Gloucester, VA Waste Fraud and Abuse Petition For County Government

We have recently created a petition that we have sent to the Board of Supervisors and are publishing it here for everyone to see.  You can help by sending a copy of this petition to the Board of Supervisors.  All you have to do is copy the petition below into an email and send it to the email address listed below.  Be sure to add your name to the bottom of the petition.

  It's that simple.  This can save all of us taxpayers a good deal of money if properly put into place.

We The People:

Petition:

Gloucester County, Virginia

Board of Supervisors

This is a petition to request that you consider the hiring of a Waste Fraud and Abuse specialist to investigate areas of such throughout county government as well as school board government.  It is believed that a person hired to do so can cover both sides of county government.  The reasons for such are as follows.

§ 15.2-2511.2. Duties of local government auditors.

A. As used in this section:

"Abuse" means the excessive or improper use of something, or the employment of something in a manner contrary to the natural or legal rules for its use; the intentional destruction, diversion, manipulation, misapplication, maltreatment, or misuse of resources owned or operated by the locality; or extravagant or excessive use so as to abuse one's position or authority.

"Fraud" means the intentional deception perpetrated by an individual or individuals, or an organization or organizations, either internal or external to local government, that could result in a tangible or intangible benefit to themselves, others, or the locality or could cause detriment to others or the locality. Fraud includes a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading statements, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive.

"Waste" means the intentional or unintentional, thoughtless or careless expenditure, consumption, mismanagement, use, or squandering of resources owned or operated by the locality to the detriment or potential detriment of the locality. Waste also includes incurring unnecessary costs because of inefficient or ineffective practices, systems, or controls.

B. Any fraud, waste, and abuse auditor appointed by the local governing body of any county, city, or town having a population of at least 10,000, or any town constituting a separate school division regardless of its population, who by charter, ordinance, or statute has responsibility for conducting an investigation of any officer, department or program of such body, shall be responsible for administering a telephone hotline, and a website, if cost-effective, through which employees and residents of the locality may report anonymously any incidence of fraud, waste, or abuse committed by any such officer, or within any such department or program, of that body. Such auditor may inform employees of the locality of the hotline and website, if any, and the conditions of anonymity, through the conspicuous posting of announcements in the locality's personnel newsletters, articles in local newspapers issued daily or regularly at average intervals, hotline posters on local employee bulletin boards, periodic messages on local employee payroll check stubs, or other reasonable efforts.

Such auditor shall determine the authenticity of every allegation received on the hotline or website and ensure that investigation and resolution activities are undertaken in response to any such authentic allegation in the most cost-effective and confidential manner available; provided, however, that the officer shall assign responsibility for investigation and resolution to other investigative and law-enforcement personnel where such responsibility is prescribed by general law and where appropriate to avoid duplicating or replacing existing investigation and resolution functions.

(2006, c. 597.)

It is believed that such an auditor can and will save the county taxpayers a substantial sum of money.

Very Truly;

Now just put your name and send to BoS@gloucesterva.info.

Governor McAuliffe Announces Television Series Pilot for Virginia

ABC to Produce Civil War Series for Amazon Prime

RICHMOND - Governor Terry McAuliffe announced today that ABC Signature, a division of ABC Studios, has chosen Virginia for Point of Honor, the pilot for the television series ABC is co-producing with Amazon Studios. The original series is a historical drama about a Virginia family whose lives are torn apart by the Civil War. Filming will take place in September around central Virginia and streaming episodes will be part of the Amazon prime service, which provides original filmed content to members.

Director Randall Wallace, who graduated from E.C. Glass High School in Lynchburg and went on to direct the 2010 film Secretariat about Virginia’s legendary triple-crown winning thoroughbred, will helm the project. Wallace is also known for his screenplay for Braveheart and most recently wrote and directed the touching film Heaven is for Real. Point of Honor is co-written and produced by Carlton Cuse, executive producer for the hit series Lost, for which he won an Emmy, a Golden Globe, a Producer’s Guild Award and a Writer’s Guild Award.

