; and I want you to either tell me yes, or no or maybe so; that Gloucester is going to start requiring a class in black history in order to graduate and that they are going to start to teach history based on 1619 instead of 1609. Tell me it ain’t so.”

For those who do not know, the 1619 date comes from what is known as the 1619 Project, a highly controversial black history piece created by several “journalists” at the New York Times. I strongly believe the Supervisor's, “Tell me it ain’t so.” ending to his question was directed solely at the inclusion of highly questionable content from the 1609 Project; something every American should be concerned about.   

Superintendent Clemons responded, but did not actually answer Mr. Winebarger’s question, so Mr. Winebarger sent Superintendent Clemons the following in an email:

“Rick, is Gloucester School Systems one of the 16 pilot programs and will the program be teaching history from 1609 or 1619? Mike”

At this point, nothing appears to be unusual; right? Just a simple conversation between a Supervisor and a School Superintendent. The Superintendent did respond with a partial answer to the Supervisor’s questions, but he also had a lot more to say. The following is the Superintendent's reply to the Supervisor:

Good Morning Mr. Winebarger:

As a follow-up to our conversation from the meeting last night, I will provide the Board of Supervisors and the School Board an outline of the course so all know the framework and contents within. I will make sure all know the periods of history that will be taught. In addition, GCPS is not one of the 16 districts piloting the course this year.

However, I must tell you that as an African American/black man, notwithstanding the fact that I happen to be the Superintendent of Schools in a majority non-minority community, I found your comments last night to be racially insensitive at a minimum if not downright racist in nature, and I am very disappointed, angry and offended by such comments.

Please let me be clear. I have no problem with anyone asking about the course, periods of time or content within. However, your comments around the fact of what you heard and if it was going to be required as a course for graduation is deeply disturbing. My question to you would be, "So what if it was a course needed for graduation?" Would you have a problem with that? Your comments in my view showed an insensitivity to African American History and it came across that it is not good enough or appropriate to teach in this community.

Please know that I do plan to follow up with you, the Board of Supervisors and the Gloucester community on this matter.

In closing, thanks for your time and I hope you have a great day! Sincerely,

Dr. Clemons

I don’t know about you, but I was floored by the Superintendent’s racial attack and the way he attempted to label the Supervisor an insensitive racist. Why would he say such things to someone asking a simple question on behalf of a Constituent? The Superintendent’s comments were nothing less than “race baiting”. (An attempt to deflect a conversation by implementing an assertion that the asker is racist.) I also believe there are political motivations behind the Superintendent’s unacceptable behavior. He, at least five School Board members and four to five Supervisors would love to see Mr. Winebarger leave the BOS. They want him gone because he and Supervisor Bazzani are the only two Supervisors who are constantly fiscally responsible in the way they vote and are more than willing to ask the tough questions. A few days later, the Supervisor sent the following in an email to the Superintendent:

Dear Dr. Clemons,

I have given your email to me dated October 21 some thought, especially given its concerning rhetoric. As the old saying goes, "Don't shoot the messenger". As a Supervisor elected by the citizens of this County, it is my duty to investigate and respond to questions or concerns expressed to me by my constituents. I always ask these questions in public, even though others may do so in private. I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future because it is my duty.

At the joint meeting of the School Board and Board of Supervisors on October 20, I relayed to you questions which I had been asked by a constituent. You provided partial answers in the meeting and indicated you would provide follow-up information. As a builder who has worked construction my entire life, I do not have the benefit of multiple degrees - I speak simply and plainly without any hidden agendas. On October 21, the morning after the meeting, I emailed you as a reminder of the information I was seeking. Your email response did not provide answers to enable me to respond to my constituent, but instead expressed your feelings about my question. In the joint meeting of the School Board and Board of Supervisors, the forum is one where the Boards ask the questions and the employees provide the answers. I regret that you attributed any insensitive or offensive meaning to my words - none was intended - it was just a question asked by one of my constituents about a course. I await your response to my inquires.

Your accusation that my "comment in [your] view showed an insensitivity to African American History and it came across that it is not good enough or appropriate to teach in this community" is grossly misguided and false. In my view, American History is the history of the American people. I believe that as Americans we are all a great melting pot and any American history course should highlight the participation of all Americans regardless of race, creed, or color, and the African American experience is absolutely an important part of our history.

