Augusta County needs data on nutrient pollution

The Augusta County Board of Supervisors is considering joining a nutrient monitoring program to get factual information on the amount of agricultural and non-point pollution entering the Middle and South rivers. This pollution, of course, travels downstream to other counties and eventually into the Chesapeake Bay.

The U.S. Geological Survey will provide equipment to monitor sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus over a three year period. The EPA has assured officials that the program will be accepted in setting the watershed model for the Chesapeake Bay.

All sounds good, right? Free equipment and accurate data to drive future decisions. Well, some supervisors say not so fast. The hangup is the $85,000 annual cost to properly conduct the monitoring. One member of the board, Larry Wills, is seeking state funding and/or cost sharing with downstream Rockingham County but apparently he has come up dry so far.

Even Rep. Bob Goodlatte seems to support a monitoring program because of the up-to-date data it will provide. But, in typical Bobblehead Bob talking out of both sides of his mouth fashion, he doesn't want the data to actually accomplish anything, saying the Chesapeake Bay model is flawed.

With a 2025 deadline approaching for Virginia's blueprint for cleaning up the Bay, we need all the data we can get to make accurate, scientific decisions. Yes, the Commonwealth should be picking up some or most of the tab for localities but even without that funding Augusta County should move forward now. Costs of monitoring and restoring our streams and rivers will only increase in the future and decision makers need quality information sooner rather than later. Plus, plenty of Augusta residents fish, swim, and canoe in these popular local rivers.

Perhaps Mr. Wills can explore the possibility of working with organizations that have trained volunteers to do the water monitoring to help trim some costs. Organizations like Friends of the Shenandoah River and Friends of Middle River have been doing just that for years.

Check out CCC's earlier posts on the South River and Middle River.

Augusta supervisors - blinded by personal ambition

David Karaffa -
Blinded by the Light.

In a recent letter to the editor, Augusta County Supervisor David Karaffa sees a bit of light that evidently blinds him to political and educational reality thereby leading him down a dark tunnel of denial about supporting public schools. Let me try to explain his convoluted reasoning.

Karaffa, apparently awakened by his own children's experiences with Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL), calls the tests "a fraud of the worst kind." He continues blasting the curriculum by pointing out that "vague facts and no working knowledge that can be put to good use once the student graduates from high school is not education." Karaffa even acknowledges the demoralizing and mind numbing effects of this hyper-mandated curriculum on educators writing, "these same teachers must be broken by a system that dictates what they can teach and how they can teach it, and then punishes them when the system that was forced upon them does not deliver the promised results." Karaffa urges the General Assembly to drop these mandates and return control of schools to localities. Bit late on this suggestion, Mr. Karaffa. When your letter was published only a few days remained in the General Assembly session.

If that were the substance of his letter, I'd find myself in substantial agreement with the supervisor. Many teachers and parents agree that the SOLs have reduced creativity and real learning by students, have reduced classroom instruction to teaching to the test strategies, and are at best a clumsy measurement of a school's or school division's performance in teaching all the students.

Karaffa manages to mangle some facts about the origins of the SOL testing program saying that "Educators and politicians envisioned the SOL tests as the answer to keeping public education accountable." Not exactly true. Few educators actually teaching in Virginia classrooms supported the notion of one-size-fits-all testing. The SOL tests were pushed through by then Governor George Allen and Republicans in the General Assembly and their appointed "educators" (like yucky Yecke) with a right wing agenda. These are the same politicians that Mr. Karaffa has a long record of encouraging and supporting.

Now totally blinded by the light, a few "invented facts," and perhaps his own political ambition, Karaffa concludes that "continuing to pump money in a failing system is not the answer." The logical interpretation of his words leads one to conclude that this supervisor won't be very willing to provide additional funding to help educate the children of Augusta County. So, lets get this straight - the state imposes SOLs and other expensive mandates on public schools and Mr. Karaffa's solution is to be sure the school board lacks funds to meet its constitutional and statutory obligations.

In an article about funding for Augusta County Schools, it appears the school board will send the supervisors an unbalanced needs budget and ask for money money to fund pay raises, technology, and other operational needs. Another supervisor, Marshall Pattie, is cited as wanting a more detailed strategic plan for the capital side of the school system before

As someone who has observed the Augusta County School Board, both the appointed and elected versions, and three superintendents, I can honestly say that Mr. Pattie's words sound good but are hollow, meaningless, and indicate a lack of knowledge about the workings of the school board. Much of the work of the school board and staff is long term strategic planning. Planning on how to keep salaries competitive with the surrounding area. Planning for staffing to meet instructional demands. Planning to use buildings and other resources efficiently and effectively. Planning to close schools, reassign students, and change bus routes.

