Gloucester County, Virginia: The Consolidation Deception

Gloucester County, Virginia: The Consolidation Deception.

When we elect and hire people to manage our tax dollars, we do so with the expectation that those folks will take care of our money just like, if not better than, they manage their own financial affairs. We expect them to use our money to provide necessary services, build and maintain our infrastructure, educate our kids and take care of the employees they hire.

Several years ago I and other Gloucester County, Virginia residents began suggesting that our school system and county government consolidate services as a way of reducing costs and getting more bang for our tax dollars. The way things are now, we are paying for two finance, vehicle maintenance, buildings and grounds, information technology and human resource departments. So far we have heard a lot of promises and witnessed lost opportunities. Not so long ago the school system’s finance and human resource directors resigned. Instead of capturing the opportunity to consolidate finance departments and human resource departments with the county, the school system promoted one of their finance employees to director, increased her pay and hired a new human resource director.

The Board of Supervisors (BOS) and School Board recently spent tens of thousands of dollars to have a study done on where and how much it will cost to build a consolidated vehicle maintenance and utility yard facility. When the county and school system left public works, buildings and grounds and all other industrial type functions out of the equation, it was the first signal that they had no intentions of consolidating anything; that is until the consultant publicized pictures of the county garage. Now it appears they are forced to consolidate vehicle maintenance or to at least act like they intend to do so. At this point it also looks like they are trying to cut corners by wanting to reduce the amount of bus parking space and number of maintenance bays that were recommended in the study.

Once the study was completed and presented to the school board, they sent the consultant back to the drawing board to create a scenario in which the utility department’s yard was left out of the consolidation plan. When the BOS and school board met together to discuss the transportation study, it was quickly evident there were members of both boards who were not pleased with the consultants findings because they have other intentions for the old Page and bus garage land. As the meeting progressed, both boards pushed the utility department yard right out of the picture. In fact, Supervisor Ashley Chriscoe said the utility department can make due with what they have now. I find that completely absurd. The utility department needs new facilities just as bad as the school system needs a new bus facility and the county needs a new vehicle maintenance facility. Take a look at the pictures in the slideshare presentation at the end of this article to see a glimpse of how neglected these areas of our infrastructure are. Gloucester resident Howard Mowry told the BOS during a recent public comment period that hazmat and the fire marshal need to condemn the county garage that is located at the intersection of Providence Road and Route 17. Look at the slideshare pictures and you will understand why he said it. Better yet, take some time to visit these public facilities. You will quickly realize the pictures do not show the whole view. 

The utility department not only needs a new yard, they also need a new office. The office they currently occupy on Carriage Street in the Courthouse area has a basement that is full of black mold due to moisture problems. The building was formally the health department building until they were moved because of the mold issues. I know I would not want to spend eight or more hours a day in a building with such mold issues; would you?

When I suggested consolidating all industrial type functions, I suggested doing so on the old Page Middle School and bus garage properties. I also suggested building a strip mall type office building on part of the front portion of the land to provide office space for the consolidated departments. I suggested dedicating a portion of the land for a future fire and rescue facility. Neither board seems to care for my suggestions just like they didn’t seem to care for the results of the study they spent our tax dollars on. The funny thing about the study was; even though the two boards limited the amount of land on the old Page property that could be utilized for the proposed facilities, the consultant made the facilities fit and demonstrated that it would be several million dollars cheaper to build on the old Page and bus garage properties than on the new Page property. The two boards have now added what they are calling safe ingress and egress requirements by claiming the T.C. Walker and Route 17 intersection must be turned into a four way intersection and land must be bought from Harry Corr before a consolidated facility can be located at the old Page site. Well, these so called “requirements” are not requirements at all. It is just their way of running up the cost to build on that site up so they can justify moving the bus garage off the property.

It would seem there are members of both boards who want the school board to give the old Page and bus garage land to the county to be part of some “so called” economic development plan that they have not shared anything about with the general public. Is it just a coincidence that a local developer and school board member is leading the effort to completely abandon the land? I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe in coincidences. I do believe fulfilling our infrastructure needs and providing safe decent workplaces for our employees is far more important than filling a couple of greedy people’s pockets.      

Our local government and school system could easily eliminate between five and seven department heads if they would create and implement a comprehensive consolidation plan and eliminate other unnecessary departments and positions. Tax dollar savings from these reductions alone would be in the neighborhood of $1 million annually.

It is time to reduce the size of our local government and school system administration and reinvest in our infrastructure. If we don’t, real estate and other local taxes will continue to rise and areas of our infrastructure will fail; resulting in more wasted tax dollars.

Be sure to check out the slideshare presentation and after that you will find a video of the BOS and School Board discussion on the transportation facility.

We encourage all Gloucester residents, landowners and business owners to actively follow our elected and employed local government representatives and administrators, and hold them accountable for their actions. Remember, all levels of government work for We The People.