Please know that I am ready and willing to have further discussions with you on this issue and encourage you to call me at your earliest convenience.

Mike Winebarger

Supervisor, Petsworth District

The Supervisor’s reply is pretty cut and dry. You certainly can’t blame him for doing what he was elected to do, unlike numerous other elected people in Gloucester County.

The story does not end there. On November 4, 2020, the Superintendent and several school employees spoke during the BOS meeting Public Comment period, publicly attacking Mr. Winebarger, with some attempting to label him a racist. Mr. Winebarger maintained his composure throughout the whole orchestrated ordeal. The same cannot be said about some of the speakers.

Several people in the community told me about the Superintendent’s email to the Supervisor, so I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the school system asking for all the Superintendent’s emails between October 16, 2020 and November 15, 2020; essentially 30 days’ worth. I was shocked by the following reply from the school system:

“the school division estimates that the cost for accessing, duplicating, supplying, or searching for the records responsive your request is $2,926.00 based on 5,600 emails and estimated an average of one minute to review each, at the hourly rate of the Superintendent’s Executive Assistant.” 

They sure don’t want me or anyone else checking out their emails. That amount is ludicrous and beyond what I am willing to spend on seeking such information, so I revised my request to:

“all emails sent and or received by the Superintendent of GCPS that pertain to, reference, mention and or touch on the "1619 Project" and or African American history and or Black history and or Native American history during the time period of Oct 16, 2020 thru November 15, 2020.”

I received copies of several emails and a bill for $62.94. Like I've said before, transparency isn't cheap in Gloucester County. The entire first part of an email was completely redacted. It appears like the Superintendent forwarded the Supervisor’s question and the Superintendent’s response to someone they claim is exempt from being identified under the “Working Papers” FOIA release exemption. I have received many emails and other documents containing redactions authorized under FOIA, but I have never received any in which the sender, recipients, subject, date and 100% of the content was blacked out. I sure would like to know who the Superintendent forwarded the email to and what his comments were. One can only imagine at this point, but one thing is crystal clear, he does not want the People to know. 

Gloucester County has always been a civil place to live and raise children. Of course, we have had our moments and like everywhere, there are a handful of true racists of all skin colors, but overall, most people tend to get along without a lot chaos and drama. It seems the Superintendent does not feel that way. It seems like he thinks there is significant racial divide and inequality in Gloucester and in Gloucester schools and “as an African American/black man, notwithstanding the fact that he happens to be the Superintendent of Schools in a majority non-minority community,”  it appears he has done very little over the last several years to adequately blend his little part of the American melting pot into a unified culture of acceptance, instead choosing in this instance to spew unwarranted accusations of racism. In another instance he complained about his child not having a teacher of color since attending Gloucester schools. In still yet another instance of having taxpayers pay for his membership to the National Association of Black Educators. Of all people to complain about ethnic diversity when he is the one person in this community in the best position to cause effective improvements, not only in our schools but in our County as well; if the need truly exists. As for membership in the NABE; didn’t segregation end in the 60’s? Why does the Superintendent feel he must belong to a racially segregated organization? Should there also be separate organizations for each race of educators? The Superintendent certainly does not reflect unity, diversity, equality, integrity, civility and honor; all essential traits necessary to preserve American freedom, liberty, justice and equality for all. Instead, he travels the path of race baiting and exclusion to silence those who do not align with his ideals and agenda and to silence those who question what is taking place in our public school system.

When I attended Gloucester schools from the late 60’s till the late 70’s, we were taught to get along and respect each other, despite, nationality, skin color and financial or academic standing. We were also taught; our personal choices and level of effort would determine our destiny. We had black teachers and white teachers and thought of them all as just teachers. Their color didn’t matter, just like the color of our fellow students didn’t matter.  At GHS, Mr. Loring had a class in which the students replicated the cast of “Welcome Back Kotter”. We watched the Jefferson’s, Sanford and Son, All In The Family, Good Times and other shows that offered moral lessons on race relations, among other things. Today Gloucester has an activist school Superintendent who, despite his own career success as a “black man”, is setting a path for racial divide in our community in order to further progress the Socialist/Marxist/Communist movement that is jeopardizing our great Nation. Does anyone really want this kind of drama in Gloucester County? I know I don’t and believe we owe it to the children of Gloucester to put a stop to it sooner than later. Superintendent Clemons was welcomed into this community when he was selected for the job, but I believe because of this instance and other instances in other areas he is responsible for, he has worn that welcome out.

