Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisor's February 18th, 2014 Meeting Agenda Information

Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting feb 4th, 2014 from Chuck Thompson

Here is the meeting agenda information for the Board of Supervisor's meeting for this Tuesday evening, February 18th, 2014.  This is the financial overviews part of the agenda.

Gloucester Court House Village Sub-Area Plan: 
The Board was approached by the Main Street Preservation Trust (MSPT) about additional planning for the Court House area. A Plan was developed to be an element of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and to provide the policy framework for future land use and development in the area, including land use regulations and infrastructure decisions. Staff worked closely with MSPT staff and the consultant team hired by MSPT to prepare the plan based on guidance from a County Administrator appointed Steering Committee and the input from the public through 2 public outreach meetings, stakeholder interviews, and other outreach efforts. A public hearing on the Plan was held by the Planning Commission in January who then forwarded a recommendation of adoption to the Board of Supervisors. The Board adopted the Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on February 5, 2013. 

  Now can someone please explain the legality of the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust in all of this?  The secret shadow government concern?  The organization that wrote off over 1.7 million dollars on just over 5 million in assets without any visible justification for doing so that we could find and reported on this site?  An organization that we will soon be asking, where is the missing money?  (Coming soon).  An organization that seems to have a great number of questions about their own legality?  Exactly how is this being allowed?

E. Decision on Memorandum of Agreement for Regional Sewer Wet Weather Management Plan - Martin M. Schlesinger - Director of Public Utilities

Just say no. No thanks no how.

H. Discussion on mandatory sewer connection per County ordinance - Chris Hutson - Member, Board of Supervisors

We the people do not want this. Throw it out. Throw it out, Throw it out. Why are you going to force people to pay for something they will not use. How is this helping anyone? It is theft. Are you going to pay for not using goods and services from all local businesses? If not, then don't expect us to pay for something we do not want or will use. WE DO NOT WANT THIS. Are you getting the message. WE DO NOT WANT THIS. Let Chris Hutson pay for all the hook ups if he wants this. Hey Chris, how deep are your own pockets. (Not very deep from what we have heard. Multiple bankruptcies in that past?)

From: Meyer, John Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:17 AM 
To: Garton, Brenda; Board Of Supervisors 
 Cc: Warren, Darrell William 
 Subject: Agenda item for next week JJ, Brenda,

 Would like to add an item to next week's agenda. The Board should consider having the Sheriff's Department budget briefed and voted on as separate from the Administrator's budget. While having the Administrator consolidate the budgets for the Administration staff and the Sheriff saves time for the Board, and may require less effort on the part of the Sheriff, it creates an inherent conflict of interest on the part of the Administrator. To include the Administrator in the approval chain for the Sheriff Department's budget gives the Administrator fiduciary control over an organization for which she has no responsibility for or authority over. Since the Administrator does have responsibility for the other County offices, the Administrator is often forced to make choices between funding for functions that she is accountable for, and Sheriff Department functions for which the Administrator has no accountability. 

 I would suggest that the County might be better served by having the Sheriff develop and advocate for his own budget to the BOS. It would then be the responsibility of the BOS to make the appropriate tradeoffs between the Administration and Sheriff's budgets. Obviously, the other Constitutional Officers could stake a similar claim - and if they choose to have their budgets considered separately from the Administrator's, they should probably be allowed to do so. While this appears to me to be structurally and functionally "cleaner", it is also apparent that this would add an additional layer of complexity to the Board's already involved budget approval process. I think this warrants discussion at next week's BOS meeting and a decision two weeks hence.

Our Notes:  Well Done Mr Meyer.  We hope this goes through.  

D.Decision on proposed purchase of property for New Utility Facility - Martin M. Schlesinger - Director of Public Utilities

We already have the land on route 17 known as the old Page Middle school.  The county needs to spend money like drunken sailors why?  Again, Just Say No.  Several of you were just voted in because you ran on tickets of cleaning up the insanity of county spending.  Please show us that you really meant that.

Again, Mr Bazzani, please remember to turn on your microphone before you speak.  We can not hear you otherwise.  Thank you in advance.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank You for taking the time to comment on this article. Please note, we moderate every comment before we allow it to post. Comments do not show up right away because of this.