Let us know what you think and share your Gloucester government related stories by emailing us at Kennysr61@gmail.com or by posting remarks on the Facebook post that led you here.

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.

Gloucester Point, Virginia

Helping To Drain The Swamp

Gloucester County, Virginia FY 2018 Budget Process; Get Involved!!

The Gloucester Board of Supervisors has now started contemplating how they will allow our local government to spend your tax dollars next year. The County Administrator is recommending a one and a half cent real estate tax increase which is the amount of increase the BOS approved last year. If the BOS follow the Administrator’s recommendation, the real estate tax rate will increase from to 69.5 to 71 cents per $100 of assessed value.

There is a small minority of people in Gloucester who, for one personal cause or another, want the real estate tax rate to increase significantly. Like I have many times in the past; I suggest those folks donate as much as they want to their causes and passions, but leave the rest of us out of it. The typical response to my suggestion is something along the lines of them not trusting that their donated money will be used for their cause. What sense does that make?

The majority of people in Gloucester do not want real estate taxes increased at all. I am one of those folks and believe there should be no further tax increases until our local government makes all money matters completely transparent to the public, eliminates all unnecessary spending, consolidates services with our school system, eliminates redundant and unnecessary services and establishes a detailed plan that quantifies and addresses our numerous and neglected infrastructure needs.

Over the last several years there have been efforts by a handful of us to encourage the BOS to put in place measures and policies that will enhance transparency in our local government. When the current BOS evolved through the addition of three board members who are up for reelection this November, they appeared to take significant steps towards making the County’s financial matters more open to the people. After a little over three years, the steps that were initially made have mostly been erased and we are now left with abandoned efforts and broken promises.

During the BOS budget deliberations last year; I pointed out several things our local government spends money on that are a complete waste of tax dollars. The most ludicrous of these expenditures is the amount of tax dollars they throw away on renting our public library and local health department spaces. In my opinion; the rental agreement for the courthouse library and health department space was created as an unethical backdoor funding mechanism to financially empower the Main Street Gloucester Preservation Trust. The taxpayers of Gloucester have and continue to be forced to provide money to this “not for profit” non-government organization that has taken control of the courthouse area of the county and the current BOS treats them just as good as prior boards did. The logical thing to do is close the Hayes library until a building can be purchased or built to replace it. All money currently budgeted to that library should be placed in a separate account to go towards buying our way out of the current lease agreement and towards building or buying the necessary library space. Money should be borrowed to build a new main library on the property where Page Middle School is located and to build new health department space in the Gloucester business park where Sentara and the free clinic are located. The Commonwealth rents the health department space from Gloucester County, so those rent payments will ultimately pay to build the building and will eventually turn into a revenue stream. All tolled our local government is throwing away in the neighborhood of a half million dollars annually by not owning our own library and health department spaces.

I also pointed out that almost a half million dollars is being wasted yearly on the community education department. Instead of breaking up this department and returning all of its functions to the school system, social services, information technology and county administration departments; our local government doubled down by giving the director a nice raise and by changing the name of the department to the department of community engagement. This department pays multiple people to manage community use of our public school facilities. Each one of these people receives a salary and benefits that are paid for with tax dollars. I suggested having each school’s administration office re-assume these responsibilities utilizing current school system employees and teachers. Even if we need to pay a few employees and teachers a little more money to perform this function after school, we will still save a significant amount on salaries and benefits by not having the extra employees. Social Services is the governmental department that is supposed to provide assistance to those in the community who are in need. The community engagement department facilitates and supports various non-profit, non-government organizations that should be supported and facilitated by our local social services department. If someone is in need, social services should be the one stop place to go to connect with available government and community resources. There was no need to create a special department to do this. Community engagement also responds to Freedom of Information Act requests for information and publishes the Beehive and the Weekly Town Crier. These functions and all other media and public affairs type functions should become a joint effort between county administration and information technology. There is no need to pay a director over $100,000 plus benefits yearly to manage these functions.

Gloucester’s animal control department spends most of its time patrolling the roads throughout the county. Last year I suggested ending the patrolling and turning animal control into a strictly reactionary department. If someone has a concern about an animal issue they will call. We certainly do not need to be paying employees to visit the public beach under the bridge and the York River Yacht Haven pool at Gloucester Point multiple times a day; or to hang out and shoot the breeze in various local stores. I also suggested routing all animal control dispatch calls through the Sheriff’s department and to limit the number of full time animal control employees to two. These changes should result in significant tax dollar savings and improve animal control’s relationship with the overall community.

These are just a few examples of the unnecessary and costly ways our local government frivolously spends our tax dollars. Consolidating county and school system functions is another way that Gloucester can significantly cut costs and enhance service. We will soon share what our BOS and School Board have done about consolidation over the last three years.

We have provided other information pertaining to Gloucester’s lease agreements, budget and real estate tax rates at the end of this article. Be sure to check it all out.