Sometimes the plans go off the tracks through no fault of the school board. It is, after all, at the bottom of the political food chain (no independent funding) and is subject to the whims of all the political entities higher up the ladder. Plans for future classroom space can be upset when supervisors approve subdivisions outside areas anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan or when SOL mandates drive some parents to remove kids from public education. The General Assembly is fond of changing the mandates school boards must follow during each session. Rising costs for fuel, heath insurance for employees, VRS, etc. can play hell with budgets and strategic plans. And then there is the community input that can rise to a fever pitch any time the school board suggests closing a school or reassigning students - after all parents and families feel invested in their local school as they do for nothing else local government does.

So, Mr. Karaffa and Mr. Pattie your words might sound good politically but there is a definite disconnect with the reality found in our schools. Augusta County has never, ever, not even once funded schools as well a comparable jurisdictions locally and around the state. All of a sudden Mr. Karaffa "discovers" the inconvenient truth about SOLs and he uses that as an excuse to continue the underfunding. Mr. Pattie wants strategic plans before he will commit to operational funding. I have to wonder if he's ever sat down with his colleague on the school board (who is also democratically elected) to really listen and learn more about the planning process. The carefully couched words of these supervisors make me wonder - are they are driven more by their own future political ambitions than by doing what is right for the children and citizens of Augusta County?

Staggered Terms for Augusta?

Should Augusta County's elected boards - the Board of Supervisors and the School Board - change to staggered terms where part of each board would be elected every two years rather than the current system in which the entire boards stand for election every four years? The short answer is YES.

Current chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Tracy Pyles, put this question before the former Board of Supervisors two years ago and got a thumbs down. It appears there were too many hard feelings and personality clashes for Mr. Pyles to move this good idea forward. In early August, the current Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to put the question out for comment at a September 26 public hearing.

Staggered terms are greatly preferred over the current system of electing all supervisors and school board members at the same time. Under the current system, it might be unlikely, but possible, that all new members would be elected at the same time. Continuity and institutional knowledge would be destroyed and the board might struggle to find its footing. Staggered terms also give voters, at least in some magisterial districts, the opportunity to sound off on issues facing the county that can be a barometer of sentiment not only for the newly elected members but also for those in mid-term.

Staggered terms will temper the power of voting blocks and special interests whose demagoguery or money might unduly influence the electorate, especially in a low-turnout local election. Hot button issues would be less likely to influence the stability and continuity of governance. Staggered terms provide a bit of checks and balances - a fundamental principle in American government at both the federal and state levels. Many cities and counties use staggered terms to bring it to local government as well.

If the change is made, in 2015 voters in selected magisterial districts would elect members of the Board of Supervisors and School Board for two year terms while voters in the other magisterial districts would elect representative for four years. In 2017 those selected magisterial districts would elect representatives for four year terms.

If the Board of Supervisors decides to move to staggered terms, its next decision will be to select magisterial districts that will elect representative for a two year term in 2015. That process should be as nonpartisan as is humanly possible.

It was totally inappropriate for Supervisor David Karaffa to volunteer to run for a two year term. Mr. Karaffa currently represents the Beverley Manor District, but he does not own the seat - the people of the district do. Perhaps Karaffa was just being generous or showing his support for staggered terms, but it is entirely possible that he, or another supervisor, could be making a personal political calculation if they have a say in which districts are on which election cycle. Maybe Mr. Karaffa wants to run for the General Assembly but doesn't want to give up his spot on the Board of Supervisors to do so. I am not saying it is so, but in politics appearances count for everything.

I suggest a lottery system - perhaps drawing straws or using ping pong balls like the Virginia Lottery uses - done before the sharp eyes of the media and the public. Done in a way that dispels any notion that a current office holder is manipulating the process for personal advantage. Only then will Augusta County move to the superior system of staggered terms without any suspicion that the system is being rigged for political purposes.

Time for Augusta County to step up to the plate

As is predictable and inevitable, Pastures supervisor Tracy Pyles sent letters to the editor with his one-sided "facts" making the case against a modest tax increase to fund schools, public safety, and other essential services for the residents of Augusta County. Pyles and North River supervisor Marshall Pattie argue that Augusta County has enough reserves and should foot the bill for new expenses for K-12 education, for additional deputies and emergency services, and for unfunded mandates passed on by the fools in Richmond.

The Pyles/Pattie position is short-sighted and works only in the short... very short... term. All of the costs are recurring and will revisit Augusta County year after year. Paying for recurring expenses out of "reserves" is simply irresponsible fiscal management that passes the buck to future generations.