Governor McAuliffe commented, “I am proud to welcome ABC and Amazon to Virginia to filmPoint of Honor. Once again the Commonwealth will serve as the perfect palette to tell the story of this important part of American history. We appreciate the opportunity to welcome Randall Wallace home to Virginia."

“Bringing Point of Honor to Virginia is another success for the state’s film industry” said Maurice Jones, Virginia Secretary of Commerce and Trade. “Projects such as this are instrumental in expanding the infrastructure required to promote a strong and vital production business environment, thus continuing to diversify our economy and create jobs."

Randall Wallace commented, “We are immensely impressed with the welcome we have received from Governor McAuliffe, the Virginia Film Office and the support from everyone we’ve met in Virginia.”

Virginia Film Office Director Andy Edmunds noted, “We have been working with Randall Wallace since he came to Virginia to research for Secretariat. A lack of competitive film incentives at the time prevented him from being able to film that legendary Virginia story in Virginia. I couldn’t be happier that we are finally able to bring Randall back to his home state for a ground-breaking new media project such as this one. The economic impact for Virginia should it become a series will be significant."

Point of Honor will be eligible for a film tax credit and funding from the Governor’s Motion Picture Opportunity Fund. The exact amount will be based on how much money the production spends within the state, and certain deliverables to promote tourism in Virginia.

In 2012 the economic impact of the film and television industry in Virginia totaled $328.4 million and provided 3,061 jobs with $50.5 million in tax revenue.

Governor McAuliffe announces grand opening of Birthplace of Country Music Museum

English: Victor Talking Machine Company logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

~ New Smithsonian-affiliated Birthplace of Country Music Museum opened in Bristol ~

BRISTOL, Va. – Governor Terry McAuliffe announced the grand opening of the Birthplace of Country Music Museum in Bristol, VA-Tenn. The Smithsonian Institution-affiliated museum is dedicated to preserving the legacy of the 1927 Bristol Sessions and their lasting influence on American popular music.

The 24,000 sq. ft. space will tell Bristol’s story as the home of the Bristol Sessions through permanent, technology-infused exhibits, a special exhibits gallery, educational programs, multiple film experiences and a theater dedicated exclusively to live, year-round music performances.

In the summer of 1927, Ralph Peer, a producer for the Victor Talking Machine Company in Camden, New Jersey, saw Bristol’s potential as a hub for country music and decided to hold auditions. Artists such as the Carter Family, Jimmie Rodgers and the Stoneman Family made recordings in a makeshift recording studio inside Downtown Bristol’s Taylor-Christian Hat Company. Johnny Cash referred to the famous Sessions, often referred to as the “Big Bang of Country Music,” as “The single most important event in the history of country music.”

The grand opening of the museum also featured live music performances by Carlene Carter, The Whistles and the Bells, and country music superstar Martina McBride, who will perform on Sunday.

“Southwest Virginia has a strong legacy of musical heritage,” said Governor Terry McAuliffe, who spoke at today’s opening. “This new museum will educate the public on a significant part of country music’s history with a collection that you can’t find anywhere else in the world. The museum will offer visitors a brand new way to experience Southwest Virginia and a deeper understanding of this region.”

“This opening means great things for the economy in Virginia,” said Maurice Jones, Secretary of Commerce and Trade. “Music tourism brings millions of dollars a year in visitor spending. The museum will bring visitors to this region not only for the museum, but also to explore the other amazing venues along the Crooked Road. This visitation is estimated to have a nearly $50 million economic impact over five years.”

For more information on the Birthplace of Country Music Museum, visitbirthplaceofcountrymusic.org.

LOVE is at the heart of every Virginia vacation. For more information, please visit www.virginia.org.

Governor McAuliffe Announces Administration Appointments

Map of Virginia highlighting Henrico County (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

RICHMOND – Governor Terry McAuliffe announced additional appointments to his administration. The appointees will join McAuliffe’s administration focused on finding common ground with members of both parties on issues that will grow Virginia’s economy and create more jobs across the Commonwealth.