We encourage all Gloucester residents, landowners and business owners to actively follow our elected and employed local government representatives and administrators, and hold them accountable for their actions. Remember, all levels of government work for We The People.

Let us know what you think and share your comments and Gloucester government related stories by emailing us at Kennysr61@gmail.com or by posting remarks on the Facebook post that led you here.

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.

Gloucester Point, Virginia

Helping To Drain The Swamp

 

The following are current real estate tax rates:

Gloucester……….69.5 cents per $100 of assessed value

Mathews…………54 cents per $100 of assessed value

New Kent………..83 cents per $100 of assessed value

West Point………72 cents per $100 of assessed value

York……………..75.15 cents per $100.00 of assessed value

Williamsburg…….57 cents per $100 of assessed value

Newport News…..1 dollar and 22 cents per $100 of assessed value

Hampton………...1 dollar and 24 cents per $100 of assessed value

Gloucester’s Proposed FY18 Budget Presentation:

Fy18 Gloucester County, Virginia administrator's proposed budget presentation from Kenneth Hogge Sr

Gloucester’s FY 2017 Budget:

Gloucester County, Virginia Fy17 adopted budget and Fy17 adopted capital budget from Kenneth Hogge Sr

View this slide share to see Gloucester’s library, health department and other lease agreements: 

Gloucester county leases FOIA response.6.23.15 from Kenneth Hogge Sr

Governor McAuliffe Veto's Another Bill Keeping Jobs Open For Illegals

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe Veto's house bill 1596 maintaining a loophole that allows illegal immigrants to come in and work for below present prevailing wages.  His excuse?  He wants higher wages for workers.  Below is his statement followed by the actual house bill.

March 10, 2017

Office of the Governor

Governor McAuliffe Vetoes Bill Placing Artificial Restrictions on Future Wage Growth

Governor Terry McAuliffe has vetoed House Bill 1596, which would prohibit a state agency from requiring a bidder, contractor or subcontractor from performing services at rates based on prevailing wages and benefits. The Governor’s full statement is below:

March 10, 2017

Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia, I veto House Bill 1596, which would prohibit a state agency from requiring a bidder, contractor, or subcontractor from performing services at rates based on prevailing wages and benefits.

Projects and employers who adhere to prevailing wage standards improve the lives of working families and enrich their communities. This legislation would have the effect of lowering wages and impeding the conclusion of future labor agreements. Virginia's efforts should be focused on increasing wages, which will fortify our efforts to build a new Virginia economy, rather than placing artificial restrictions on future growth..

Accordingly, I veto this bill.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 2.2-4321.2 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 2.2-4321.2. Public works contract requirements.

A. As used in this section:

"Public works" means the operation, erection, construction, alteration, improvement, maintenance, or repair of any public facility or immovable property owned, used, or leased by a state agency.

"State agency" means any authority, board, department, instrumentality, institution, agency, or other unit of state government. "State agency" shall not include any county, city, or town.

B. Except as provided in subsection F or as required by federal law, each state agency, when engaged in procuring products or services or letting contracts for construction, manufacture, maintenance, or operation of public works paid for in whole or in part by state funds, or when overseeing or administering such procurement, construction, manufacture, maintenance, or operation, shall ensure that neither the state agency nor any construction manager acting on behalf of the state agency shall, in its bid specifications, project agreements, or other controlling documents:

1. Require or prohibit bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors to enter into or adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or related public works projects; or

2. Otherwise discriminate against bidders, offerors, contractors, subcontractors, or operators for becoming or refusing to become or remain signatories or otherwise to adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or other related public works projects; or

3. Require bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors to pay, or require the payment of, wages, salaries, benefits, or other remuneration to persons employed, retained, or otherwise hired to perform services in connection with such a project at a rate, amount, or level that is based, directly or indirectly, on the wages and benefits prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed.

Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit contractors or subcontractors from voluntarily entering into agreements described in subdivision 1.

C. A Except as required by federal law, a state agency issuing grants, providing financial assistance, or entering into cooperative agreements for the construction, manufacture, maintenance, or operation of public works shall ensure that neither the bid specifications, project agreements, nor other controlling documents therefor awarded by recipients of grants or financial assistance or by parties to cooperative agreements, nor those of any construction manager acting on behalf of such recipients, shall:

1. Require or prohibit bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors to enter into or adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or related projects; or

2. Otherwise discriminate against bidders, offerors, contractors, subcontractors, or operators for becoming or refusing to become or remain signatories or otherwise to adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations, on the same or other related projects; or

3. Require bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors to pay, or require the payment of, wages, salaries, benefits, or other remuneration to persons employed, retained, or otherwise hired to perform services in connection with such a project at a rate, amount, or level that is based, directly or indirectly, on the wages and benefits prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed.

D. If an awarding authority, a recipient of grants or financial assistance, a party to a cooperative agreement, or a construction manager acting on behalf of any of them performs in a manner contrary to the provisions of subsection B or C, the state agency awarding the contract, grant, or assistance shall be entitled to injunctive relief to prevent any violation of this section.