"Reserves" should be saved, and have been prudently set aside in a line-by-line fashion, for clearly identified projects such as 911 enhancements and other long range needs facing the county. Some of the "reserves," over $6 million according to estimates, are set aside to cover expenses during the rise and fall of revenues inherent in a June/December real estate tax collection cycle. The Pyles/Pattie positon could place those projects, indeed the county's budgetary solvency, in jeopardy.

Beverley Manor supervisor David Karaffa has a better idea - pay as you go. As Karaffa noted at his recent town hall meeting, draining Augusta County's reserves will mean taking out loans to cover needed and planned improvements for infrastructure, maintenance, and equipment. This blog hasn't always been nice to Mr. Karaffa, but on this issue he has clearly risen to the occasion and is right!

Even with the modest real estate tax increase Augusta County will be among the lowest tax burden localities in the Commonwealth. At stake is not only the long term stability and fiscal prudence of the county, but the quality of public education and public safety. Karaffa is demonstrating political courage for the good of Augusta County - we can only hope that trait is contagious.

Wind farm a "win, win"

The recent news that Apex Wind Energy, a Charlottesville company, is huntin' and peckin' at the Augusta Regional Landfill as a possible wind farm should be applauded and encouraged by residents of Augusta County as well as the cities of Staunton and Waynesboro. If studies prove favorable, Apex may lease plots on the landfill to build 15 or so wind turbines, providing a multi-use function at what is basically a single use facility (there is a law enforcement shooting range at the site). The lease will provide a new revenue stream to cash strapped local governments and the wind farm will be a showcase of government/business partnerships and highlight the potential of renewable energy right here in the Shenandoah Valley.

Landfills have a finite lifespan and there are limited uses once the site is closed. Many landfills are simply capped and closed and never used for any productive purpose. We've all heard landfills being converted and having a new and different life - for example Mount Trashmore, a Virginia Beach park, and some localities have installed solar panels at closed landfills. The wind farm would provide a "forever" use for the Augusta Regional Landfill that wouldn't necessarily preclude other potential development that might arise in the future.

Apex has considerable experience in wind power technology having worked on projects in 21 states and seems to be a growing and successful firm. Over the past two years Apex has acquired interests in various renewable energy companies and recently raised $10 million in venture capital. In short, Apex isn't some unproven start-up without a solid track record.

As the Chairman of the Augusta County Board of Supervisors, Tracy Pyles, noted, "We would be able to take what is a huge burial site and turn it into a revenue producer for our county. That's just win-win across the board." I'd say it is something to crow about!

Things are looking fowl

Somebody must have turned on the lights in the hen house. Cluck!

Will he ever just go away?

Yesterday, Francis Chester got his day in court. And he'll get another sometime after mid November. Perfect timing for this turkey.

You can read accounts in the News Leader or the News Virginian for background on the cases which Chester filed against the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Board of Supervisors. But, media reports miss much of this "drama" that continues playing out not only in the Augusta County Circuit Court, but also among right wing teabaggers and bloggers.

About two dozen spectators endured bad acoustics and an inadequate sound system trying to hear the judge, lawyers, and witnesses discuss the issue of sanctions against Chester who had a little band of supporters and piled his "petitions" high on the table in front of him. Most others in the courtroom were from the county government or the news media. Two members of the Board of Supervisors - Wendell Coleman and Nancy Sorrells - were there. On a beautiful fall afternoon, there had to be better activities than sitting on hard seats in a majestic but gloomy courtroom.

A few random observations:

Chester's attacks on Commissioner Shrewsbury were mostly hollow attempts to question her and her employees' salaries and the amount of time they spent researching his demands. He made cracks about computing average salaries in his head while she used a calculator, but it was hard to discern his point on that or anything else. I guess he's trying to reduce the amount of any sanction, but beyond that, it is hard to see any coherent strategy by the "country lawyer."

At one point the attorney representing the county requested a five minute recess. He promptly left with the County Administrator, the Commissioner of the Revenue, and others to discuss strategy. Mr. Chester was left sitting until he and Lynn Mitchell, aka swacgirl, slipped out the backdoor. Guess that constitutes his brain trust. I awaited a hard hitting defense when the trial resumed. I was to be disappointed.

Chester had asked the judge for a "nonsuit" to withdraw his original cases as a way to dodge sanctions. Judge Victor Ludwig would have none of that since doing so would place a time limit on the county's sanction case. The judge ordered the county to file a written brief in 30 days with Chester's response two weeks later. He noted a number of issues he wanted argued in the briefs including the Virginia Code that deals with sanctions against lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits and several legal precedents. For example, shouldn't Mr. Chester have been aware that Virginia does not permit class action suits and that Boards of Supervisors have immunity.

After the judge finished outlining the relevant Code sections and case law to address in the briefs, Mr. Chester requested that the judge again give him the citations. Before patiently doing so, Judge Ludwig admonished him saying, "Those are cases you should have known before you walked in the door, Mr. Chester."