Below I have included a SlideShare presentation of the emails responsive to my FOIA request. I have also included links to the section of the Joint meeting where the Supervisor asked the question and subsequent section of the BOS meeting where the Public Comments were made.

Written By: Kenny Hogge, Sr.

Email Presentation


Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Public Notice: Gloucester County, Virginia Government 90 Plus Days Late In Paying Bill

Gloucester County Government is presently over 90 days late in paying one bill and over 30 days late on yet another bill.  The total is estimated at roughly $40,000.00 and compounding daily.  Gloucester County officials have failed to rebut said bill if they thought said bill might have been in error.  Said bills are owed to CRF Ventures for contract work performed.  

Saturday, June 9, 2018

Gloucester County, Virginia's Hidden Tourism Plan


Gloucester, VA - The Coleman Bridge.  Picture taken for the new Gloucester Links & News website. 

Imagine a tourist area that is made up of Colonial Yorktown with its’ battlefields, new Victory Museum, the Yorktown River Walk, the Waterman’s Museum, floating docks that can accommodate cruise ships up to 400’ long and numerous other tourist attractions. Further imagine two Virginia State Parks located on the York River in Gloucester; a National Park on the York River in the Capahosic area of Gloucester; the York River State Park on the York River in the Toano area of James City County and; New Quarter Park located next to Cheatham Annex and close to historic Williamsburg. Imagine tour boats picking up and dropping off tourists at each location as they navigate up and down the York River while tour guides describe locations of various shipwrecks on the floor of the York, the docks at the Navel Weapons Station and Cheatham Annex, watermen harvesting clams, fish, oysters and crabs, historical sites and so on. Imagine new marinas in Gloucester and more boats, jet skis and other watercraft enjoying the York River and it’s tributaries for recreation. Imagine Gloucester’s rich history being brought to the forefront and Gloucester becoming a high density part of Virginia’s tourism industry. Imagine ferry boats or an up river bridge connecting Gloucester to the Williamsburg area, creating a historic tourism circle made up of Gloucester, Yorktown, Jamestown and Williamsburg. 

Now let reality set back in and let yourself begin to realize that a tourist area of that magnitude would cost hundreds of millions of dollars or more and would take a very long time to design, plan and complete. Let yourself begin to realize there would be even more negative impacts on commercial Watermen. Let yourself realize it will require more roads, housing, hotels, restaurants, fire and rescue, police, schools and bigger local government. Finally let yourself realize Gloucester County would no longer be the quiet little town it has been throughout history.

It is now time for a serious question. What would you say if you learned that such a tourism plan has been in the works for several years and that several steps have already been taken to move the concept forward without informing the People that such a plan exists? After reading the rest of this article we think you will realize that is exactly what is occurring as none of the steps taken thus far have included public statements from anyone acknowledging or even mentioning the existence of a non-publicly disclosed master plan that we believe has been in existence for over 20 years. Anyway, here are just few steps that have been taken publicly so far without the un-named plan being mentioned.

On February 14, 2014 the daily press reported funding for a new state park on the York River and Aberdeen Creek was being sought by local legislators to begin constructing amenities to include trails, camp sites, cabins and water access. The Daily Press reported that Del. Keith Hodges, R-Middlesex, and Sen. Thomas K. "Tommy" Norment, R-James City were seeking $8 million for work on the first phase of the park which include roads, a beach, swimming area, seven miles of trails, a fishing pier and other basic amenities. A 2011 park master plan estimated the cost of the first phase at $13.3 million. Hodges had also requested $600,000 to pay for staff and equipment to develop the park. The park has 2,260 feet of York River shoreline at an area where the river is two miles wide, it has 3,776 feet of shoreline along Aberdeen Creek, it encompasses 431 acres of land and was purchased in 2005 for $3.9 million from Newport News resident Pela Hundley during former Gov. Mark Warner's administration. (The same Pela Hundley who sold the new Page Middle School property to Gloucester County in 2004.) The property purchase was financed using general obligation bonds from a voter-approved state referendum in 2002. Phase two plans for lodging facilities at the state park include 30 camping sites and a group camp site, 10 cabins to include one three-bedroom, eight two-bedrooms, one lodge, a picnic area and a play area. More amenities are included with a price tag of $13.6 million for phase II. A 2010 park master plan estimated the total cost of the park to be around $28.2 million.