E. Any interested party, which shall include a bidder, offeror, contractor, subcontractor, or operator, shall have standing to challenge any bid specification, project agreement, neutrality agreement, controlling document, grant, or cooperative agreement that violates the provisions of this section. Furthermore, such interested party shall be entitled to injunctive relief to prevent any violation of this section.

F. The provisions of this section shall not:

1. Apply to any public-private agreement for any construction or infrastructure project in which the private body, as a condition of its investment or partnership with the state agency, requires that the private body have the right to control its labor relations policy and perform all work associated with such investment or partnership in compliance with all collective bargaining agreements to which the private party is a signatory and is thus legally bound with its own employees and the employees of its contractors and subcontractors in any manner permitted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., or the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.;

2. Prohibit an employer or any other person covered by the National Labor Relations Act or the Railway Labor Act from entering into agreements or engaging in any other activity protected by law; or

3. Be interpreted to interfere with the labor relations of persons covered by the National Labor Relations Act or the Railway Labor Act.

2. That it shall be the policy of the Commonwealth not to implement, adopt, enforce, or require any program, policy, or provision that requires the Commonwealth or any agency or political subdivision thereof, in any contract for the construction, remodeling, refinishing, refurbishing, rehabilitation, alteration, or repair of any public works project by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, to require the payment of wages, salaries, benefits, or other remuneration to persons employed, retained, or otherwise hired to perform services in connection therewith at a rate, amount, or level that is based, directly or indirectly, on the wages and benefits prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed, whether modeled on the federal Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. § 276, or similar prevailing wage law of any other state.

Terry must think you are stupid. Read his statement again. "Projects and employers who adhere to prevailing wage standards improve the lives of working families and enrich their communities. This legislation would have the effect of lowering wages and impeding the conclusion of future labor agreements." Now let's read the section again from the house bill where it talks about prevailing wages. "3. Require bidders, offerors, contractors, or subcontractors to pay, or require the payment of, wages, salaries, benefits, or other remuneration to persons employed, retained, or otherwise hired to perform services in connection with such a project at a rate, amount, or level that is based, directly or indirectly, on the wages and benefits prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed."  There you have it. The bill clearly states that employers must pay at least prevailing wages.  This was done to prevent the hiring of illegal aliens and paying them below market wages which is rampant throughout Virginia and the nation.  Why so many American citizens are still unemployed or under employed.  Gee, thanks for nothing there Terry.  You are allowing illegals to still be paid for much lower wages instead of blocking them from taking our jobs.  You are a real American.  No you are not.

  This is your wonderful democratic governor who does not seem capable of ever telling the truth.  

Gloucester County, Va. Real Estate Tax Assessment Corruption??

You Decide

If this story does not cause you to question the integrity of the Board of Supervisors and real estate tax assessments in Gloucester County, Virginia, nothing will.

On October 4, 2016 the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved a land swap deal between Gloucester’s Department of Public Utilities (Utilities) and Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr. When the land swap proposal was first presented to the BOS, then Chairman John Meyer asked, “Is the concept of swapping properties the way the County wants to do business?” He then said, “Sounds like it has the potential for a win win.” As it turns out, Supervisor Meyer had a stake in the land swap deal; in that the entrance to his personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns traded to Utilities. Supervisor Meyer’s personal involvement is further exemplified by Mr. Kerns’ written assertion that he also offered to sell his property to adjacent landowners. There is also significant evidence strongly suggesting there was local government corruption involving real estate tax assessments in the land swap deal. Let’s explore who actually won in the deal.

The story as I know it started to form while I was serving on the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee (PUAC). During a Committee meeting in late 2015, the Director of Utilities spoke briefly about a possible land swap deal between Utilities and Mr. Kerns. During the same meeting the Director also spoke about failing septic systems in the Terrapin Cove Sewer Extension project (Project) area. (This Project was frozen by the BOS in 2014 due to a lack of funding and the unwillingness of property owners to commit to connecting to the system.) During that PUAC meeting the Director also spoke about Utilities’ efforts in attempting to obtain grant funding to finance the extension of public sewer down just one street in the Project area. That street was Laurel Drive and is the same street where one of Utilities’ properties involved in the land swap is located. A few months later the Director informed the committee the grant funding was unobtainable in the current fiscal year, but Utilities intended to apply during the next fiscal year. In the back of my mind I wondered if there was a connection between Utilities efforts to install new sewer service just on Laurel Drive and the land swap that he spoke of. After watching the story unfold I absolutely believe there was a connection. If public sewer were available at the Terrapin Cove lot, the owner would have been able to build a duplex or similar type of rental unit on the property instead of just a single family dwelling. In this article I will focus primarily on the assessment values of the properties contained in the land swap deal.  