Secretariat of the Commonwealth

Board Appointments

Advisory Board on Physician Assistants

·       Rachel A. Carlson, EdD, MSBS, PA-C* of Winchester, Program Director and Associate Professor for the Division of Physician Assistant Studies at Shenandoah University; clinically practicing PA with Premier Health Resources, Inc. in family medicine

·       Eileen Davis, RN, of Henrico, Nurse, Educator, Henrico County

·       Thomas Parish, DHSc, PA-C* of Virginia Beach, Professor and PA Program Director, Eastern Virginia Medical School Vice-Chair, Physician Assistant Advisory Board

·       James T. Potter, Jr. MD* of Wise, President, Appalachian Healthcare Associates, PC

·       Portia S. Tomlinson, PA-C of Roanoke, Physician Assistant-Neurosurgery, Carilion Neurosurgical Care

Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice

·       Marilyn G. Brown, MSW of Richmond, Director Chesterfield Juvenile Detention Home

·       Lorenzo Collins of Glen Allen, President, LR Collins & Associates, Inc.

·       John Dougherty, MSW of Richmond,  Senior Vice President/Chief Administrative Officer, Virginia Home for Boys and Girls

·       Lindsay R. Fisher of Chester, Vice President, Legislative Analyst, Citigroup Management Corporation, Washington, DC

·       Melvin Johnson of Richmond, Student/Athlete, Virginia Commonwealth University;  Major: Criminal Justice; Volunteer, Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice and Shaka Smart Basketball Camps

·       Sarah Lewis of Blacksburg, Student, Virginia Tech; Major: Psychology

·       Regina O’Brien of Stephens City, Executive Director, Youth Development Center, Inc.

·       C. Shane Ringressy of Blacksburg, Student, Virginia Tech; Major: National Security, Legal Studies

·       Debbie Smith of Charles City, Founder/CEO H-E-A-R-T, Inc. (Hope Exists After Rape Trauma)

Family and Children’s Trust Fund

·       Dawn Chillon, PhD(c), NBCC of Rockville, Founder, The Foundation for Family Healing and The Attachment and Trauma Institute

Radford University Board of Visitors

·       Christopher Wade of Fairfax, COO, Aeronomy

*Denotes reappointments

Governor McAuliffe Taps Richmond Chef Lee Gregory to Represent Virginia at Great American Seafood Cook-off

The Rotunda at the University of Virginia. Charlottesville, Virginia, United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

~Roosevelt Chef to Compete in Seafood Competition in New Orleans August 2~

RICHMOND – Governor Terry McAuliffe announced that he has tapped renowned Chef Lee Gregory of Richmond restaurant The Roosevelt to represent Virginia at the 11^th Annual Great American Seafood Cook-Off (GASCO) in New Orleans, Louisiana on August 2.  Held annually, GASCO pits the nation's best chefs against recognized culinary greats from around the United States.  Chef Gregory will compete against 18 other chefs from across the country for the title of best seafood chef in the nation.

“We are very proud to have Chef Gregory represent the Commonwealth of Virginia in this competition,” said Governor McAuliffe.  “Chef Gregory has already shown his outstanding culinary talents to Virginia.  Now it’s time for the rest of the country to see them, along with some of the Commonwealth's delicious seafood offerings.”

James Beard Award nominee Lee Gregory worked at Acacia in Richmond for five years before moving to nearby Six Burner, Mockingbird in Staunton and Blue Light Grill in Charlottesville.  He returned to Richmond in 2011 to open The Roosevelt.  Gregory is set to open Southbound, a partnership with Joe Sparatta of Heritage, in late 2014.  Chef Gregory’s dishes are an “untraditional celebration of the South,” and are served alongside an all-Virginia wine list and a heavy selection of regional craft beers.  In addition to two James Beard nominations, Chef Gregory and The Roosevelt have received accolades from Garden & Gun, Southern Living, The New York Times, Esquire, STYLE Weekly, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Virginian-Pilot, Richmond.com, and many more.

