Jefferson County Commission Reports

Most of September with the Jefferson County Commission Report

It's a journey that most might not choose. It is important though. Every Jefferson family is touched by what happens on Thursday morning. Taxes, quality of services and quality of life are in play every week. The last few meetings have had substance, time sink, "oh really" and drama. Subjects include:

a. Visitor Center

b. School Impact Fees

c. Table Games

d. PATH

e. employee pay issues

f. department head evaluations (legal issues)

Let's get started. It is going to be a long road...

Visitor center

a. Visitor center.

The county commission (CC) and convention and visitor bureau (CVB) have resolved the trailer issue. Most of you don't have any idea what I'm talking about. It is the Lindal Cedar Home dealership and trailer up on 340 at the Bolivar light. It is also known as the entrance to Harpers Ferry National Park. The county and state just paid $90,000.00 for the Lindal Model. The trailer can be removed. Let me give you the quick and dirty.

Once upon a time in a land far away...

really, this is what happened. A couple of entrepeneures wanted to set up a Lindal Cedar dealership. They looked for the best location available for their model and office. That was clearly the intersection in front of the National Park, gateway to West Virginia. Money was tight. Was that a problem? Not at all. It turns out the prime location wasn't for sale. I'm not sure it could even be sold. It was owned by the State Department of Highways. It was exempt from any county or town regulation. Perfect! The couple made a deal with the DOH, CVB and lenders to build the model home/office on DOH property. The cost??? Nothing. This deal included making the first floor available to the County CVB. This arrangement worked great for years. Nobody was writing rent checks. All the owners (Lindal Cedar, DOH, financers) and users (CVB) seemed fine with the arrangement. Then it happened...

The original owners of the dealership sold to another person. How would I know what this is all about? I have been friends with the original owners for 20 years. I've built 14 Lindals and three of their personal residences. Buckle your seatbelts, it is time for takeoff.

All was well in paradise until the new Lindal owner raised the CVB rent. A massive "mine is bigger than yours" broke out. Heavy hitters started flexing muscles. CVB members went to the DOH. That effort was an attempt to use DOH as a tool, forcing sale of the model. That would be accomplished by DOH forcing removal of the model from DOH right of way.

It was a very poorly disguised plan. The CVB would have been the buyer and the building would have been allowed to stay. The DOH gave Lindal 30 days to move. That was 9 years ago. The county and CVB entered in to some conversations to buy the building and finish the deal. My recollection of the price was $100,000. The commission never agreed. That's when the CVB decided to move a trailer to the property. That put two structures on DOH land that was supposed to have no structures.

So this goes on for years. There was new interest in resolving the matter this year. The trailer was a little too West Virginia for some folks. Another court order was issued requiring that the Lindal dealer remove the building. Not sure there was anything about the trailer also being in violation. Anyway, some deal was struck for the CVB and county to pay $90,000 for the building. Magically it could stay IF the CVB owned it. The best part? The CVB isn't a government entity. It is a 501 non-profit. It's politics at its finest. At least the trailer is gone.

School Impact Fees

b. School Impact Fees.

Jefferson's Impact Fee Czar says its time to recalculate the School Impact Fee. Evidently it is too simple - too close to legal - in it's current form.

That was editorial comment to those of you that are new to my reports. I generally stay away from those things in a report but it was low hanging fruit. Couldn't resist. Let's get back to the information you need.

The Czar wants to hire a consultant. Issues? How to calculate a credit for the newest Washington HS bond. Is that it? Not by a long shot. The consultant is also supposed to give information on how to change the current fee calculation from number of students generated by a new home to charging based on house size. It's a liberal and conservative thing. Did I mention that the CC (your tax money) could be paying five digits changing a system that is already generating more construction money than the school system can spend under state statute?

You are probably asking what the problem is with a house size used in the calculation of a fee? The long and short answer is that the number of students a certain housing type generates is the cost impact on new school needs. House size is simply an attempt to shift payment of true school impact costs to another class of taxpayer. You must have had a head shake moment when I said that the school fees generate more money than the school system can spend. This is due in large part to the enabling legislation. It also is influenced by state school construction requirements.

First is a house size thing. Enabling legislation and court cases in other jurisdictions have established standards. The primary item in this discussion is a rational nexus. What that is generally meant to mean is that there has to be some connection between the amount of the fee and how it is calculated. There needs to be some justification that passes the giggle test. We used to have a county commissioner that openly stated he wanted to increase the Impact Fee. His number was $20,000. That was it. The entire support data was his opinion. It is a struggle getting something like that through a legal test even this county.