The land swap proposal next came to my attention in late July 2016 when it appeared on the County’s website as an agenda item for the August 2, 2016 BOS meeting. Utilities was requesting the BOS to approve advertising a Public Hearing on the land swap deal. I found this troubling because the PUAC had not been provided with any information pertaining to the deal and had not been given the opportunity to vet it before the Director presented it to the BOS. Upon researching the locations, values and such pertaining to the properties contained in the deal; I found some highly questionable anomalies in the County’s real estate tax assessment values. The following information obtained from Gloucester County’s online real estate tax database; clearly demonstrates the anomalies I am talking about.

 

Assessment Comparison

RPC                Street                             Acres      2015 Assess         2010 Assess     

*14627          Belroi Rd                         1.62         $41,780               $25,000*

16706    Terrapin Cv./Laurel Dr           .32           $24,290                $45,000

10095        Booker St                            .3             $9,920                  $49,700

*/Red = Kerns property

Black = Utilities property

As you see; the County assessed values of the two Utilities properties decreased dramatically during the 2015 assessment cycle. It is also clearly evident the County’s assessed value of Mr. Kerns’ property dramatically increased during the same assessment cycle. For some strange reason, all of the dramatic shifts in property values substantially benefited Mr. Kerns.

 

Another anomaly I discovered was the difference in assessment values between the Terrapin Cove property and a cleared vacant property on Laurel Drive that shares a property line with the Terrapin Cove property. The following information obtained from Gloucester’s online property database reflects the differences:

Terrapin Cove and Laurel Drive Property Value Comparison

RPC                Street                       Acres          2010               2015              2017               

16706        Terrapin Cove                .32           $45,000          $24,290         $43,720

19606           Laurel Dr.                   .297          $45,000          $46,810         $46,810

As you can see; the assessment values were consistent in 2010, but in 2015 the larger Terrapin Cove property mysteriously lost value long enough for Utilities and Mr. Kerns to make the land swap deal. And look at that; after the land swap deal was completed, the Terrapin Cove property increased in value during the 2017 assessment cycle, but more on that later because those values were an unknown at the time.

When I discovered the questionable changes in the 2015 assessment values I shared them with York District Supervisor Phillip Bazzani. He in turn created a PowerPoint presentation representing my concerns that he shared with me and said he shared with the rest of the BOS and members of County staff. The PowerPoint presentation was never shown to the public. Utilities presented the land swap deal to the BOS on August 2, 2016 and the BOS sent it back to the PUAC for vetting. The BOS also instructed the County Administrator to obtain independent appraisals on all of the properties contained in the proposal.

During that same BOS meeting the County Administrator publicly said, the County Assessor said, that among other complex things (that he did not elaborate on), assessing the value of non-taxable property was not on the list of priorities to be accomplished during the 2015 assessment cycle; therefore little time was spent insuring the accuracy of those values because they are nontaxable properties. My question is; why did the values of only those two Utilities owned properties dramatically decrease when the values of the other two buildable Utilities’ properties contained in the deal experienced unusual increases in value? More about the third, unbuildable property later. Also; what caused Mr. Kerns property to increase in value so much?

The following information obtained from Gloucester’s online real estate tax database demonstrates the 2010 through 2017 assessed values of the other Utilities owned properties that found their way into the proposal Utilities presented to the BOS.

Assessment Comparison of Utilities’ Properties Contained in the Land Swap Proposal

RPC                 2010 Asses       2015 Assess       2017 Assess

28607                 $50,000              $59,970             $47,660

12656                 $35,000              $46,940             $36,100

19691                 $4,700                $4,060               $1,800

Bunting's Appraisal Service, which has a lengthy history of providing real estate services to Gloucester’s local government, was hired by Utilities to provide the independent appraisals. The following demonstrates the difference between those appraisals and the County’s assessment values of the swapped properties from 2010 thru 2017.

County Assessments vs. Independent Appraisal

RPC          Street           2010 Assess    2015 Assess      Ind Apraisal        2017 Assess           

16706    Terrapin Cv.      $45,000             $24,290             $30,000             $43, 720

10095     Booker St         $49,700             $9,920                $5,000               $26,460

*14627   Belroi Rd          $25,000             $41,780             $45,000             $41,780

*/Red = Kerns property

Black= Utilities property

As you can see; the 2016 independent appraisal values also strongly favored Mr. Kerns in comparison to the 2010 assessments and the 2017 assessments that were released only a few days after the deal was completed.

The PUAC met on two occasions to discuss the land swap deal. (Keep in mind we did not know the 2017 values) The independent appraisals had not been received by the first time we met so the discussion was tabled until they were available for review. During the brief second PUAC discussion, a vote was taken by the committee members and resulted in a split decision to recommend the BOS approve the deal. The vote was 4 to approve, 2 to disapprove and 1 member abstained from voting. I voted against the land swap deal for multiple reasons like; there was no data supported business case presented to justify acquiring the property, but the most profound reason I voted the way I did was because I clearly saw the whole deal as being government corruption. In fact, during the last PUAC discussion, one of my fellow committee members said I was just upset about the assessments and can’t let it go. He was right and I say he is part of the corruption for letting it go. Meeting Minutes from the Land swap deal Public Hearing reflect Utilities’ director insinuating I voted the way I did because I felt the Utilities property values were to low. Funny how there was no mention of me disagreeing with giving away highly marketable real estate based on his unsupported speculations. 