“Virginia’s diversified seafood industry, which is the largest on the East Coast and the third largest in the nation, is an incredible economic asset and is booming in popularity,” said Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry Todd Haymore.  “Having Chef Gregory in New Orleans representing Virginia helps to further the message that the Commonwealth is a major player when it comes to seafood.”

The Virginia seafood industry is one of the oldest industries in the United States and one of the Commonwealth’s largest.  According to 2012 figures, Virginia is the nation’s third largest producer of marine products with total landings of just under 495 million pounds and is only out paced by Alaska and Louisiana.  The dockside value to watermen alone was approximately $192 million in 2012. 

“This is a major boost for not only the seafood industry of Virginia, but the overall culinary tourism and economic impact to the state,” said Secretary of Commerce and Trade Maurice Jones.

At the competition, each chef will have one hour total to prepare and submit individually plated servings of their pre-submitted domestic seafood recipe.  Judges will then have 10 minutes to hear the presentation from the chef and judge the dish.  Each competitor is required to provide seafood products exclusively from their state.  

Chef Gregory commented, “It’ll be an enormous opportunity and honor to show the folks at GASCO what high quality seafood we have here in Virginia.”

“This is a great opportunity to have Chef Gregory highlight Virginia seafood in New Orleans,” said Mike Hutt, Executive Director of the Virginia Marine Products Board.  “This is an important representation of Virginia’s robust and diverse culinary offerings, and an excellent opportunity to shine a light on our thriving marine products and aquaculture industry, as well.”

For more information on the Great American Seafood Cook-Off, visitgreatamericanseafoodcookoff.com.

Gloucester, VA Ernest Lane Gate?, (Part 2)

Above is a picture looking south on route 17 with Ernest Lane to the right of Turlington Septic Service Sign and the stop sign.

In this picture, we have Ernest Lane at it's very front beginning.  Where the shadow shows up in the picture above along the road, this is where blacktopping ends and the road becomes gravel.  To the right is Turlington Septic Service.

When we went to Ernest Lane to look around, we counted that Turlington has 6 commercial trucks in their yard.  This will become important as we go along.

A better view of the trucks at Turlington.

This is a view looking East on Ernest Lane.  Gives you an idea of the type of road that is being discussed.  This is not a blacktopped road.  It is a state maintained road however.  Now let's look at the VDOT Rural Rustic Road project that is up for vote this coming Tuesday night before the Board of Supervisors.

VDOT RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PROGRAM MANUAL

Background

The Rural Rustic Road concept, first enacted by the 2002 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia, is a practical approach to paving Virginia's low volume unpaved roads. A pilot program, implemented in July 2002, demonstrated the success of this concept. It ensures that VDOT practices environmental and financial stewardship while providing basic paved access to more of Virginia’s rural countryside. The 2003 Session of the General Assembly amended the legislation to provide that this method be considered as a first alternative for improving all unpaved roads in the future. The Rural Rustic Road Program, under § 33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, became effective July 1, 2003. The Virginia Department of Transportation’s Local 

Assistance Division working with the Rural Rustic Road Policy Committee established the initial 

guidelines for this program.

The Local Assistance Division, in consultation with the Location and Design Division, has periodically updated the guidelines to reflect legislative revisions to the program. During the 2006 Session, and again during the 2008 Session, the General Assembly expanded the program by increasing the maximum traffic count on eligible roads from the initial 500 vehicles per day (VPD) to the current 1,500 VPD. In addition, during its 2008 Session, the General Assembly established that the maximum speed limit for a road designated as a Rural Rustic Road, on or after July, 1 2008, is 35 MPH. The Commissioner of Highways is authorized under § 46.2-878 of the Code of Virginia to increase, or decrease, this speed limit based on an engineering study.

The 2011 General Assembly Session amended the legislation to provide additional flexibility 

regarding Virginia Storm water Management Program regulations for Rural Rustic Road projects that meet certain criteria. This legislation provided that Rural Rustic Road projects placing a hard surface along the same basic alignment as the prior gravel impervious area with accompanying shoulder and drainage work are treated as routine maintenance activities for the purpose of VSMP regulations. This revision of the Rural Rustic Road Program Manual incorporates all prior legislative changes and provides additional clarifications.

