Charlottesville, Virginia, City Selling Illegally Misrepresented City Bonds?

Charlottesville, Virginia.  City council just made a public notice that will not get much, if any attention at all.  But everyone must see this.  Every American needs to be mad as hell as to what is in that public statement.  And we want everyone to see this.

https://emma.msrb.org/SecurityView/SecurityDetails.aspx?cusip=A3CB8500ABB5512B9E5D3EAB268DFBDBB

  Above is a link to the MSRB, or Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.  On that site, this link will take you to the Bond offering by the city, at least their statement anyway,  Now, this may be just a standard form, and the wording may be the same on every bond in every locality, in every state and by every state.  The problem is how the funding for those bonds are stated.  You need to read this for yourself.  Below is the words I have a real problem with and consider to be horribly illegal.

  "The Bonds are general obligations of the City, and the full faith and credit and UNLIMITED TAXING POWER OF THE CITY, are irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the principle of and interest on the Bonds as they become due".

  What?  Who gave these scumbags unlimited taxing power?  Are they trying to read the 16th Amendment to the US COnstitution for their basis?

  " The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Does anyone understand that the above Amendment gave no new taxing powers to the Federal Government, nor to the states?  That has been ruled on by the Federal Supreme Court over and over and over again.  No new power of taxation.  Google or other search engine returns all have data that is horribly incorrect.  We have posted evidence recently about this showing the true meaning of the 16th Amendment and that it does not grant the government any new rights of taxation.  Here it is again.  Watch the video.

What you will see in this video is the guy who wrote the tax laws, lie to no end about who has to pay taxes and who does not.  He uses the 16th Amendment in the wrong way.  Folk's you are being lied to everyday.  It is up to you to know if you are required to pay taxes.  And almost none of you are required to.   But Charlottesville Thinks they have an unlimited license to steal all of your money and more.  That is what unlimited means.  They can not only take everything you own, they can also bill you for so much more on top of it all.

  So, if this is in fact the case, then the City of Charlottesville has written some fraudulent paper that it plans on marketing to investors under false pretenses.  That is not only fraud, that is conspiracy to commit fraud.  This has so many violations against the people of the City of Charlottesville, the people of this state and the people of this entire Nation.  This is an outrage.  Again, it might be stated on every municipal Bond sold here in this country, but that is still fraud. 

(Story assistance by Marsha Maines)

Related articles

• White House Chief of staff John Kelly says Robert E. Lee was an 'honorable man', not being able to compromise led to Civil War
• 2 Marines sentenced for trespassing during Confederate rally
• Florida Declares State of Emergency Ahead of Richard Spencer's Speech
• Terrorist groups planning another 9/11-style attack, top US official warns
• Trump Slams Michael Moore's One-Man Show; Moore Fires Back
• Did Rick Baker speak out about Charlotttesville? Democratic ad suggests he didn't. But Baker did say something

Delegate Keith Hodges Debates Sheila Crowley For The 98th District

Delegate Keith Hodges debates candidate Sheila Crowley in the race for the delegates seat of the 98th district here in Virginia.  Keith Hodges is the present seated candidate here in the 98th district and is a Republican.  Sheila Crowley is the Democratic challenger for that seat.  This debate happened in Gloucester County, Virginia at the Moose Lodge along route 17 North.  Watch the video and then cast your vote on November 7th, 2017 for the candidate you think will serve the 98th district the best.

Related articles

• Pence, Biden stump for Virginia governor candidates Gillespie, Northam
• Will: Trying times for GOP candidates in shadow of prez
• President Obama to hold Richmond rally
• Man spotted wearing 'Build the Wall' hat to Trump's Hispanic Heritage Month event at the White House
• Poll: Strong majorities of Republicans support various gun-control measures, including banning bump stocks
• Dominion Energy Virginia issues RFP for 300MW of PV, wind generation

Second 2017 Gloucester County, Virginia Election Forum Video (Brought to you by GVLN)

Meet the candidates of 2017 for seats on the Board of Supervisors and School Board. Held at the Lighthouse Worship Center on Route 17, Gloucester County, Virginia. Forum was held on October 23, 2017. Gloucester Virginia Links and News (GVLN) brings you this video.  This meeting was produced by the Gloucester Citizens for Accountable Government.  

Related articles

• Oklahoma City School board to decide on renaming schools
• Penn State officials sued for rejecting Richard Spencer talk
• Construction begins on Trump's border wall prototypes
• Mississippi school drops Jefferson Davis - the US Confederacy's only president - to rename itself after Barack Obama
• U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez Corruption Trial Set To Get Underway In New Jersey
• Johnson County supervisors pass resolution condemning hatred

Are Gloucester County’s Real Estate Tax Assessments Corrupt? You Decide

During a recent Gloucester Board of Supervisor and School Board candidate forum, York District Candidate Kevin Farmer expressed concerns about real estate tax rates and real estate tax assessments. § 58.1-3201 of the Code of Virginia requires all property to be assessed at 100% of fair market value. If that is the case, why does Gloucester County seem to adjust the values of property based on the amount of money needed to run our local government? I have been asking that question ever since Gloucester County Assistant Administrator Garrey Curry explained such to me about three years ago. When Mr. Curry rendered his explanation to me and another citizen, I told him under the method he described, one key element is left out of the equation; fair market value of the property.