The BOS unanimously approved the land swap deal after a Public Hearing; during which the County Administrator said the assessment anomalies were the result of a glitch in the new assessment software and that the County assessor had notified the state about the glitch. I don’t buy it at all. But that is not where the land swap deal story ends. On February 17th the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal listed the Terrapin Cove Road property as being sold by Mr. Kerns for $55,000. According to the Gazette Journal and online property records; Mr. Kerns sold the property to the property owner who has lived right next door to the property since 1998. In other words; the two properties share a property line. I wonder if the new owner knows the whole story behind how Mr. Kerns obtained possession of the property and how the assessment values have been manipulated. Something tells me the new owner would have preferred to buy the property for the $30,000 independent appraisal value. He would have saved $25,000.

After finding out Mr. Kerns’ property had been sold; I checked the 2017 County assessment that was released to the public only a few weeks after the BOS approved the land swap deal. I could not believe my eyes. The following demonstrates the County’s assessment values of the swapped properties from 2010 thru 2017 and the 2016 independent appraisal values:

2010 thru 2017 Assessments and 2016 Independent Appraisal

RPC          Street           2010 Assess      2015 Assess    Ind Apraisal         2017 Assess           

16706    Terrapin Cv.      $45,000             $24,290             $30,000             $43, 720

10095     Booker St         $49,700             $9,920                $5,000               $26,460

*14627   Belroi Rd          $25,000             $41,780             $45,000             $41,780

*/Red = Kerns property

Black= Utilities property

When the BOS approved the land swap deal, their decision was based on the 2016 independent appraisal values. The combined value of Utilities two properties at that time was $35,000 and Mr. Kerns’ property was valued at $45,000. The combined assessment values of Utilities former properties is now $70,180 and the value of Mr. Kerns former property is now valued at $41,780. At the time the deal was approved, Mr. Kerns’ property was determined to be worth $10,000 more than the property he received from Utilities. Within days of the deal being made, the property Mr. Kerns received from Utilities became worth $28,400 more than the property he unloaded on Utilities.

So why did Mr. Kerns decide to sell or trade his property instead of building rental units on it? I guess it could have been for any number of reasons, but I have a theory that is probably not to far off target. Like I said earlier; the entrance to Supervisor Meyer’s personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns unloaded on Utilities. I believe having renters living at the entrance to his home did not sit well with Supervisor Meyer, but he opted not to pay $50,000 for the property. From there the land swap plan was hatched. I believe somewhere along the way someone with full access to the County’s real estate tax assessment database manipulated the property values of the three properties exchanged in the deal.

The land swap deal is just another example of the corruption that takes place within Gloucester County’s local government. Should there be a forensic audit performed on everything pertaining to real estate tax assessments in Gloucester County? Let us know what you think by emailing us at Kennysr61@gmail.com or by posting remarks on the Facebook post that led you here.

Kenny Hogge, Sr.

Gloucester Point

Retired United States Army

Helping to Drain the Swamp

Howard Mowry, Gloucester Point Virginia

Mr. Mowry's remarks during the February 28, 2017 joint meeting of the Gloucester County, Virginia Board of Supervisors and School Board.

 Intro: Chairman’s, Members of the Boards, Dr. Clemons, & Mr. Fedors, Staff

Howard Mowry, Gloucester Point

1.   Scrap the idea of improving the Transportation/Facilities site on the old Page site and move your process directly to the new Page Site. Costs a little more but is assessable for the next 25 years where Route 17 (Interstate) will be a disaster.

Reduce the passenger vehicle inventory, to what is really needed, scattering the fleet around the county to hide vehicles that may not move once a week borders on criminal, and only increases the budgetary costs to insurance and upkeep.

2.   County Garage, call out the fire marshal and the hazmat team right now and secure that place. Clean up and bulldoze immediately. The below the ground level pit I thought was illegal. Who is really watching the store?

3.   Teachers Salaries, I must have been asleep in the past as I reviewed the current scale and then accomplished a timeline. The salaries have been stagnating in growth. With a projected loss of 75 students or 750 thousand dollars, these funds could be re-directed to a change in the scale make-up.

 Let us not forget we cannot compare ourselves to any other county or city in the area. We must stand-alone; our revenues are driven by industry, business and taxes, (which do not need increasing). Many spend their money across the river, a greater variety of stores and close to one another a cost saver but a revenue loss to Gloucester.

So back to the scale, which is equal or very, close to the 2015 state salary average or above? The scale needs a lot of improvement such as:

38 teachers are past grade 31 in salary, how do you arrive at these annual salary values?