On May 20, 2014 the Daily press reported President Obama’s proposed budget called for spending $6 million on the Werowocomoco site in Gloucester and the John Smith Trail, which traces Smith's exploratory journey throughout the Chesapeake Bay area from 1607 to 1609. (The story behind this park coming to the attention of the President is another complex and somewhat curious story that will be covered in the future.) Governor Terry McAuliffe visited the farm that is owned by Bob and Lynn Ripley which was supposedly home to Chief Powhatan and his daughter Pocahontas when settlers arrived in Virginia in 1607. That during the Governor’s visit he is reported to have said the property could link Gloucester with the Hampton Roads region's famed Historic Triangle of Jamestown, Yorktown and Williamsburg. The Daily Press further reported that McAuliffe said he had briefed and had the full support of Virginia's congressional delegation about the proposal for the national park. They also reported that he sees Werowocomoco National Park and the John Smith Trail as a way to draw tourists, help diversify the state's economy and bring money to communities such as Gloucester. The Daily Press reported that he said he can see tourists landing from the water.

On August 7, 2012 the Daily Press reported that the Gloucester Board of Supervisors unanimously approved establishing “No Discharge” zones in Gloucester. The establishment of these zones means boaters will be prohibited from dumping human sewage in the Piankatank River, Mobjack Bay and the York River and all of their tributaries. On October 7, 2014 the Board of Supervisors authorized the Gloucester Go Green Advisory Committee to submit an application for the establishment of No Discharge Zones in Sarah Creek and the Perrin River. Currently, the Federal Clean Water Act prohibits dumping untreated sewage from boats anywhere in the U.S., but does permit dumping treated sewage from certain marine sanitation devices in U.S. waters, except in No Discharge Zones. Once No Discharge Zones are establish even those with both device types will not be permitted to dump sewage in the No Discharge Zone waters and will be required to have human waste removed from their boats at marinas with waste pumping stations or through other on-land disposal facilities.

In March 2015 Lewis Lawrence, executive director of the Hampton Roads Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission made a presentation to the Gloucester Board of Supervisors on dredging Aberdeen Creek. During this briefing Lawrence said watermen have been raising concerns in recent years about their ability to get boats in and out of the wharf at the end of the creek. He further said that in 2009 the Middle Peninsula Chesapeake Bay Public Access Authority and Planning District Commission were asked to study Aberdeen Creek as a commercial seafood hub, specifically looking at land-use issues and options for dredging. This study was funded through a grant from Virginia's Coastal Zone Program. (A “networked program”. established to manage Virginia's coastal resources, the program relies on a network of state agencies and local governments to administer the enforceable laws and regulations that protect our wetlands, dunes, subaqueous lands, fisheries, and air and water quality within the Virginia “Coastal Zone.) The Daily Press reported that the Virginia Institute of Marine Science is performing an economic impact study and that Lawrence said the dredging could cost $600,000 to $1.5 million, depending on the extent of the project. They further reported him saying the most probable cost should be around $744,000, or $93,000 a year which would be paid for by Gloucester taxpayers over eight years.

On April 16, 2015 the Gloucester Board of Supervisors repealed the Boat Tax, resulting in a $438,000 annual revenue loss.

On July 19, 2015 the Daily Press reported that Governor McAuliffe, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Virginia Department of Transportation met under the bridge at Gloucester Point where they signed a memorandum of understanding which asks the three agencies to work together to identify new potential public access projects, especially at bridge crossings and roads. The Daily Press quoted McAuliffe saying, "Where ever we have VDOT next to one of our state parks and [there is a bridge] or an opportunity for us to build at that waterway and allow people to access the water I want that done"

On October 20, 2015 the Gloucester Board of Supervisors received a presentation on what is being referred to as the York River Stewardship Program. The presentation primarily focused on what is being called the York River Maritime Heritage National Marine Sanctuary Initiative. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is legally responsible for the management of maritime heritage resources within designated sanctuaries. According to NOAA, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to, “…designate and manage areas of the marine environment with special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archaeological, educational or esthetic qualities as National Marine Sanctuaries.” In other words, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce will be in complete control of the York River, its tributaries and land that “may” impact the condition of the York River. Bodies of water that are designated sanctuaries under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act appear to be highly regulated, especially in the area of commercial fishing. The president of the Waterman’s Museum Board also shared that York River boat tours leaving from the Waterman’s Museum will likely begin during the summer of 2016.