Too much money? What do I mean by more than the BOE can spend? This state has rules and guidelines related to school construction. There are some formulas and standards controlling school construction. Projects can only fill student growth or consolidation needs. Replacement of existing schools is also a consideration. Impact fees can only be used legally for needs created by student population growth. There are two factors in play on the growth and collection issues. If the fees are too high, more money is collected than the number of seats required to be built. The second factor is the actual number of students added during any 6 year period. There may not be enough students in a particular age group to justify school construction. It's technical but the issues are real.

We face a real dilemma. Some want to raise the fees just because someone else is paying them at the moment. If the fees are raised more than can be reasonably justified, the entire concept might be overturned in court review. That would cause the loss of all impact fee funding. A little creativity in the calculation might be fine. Too much creativity will terminate the entire program.

Table Games

c. Table Games.

Penn National Gaming (Charles Town Races) has submitted the required paperwork to trigger a local referendum. The issue is adding table games to the 4500+ slot machines at that facility. Gaming is regulated by the state of West Virginia. Table games are generally understood to be Black Jack, Roulette, Dice and Poker. It is a different demographic of player. It is also a logical business progression from current slots only operation.

There are two direct beneficiaries. First is the horse and farm owners. Expanded business for farms and mandated pay checks for horse owners are significant. Local governments will also share in additional revenue. Expansion of gaming as a ballot issue failed the last time it was run in Jefferson. It should pass this time. There seems to be support from many education, business and community leaders. It will be challenging to get information and interest for the December 5 voting date.

PATH

d. PATH.

This one is easy. The CC is still an intervener. Their issues are lost property tax assessments and health issues. They have authorized $10,000 as a down payment for the hired expert. Did I say down payment? It is estimated that the witness will charge $20-25,000. There are no takers to pick up additional costs at this point. There will be a little expanded information in the back. Truth is that this is just conversational. The majority CC is dead set on spending money for this. There will never be much fact and reason displayed in the discussion.

Employee pay raises

e. Employee pay raises.

The CC in its various versions has been struggling with employee pay issues for several years. Several studies and reports have been conducted.

The current black letter findings and recommendations started in 2005. First was a consultant hired to review county procedures and structure and to make recommendations. The report was completed in 2006. CC members sent the document for legal review. Several months later a version came back. It had numerous comments. Some of them were even about legal issues. The study then was relegated to shelf space.

I'm not sure what the problem was. I do think that it was more political than factual. Anyway, that ship sailed.

Next up was a management and salary study generically referred to as the Jacobs Study. Majority commissioners seem to think they don't have enough information to resolve this pay policy issue. The CC did pass a partial pay raise for some employees on 17 Sep. I'm sure I don't know what the exact details are. I also question if the CC members know what has been done.

Sustainability of pay raises revolves around priorities. The CC can fund government services or it can fund non-government agencies and services.

Department Head Evaluations

f. Department Head Evaluations.

This would appear to be simple item. Fact of the matter is that this simple administrative action turned into a political blood bath. Three CC members have seized this opportunity to fire the top executive officer of Jefferson County. Merits of the entire action aside, this is about private meetings, executive sessions and hiring practices. It also shines light on the administrative expertise of Jefferson's elected officials. This week's editorial will be about the political process and intrigue being played out over the past several weeks.

The process at work...

Fred

Jefferson County Commission Report,

August 6, 13, 20, 2009

This episode is a combination of three meetings. There were some items that rose to the level of community interest but continued from one week to the next. It's a pattern.

Items include:

A. Broadband Internet Grants

B. Table Games Referendum

C. Employee Insurance Options

D. Employee Salary Equity and Pay

E. PATH

F. Outside Legal Counsel

Here we go................

A. Information regarding a rural broadband initiative was brought to the CC. Dr. John Hough of American Public University Systems (APUS) explained the proposal. It is grant request for $9 Million dollars. The purpose is to provide broadband Internet to all schools. This will include wireless access. Libraries will also be included. Fire houses and community centers may also participate. The program description had several interesting points. This system is being described as a backbone of rural broadband. It will allow for future expansions. The system is intended to be secure. That is to say it won't provide free wireless access. The primary parties in the grant application are Board of Education and APUS. It will be a public private partnership.