Even though the Bachelor and the Master’s are equal in step alignment step 1,2, 3 from step 0 and the salary increase is equal at 582 dollars or 2.61 cents a day, the scale continues to follow the same course to step four, where you are looking at 5 years of service or 4.07 cents a day increase.

          Now the first of two kickers, step 5 taking away step 4 salary is an increase of 104 dollars or .52 cents a day for 6 years of work. Who would hang around for this salary schedule?

 After 25 years of service the salary has increased by 20.59 cents a day from the fifth step. Of course, the scale changes annually by step and the increases still parallel one another the costs do not stand still but increase yearly. What would the scales look like if compressed to 25 years, or 15 levels spread over 10 steps or 20 to 25 years?

There could be a need to define a separate scale for those subjects that require continued life improvement and educational and occupational advancement, and a separate scale established to create a higher level of learning to compete with the international workforce that is moving into this country. 

          The scale needs a lot of work to ensure we are not a stepping-stone to other divisions.

As time runs out the need for a town hall meeting on the combined budgets needs to be considered and held on a Saturday afternoon.

I thank you for the time.

• 
  

Letter to Virginia Congressman Rob Wittman

Hello Congressman Wittman,

I am contacting you because of my concerns about the toll on the George P. Coleman Bridge and how it has and continues to stifle growth in Gloucester County and others areas of the Middle Peninsula.

After considerable research and conversations with numerous people, I understand; when it came time to replace the bridge during the 90’s, there was a concerted effort, by the local governing bodies to our south and parties here in Gloucester, to prevent the federal government from becoming involved in the replacement process, to the extent that reinstating a toll on the bridge was the only option to cover replacement costs.

I further understand; our southern neighbors’ objectives of reinstating a toll were to stifle the unprecedented growth that occurred in localities north of the bridge when the toll was removed from the old bridge. I further understand; our southern neighbors supported reinstating a toll to stop people from moving from those areas to the Middle Peninsula. I further understand; there were certain influential persons in Gloucester who wanted growth stifled because they want Gloucester turned into a retirement community. I further understand; some players wanted growth stifled until such a time as they too would be able to profit from growth in Gloucester. I further understand; if the federal government had been included, in the same manner as it was in the replacement of two bridges in West Point, there would not have been a need to implement the toll.

When the Coleman Bridge replacement plan was presented to the residents of Gloucester, they were left with the impression that the toll would be required for 20 to 25 years. A year or so ago we were informed the toll will remain for another 20 to 25 years. Within the last few months Gloucester Supervisor, Phillip Bazzani has made efforts to have the toll restructured to relieve some of the financial burden the toll primarily places on Gloucester residents. I appreciate Mr. Bazzani’s efforts, but feel traveling the path through the Commonwealth process will result in minimal to no relief.

Whether or not my understandings of how the toll came about are correct or not is basically dependent on whose version of the story one chooses to believe. There is one thing everyone seems to agree on; the swing span portion of the bridge is necessary only because of the Navy ships that navigate the York River.

I am wondering what the possibility would be of moving legislation through Congress, in which the Navy pays off any outstanding debt and assumes permanent financial responsibility of at least, the costs of operations, maintenance and replacement of the span portions of the bridge; or better yet, of the entire bridge.

If such a shift in financial responsibility occurs, there will no longer be any justification for the toll that has stifled growth in a large portion of the Middle Peninsula. It will also relieve the residents of Gloucester County and other affected localities of an unnecessary tax and restriction on travel.

Thank you for the good job you have been doing and for your time.

Respectfully,

Kenny Hogge, Sr.

Gloucester Point, Va.

McAuliffe Vetoes Senate Bill 1105 Claiming VA Constitution Violations; We Don't See It

The more we research this guy, the more we think he is a dishonest prick lying to the people of Virginia to push his own communist agenda.  His latest move?  He claims to have vetoed Senate Bill 1105, 2017 session, because it violated the Virginia Constitution.  Really Terry?  Can you please show us where?  dId you even read the bill?  Of course you did, and that is why you vetoed it.  It works for rigging elections by vetoing the bill.

  What a dishonest jerk this guy is.  So let's look at the facts.



Governor McAuliffe Vetoes Bill Requiring Investigations into Virginia Voters



Today Governor Terry McAuliffe vetoed Senate Bill 1105, which would require local election officials to investigate Virginia voters without a clear standard for when and how such investigations should be undertaken. The Governor’s full veto statement is below:

February 23, 2017

Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia, I veto Senate Bill 1105, which would require local election officials to investigate voters under certain circumstances and provide a report to the State Board of Elections.



By requiring 133 individual general registrars to conduct an investigation of voters under undefined standards, this bill raises serious constitutional questions. It could expose eligible and properly registered Virginians to the risk of improper disenfranchisement.