Chester brought this litigation as part of a broader political campaign against the reassessment. To him, suing raised his credibility in the eyes of his supporters and gave him more fodder to fire up the crowd. But, judges rightfully bristle at anyone's attempt to use the courts in this way, especially when there is no sound basis in the law. For that reason, the court should sanction Chester to deter him (and other lawyers) from wasting the court's time and to pay the county back for some of the costs incurred in meeting all his irrational demands.

Like most states, Virginia law holds that frivolous litigation occurs when a competent attorney knows or should know the claim has no merit and little chance of success. So, Mr. Chester may have some creative arguments up his sleeve that can convince the judge that sanctions should not apply to him. But, I'm not holding my breath.

Assessing reassessments III

I've had a couple of earlier posts - Assessing reassessments and Assessing reassessments II - where I commented on the numbers, the dollars, and the politics of the controversial reassessments in Augusta County. At this point, Mr. Chester's lawsuit is awaiting trial unless the judge dismisses it - which will be the likely outcome. Chester is clueless and the suit groundless. Of course, he's taken his services to the people of Page County to aid them in their tax battles. All I can say, Page people beware.

Back in Augusta County, the Board of Supervisors is poised to approve a 48¢ tax rate, a decrease from the current 58¢ rate that has been in effect since the 1980s. That is less than revenue neutral! A couple months ago a rowdy and rude mob - that's really not too strong a term - filled a public hearing to bash the supervisors. The other night only two people spoke up on the tax rate cut. Hum!

So, what will that mean? Well, some taxpayers, me included, will see a modest increase because of the new higher assessed value. But, let me emphasize modest. And my property is assessed a bit lower than a recent appraisal that was done for a refinance. I've heard from about a couple dozen homeowners who have "enjoyed" a similar epiphany. 

Many farmers who have their property in land use taxation will actually see their taxes decrease significantly. Why - because agricultural and forestry lands are taxed on the land use value rather than the assessed value. Land use didn't change. Good for them -  perhaps that will help preserve our farmland and open spaces.

Meanwhile, up the road in Harrisonburg, assessments are up 7.7%. Hey, weren't Augusta's up 28% or something like that? Yep, but this is apples and oranges... and figs, and grapes, and raspberries. How so?

Well, first of all Harrisonburg reassesses annually while Augusta is on a 4-year cycle. In short, Harrisonburg saw these increases in a year when the real estate market melted down! Most of the Augusta increases occurred in the first three years. Other differences - Harrisonburg's increases were driven by commercial property while the biggest uproar in Augusta was over agricultural land of which there is little in the city; some in Augusta never fully understood the land use part of the equation. The increases for homes in Harrisonburg generally ranged between 1% and 5%, but again that was in one year (a down year at that), not four.

So, even considering the apples and oranges and the figs and grapes... it seems to me that Augusta's reassessments were pretty much in line with actual values. Were there mistakes - sure; many of them. Remember this is a mass assessment for which the county paid about $15 per parcel - in short, it is a drive-by assessment. There was an appeals process (nearly everyone I've talked to who availed themselves of this opportunity got some relief) and there is an ongoing Board of Equalization.

What about raspberries? The raspberries are for the rude and mean-spirited #^$%*@&! who shouted at and badgered the supervisors. The most rotten raspberries are reserved for the self-serving Francis Chester and all who encouraged this demeaning of our government by the people for their own narrow purposes.

Assessing reassessments II

Pastures Supervisor Tracy Pyles says it is time for the battle over reassessments to end and for the county to move on to the budget and other matters. He also told the News Leader that he does not support Francis Chester's threatened lawsuit or the recall petition.

The wounds from this battle will be raw for a while, but I have no doubt the BOS can rebuild a working relationship that puts the residents of the county first. There will be challenges enough in finalizing a budget that features a cut in the real estate tax rate from 58¢ to 48¢ per hundred dollars of value (basically revenue neutral), layoffs, and cuts in services.

While the memories of the reassessment are still fresh, the board and residents should resolve to work for changes in the way the state required reassessments are conducted. Some may be achieved locally while others may need authorization or help from Richmond. A starter list:

• Reassessments should be done every two years to improve timeliness and accuracy while reducing sticker shock.
• Reassessments should be done in-house by a independent office shielded as much as possible from political pressures. The Commonwealth should pass legislation and funding to assist with technology, training, and legal safeguards.
• Legislation should be passed to place the burden on the assessor to justify large increases (say over 8 or 10% annualized) rather than being on the landowner to show why the increase is unjustified.

Sometimes our biggest disagreements can result in the best positive steps forward. Hopefully, that will be the case this time.