More on wireless

Additional program information covered detail. Each of the county's four libraries will have thirty (30) laptop computers available. The intent is that they are used throughout the library for research. That would substitute for current computer stations. School use also had an interesting component. Laptops and secure Internet receivers would be available for students to "check out". This will allow low income families the opportunity to be put on an equal footing with other children. Grants of this type are becoming more complex. Qualifying and reporting requirements are increasing. APUS plans to be the organization that actually provides the technical reporting expertise.

B. Table Games Referendum has been announced. Charles Town Races & Slots has picked the date for their referendum. General Manager Al Britton told the CC a request will be forthcoming to schedule another vote to allow table games at the facility. That date is December 5, 2009. WV Code requires that each facility must get local voter approval for the addition of this activity. There will be a lot more public debate as the date approaches. I personally believe this is an important economic development issue. We will see how it progresses. More background on the issues and potential benefit once the actual request is made.

C. Our CC has been working on health care for county workers. Jefferson had the same health plan since the 90s. It was a pretty comprehensive package by most accounts. For the past several years discussions have take place about the possible cost savings associated with changing to another provider. Problems always arose when the new provider cost was lower but it was accompanied by changes in coverage. That is pretty straight forward. This year it finally happened, a change in providers. It is an interesting story but really doesn't have much to do with the general public. It is really between the CC and it's employees. There is some insight into the way the CC and individual members see the whole thing.

More on employee insurance

The commissioners struggled with the possibility of saving money on premiums vs. the natural tendency of the employees to oppose reduction in benefits. The purported savings with a new plan were significant. So were the changes in coverage. Some of the commissioners took an impossible position. That was to change providers ONLY if there was no change or loss of coverage. Others said that the change must be made for financial reasons. And then there was the middle trying to be on all sides at once. So when the dust began to settle a new policy and provider was chosen. There were numerous meetings with staff and insurance agents. Long presentations and debates. It is now nearing the end of transition. Here is the best I can make of what happened.

The new premium was substantially less than previous policy. With it came significant reduction or change in benefits. How was that addressed to satisfy the politics of no reduction in coverage? The savings were used to fund individual health care savings accounts. The CC will be depositing $1000 a year into these individual accounts for the employees. It is supposed to cover some of the increased employee costs associated with co-pay and deductible changes.

The argument then breaks out about caps on the account balances, whose money it is when an employee leaves and what are allowed expenditures. It went from confusing to a final statement that left me shaking my head. The final action seemed to be that the CC would cap the account balance for the calculation of county contribution to $3000. That is three years of county contribution. The concept is to use the account for medical expenses. It isn't to build up a cash reserve for retirement or extended premium payments after employment ends.

Anyway, here was my favorite. CC surkamp stated that next year he wants the annual county contribution to be divided. Instead of putting the entire $1000 into the employee account, he wants $200 of it to be given to employees as vouchers to be used at the farmer's market. The reasoning (and I use the term loosely) "It will be an enormous stimulus to our farmers markets".

D. Employee salary equity and pay have been on the agenda every week. Motions of various types are made but discussion generally ends with consensus to push the issues to the next meeting. The CC has set $500,000 aside for pay issues. There have been management studies, pay studies and now yet another consultant report in the offering.

CC surkamp states that comparative salary information is too old. He only needs to look in the mirror for the cause.

The CC just doesn't seem to be able to pull the trigger. This county needs an HR manager.

E. PATH, the CC and conflicts. Our CC has intervened in the state public service commission review of a power line application. It isn't a new issue. It appears that the CC is opposing the line in Jefferson County. It isn't totally clear what the issues, justification or actual costs of this action will be. Much of the discussion is in executive session.

My question is beyond the money. It has to do with conflict of interest. Last week, CC Morgan stated she has filed as a personal intervener because her property may be impacted. Is it a conflict for a CC member with personal property and representation involved to vote on expenditure of public funds in support of her position? CC Manuel has a similar situation but not quite as clear. He has close family members who are protesting the PATH project due to property concerns. I don't know where the conflict line is drawn but I think one of them is over it and the other is on it.

F. Over the past several weeks the issue of outside legal counsel has come up. The planning commission has hired outside counsel for ongoing appeals of a WV Supreme Court ruling. Jefferson's County Clerk has hired outside legal counsel in order to resolve budget and salary issues with the CC. The CC has voted to hire outside counsel for department head meetings. The department head thing is a little questionable but there is a reason for the other two. It is simply client conflicts which prevent the prosecutor's office from representing multiple government offices in litigation. It is time for the CC to get their own full time independent counsel.