During the candidate forum, current board members mocked at Mr. Farmer’s assertion that increases in certain real estate assessment values is how they have avoided increasing real estate tax rates each year. In Mr. Farmer’s defense, the County, through certain assessment value increases, increased revenue from real estate property taxes by $3 million since 2012.

I became even more skeptical of Gloucester’s assessments in 2016 when the Board of Supervisors approved a land swap deal with Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr.; in which the County traded two pieces of property for one of Mr. Kerns’ properties. When the deal was first presented to the Board of Supervisors, then Chairperson John Meyer publicly 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 the County.

During that time, I was an appointed At-Large member of the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee. Once I reviewed the seven properties contained in the land swap proposal, I discovered serious flaws in the assessment values of the three key properties contained in the deal. I pointed the flaws out to the Board and an independent appraiser was hired by the County to determine the value of the properties.

When the Board approved the land swap deal, their decision was based on the independent appraisal values. The combined value of the County’s two properties at that time was $35,000 and Mr. Kerns’ property was valued at $45,000. The combined assessment values of the County’s two former properties after the deal changed to $70,180 and the value of Mr. Kerns' former property changed to $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 the County. Within days of the deal being made, the property Mr. Kerns received from the County was assessed by the County to be worth $28,400 more than the property he unloaded on the County. Not wanting to be associated with corruption, I resigned from the Utilities Advisory Committee immediately after the Board approved the corrupt land swap deal.

The land swap deal story did not end there. Three months after the Board approved the deal, the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal listed one of Mr. Kerns new properties as being sold for $55,000. According to online property records; Mr. Kerns sold it to the property owner who has lived right next door to the property since 1998. Why didn’t the Board offer the property to the adjacent landowners before trading it to Mr. Kerns? Even Mr. Kerns’ offered to sell his property to Supervisor Meyer before offering it to the County. Something tells me the new owner would have preferred to buy the property for the $30,000 independent appraisal value; saving $25,000.

One can’t help but wonder if the whole corrupt land swap deal was perpetrated to keep anything from being built at the entrance to Supervisors Meyer’s and Mr. Kerns’ estates. One can easily assume the recent paving of the entrance of Summerville Road to the end of Mr. Meyer’s property line was funded with money from the land sold by Mr. Kerns. One could also easily assume this was done to move the entrance to Mr. Meyer’s estate so it is easier to find by his Airbnb customers. Despite whether or not these assumptions are correct, one fact remains; manipulation of the assessment values is clearly evident and is nothing short of government corruption. This deal needs to be investigated and those found guilty of corruption and conspiracy to commit corruption need to be held accountable.

Below we have provided a listing of randomly selected waterfront properties in four different areas of Gloucester County. Notice how the smaller the property is, the higher the assessed value per acre is. We have also provided a Slideshare presentation of Frequently Asked Questions about real estate tax assessments. 

Email comments to: Kennysr61@gmail.com

To read a detailed account of the corrupt land swap deal click on this link: http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/2017/03/gloucester-county-va-real-estate-tax_50.html 

Waterfront Property Heywood Creek Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

34244             1.39               $209,110                  $150,439

13952            1.46               $260,770                  $178,609

30791            1.48               $208,560                  $140,919

43160            1.51               $145,940                  $96,649

26229            2.53               $222,950                  $88,123

10669            2.67               $243,790                  $91,307

30679            3.43               $280,310                  $81,723

13369            9.33               $364,960                  $39,117

33757            12.6               $404,020                  $32,065

31355            170.476        $636,730                  $3,735

Bena Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

28739            1                     $225,000                  $225,000

21922            1.25               $233,200                  $186,560

19725            2.88               $201,090                  $78,955

27404            5.25               $296,720                  $56,254

40850            6.39               $342,070                  $53,532

27619            6.46               $817,360                  $126,526

21425            9.3                  $365,060                  $39,254

21951            13.11             $402,110                  $30,672

41567            13.54             $346,810                  $25,540

14341            58.35             $1,190,730              $20,406

Ware Neck Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

16800            0.75               $211,490                  $281,987

21047            0.96               $222,850                  $232,135

22199            1.44               $256,780                  $178,319

16984            1.88               $239,750                  $127,527

10396            2.01               $233,520                  $116,179

23437            2.36               $236,480                  $117,652

22617            5.02               $340,480                  $67,825

43034            6.9                  $417,910                  $60,567

18864            7.39               $209,550                  $28,356

31023            342.57          $1,510,140              $4,408

Gloucester Point Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

34254            0.296             $131,440                  $444,054

29005            0.361             $145,470                  $402,963

30469            0.52               $178,910                  $344,058

18220            0.6                  $189,900                  $316,500

12063            0.93               $221,220                  $237,871

30104            1.23               $258,690                  $210,317

29202            1.49               $263,000                  $176,510

33908            2.49               $482,670                  $193,843

15105            3.58               $246,770                  $68,930

22581            17.49             $534,910                  $30,584

Slideshare presentation of frequently asked question about real estate tax assessments. (Compiled by Albemarle County, Virginia)