Rural Rustic Road Concept

Fundamentally, the Rural Rustic Road concept is the paving of an existing unpaved road with a 

compacted or impervious surface and reestablishment of existing associated ditches and shoulders, and usually the new hard-surfaced road is on the same horizontal and vertical alignment as the prior gravel impervious area. Furthermore, a focal point of the program is on leaving trees, vegetation, side slopes, and open drainage abutting the roadway, undisturbed to the maximum extent possible.

Improvements along a Rural Rustic Road project may be less than minimum design standards, as outlined in the Chief Engineer’s Memorandum dated June 11, 2002, Appendix V. AASHTO’s Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT ≤400) may be used as  a guide for roads with current traffic volumes up to 400 VPD. For roads with traffic volumes between 400 and 1,500 VPD, an 18-foot paved surface with 2-foot shoulders is desirable, but not required. The District Location and Design Engineer will be consulted for the higher volume roads (over 400 VPD).

The ideal Rural Rustic Road project usually involves reshaping of the roadbed, cleaning ditches and applying a hard surface within existing right of way. In most cases, it is assumed there are no actual construction plans and therefore, few occasions when a Rural Rustic Road project would require an engineered solution. The Rural Rustic Road concept may still be used to address more significant needed improvements if deemed appropriate. However, improvements beyond those required to address specific safety issues should be weighed against their probable cost. In lieu of more costly improvements, consideration should be given to the use of appropriate warning signs as needed recognizing the program goals of minimal disturbance and providing hard surfacing at the lowest possible cost. Typical examples of when engineered solutions may be required on rural rustic roads are when alignment improvements are needed to address identified safety issues, or improvements are needed to address severe drainage and/or erosion issues. Engineered solutions should be noted on the Scoping Report

 (Appendix II)

 and will usually trigger additional requirements typical of traditional construction projects such as the requirement to have plans signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer in accordance with the 

Department’s IIM-LD-243, as well as those requirements further detailed under the 

Environmental and Hydraulic Requirements.

Program Eligibility Criteria

The following criteria are those by which a candidate road is evaluated to determine its eligibility for hard-surfacing under the Rural Rustic Road Program. The road:

* Must be an unpaved road already within the State Secondary System.

* Must carry no more than 1,500 VPD.

* Must be a priority (line item) in the locality’s approved Secondary Six-Year Plan (SSYP) 

if the funding source is from secondary system allocations. If secondary system 

allocations are not used, the project is not required to be in the SSYP. However, the 

applicable provisions for public involvement must be met.

* Must be used predominately for local traffic. The local nature of the road means that most 

motorists using the road have traveled it before and are familiar with its features.

* Must have minimal anticipated traffic growth. The County Board of Supervisors will 

endeavor to limit growth on roads improved under the Rural Rustic Road Program, and 

cooperate with VDOT through its comprehensive planning process to develop adjacent 

lands consistent with rural rustic road concepts.

In addition, the Board of Supervisors, by resolution, must designate the road as a Rural Rustic Road.

Planning and Approval Process

The Local VDOT Manager, as described herein, is the Department’s local liaison responsible for dealing with a County’s Board of Supervisors regarding Rural Rustic Roads. This is typically the Residency Administrator, unless otherwise designated by the 

District Administrator.

A candidate project is initiated when the Board of Supervisors requests the Local VDOT Manager to evaluate a section of road for the Rural Rustic Road Program or when the Local VDOT Manager reviews a new proposed unpaved road project in the locality’s approved SSYP for eligibility as a Rural Rustic Road project. The comparison of unpaved road improvement options is Appendix VI of this manual.

The Local VDOT Manager will consult with other technical experts as deemed appropriate to evaluate the roadway.

Following evaluation, the Local VDOT Manager advises the Board of Supervisors whether the unpaved road can be hard-surfaced through the Rural Rustic Road Program. If the road is not eligible, the Board of Supervisors may appeal the decision through the Local VDOT Manager to the District Administrator, and ultimately the Chief Engineer 

for consideration by the Commissioner of Highways.