More on independent council

Planning commission legal issues are less frequent than previous years. That is due to fewer projects being reviewed. The current need for outside counsel was self imposed by the PC. Decisions made regarding previous appeals had prevented the prosecutor's office from continuing to represent them on this particular matter.

The County Clerk vs. CC is another conflict problem. Both have the prosecutor's office for legal counsel. The problem arises when they file actions in opposition to each other. Our prosecutor is representing the Clerk regarding a suit brought about by the zoning petition. The CC doesn't like the Clerk's position but the prosecutor probably can't represent them due to conflict.

The real problem now between the Clerk and Commission currently involves budget actions related to salaries. The issue has been debated enough that the real facts have become lost. It currently stands as a CC split vote of restoration of the County Clerk 09-10 budget to 08-09 levels. A previous CC action had restored all county budgets to the 08-09 levels but later actions caused confusion regarding a $48,000 salary item.

Back to the issue of outside counsel. The Clerk needed to get outside counsel because the prosecutor's office was obligated to represent the CC.

There are several reasons to support the CC and PC sharing a full time attorney. Popping to the front are conflicts and accountability. County offices and the public need to have the prosecutor's office available to fill their constitutional obligations. That has become difficult with the number of inter government and special interest litigation initiated by the CC and PC. The other issue is accountability. Legal staff to represent only the CC and PC will allow the public to know how much and what their money is being spent on. The CC and PC have wanted to hire their own attorney for several years. I think they should go ahead and do it.

Fred

Jefferson County Commission Report, July 30, 2009 meeting

This week's CC meeting had many of the usual routine actions, debates and votes. I have taken a Clint Eastwood title when referring to certain segments. They are the good, bad and ugly. We had them all this week. I'll be reporting on some specific items. There will also be some brief mention of "things" that just caught my attention. Here we go.....

Let's get some quick items out of the way.

Item 4. Board of Health (BOH) funding for legal issue: A request was made to hire outside counsel for the BOH. That agency is regularly represented by the County Prosecutor's office. In a strange twist of timing, the Prosecutor has a conflict and cannot represent in this mater. At issue is the dismissal or resignation of the previous BOH director. He has brought suit regarding the action. The conflict results from the prosecutor's wife being chair of the board of directors when the activity took place. The Prosecutor's recent election created the conflict. It's just one of those things in a community of this size. The cost is estimated to be as much as $40-$50 thousand dollars. It is interesting that the BOH has taken the position that they don't want the case "settled". The quote was "select a highly aggressive attorney who is desirous of not to settle and (have the case) dismiss".

Item 11. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments Discussion: There was nothing from the CC. The New Planning Director did have an item. She asked about some amendments that had been considered at the time the new ordinances were adopted. That was in November of 2008. There was some back and forth with a couple suggestions to clarify the mater. First was to watch the old web cams. Meeting minutes may not be what the CC thought actions were. I took the second suggestion personally. Commissioner surkamp recommended that the Planning Director contact a specific developer representative that spoke at the hearing. I also spoke at the hearing but wasn't mentioned. We both had issues of importance. The developer was an attractive female six feet tall with brown hair. I am an old guy five eleven with no hair. Maybe that had something to do with it ;-)

Item 13. Organizational Planning -- Discussion: This was one of those little things that get my attention. The item has a regular spot on the agenda. It is supposed to be the time set aside for CC members and staff to work toward a better county government structure. Department interaction, employee pay issues, accountability, that sort of thing. It has been going on for years without a final product. Anyway this was the moment.

Items 16 and 18. Request for funds from Contemporary American Theater Festival (CATF) and Harpers Ferry Foundation (HFF) is the John Brown play production.. CATF was asking for $10,000. HFF was a similar amount. This thread went through several items during the CC meeting. Our CC favored $5,000 each. When it was over, any decision on funding these requests would be handled by The Arts and Humanities Alliance.

Now for the feature articles:

The Good....

Item 6. Proposal for Jefferson County Potomac River Front Park, Ed Dunleavy. The description of this particular proposal has my support. For years the Shepherdstown Battlefield Preservation Association and I have... how shall I say this... been at odds over their activities. This new proposal matches very closely to the position I have had since the issue of the Battle of Shepherdstown came up several years ago. That position was to buy land from a willing seller at a place where the actual Civil War encounter could be interpreted properly, the land on which bodies actually fell. The Historic Cement Mill and riverfront provide that opportunity.