2017 real estate assessments faq albemarle county from Kenneth Hogge Sr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written comments may be emailed to Kennysr61@gmail.com

Read more stories at: http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/

Supervisor Bazzani stating he knows every aspect of the budget


 

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

FY16 Budget (General fund expenditures begin on Slideshare page 75)

Gloucester county va adopted fy16 budget capital budget from Kenneth Hogge Sr 

FY17 Budget (General fund expenditures begin on Slideshare page 66)

Gloucester county virginia fy17 adopted budget and capital budget from Kenneth Hogge Sr

FY18 Budget (General fund expenditures begin on Slideshare page 71)

Gloucester county va adopted fy18 budget capital budget from Kenneth Hogge Sr 

FY17 info we were forced to requested from Mr. Fedors

Fy17 ca proposed budget general fund expenditures by department from Kenneth Hogge Sr 

FY18 info we were forced to requested from Mr. Fedors

Fy2018 proposed budget gf & capital expenditure line item including exte. pdf from Kenneth Hogge Sr 

Email conversation about FY17 budget

03/20/16 at 11:57 AM

To Board of Supervisors

Board Members,

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

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

Respectfully,

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

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

Mr. Hogge -

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

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

Brent

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

Brent,

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

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

Kenny 

From: "Fedors, Brent" <bfedors@gloucesterva.info>

To: Kenny
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: 2017 Budget

Mr. Hogge -

The 2017 Budget Book provided to Board Members is the same as can be found at the following link: http://gloucesterva.info/Portals/0/finance/documents/FY17%20Proposed%20Budget%20and%20FY17%20Proposed%20Capital%20Budget.pdf?ver=2016-03-11-154752-740

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

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

Brent

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

Hello Mr. Fedors,

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

Thank you sir,

Email conversation about FY18 budget data

Tinsley, Stephanie <stinsley@gloucesterva.info>

Mar 20 at 11:15 AM

To Kenny

CC Lewis, Christi , Fedors, Brent

Message body

Good Morning Mr. Hogge,

 Attached is the information as requested.

 1^st tab – General Fund by Expenditure Line Item

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

3^rd tab – Capital Projects

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

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

Thanks,

Stephanie

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

Mr. Hogge -

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

Thank you for your inquiry,

Brent

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

Hello Mr. Fedors,

Hope this finds you in good health and spirits.

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

Thank you,

Kenny

Related articles

• UMich settles FOIA lawsuit, releases Schlissel's Donald Trump emails
• Supervisors offer mixed opinions on Linn County representation map
• Lawsuit seeks disclosure of FBI 9/11 investigation files
• Congressman lambasts Pentagon for withholding Osprey documents
• 'The whistle is about to blow': Secret report exposed Tesco's £250 million accounting scandal, court hears
• MLive asks appeals court for contested police calls in prosecutor's crash

Gloucester County Employee Pay, A Response

It’s a bit disheartening to run as a change agent in 2013, and then read “Sounds like the same old empty promises that have fueled the waste of Gloucester County taxpayer dollars in other areas. Like renting our libraries and health department spaces instead of owning them and not creating a revenue stream from health department rent that is paid to Gloucester by the Commonwealth, not consolidating compatible school and county services, building more parks than our local government should ever be responsible for and numerous other wasteful practices.”

 We get elected on our own platforms, then get saddled with all the sins of previous Boards.  If voters vote for a change, and the change candidates win, why don’t we at least start with the premise that something’s changed.  I’ll be happy to address your outlined areas of concern at a later date, but right now, the only thing that relates to “promises” is that of a coming employee pay increase.

“Same old empty promises”?  The only time I believe you’ve heard this Board (certainly Phillip and I) state an intent to raise pay was in 2016.  And we did, with a 4% across the board raise.  Now you may certainly argue as to whether or not that was enough, but we did say we’d provide a pay raise, and we delivered.  Was that the “old empty promise” you were referring to?

The Board is saying that a raise is coming in FY18.  Based on previous experience with this Board, you should count on it.  Unless, of course, you have a NEW Board next year … they are also promising pay raises.  Only difference is, they haven’t delivered on a promise yet.

Thanks for listening,

John Meyer

Related articles

• Pennsylvania Health Department fights to keep medical marijuana panel secret
• 16-year-old boy gunned down in Commonwealth, Quezon City
• Let's start 2018 preparations now, Okon-George, others cry out
• For first time, Prince Charles will lay Remembrance Day wreath with Queen Elizabeth looking on