Further, Senate Bill 1105 would increase the administrative burden on local election officials. Rather than imposing unnecessary investigative requirements on those officials, we should focus attention and resources on the Commonwealth’s proven and efficient methods of list maintenance, which serve as a national model.



Accordingly, I veto this bill.



Sincerely,



Terence R. McAuliffe

The above is a press release from his office.  Now let's look at the actual bill.

SB 1105 Registered voters and persons voting; reports of persons voting at elections.

Introduced by: Mark D. Obenshain | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles
SUMMARY AS PASSED SENATE: (all summaries)

Reports of registered voters and persons voting at elections. Requires the local electoral boards to direct the general registrars to investigate the list of registered voters whenever the number of registered voters in a county or city exceeds the population of persons age 18 years or older, based on the most recent population estimate of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia. The bill also requires the local electoral boards to direct the general registrars to investigate the list of persons voting at an election whenever the number of persons voting at any election in a county or city exceeds the number of persons registered to vote in that county or city. The Department of Elections is required to provide certain data to any general registrar conducting such an investigation for the registrar's use during the investigation. The local electoral boards are required to make reports of the findings to the State Board. These reports are public documents.

Final document from the Senate:

2017 SESSION ENROLLED 1 VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY –– CHAPTER 2 An Act to amend and reenact § 24.2-404.4 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia 3 by adding sections numbered 24.2-405.1 and 24.2-406.1, relating to investigations and reports of 4 registered voters and persons voting at elections. 5 [S 1105] 6 Approved 7 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 8 1. That § 24.2-404.4 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted and that the Code of 9 Virginia is amended by adding sections numbered 24.2-405.1 and 24.2-406.1 as follows: 10 § 24.2-404.4. Exchange of registered voter lists with other states. 11 A. Pursuant to its authority under subsection A of § 24.2-405 and subsections B and C of § 24.2-406, 12 the Department of Elections shall request voter registration information and lists of persons voting at 13 primaries and elections, if available, from the states bordering the Commonwealth to identify duplicate 14 registrations, voters who no longer reside in the Commonwealth, and other persons who are no longer 15 entitled to be registered in order to maintain the overall accuracy of the voter registration system. 16 B. Pursuant to its authority under subdivision A 10 of § 24.2-404, the Department of Elections shall 17 utilize data regarding voter registration and lists of persons voting at primaries and elections received 18 through list comparisons and data-matching exchanges with other states to identify duplicate 19 registrations, voters who no longer reside in the Commonwealth, and other persons who are no longer 20 entitled to be registered in order to maintain the overall accuracy of the voter registration system. 21 C. The Department shall compare the data received pursuant to subsections A and B with the state 22 voter registration list and initiate list maintenance procedures under applicable state and federal law. The 23 Department shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Privileges and Elections annually on 24 the progress of activities conducted under this section, including the number of duplicate registrations 25 found to exist and the procedures that the Department and general registrars are following to eliminate 26 duplicate registrations from the Virginia registered voter lists. All annual reports required to be filed by 27 the Department shall be governed by the provisions of § 2.2-608. 28 § 24.2-405.1. Registered voters; reports when exceeding age eligible population. 29 Whenever the number of registered voters in a county or city exceeds the population of persons age 30 18 years or older, based on the most recent population estimate of the Weldon Cooper Center for 31 Public Service of the University of Virginia, the local electoral board shall direct the general registrar 32 to investigate the list of registered voters in order to determine the cause of the inflated number of 33 registered voters, including identifying persons who may be improperly registered. The Department of 34 Elections shall provide to any general registrar conducting such an investigation the data received by it 35 pursuant to § 24.2-404.4 regarding voters registered in the registrar's locality, and the general registrar 36 shall use such data during the course of the investigation. 37 The local electoral board shall make a report of the findings to the State Board, and this report 38 shall be a public document. 39 § 24.2-406.1. Persons voting at elections; reports when exceeding number of registered voters. 40 Whenever the number of persons voting at any election in a county or city exceeds the number of 41 persons registered to vote in that county or city, the local electoral board shall direct the general 42 registrar to investigate the list of persons voting at that election in order to determine the cause of the 43 inflated turnout, including identifying persons who may not be eligible to vote. The Department of 44 Elections shall provide to any general registrar conducting such an investigation the data received by it 45 pursuant to § 24.2-404.4 regarding voters registered in the registrar's locality, and the general registrar 46 shall use such data during the course of the investigation. 47 The local electoral board shall make a report of the findings to the State Board, and this report 48 shall be a public document. ENROLLED SB1105ER

Okay Governor, where exactly is the violation to the Virginia Constitution you are claiming?  If you make the claim, you need to back that up with solid legal documentation.  Where is that documentation?  The above proposed laws in my own opinion are too weak.  But they are a step in the right direction.  Wait, I have to remember that you are a democrat and we now all know that democrats are the party of lies these days.  Virginians are not interested in your communist agenda Terry.  We can't wait until you are gone and hopefully in jail.