The Bad....

Item 3. Bonding and PC Activity Report: There were no bonding items. The PC activity portion did have some items.

• The PC is suggesting another joint CC-PC meeting to discuss Faraway Farms legal actions. This is the continuation of several appeals regarding a West Virginia Supreme Court ruling. The points of issue between the CC and PC consider the amount being spent and what the actual issue is.
• The planning department has received a request to provide information on land uses in the county. There seems to be interest in placing a halfway house for jail inmates in the region. The target area for this program is a 40 mile radius of Martinsburg. The request was a statement of where a group home facility could be located in Jefferson County "by right". That determination is still being reviewed.
• Advertisements for a planner and zoning administrator have generated 68 responses for planner and 24 applicants for the zoning position. The applications come from all over the country. There is actually a discussion as to the procedures for paying moving expenses. Hard to believe that item would even be considered. These are simply staff position functions.
• Communication between the CC and PC has been suspect for several months.
  Click here to listen to the CC audio

The Ugly....

Item 14. Revision of Fund 001 -- General Fund -- for Fiscal Year 2010: Each year the CC has to amend the adopted budget to reflect carry over funds from the previous fiscal year. This is simply recognition and accounting of those funds. This process has been mentioned in general publications over the past few weeks. The dollar amounts involved have only been surpassed by spending proposals. It all sounded so simple after the previous meeting workshop on the distribution of the funds. It has gotten more complex to say the least. There are issues impacting the budgets of virtually every county department and agency. The County Clerk's office is having difficulty understanding the statements and actions of the CC regarding staffing and pay issues. The best example of the frustration was from a statement made by the County Clerk. "... To lose one person over this misunderstanding or politics whatever it is, is just a poor reflection on our government."

I would simply say that this was painful to watch.

Those are my highlights....

Fred

Report on the Jefferson County Commission: July 16, 2009

The major item at last week's CC meeting was scheduling the zoning ordinance vote. The tentative date is November 7, 2009. I call it tentative because this is Jefferson County (just kidding). There are some potential issues involved in having the vote this year. The County Clerk has previously told the commission that a vote would be difficult to schedule. This particular election off year is being used to do voter registration clean up and redrawing precinct lines.

Some of the other considerations are cost and administrative problems with this type of special election. Special ballots will need to be printed even if a scheduled primary or general election is used. An administrative problem exists due to voting restrictions. Not everyone in every precinct will be allowed to vote on the zoning issue. Municipal (town) residents are excluded from the vote. The Clerk has stated this will cause some confusion among voters and volunteer poll workers. These are just some of the items.

With a date chosen, the next step by the county commission will be to determine how to educate voters on the issue. Any vote on zoning ordinance or concepts is going to have huge impacts on future activities in land use. How all parties handle this vote and campaign are going to be interesting to watch.

In another matter, the Faraway Farms and planning commission continues to be discussed. County Commission members seem to be at a loss as how to deal with actions a board they appoint. And the issue of further legal action (appeals) continues.

Fred

County Commission Meetings June 11 and June 18, 2009

Jefferson's county commission has been focused on administrative issues for the past two weeks. Health care insurance for employees is the major item. Public policy issues continue to include intervention in the PATH power line project and PSC review of Mountain Water System improvements.

Local development related discussion has included the Flowing Springs waste water treatment plant application by our PSD. The PSD has requested a letter of support for the project. It is necessary to have the community unified regarding this application. PSD Chairperson Joe Hankins has made some very direct statements regarding this application and public policy. He indicated that the provision of services does not create development. That land use policy and regulation do that. This is the domain of elected officials. Hankins was plain spoken about the need for this waste treatment plant project.

The county commission as a body continues to believe that public utilities are the driving force regarding growth. This was most evident in statements by commissioner Widmyer. She was adamant that the draft Flowing Springs support letter be amended to exclude service to any future development. This is the final exchange between Commissioner Widmyer and PSD Chair Hankins

The language Commissioner Widmyer proposes would in effect be opposition to the intended letter of support. The entire project and its funding depend on an ongoing need for expanded service. It is clear that she and other commissioners either don't understand that the CC controls where and how much development occurs in the county or they intend to control growth and residential development by withholding public services in addition to restrictive land use regulation.

The amended letter language was approved at a recent CC meeting. There will be a public meeting here Thursday hosted by the state public service commission taking comment on the treatment plant application.