As we said earlier, those are only some of the steps that have been taken to push along the un-named project. Other steps that have been taken include things like; several million dollars in improvements to Hickory Fork Road; multiple strategically placed mixed use development type plans that have been approved in Gloucester; strategic land purchases by a small number of individuals who obviously know more about the un-named plan than the general public; building Page Middle School on T.C. Walker Road with plans to relocate the school bus garage and sell the property being in the works long before the tornado damaged Page and; the efforts of the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust to re-construct Main Street, through a backdoor tax dollar funding mechanism called library and health department space rent. There are plenty more occurrences that clearly demonstrate a long and continuous effort by a few individuals to bring the un-known plan to reality and profit from it without letting the vast majority of Gloucester residents, businesses and property owners know what is actually taking place. There are people who live among us and elsewhere who have and continue to take advantage of knowing things the majority of Gloucester property owners have no knowledge of. Just like what went on with Page Middle School; the plans for the un-named plan have been created, the People’s money is being spent and when the time comes, the whole thing will be shoved down a huge majority of the People’s throats and the few who were in the “know” will profit.

We are not trying to advocate for or against the un-named plan as our primary goal is to let everyone know what is going on I Gloucester County. We realize there could be many long term benefits for Gloucester’s residents, businesses and property owners, but we also know that when things are done outside of the People’s watchful eye, many get taken advantage of so a few greedy individuals can profit. Our advice to Gloucester property owners is to hang onto what you have because within the next several years the value of your property will increase. Don’t be fooled by offers that appear to be high in comparison to Gloucester’s assessed value as the assessment is not a true reflection of your property’s true worth, even though the Code of Virginia requires all properties to be assessed at true market value. That does not happen in Gloucester. A prime example of this is the Route 17 frontage property that connects to the new Page Middle School property, which Harry Corr, now deceased, purchased one day before the School Board voted to build Page on that property. Mr. Corr paid the Pella Hundley Trust more than six times the properties’ assessed values, or so it would appear in Gloucester’s online land records. (Again the Hundley name comes up) As can be seen from this example, Gloucester’s assessments appear to be far lower than true market value.

Should Gloucester become a tourist destination and retirement community, or should it remain a place to live away from all of that?

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point, Virginia

Saturday, October 21, 2017

Are Gloucester County’s Budgets By Administrator Fedors As Spectacular As York District Supervisor Bazzani Claims?

During a recent Gloucester County candidate forum, York District Supervisor Phillip Bazzani touted his vast experience in creating and managing budgets involving substantial amounts of money. He further insisted he knows every aspect of Gloucester’s 2018 budget. Supervisor Bazzani has also repeatedly publicly asserted that County Administrator Brent Fedors’ budget documents are the best he has seen in the 34 years he has lived in Gloucester. Are these assertions true? Here is what we know to be true and factual.


When Mr. Fedors presented his first budget to the Board of Supervisors and the public, it lacked details that were present in budgets prepared by his predecessors. When we pointed this out to Mr. Fedors he said,

“While we are not planning to add that level of detail to the proposed budget book for FY17, we are preparing a supplemental information piece for Board Members that does. I will make sure you get a copy when it is ready.”

After receiving his response, we forwarded the email conversation with Mr. Fedors and the following statement to the Board of Supervisors.

“I and others find Mr. Fedors' budget proposal and last response disturbing for a number of reasons and hope the majority of you do as well. Foremost, Mr. Fedors' budget process does not appear to include transparency; as the Code of Virginia requires the People to be presented information at the same time as the governing body. (Unless otherwise exempted by FOIA) Mr. Fedors' budget process does not appear to include an acceptable level of transparency which has led to restricting the People from data that is necessary to evaluate how their tax dollars are being spent. I will not say much more at this time as I understand Mr. Fedors' is new to the government game. On the other hand, his staff certainly are not. One would hope they would guide their new boss in a better direction.”