The Board of Supervisors, by resolution, designates the road as a Rural Rustic Road. A sample resolution is Appendix III of this manual.

The Local VDOT Manager notifies the District Administrator and the Regional Operations Director that the road has been designated as a Rural Rustic Road. The Regional Operations Director may conduct a traffic engineering study to evaluate the road for a posted speed limit, or post the road at the 35 MPH maximum established in §46.2-873.2 of the Code of Virginia.

The Project Manager/Local VDOT Manager conducts a scoping meeting, as appropriate, and completes the Rural Rustic Road Program Project Scoping Report (Appendix II). An exemption has been provided for this program to utilize this scoping report instead of the traditional scoping report (PM-100).

Now let's go back and once again look at what is already planned for this rural rustic road that comes from Bedford Falls subdivision.

Now again we see from Maps that are on the Gloucester County Government website, Bedford Falls has already stated they plan on putting in a road between themselves and Ernest Lane which is going to significantly increase traffic along Ernest Lane.  But it appears they are waiting to put that road in after Ernest Lane is paved by VDOT at the expense of the taxpayers.  So can it still be argued that these are just plans and that they are subject to change?  Well the argument can be made, but we went to Bedford Falls and took pictures there are well.  Here is what we found.

This is a view down Shyan Way.  Just to the right of the white truck is a sign that shows the names of the roads, both under construction and planned.  Let's take a close up look at that sign.

Well there is the sign for Songbird Path.  So it would seem if the argument were to be brought up that it was only something in the planning stages and subject to being scrapped, the argument is no longer valid as the sign is already in place to put that road between Bedford Falls and Ernest Lane.

Let's look at some other issues here as well.

The picture above is from Google Maps and is a view covering Providence Road to Ernest Lane.  Providence is at the bottom while Ernest is towards the top.  Why is this important?  It shows that there is no North Bound traffic entrance directly to Ernest Lane.  If you are traveling North on route 17 from coming across the bridge, you have one of two options to get to your home in Bedford Falls at the moment.  One is to turn left onto Providence Road and drive through some side road neighborhoods before you can get to yours, or you have to travel to Ernest Lane, make a U Turn and turn into Lakeview Drive to get to Bedford Falls.

  Neither one is a great option at the moment.

In the Google map above, at the bottom left of the two roads is Lakeview Drive, at the moment the main way into Seawell's Trace and Bedford Falls, and the upper road is Ernest Lane.  You can not turn left off of route 17 North bound on to Lakeview Drive.  You can turn left on to Ernest Lane however from route 17 North bound.  However, at present, you can not enter Bedford Falls from Ernest Lane.

Now for some other issues.

This is an up close view of Ernest Lane from Route 17.  Now traveling on 17 north bound, there is a turn off lane so that drives are not blocking traffic along 17.  What is lacking here are a number of other issues that must be taken into consideration before Songbird Lane can become a main feed into Bedford Falls and Seawell's Trace stemming from Ernest Lane.  

  First, coming off of Ernest Lane, one can not easily turn left to travel north on route 17.  A light needs to be installed for that.  Also, there is no turn off lane from 17 south onto Ernest lane.  With the increased traffic from these two developments onto Ernest Lane, these matters have not at all been taken into consideration.  

  Further, with Turlington Septic Services being on the dirt road part of Ernest Lane with 6 trucks in their yard, the level of surfacing that VDOT will be putting down on Ernest Lane may not be enough to handle the business use at the front of Ernest Lane.  There are also several people who live along Ernest Land who make their living driving tractor trailer trucks and sometimes those trucks do travel Ernest Lane, so again, there may prove to be issues as to whether the surfacing will even hold up.

  So the question really is, does Ernest Lane qualify under the Rustic Rural Road program or not?  It does not appear to us as though it does.  Now it would if Songbird Path was not planned.  Then it would appear that Ernest Lane does qualify.  Bedford Falls and Seawell's Trace are a real game changer to the entire picture here however.  Plus, with all the other open land around this area, further development will cause even more complications that would need these issues addressed.  If that is not all, there is still more.

Pictures taken between Ernest Lane and the back end of Bedford Falls homes, seems to show wetland grasses along the property lines.  Has a study even been conducted to show that Songbird Path will "NOT" be crossing any wetlands to enter onto Ernest Lane?  It appears that a lot of issues have not been looked at here and need to be addressed before the Board of Supervisors are even asked to consider keeping Ernest Lane on the Rural Rustic Road program.  Again, it does not look like it qualifies based on developer plans.  Now if the developers want to pave the road properly, put in the stop light along route 17 and also put in the turn off lane going to Ernest Lane, then that is a different story.  In fact, the developers should be made to pay these expenses.  It's not the responsibility of the majority of the taxpayers. 

Gloucester, VA Ernest Lane Gate?

Ernest Lane is scheduled for road pavement, at least this is the present plan as shown in the recent agenda before the Board of Supervisors for this coming Tuesday night, August 5th, 2014.  At present Ernest Lane is for the most part a dirt road.  So why is this road of concern that it should be considered for pavement?  Well we decided to find out and what we have uncovered is rather interesting.  It looks like the taxpayers are once again being asked to fund a project that will only benefit a few at the expense of the many.

  Above is a Google Maps picture of Ernest Lane.  How old it is we have no idea.  We will be going out to the area very soon to take updated pictures to show you other information we have found in our research.  But in the mean time, let's take a look at the actual information found in the Board of Supervisor's agenda for August 5th, 2014.

Gloucester. VA Earnest Lane VDOT Project Information, 2014 from Chuck Thompson

Another area of interest in the above?  It is stated that everyone of concern in the area has been notified of this information.  Well when we checked with just one resident who will be affected by this, he knew nothing about it in any way.  But he does now thanks to the question.

Look at paragraph 2 above.  WHEREAS, any such road must be located in a low-density development area and have no more than 1500 VDP;

Okay, what the heck is VDP?  We tried to look up VDP and found 169 acronyms.  The closest thing we could find for what it might mean is Variety Development Project.  Trying to identify what that means?  Unidentified category is what came back.  So in other words it pretty much means nothing except whatever the folks using it want it to mean.

  Either way, this is a VDOT project which means that all taxpayers in the state are paying for this.  Not just local taxpayers.  But should the taxpayers be funding this?  We have to ask that question based on other statements in the above agenda document and what our findings have shown.

  On the south side of Earnest lane, but not fronting Ernest Lane is Bedford Falls development managed by Epstein Corporation of Yorktown, Virginia.  Now who is the Epstein Corporation?  Well with research on that information, what we were able to come up with, they have ties to some local folks, specifically Breckenridge Ingles as well as Adrian Rider Cook.  The same folks who are behind the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust with whom Ashley Chriscoe, Board of Supervisor, Gloucester County, happens to sit on the board at the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust with Mr Ingles.  Isn't that just some interesting coincidences?

  Why is that even important?  Well, when you look at some of the development plans for the Bedford Falls real estate development, they have in their plans to put a road from Bedford Falls to Ernest Lane.

Now the above map comes straight from Gloucester County's website and is a tax map.  Take a look at the road already named, Songbird Path.  Now let's once again go back to the document above that is part of the agenda for the Board of Supervisors and look at a statement on there.  It clearly states on the document that the Board of Supervisors are unaware of any pending development that will significantly affect "EXISTING" traffic on this road.  Really?  No one looked at this tax map or is it that no one expected anyone else to look at this tax map?

  Here is how this game is played folks.  Go back to the picture at the top or look at the one now below.

  In the highlighted yellow section above, Songbird Path is just waiting to be built which the plans above show will lead right out to Ernest Lane which WILL significantly affect present road traffic.  It gives the developers a second path in and out of Bedford Falls.  This would increase the value to those who live there as well as increase the value of the homes to be sold in this development.  Now if the folks at Epstein Corp had already built Songbird Path, then it would be up to the developers to pave Ernest Lane.  But since they have not yet built that road and it's only pending, then all the developers have to do is wait until VDOT paves it at taxpayer expense and it's an automatic profits increase to Epstein Corp because now they will not have to pave that road and now get the extra profits from increased values all at your expense.