Mr. Fedors provided us the information piece as he promised, but even after we expressed our concerns to him and the Board of Supervisors, his FY18 budget demonstrated the same lack of transparency. Again we contacted Mr. Fedors via email to request line item data, which the Finance Director provided.

What we find concerning is the fact that Mr. Bazzani publicly stated Mr. Fedors’ FY17 Budget was the most comprehensive budget document he has seen in all his years of managing budgets. How could anyone make such a statement about a budget document that lacks the amount of detail Mr. Fedors’ lacked? The FY17 budget email conversation we have shared below clearly demonstrates the Board of Supervisor did not have the necessary data to effectively scrutinize Mr. Fedors’ proposed budget until several days after Mr. Bazzani praised Mr. Fedors.

We have provided Slideshare presentations of both of Mr. Fedors’ budgets and the last budget his predecessor prepared. We have provided our email conversations with Mr. Fedors, the Finance Director and the Board of Supervisors, as well as Slideshare presentations of the data we were forced to request from Mr. Fedors. We have also provided some video clips for your enjoyment. Though there are numerous other transparency shortcomings and many wasteful spending practices that we have not touched on here, we ask you to take special notice of the difference in the amount of data provided for budgeted expenditures for each department. You will see that Mr. Fedors combined budgeted expenditures into three line items for each department, whereas his predecessor had many more line items for each department. What are they trying to hide??

Written comments may be emailed to Kennysr61@gmail.com
Supervisor Bazzani stating he knows every aspect of the budget


 

Supervisor Bazzani praising Mr. Fedors' FY17 budget even before Mr. Fedors' information piece with detailed data was provided.






FY16 Budget (General fund expenditures begin on Slideshare page 75)
FY18 Budget (General fund expenditures begin on Slideshare page 71)
FY17 info we were forced to requested from Mr. Fedors
FY18 info we were forced to requested from Mr. Fedors
Email conversation about FY17 budget

03/20/16 at 11:57 AM


Board Members,

I and others find Mr. Fedors' budget proposal and last response disturbing for a number of reasons and hope the majority of you do as well. Foremost, Mr. Fedors' budget process does not appear to include transparency; as the Code of Virginia requires the People to be presented information at the same time as the governing body. (Unless otherwise exempted by FOIA) Mr. Fedors' budget process does not appear to include an acceptable level of transparency which has led to restricting the People from data that is necessary to evaluate how their tax dollars are being spent.

I will not say much more at this time as I understand Mr. Fedors' is new to the government game. On the other hand, his staff certainly are not. One would hope they would guide their new boss in a better direction.

Respectfully,

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Fedors, Brent" bfedors@gloucesterva.info

To: Kenny
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: 2017 Budget

Mr. Hogge -

While we are not planning to add that level of detail to the proposed budget book for FY17, we are preparing a supplemental information piece for Board Members that does.

I will make sure you get a copy when it is ready - likely Tuesday.

Brent

On Mar 17, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Kenny wrote:

Brent,

We are looking for a proposed budget document that contains at least as much information as the 2016 budget proposal which can be found at:  http://www.gloucesterva.info/Portals/0/finance/documents/FY16%20County%20Administrator's%20Proposed%20Budget.pdf?ver=2015-03-05-090048-737

A "general fund expenditure budget" as presented in the 2016 proposal is one example of the expanded data we would like to continue to see and are hoping the Supervisors are already assessing as they process the FY17 proposal. 

Kenny 

From: "Fedors, Brent" <bfedors@gloucesterva.info>
To: Kenny
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: 2017 Budget

Mr. Hogge -


There are also copies of the book available for public review at both libraries and in the County Administration office.

Please let me know if there are specific questions you have that I may be able to address - I'm glad to help in any way I can.

Brent

On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Kenny wrote:

Hello Mr. Fedors,

I would like to get a copy of the "2017 Budget Book" that has been provided to the Supervisors. The information posted on the County's website is not detailed enough for the People to do any sort of analysis of what is being proposed.

Thank you sir,


Email conversation about FY18 budget data


Mar 20 at 11:15 AM

To Kenny


Message body


 Attached is the information as requested.