  Isn't that a nice plan?  Again, you have to love all the wording in the above agenda.  It's very very slick and they can claim it means whatever they want it to mean.  The VDP of 1500 can mean 1,500 residences as a low-density term.  So what is high density then? 1,501?  Oh but it gets better folks.  Let's now look at some of the tax information we came across as we were researching all of this.

Can someone please to explain to us how 8.8 acres in this area is only worth a lousy $100.00?  We would like to offer them a chance to triple their money.  We will gladly pay them $300.00 for this 8.8 acre parcel of land.  Right now that is a wooded area right to the left hand side of where Songbird Path is planned for development.  But is this just a mistake?  No, there are more just like this.

Here is another parcel only worth a mere $100.00.  Now why are these folks not paying the proper taxes on this land the same as others have to?  Why are the local taxpayers having to pay extra because these folks are not paying their share?

Now this area has not yet been subdivided and is where the circle presently is and where Songbird Path will move in and out from.  This area is presently at a value of $133, 000.00.  Once subdivided for more houses, it will go up much more.

Another area only worth a lousy $100.00 for 3.27 acres?  Are they kidding?  Who comes up with these values?

Now let's look across the street at county owned property, (questionable as to real ownership and to be covered in a future article) and look at what the county has values set for county property.

Now isn't the above just interesting?  1.41 acres valued at $55,000.00 and another .5 acres valued at $58,000.00.  Where the county got these properties is going to be covered very heavily in the near future.  In the mean time, it really does not matter what the county values any property it owns as it does not pay taxes on it anyway but the point is about why the county values land in the area so high except in the development area is valued so low.  Anyone ever see the prices of the houses in Bedford Falls?  They start at $230,000.00 at the lowest end.

Now here is a GIS map from Gloucester County's own information.  One can clearly see that there is going to be a road put in named Songbird Path which will in fact significantly impact present traffic on Ernest Lane.  Just look at all those houses already planned out.  We can only imagine that there is another set of plans that will later be filed to add houses to Shyan Way circle above as well as Songbird Path.  Why would any developer waste so much land that can be developed?  Might it take the project well beyond or just beyond the meaning for rural development and no expectation of planned development that will change present traffic?  Well we already know that is BS based on what we see and in our own opinion.

  Now some questions.  Did Ashley Chriscoe, on behalf of his ties to Mr Ingles, put in the request for this rural development project here on Ernest Lane as it will benefit Bedford Falls and the profits of the Epstein Corporation?  Will Ashley Chriscoe somehow get business out of this that could make this a conflict of interest?  With Ashley Chriscoe's ties to sitting on the Board of the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust with Mr Ingles in itself be a conflict of interest if Mr Chriscoe was in fact the one who made such request?  We do not know.  We are only asking the obvious tough questions and we think everyone should be asking these questions.

Here is yet another GIS map showing Bedford Falls and how it will impact Ernest Lane.

Now does anyone have any questions as to the potential impact on Ernest Lane from Bedford Falls?   Would anyone say this qualifies for low density?

Now, looking at the website for Bedford Falls, which most of it is still under construction, (Lousy web developers?) shows that Shyan Way will have houses on it.  Not shown in the GIS maps above.

The above picture is used under Federal Fair Use laws and comes off the Bedford Falls website.  So it looks like we were right about a part of this not having been filed yet with the county or the county has not put up those filings yet in regards to houses on Shyan Way circle.  Again, just look above.  Visit the Bedford Falls website.

http://epsteincorporation.com/bedford-falls/

Interesting to say the least.

Last minute update.  VPD not VDP is Vehicles Per Day and is a transportation term.  So the 1,500 Vehicles Per Day is what is being defined as low density for this project.  Well under those terms, we would agree that it will remain low density, but we still have to ask the question, why the expense to the taxpayers instead of the expense to the developer when it's the development that will benefit the most?