 1st tab – General Fund by Expenditure Line Item

2nd tab – Provides information on the Total Transfers Out line item from the General Fund

3rd tab – Capital Projects

4th tab – External Agencies Funding Request and what is included in the Proposed Budget

Please let me know if you have questions or need anything further.

Thanks,

Stephanie


From: Fedors, Brent
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:06 PM
To: Kenny
Cc: Tinsley, Stephanie <stinsley@gloucesterva.info>; Lewis, Christi <clewis@gloucesterva.info>
Subject: Re: FY18 Budget Info Request

Mr. Hogge -

I am forwarding this to Ms. Tinsley who will coordinate our response.

Thank you for your inquiry,

Brent


On Mar 19, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Kenny wrote:

Hello Mr. Fedors,

Hope this finds you in good health and spirits.

Can I get a copy of the proposed FY18 line item budget and proposed capital improvement expenditures? If possible; I would also like something that reflects the name of all external agencies/nongovernmental organizations that are requesting FY18 funding and how much each is asking for. Electronic copies are preferred.

Thank you,

Kenny

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Gloucester, Virginia Public Hearing On Proposed $64 Million FY18 Budget



Image result for property tax images
Image the property of Internationalman.com

“Taxes” One of the dirtiest words in the English language. The word “taxes” is not dirty because We the People don’t want to contribute our fair share of money to pay for necessary services and operations. The word is dirty to us because of the extreme level of corruption, fraud, waste and abuse that is associated with our tax dollars.

Our local government is recommending a 1.5 cent increase to the current 69.5 cents rate; raising the rate to 71 cents per $100 of assessed value, but they are advertising a possible rate increase as high as 73 cents in their recent Public Hearing announcement. According to the announcement, the Board of Supervisors will hold a Public Hearing on next year’s budget at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, March 29, 2017 in the T.C. Walker Education Center auditorium.

Before taxes are raised again, our local government should make the following changes:

1) Consolidate our local government and public school system departments. This one action will result in over a $1 million reduction in yearly operating costs.

2) Eliminate the County’s department of community engagement and return all functions to social services, information technology, county administration, the school system and the various nongovernmental organizations the department facilitates. This action will save the taxpayers close to $400,000 per year.

3) Build our own libraries and health department space so the taxpayers can stop renting them. Owning our health department space will also result in an $80,000 yearly revenue stream from rent payments received from the state. All together this move will result in a yearly savings of around $210,000 and create $50,000 or so in additional revenue after expenses.

4) Limit the number of full time animal control employees to two, redirect animal control response calls through the Sheriff’s department dispatcher and cease all patrolling by animal control employees. This will result in a savings of well over $100,000 annually.

The changes we have outlined will result in a combined saving of around $1.7 million per year and create an $80,000 revenue stream. Now it is time for you, the taxpayers and citizens of Gloucester County, to decide what our local government will do. Continue to raise taxes or cut unnecessary costs and get our financial house in order? 

The March 29th Public Hearing will be the ideal time to let those who work for us know it is time to drain the swamp and set things straight. Remember, three supervisors and three school board members are up for reelection this November. Hold them accountable.

The following is a SlideShare presentation of this year’s proposed line item budget, proposed capital expenditures and a list of the nongovernmental organizations asking for tax dollars. It is best viewed in “full screen” mode. Just click on the diagonal double arrows. 



Public Hearing Agenda:



GLOUCESTER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET PUBLIC HEARINGS
THOMAS CALHOUN WALKER EDUCATION CENTER
6099 T. C. WALKER ROAD
MARCH 29, 2017
07:00 P.M.

A G E N D A

Complete E-Packet

I.Call To Order & Roll Call

II.Invocation & Pledge of Allegiance

III.Introductory Comments – Phillip N. Bazzani – Chair

IV.Proposed Tax Rates and Budget Synopsis – J. Brent Fedors – County Administrator

V.Public Hearing on Proposed FY 2018 Budget
Summary
Link to proposed budget

VI.Public Hearing on Proposed Tax Levies for Calendar Year 2017
Summary
Supporting Document

VII.Board Comments

VIII.Review of Budget Adoption Schedule – J. Brent Fedors – County Administrator
FY 2018 Budget Calendar

Public Hearing Notice: